Factors many in the defeat of proposal
Democratic state lawmakers approved a ballot item for a proposed amendment to the state constitution in May 2019 that seemed like a simple populist sell: ShouldIllinois get ridof an income tax that everyone pays at the same rate in favor of a graduated-rate system that would make the wealthy pay more?
But on Tuesday, the proposed graduated-tax amendment met with resounding defeat, with 55% of voters rejecting it. Unofficial vote totals showed it got amajority in only one of the state’s 102 counties— Cook— with 62.5%.
In more than a quarter of Illinois’ counties, all Downstate, 80% of voters rejected the change — even though in most cases fewer than 1% of taxpay
ers in those areas would have seen higher taxes under the rates approved by the state legislature. Opposition topped 60% in 88 of the state’s 102 counties.
A lot happened in Illinois and the country in the 526 days from the vote in Springfield to the vote on Tuesday, and some of those events played a role in the defeat of Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s signature agenda item, which he bankrolled and tried to sell as the “fair tax.”
Pritzker was still in his first year in office when Democrats approved the ballot item. It was a heady time for the new administration, which had a series of legislative successes in its first session working with a Democratic supermajority in both chambers of the General Assembly after a havoc-filled four years of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.
But Illinois entered ElectionDay at a different place.
Pandemic restrictions began in March and, after a summer easing, are becoming tighter once again amid a surge inCOVID-19, raising voter questions about leadership and upending traditional political campaigns.
Voter trust in Illinois government was dealt another blow by federal investigations of Democrats, including one implicating veteran House Speaker Michael Madigan, who also serves as state Democratic chairman.
And a well-funded proamendment campaign backed by Pritzker’s wealth found its goal and its message obscured by an equally well-funded opposition effort whose chief objective was an easier sell: sowing doubt and confusion among voters so they would vote “no.”
“We were trying to sell something that was a bit more difficult than they were,” said Quentin Fulks, chair of the pro-amendment Vote Yes for Fairness campaign.
Whomdo you trust?
If there was an overarching theme to the proposal’s defeat, it was the trust — or mistrust — factor stoked by opponents, primarily the Coalition to Stop the Proposed Tax Hike, a group backed by $53.75 million in funding from Ken Griffin, the CEO and founder of the Citadel hedge fund and investment group.
“Aftertwo tax hikes in the last 10 years with Illinois staring down an $8 billion deficit, millions of voters made clear they didn’t trust the Springfield politicians with new taxing powers,” said LanceTrover, a veteran political operative who consulted for the anti-amendment group that aired millions of dollars inTVads.
In a state where two of the last five governors — Republican George Ryan and Democrat Rod Blagojevich — were sent to prison for corruption, voter skepticism toward politicians and Springfield has always
playeda role in state politics.
But that existing wariness increased in July when Commonwealth Edison, the state’s largest utility, paid a $200 million fine and agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors after acknowledging it engaged in a nearly decadelong scheme to offer jobs and contracts to allies ofMadigan in an effort to gain the speaker’s favor.
Madigan has denied any wrongdoing or any knowledge of the scheme. But Madigan, the nation’s longest-serving legislative leader who has been speaker since 1983 except for two years in the mid-1990s, has over the years become a singular target of state Republicans as the root cause of everythingwrong in Illinois.
The timing of the federal investigation and voters’ disfavor with Madigan served as a launch to campaign season for forces on both sides of the amendment. Though the proposal was Pritzker’s, many voters associated it generically with Springfield and some, more specifically, with Madigan, both sides acknowledged.
Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, who is among a handful of members ofMadigan’s caucus who have called for him to step down from both his legislative andpolitical leadership posts, said she learned first hand of the speaker’s negative effect on the amendment.
“As I spoke to people, as I made calls, as I talked to peoplewhowere campaigning in person, that was the thing thatwas brought up— even in districts like mine where it’s a pretty liberal district— that the trust issue was so often thrown back at people. Whether it’s generic trust or really specific — calling it the ‘Madigan tax.’ It was shocking,” Cassidy told Illinois Public Radio’s “21st” show.
State Sen. Sara Feigenholtz, a Chicago Democrat previously in the House, said voters saw a “black cloud over trust” in Illinois government in viewing the amendment.
“It was pretty loud and clear: People were very angry about the news about Commonwealth Edison,” Feigenholtz said. “But I think that there were so many things that were happening: COVID, the negative messaging and the lack of clarity, that may have caused this to fail.”
Since the election, Madigan has faced calls to either rethink his position as
Democratic chairman, House speaker or both from Pritzker, Democratic U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth and others. Madigan has said he intends to stay as party chair and previously said he would notgiveupthe speakership.
Pandemic politics
Pritzker’s pandemic-driven stay-at-home orders after the March 17 primary prompted an abrupt shift in all of the general election campaigns. Even with an easing of restrictions during the summer, guidelines on social distancing, maskwearing and gatherings did away with most door-to-door canvassing and rallying.
That hit the pro-amendment forces severely since the proposal, while requiring only a simple “yes” or “no” vote from voters, required an explanation that was difficult to squeeze into a 30-second TV spot or direct mail piece.
“Ballot initiatives are difficult to pass,” Fulks said. “Illinois doesn’t have a deep history of them, definitely on this scale, and when they deal with revenue it’s more difficult to pass— not just in Illinois but across the country.”
“We were forced to run a campaign in a different sort of way and really, just the rules on how you pass a ballot initiative and the strategy from A to Z completely changes when you have to run a campaign in thisway,” he said. “Wewere on television. We weren’t having door-to-door conversations with the voters as you typically could have. We were trying to carry them with mail and television.”
A group of Downstate Republicans associated with challenges toPritzker’s pandemic restrictions did engage in an anti-amendment bus tour with rallies that also served to promote President Donald Trump’s reelection.
While the effect of that effort is questionable, there were larger political consequences for the amendment due to the pandemic. In the days before the election, Pritzker ordered a return to tighter restrictions that shut down indoor restaurant and bar service throughout the state.
Pro- amendment supporters cite polling saying the governor’s efforts to deal with COVID-19 are broadly supported. But in areas across the state, Pritzker’s orders are being widely
criticized if not openly defied, including by some Democrats.
Greg Baise, an early opposition leader and the former CEO and president of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, said he thinks Pritzker overestimated his well of support for trying to right the state.”
“A governor every day peels off some of his good will and gives it away because he’s got to make a decision that makes somebody mad,” said Baise, a member of the late Republican Gov. Jim Thompson’s staff. “It’s always been the case. It’s really a matter of how fast are you giving it away and COVID, unfortunately, has caused him to have to give away a lot of it and then you get to this particular amendment issue.”
The message
From the start, the use of the term “fair tax” caused some supporters to scratch their heads. One Downstate Democrat said privately that even the use of “tax” in the description would send confused voters to cast a “no” vote.
Others noted the 2014 passage of a nonbinding proposition asking voters whether the state should have a 3% income tax surcharge on the income of millionaires, with the money raised dedicated to schools. It was called the “millionaire’s tax,” and it won support from 64% of voters.
Fulks said supporters did go back and forth on “fair tax” and “millionaire’s tax” before adopting the former, saying “fair tax” had some initial name identification from past talk about enacting a graduated-rate income tax.
He rejected using the “millionaire’s tax” label, in part, he said because “people just think (millionaires) don’t pay their fair share” and that it’s easier for them to get away with tax avoidance because “they can hire accountants.”
Additionally, Fulks said it was important in the proamendment messaging to try to stress that 97% of Illinoisans, those making $250,000 or less, would pay at least the same or less under a rate schedule that would have gone into law if the proposal had been adopted.
“The 97% was important because our polls always showed us that if you’re not telling people how this af
fects them, they’re scared regardless and will just vote ‘no,’” he said.
Pro-amendment forces, backed by $58 million from Pritzker, a billionaire heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune, said they had expected a wealthy opponent to help bankroll the opposition, but not to the extent where they were slightly … — $62.7 million to $61.9 million.
“We knewsomebodywas going to do it,” Fulks said. “I think we might have been a little flat-footed a bit in regards to the other people (who joined in), but going first and cutting that big check opened the door for other people to feel comfortable to do it. I honest think if (Griffin) hadn’t, the otherswouldn’t.”
Fulks said some thought was given to running ads highlighting Griffin’s wealth, but it was decided that itwould be too much of an education process for voters.
Somesupporters said privately that the campaign also didn’t want to wage a full-scale class warfare battle because they feared it boomerang against Pritzker, reminding voters of his wealth, offshore family trusts and efforts to avoid property taxes by having toilets removed from his Gold Coast mansion.
Fulks, a deputy manager for Pritzker’s campaign for governor, said he did not ask the governor to appear in pro-amendment ads because “he was focused on COVID and that’s where I felt he should focus.”
Both sides agreed that the anti-amendment side did a better job of putting real “faces” behind their cause, including a man standing outside his home doorway and declaring, “That’s crap.”
Opponentsalso raised the specter of the amendment authorizing Illinois to tax retirement benefits, which it would not do.
Such ads prompted the pro-amendment forces to play defense, countering the opposition while also trying to squeeze in their position to sell the amendment.
Fulks also said from the outset that an effort was made to make the amendment’s appeal nonpartisan, knowing that it would take support from Republicans and independents to clear the high voting threshold for constitutional amendments.
Though ultimately the issue was backed by Democrats and their allies in labor and opposed by Republicans and their allies in business, a pure partisan play was believed too costly. Only in the end, when the pro-amendment forces used an ad attacking billionaires that included Trump, did the advertising turn overtly partisan.
Another strategy
Some Democratic legislators and amendment supporters said privately that they felt that the Pritzkerbacked Vote Yes for Fairness groupwas tooinsular, with a heavy reliance on polls and hubris because of the governor’s 2018 election win.
“They were like a congressional campaign without a field staff,” said one Downstate Democrat, noting many congressional campaigns are worked by people from out of state, as well as the lack of field staff caused by the pandemic.
State Sen. Robert Mart wick, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the proposed amendment in the House before he filled a vacant Senate seat, acknowledged opponents were able to use confusion to convince “a surprisingly large number of people to vote against their own interest and their ownwallets.”
Martwick said amendment proponents should have gone farther in their messaging to inform the public about the new reality in Illinois — a massively underfunded state budget with billions of dollars in revenue lost due to pandemic restrictions that is now without the money the graduated rate tax would have brought in.
“They should have made it clearer to people how much more they’ll have to paywhenthe state raises the flat tax to fill the hole,” he said. “The fair choicewould have been, ‘Do we raise the flat tax or do we pass a fair tax?’ Because that’s ultimately what it’s going to come down to. There’s no way thatwe can cut ourway out or borrow our way out of this.”
State Sen. Andy Manar, a Democrat from Downstate Bunker Hill and a co-sponsor of the amendment, said there’s a disconnect in the minds of voters between the services they rely on and the state budget.
“When one side is armed with misinformation about the constitution and taxes and the other side is armed with facts about what state government brings to the community in which you liveandwhy the state budget is important, that’s a mismatch of epic proportions in this environment we live in today,” Manar said.
But Manar said if proamendment forces had put too much emphasis on warning voters about the state services that would be on the chopping block if the amendment failed, they could have run the risk of coming across as threatening.
According to Pritzker, however, what might be considered threatening is nowgoing to be reality.