2012 Election: Chicago and Illinois Ballot Questions

To contact us Click HERE
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

There are several questions on the ballot for those voting in Chicago. Here are those that will appear on my ballot, with my brief thoughts. Feel free to argue about these in the comments.

• Shall the City of Chicago have the authority to arrange for the supply of electricity for its residential and small commercial customers who have not opted out of such program?

I don't see a downside to this proposal. The City will negotiate lower rates on behalf of large groups of its citizens. Those who think they can get even lower rates in other ways can opt out. This is a perfect example of good-governance, and apparently it's worked well in other places that have tried it. I'm voting YES.

• Shall the State of Illinois provide funding for the normal cost of pensions for Chicago teachers in the same manner as the State pays for the normal cost of teacher pensions in every other school district in the state which will free up local funding that can be invested in the classroom?

According to Fred Klonsky, this is an advisory question that Mayor Emanuel put on the ballot in order to block another question from having room. The story is convincing, and unless I hear otherwise I'm voting NO.

• The new section would require a three-fifths majority vote of each chamber of the General Assembly or the governing body of a unit of local government, school district, or pension or retirement system, in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system.

This is a bad idea. Increasing pensions is not a matter of constitutional import, it is a standard issue of governance and should be legislated as such. I'm voting NO.

• Shall the U.S. Congress pass a bill, to be duly ratified by three-fourths of the states, adopting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, empowering the federal government and the states to regulate and limit political contributions from corporations?

This question avoids the serious problems that have plagued most anti-Citizens United rhetoric. It doesn't claim that corporations shouldn't have constitutional rights, or that corporations shouldn't be treated like aggregations of people under the Constitution. Instead, it gets right to the heart of the matter: should corporate contributions to political campaigns be subject to regulation? I'm voting YES.