Omar Bennett
In 2016, the Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment proposed that taxes and fees related to transportation infrastructure, such as roads, should only be used for their designated purposes. The amendment, also known as the lockbox, aimed to prevent funds from being spent elsewhere. While it received support from some voters and media outlets, others criticized it as a simplistic solution that would limit budget flexibility. The amendment was not approved, receiving 47% yes votes and requiring at least 60% for passage. In 2024, an advisory question was proposed to gauge voter sentiment on taxing millionaires to fund property tax relief, with the outcome being non-binding.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Proposal Name | Illinois Fair Tax |
| Type of Amendment | Graduated Income Tax |
| Proposing Party | Democrats |
| Opposing Party | Republicans |
| Proponents' Arguments | Fairer tax code, tax relief for most Illinoisans, better funding for public goods and social services, boost small businesses |
| Opponents' Arguments | Loss of revenue for businesses, worsening of income inequality, exacerbation of economic harm |
| Referendum Result | 47% "Yes" votes, 53% "No" votes |
| Additional Context | Did not meet the 60% approval threshold required for constitutional amendments |
| Date | November 3, 2020 |
| Similar Amendments | Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment (2016), Illinois Income Tax Advisory Question (2024) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment
The Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment was a 2016 ballot measure that aimed to restrict the use of transportation-related taxes and fees for purposes other than transportation projects. The amendment proposed adding a new section to the Illinois Constitution, specifically targeting funds derived from taxes, fees, and license taxes related to vehicles, highways, roads, and other transportation infrastructure.
The amendment was supported by several groups, with polls indicating that around 80% of Illinoisans favoured it before the election. The Vote Yes For Fairness, Vote Yes for Fair Tax, and Yes to a Financially Responsible Illinois PACs campaigned in support of the amendment, raising a significant amount of funding. The premise of the amendment was widely seen as appealing, as it sought to address the poor state of transportation infrastructure in Illinois.
However, the amendment also faced opposition from some notable newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the State Journal-Register. Critics argued that the amendment would limit budget flexibility in cases of revenue drops, emergencies, or economic downturns. They also pointed out that the amendment benefited a specific industry and could harm other essential areas like education, social services, and healthcare. Additionally, opponents highlighted the existence of a broader issue with the state budget and spending allocation.
Despite the support from the public and certain political groups, the Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment ultimately did not pass. This outcome highlights the complexity of tax-related issues and the need to consider multiple factors when making decisions about transportation funding and budget allocation.
It is worth noting that Illinois has a history of considering tax-related amendments, with Democrats typically supporting and Republicans opposing constitutional changes related to taxes. For instance, in 2020, Illinois voters rejected the "Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment," which aimed to replace the flat-rate income tax with a graduated structure. This proposal received less than 47% support and was opposed by Republicans, who argued that Illinois residents were already highly taxed.
The Longest Amendment: Words that Shaped History
You may want to see also
Democrats supported the graduated income tax amendment
The Illinois Fair Tax was a proposed amendment to the Illinois State Constitution that would have changed the state income tax system from a flat tax to a graduated income tax. The proposal was titled the "Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment" and appeared on the ballot in the November 2020 election.
The amendment would have removed the portion of the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution, also known as the "flat tax", which requires all taxes on income to be at the same rate. Instead, the amendment would have allowed the state to impose higher income tax rates on higher income levels and lower tax rates on middle or lower income levels. This is how the federal government and a majority of other states handle income tax.
The graduated income tax proposal was supported by Democrats, who held supermajorities in the Senate (68%) and House (63%) in 2019. The proposal was introduced into the state legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 1 (SJR 1) during the 2019 legislative session. The Democrats' support for the amendment was in line with historical positions; the Democratic Party has a history of supporting graduated income tax, dating back to the late 19th century.
Proponents of the Illinois Fair Tax argued that the proposal would make the Illinois tax code fairer, provide tax relief to most Illinois residents, better fund public goods and social services, and boost small businesses. However, the referendum did not pass, receiving about 47% "yes" votes and 53% "no" votes.
Amending the Constitution: Power and Process
You may want to see also
Republicans opposed the graduated income tax amendment
In 2020, the Illinois Fair Tax was a proposed amendment to the Illinois state constitution that would have changed the state income tax system from a flat tax to a graduated income tax. The proposal, officially named the "Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment", was put to voters in the November 2020 election. The amendment was supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.
The graduated income tax amendment would have removed the "flat tax" portion of the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution, which requires all taxes on income to be at the same rate. Instead, the amendment would have allowed the state to impose higher tax rates on those with higher incomes and lower tax rates on those with middle or lower incomes. This is how the federal government and a majority of other states handle income taxes.
The amendment's supporters argued that it would make the Illinois tax code fairer, provide tax relief to most Illinoisans, better fund public goods and social services, and boost small businesses. They also believed that the current flat tax in Illinois disproportionately affects low- and middle-income workers, exacerbating income inequality and economic harm caused by the pandemic.
On the other hand, Republicans opposed the graduated income tax amendment. They argued that the loss of revenue from high-income earners would negatively impact Illinois' businesses. Additionally, some Republicans were concerned about the potential for increased governmental power and spending that could come with a graduated income tax.
Ultimately, the referendum was not approved, receiving about 47% "yes" votes and 53% "no" votes.
The 13th Amendment: Abolishing Slavery in America
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Chicago Tribune recommended voting No
In 2016, the Chicago Tribune recommended voting "No" on the Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment. The amendment would have added a Section 11 to Article IX of the Illinois Constitution, stipulating that no funds derived from transportation-related taxes, fees, or license taxes could be spent on anything other than transportation infrastructure and operations. While polls indicated that around 80% of Illinoisans supported the amendment before the election, the Chicago Tribune expressed concern that a constitutional amendment would limit the state's flexibility in the event of an unexpected drop in revenue, a serious emergency, or an economic downturn. They argued that lawmakers already had the power to stop diverting transportation funds and that a constitutional amendment was not the solution to Illinois' transportation funding issues.
The Tribune's recommendation was in line with the opinions of several other publications, including the Chicago Sun-Times, the State Journal-Register, the Daily Herald, the Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus, and the Southern Illinoisan. These outlets shared concerns about the potential negative impact on other vital areas of spending, such as education, social services, and healthcare, as well as the amendment's potential to hamstring the state budget and benefit a specific industry.
The Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment was not the only tax-related proposal that the Chicago Tribune advised voting against. In 2020, the Tribune also recommended a "No" vote on the Illinois Fair Tax amendment, which would have changed the state's income tax system from a flat tax to a graduated income tax. This proposal aimed to make the tax code fairer, provide tax relief, and boost funding for public goods and social services. However, the Tribune's editorial board argued that the amendment would worsen income inequality and exacerbate the economic harm caused by the pandemic, particularly for low- and middle-income workers.
Additionally, the Chicago Tribune has covered the more recent developments in Illinois tax policy, including the 2024 advisory question on whether millionaires should be taxed more to fund property tax relief. While the Tribune has not explicitly recommended a "No" vote on this issue, it has reported on the contradictory outcomes of previous votes on similar topics. For instance, in 2020, Pritzker's plan to impose higher income tax rates on wealthy Illinoisans failed, receiving less than 47% support. On the other hand, in 2014, voters favored a separate advisory referendum that sought to allocate revenues from a new 3% tax on income over $1 million towards schools.
The Challenge: Creating a Constitutional Amendment
You may want to see also
The Illinois Constitution is meant to be a broad document
The Constitution covers a range of topics, including religious freedom, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection under the law. It establishes the state's revenue power and provides for the financial matters of the state. It also outlines the rules governing state-elected officials, the structure and power of the judiciary branch, and local government.
Amendments to the Illinois Constitution must be approved by voters in a referendum, with a 60% majority required for approval in some cases. In 2020, an amendment was proposed to change the state income tax system from a flat tax to a graduated income tax, but it was not approved by voters.
The Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment in 2016 was another example of an amendment that sparked debate. While it had widespread support from Illinoisans, some newspapers, like the Chicago Sun-Times, recommended voting against it, arguing that a budget was the solution rather than a constitutional amendment that would restrict flexibility in the case of unexpected revenue drops or emergencies. The Daily Herald expressed similar concerns, stating that amending the broad Illinois Constitution specifically to protect one single source of funds could open a "Pandora's Box."
The Illinois Constitution is designed to be a flexible and comprehensive framework that can adapt to the needs and wishes of the people of Illinois, as reflected in the amendment process and the range of topics it covers.
Amending the Constitution: Founding Fathers' Vision
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment was a 2016 ballot proposal to add a Section 11 to Article IX of the Illinois Constitution. The amendment aimed to restrict the use of taxes, fees, and other revenue related to transportation for their intended purposes only.
The amendment received support from Democratic lawmakers, including Governor J.B. Pritzker, State Sen. Don Harmon, and State Rep. Jay Hoffman. The proposal was opposed by Republicans, with House Minority Leader Tony McCombie intending to vote against it.
No, the amendment did not pass. Despite pre-election polls indicating around 80% support, the proposal received a majority of "no" votes in the referendum.
