Skip to main content

It was a travesty that would make any marriage equality activist seethe in anger. Following the Illinois Senate's 34-21 vote to legalize gay marriage and the Illinois House Executive Committee's 6-5 affirmative vote, things had been looking good for gay marriage in the state. The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris (D), promised that the bill would pass before the end of the session in May. Gay marriage advocates claimed that the votes were there, and Rep. La Shawn Ford (D) predicted that there were 64 "yes" votes, four more than needed for passage.

Yet, on May 31st, the House adjourned without voting on the bill.

What happened? How could a legislative chamber with a healthy Democratic majority not be able to pass gay marriage?

Follow me past the flip...

(EDIT June 11: List updated in accordance with new Windy City Times article. Updates are in bold.

As you can see from this list, courtesy of the Windy City Times, the number of representatives who have actually publicly committed to voting for marriage equality is far short of the magic number. That list was published nearly two months ago and is slightly outdated; for instance, since its publication, Reps. Ken Dunkin and La Shawn Ford, both Democrats, have publicly committed to voting "Yes" on the bill.

Why is it so important that Democrats publicly commit? Because if they simply give their word privately, it's easy for them to just stab activists in the back and claim that never promised anything. They also need to know that if they are against equality, it will hurt them in the primary (note that many Democrats are in safely blue districts). While this diary includes all Democrats who are either against marriage equality or uncommitted for the sake of comprehensiveness, it only advocates primary challenges in districts where such challenges would not threaten Democratic control of the seat.

(NOTE: If I am mistaken and one of the Democrats on this list has publicly committed to marriage equality, please provide a link and I will strike them from the list.)

Without further ado, here is the list of Democrats, sorted by district number, who need to be targeted for primary challenges unless they get on board now. Phone numbers for each representative can be found within the aforementioned Windy City Times list.

**********************

(WARNING: District maps included are PDFs.)

Rep. Edward Acevedo (02)
DISTRICT: SW Side of Chicago, includes Pilsen, Bridgeport, and Little Village. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Luis Arroyo (03)
DISTRICT: NW Side of Chicago, Logan Square/Humboldt Park. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Voted for the bill in committee, but has said he will vote no on the floor.

Rep. Esther Golar (06)
DISTRICT: South Side of Chicago, reaches up from Englewood all the way to the West Loop. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Emanuel "Chris" Welch (07)
DISTRICT: Close-in western suburbs of Chicago, reaching from the city's western border to the Cook County/DuPage County line. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Leaning yes, but won't commit. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Arthur Turner (09)
DISTRICT: Near South Side of Chicago, including the University of Illinois at Chicago and Greektown. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Voted for civil unions but not endorsed by Equality Illinois.
Has committed to voting Yes.

Rep. Derrick Smith (10)
DISTRICT: West Side of Chicago, including West Garfield Park. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Voted for civil unions but not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. John D'Amico (15)
DISTRICT: Close-in NW suburbs of Chicago, including Niles and Morton Grove, reaching down into the extreme northern part of the city. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Voted against civil unions and not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Likely No vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Silvana Tabares (21)
DISTRICT: Close-in SW suburbs of Chicago, including Forest View and Stickney, reaching into the South Lawndale neighborhood of the city. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: When asked her view on gay marriage, responded by endorsing civil unions. Not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Toss-up vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Michael Zalewski (23)
DISTRICT: Odd serpentine shape that winds through the SW suburbs of Chicago. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez (24)
DISTRICT: Based in Berwyn, a SW suburb of Chicago. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. Considered a Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Monique Davis (27)
DISTRICT: Based in Alsip, a southern suburb of Chicago. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. Opposes equality - see link posted in top edit.

Rep. Will Davis (30)
DISTRICT: Southern suburbs of Chicago, including Harvey and Homewood. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Undecided. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Mary Flowers (31)
DISTRICT: Winds from SW suburbs to South Side of Chicago. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Reported to be undecided. Opposes equality - see link posted in top edit.

Rep. Andre Thapedi (32)
DISTRICT: Winds from SW suburbs to South Side of Chicago. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Reported to be undecided. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Marcus Evans (33)
DISTRICT: South Side of Chicago, hugging the Indiana border. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Toss-up vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Frances Ann Hurley (35)
DISTRICT: SW suburbs of Chicago, reaching from the Cook County/Will County border near Orland Park to the SW tip of the city. Not overwhelmingly D, but Hurley won more than two-to-one in 2012.
NOTES: Leaning yes.

Rep. Kelly Burke (36)
DISTRICT: SW suburbs of Chicago. Not overwhelmingly D, but Burke won more than two-to-one in 2012.
NOTES: Undecided. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Al Riley (38)
DISTRICT: Southern suburbs of Chicago, extending down to the Will County line. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Fred Crespo (44)
DISTRICT: NW suburbs of Chicago, including Hoffman Estates and Streamwood. District is not Safe D, but Crespo won 64-36 in 2012, and this is a wealthy (read: probably socially liberal) area.
NOTES: According to the Windy City Times list, dodged the question of gay marriage but claimed he supported civil rights for all. Considered a Toss-up vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Deb Conroy (46)
DISTRICT: Western suburbs in DuPage County, including Villa Park and Carol Stream. District is not Safe D, but Conroy won 58-42 in 2012, and this is a wealthy (read: probably socially liberal) area.
NOTES: Believes in equal "legal rights" for gay couples. Considered a Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Martin Moylan (55)
DISTRICT: NW suburbs of Chicago, including Des Plaines and Elk Grove Village. District is not Safe D, and Moylan only won 53-47 in 2012, but this is a wealthy (read: probably socially liberal) area.
NOTES: Endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Michelle Mussman (56)
DISTRICT: NW suburbs of Chicago, including Schaumburg. District is not Safe D, but Mussman won 60-40 in 2012, and this is a wealthy (read: probably socially liberal) area.
NOTES: Previously said she was a no, but a Windy City Times reader in her district said she believes she has since switched. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Elaine Nekritz (57)
DISTRICT: NW suburbs of Chicago, including Arlington Heights and Buffalo Grove. District is not Safe D, and Nekritz won 56-44 in 2012. However, this is a wealthy (read: probably socially liberal) area.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. May be on our side after all - see link in top edit. Considered a Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Carol Sente (59)
DISTRICT: Far NW suburbs of Chicago, including Wheeling and Vernon Hills. District is not Safe D, and Sente won 56-44 in 2012. However, this is a wealthy (read: probably socially liberal) area.
NOTES: Believes in "same rights under the law." Considered a Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Rita Mayfield (60)
DISTRICT: Based in Waukegan and North Chicago in Lake County. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Has taken quite a few positions on this, but either way she probably won't be voting yes.

Rep. Jack Franks (63)
DISTRICT: Far NW exurbs in McHenry County. Franks was unopposed in 2012, but it would likely be very difficult to keep the seat without him.
NOTES: Undecided. Considered a Toss-up vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Charles Jefferson (67)
DISTRICT: Based in central Rockford. Seems to be Safe D.
NOTES: Reported to be undecided. Has switched to a no vote - see link in top edit.

Rep. Patrick Verschoore (72)
DISTRICT: Based in Rock Island and Moline. Seems to have a strong D tilt.
NOTES: Voted against civil unions and not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a No vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Frank Mautino (76)
DISTRICT: Based in Lasalle and Putnam Counties, on the SW border of Chicagoland. Mautino won 63-37 in 2012, but it would likely be very difficult to keep the seat without him.
NOTES: Voted against civil unions and not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a No vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Kathleen Willis (77)
DISTRICT: NW Chicago, including O'Hare International Airport and the surrounding suburbs. District is not Safe D, and Willis defeated a Republican incumbent 53-47 in 2012.
NOTES: Not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Katherine Cloonen (79)
DISTRICT: City of Kankakee and some surrounding areas. District is not Safe D, and Cloonen won by only 91 votes in 2012.
NOTES: Opposes equality.

Rep. Anthony DeLuca (80)
DISTRICT: Links SW exurbs/farmland with deep-blue south suburban territory. District likely tilts D, and DeLuca was unopposed in 2012.
NOTES: Said he would vote no two years ago, but was endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Toss-up vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (83)
DISTRICT: Based in Aurora. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Undecided (apologies for wingnut source). Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Stephanie Kifowit (84)
DISTRICT: Based in the area around Aurora. Likely has a D tilt.
NOTES: Claims she supports civil rights but that civil unions are enough. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Emily McAsey (85)
DISTRICT: Northern Will County, including Bolingbrook, Lockport, and Romeoville. Leans D but probably not safe; however, McAsey was unopposed in 2012.
NOTES: Dodged a question on gay marriage. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Lawrence Walsh (86)
DISTRICT: Based in Joliet. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Said he would not have a problem legalizing it. Considered a Likely Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Jehan Gordon (92)
DISTRICT: Based in Peoria. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Was endorsed by Equality Illinois in 2012 and voted for civil unions. Considered a Toss-up vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Sue Scherer (96)
DISTRICT: Stretches between Decatur and Springfield. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Thinks it's too early for gay marriage. Considered a Toss-up vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Natalie Manley (98)
DISTRICT: Stretches from Joliet up north to the DuPage County line. Should be Safe D (hell, Manley won 62-38 in 2012 after getting arrested for a domestic disturbance).
NOTES: Not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Considered a Yes vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Daniel Beiser (111)
DISTRICT: Based in the St. Louis suburbs in Madison County. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Opposes equality.

Rep. Jay Hoffman (113)
DISTRICT: Stretches from Granite City in Madison County to Belleville in eastern St. Clair County. Most likely tilts D considerably. Hoffman won nearly two-to-one in 2012.
NOTES: Opposes equality.

Rep. Eddie Lee Jackson (114)
DISTRICT: Based in East St. Louis. Should be Safe D.
NOTES: Jackson voted against the bill in committee, but has since been reported to be undecided. Considered a Likely No vote by the Windy City Times.

Rep. Jerry Costello Jr. (116)
DISTRICT: Rural area south of the St. Louis suburbs. Not very Democratic. Costello won 62-38 in 2012, but this is a conservative area and a liberal might struggle here.
NOTES: Opposes equality.

Rep. John Bradley (117)
DISTRICT: Rural region in the "Little Egypt" area of downstate Illinois. Not very Democratic. Bradley won 65-32 in 2012, but this is a conservative area and a liberal might struggle here.
NOTES: Opposes equality.

Rep. Brandon Phelps (118)
DISTRICT: Rural region in the "Little Egypt" area of downstate Illinois, including Cairo, Metropolis, and the southern tip of the state. Not very Democratic. Phelps was unopposed in 2012, but this is a conservative area and a liberal might struggle here.
NOTES: Opposes equality.

Originally posted to sapelcovits on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 02:16 AM PDT.

Also republished by Progressive Policy Zone, Kossacks for Marriage Equality, and Land of Lincoln Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

    by sapelcovits on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 02:16:41 AM PDT

  •  I'm quite certain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CoyoteMarti

    that opposition to same sex marriage and civil unions is actually rather popular among Democratic primary voters in the southernmost portion of Illinois (notably districts 116, 117 and 118).
    Madigan will probably do his best to ensure that threats from primary challengers around the state are limited.

    •  I agree, I don't think we should (5+ / 0-)

      primary those people.

      but most of the Ds on this list are in safe districts and have no excuse.

      Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

      by sapelcovits on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 03:51:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are many like Rita Mayfield (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chitown Kev

        who personally support same sex marriage but won't vote for it suggesting and providing evidence for a firm notion that there is staunch opposition within their Safe D districts. I think for most of those legislators listed above, their constituencies (many of which are deeply religious) have forced them to hold this position, and thus I honestly cannot visualise primary challenges being successful. The diction used by many of them suggests that this opposition is serious.
        Even in Rhode Island, there was only one successful primary challenge against an anti SSM senator last year.

        •  an incumbent senator, yes (5+ / 0-)

          but we did manage to win a primary in a R-held seat to determine who would take on an incumbent Republican. the winner of that primary went on to defeat the R incumbent.

          as for IL, I have trouble believing that Rita Mayfield personally supports gay marriage. The way she's talked about the issue in the past has been disgusting and offensive. she sounds like she's just trying to save her ass from a primary challenge. "well, I wanted to vote for gay marriage, but you know, I'm just listening to my constituents!"

          I have no doubts that the anti-gay forces at home are very loud, but that doesn't mean they are very many. the polling showing gay marriage relatively popular in IL implies a silent majority.

          Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

          by sapelcovits on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 06:30:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Is that the part referred to as Little Egypt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JGibson

      it is the most Southern part of Il.  That's as far as the die hard pro-slavery people got up to the Civil War.  Activists must visit these now for defections to our side.  Every vote will count and you have got to get above a certain number.    

      •  They are ofcourse frauds since they want the state (0+ / 0-)

        to create them.  They could gather a congregation and have fun being orthodox and see where they can get, instead of asking the state to do the heavy lifting for them.  The trouble with ultra-fundamentalism is it wears thin without an outside threat to stiffen it in the face of oppression.  In a free society it has only a few followers who equate mortification of the flesh with salvation.  God being infinite can not be put in a human box of moral, ethical and material bondage in the face of the vast wonder of creation and what might be our part of it?  One meaning for me is that love is our measure of creation.  The soul needs more from a religion than the thin gruel of restricion, piety and marginalization of women.

        •  I am sorry but I got mixed up with another post, (0+ / 0-)

          I entered the above which does not pertain to this post.  I note however that some of it seems quite relevant to the GOP currently, in a nose dive around the country and hopefully in Southern Ill. too.

  •  Marriages are sort of like births. (0+ / 0-)

    They occur, whether or not they are officially recognized. There was a time, not so long ago, when states didn't bother to register births or marriages or divorces or deaths. There was also a time when there were no states. Humans interact, regardless of whether anyone keeps track.
    Why humans want their relatonships tracked is sort of a puzzlement. Perhaps a record creates an illusion of permanence. Also, some people don't like being left out and hardly anyone likes being excluded. So, making marriage an exclusive club is offensive -- as was the designation of some children as bastards.
    In any case, the issue is whether official record keepers keep the records they are hired to keep. Many of our officials apparently don't understand or resent that they are hirelings. So, they play the Bartleby the Scrivener's role.
    Why Bartleby's employer put up with it as long as he did is a puzzlement. Why we the people put up with non-functioning public officials is a puzzlement.
    "marriage equality" is a misnomer and disguises the fact that equal treatment is required of public officials, not the individuals who commit to marital obligations.
    Btw, it would be equal treatment if no marriage records were kept for anyone, just as it is equal treatment to have no public transit available for anyone or no public health clinics, or no public schooling. Equality is not a panacea.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 03:19:29 AM PDT

  •  The news bit I was indicated that the (0+ / 0-)

    influential African-American church leaders group (I don't recall the name) objected to the measure, so a number of Chicago reps changed their votes.  

    After the Republicans burn down the world, they will prove the Democrats did it.

    by jimraff on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 06:31:44 AM PDT

    •  maybe (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostboyjim, Chitown Kev

      but I don't think it's fair to lay blame squarely at the feet of the black caucus. The list includes plenty of white and Latino representatives, too.

      Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

      by sapelcovits on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 06:33:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My understanding is that many (0+ / 0-)

        of the black caucus changed their votes based on that.  I agree, many of the other Dems are at fault.

        After the Republicans burn down the world, they will prove the Democrats did it.

        by jimraff on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 07:06:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

      HuffPost had an article up showing it was once again a failure to organize, just like with Prop 8 in California. No one bothered to lobby the Black Caucus or get them as co-sponsors. Apparently, they were just supposed to know to support the bill because...er...why again?

      Please don't push this meme here. We're better than this.

      •  Wrong ;) (0+ / 0-)

        It isn't the case that no one bothered to lobby the Black Caucus, it's simply the case the religious side were evidently more effective at lobbying them! That's the heart of the matter.

        •  Evidence, please. (0+ / 0-)

          I live here, and I have seen none to support your claim. Thanks. You're still wrong. :)

          •  lol (0+ / 0-)

            I think the evidence that the religious side was more effective at lobbying them can be seen by the fact that 3/4 of the Black caucus refused to declare outright support for the bill despite many of them being personally in favour! I'm not praising the great works of  James Meeks's robocalls but If the religious side were ineffective, you would not have seen this opposition to such a great extent.

            •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

              "other black religious leaders are taking the opposite position and urging the state legislature to take its one remaining step to bring marriage equality to Illinois. On Thursday, a group of about a dozen African-American faith leaders expressed their support for legal same-sex marriage, ABC Chicago reports.

              "The African-American community, first of all, is not a monolithic community on this issue," the Rev. Richard Tolliver of St. Edmunds Church, said Thursday, according to ABC." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

              Your opinion is clearly not evidence of anything but your preference to blame all black ministers for the homophobia of some.

              •  Excuse me? (0+ / 0-)

                I would first like to draw your attention to your quotation regarding my apparent "preference to blame all black ministers for the homophobia of some".
                Can you reference the quotation where I blamed all black ministers for homophobia? You clearly have misinterpreted what I have written and that only highlights your misconceptions, not mine.
                When I was describing the actions of the religious side, I did not reference the colour of skin of any of them. I used James Meeks as an example, because he was a former senator and is quite influential. I did not connect my argument to the colour of Meeks's skin.
                Furthermore, your argument, and more specifically the first quotation from ABC Chicago that you mention in the post above only further provides weight to my own argument. I have been arguing that the religious side (regardless of the colour of their skins) have been more effective at influencing legislators, including the black caucus, and this is further highlighted by the fact that the "dozen African-American faith leaders" who led support for same-sex marriage evidently did not have much effect in garnering support for the bill, as the bill did not have anywhere near the numbers to pass by the end of the session. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the religious side in influencing legislators can be seen through some of Rita Mayfield's own quotations which she used regarding her own church in a link posted above somewhere by the OP.
                I also find it rather odd that you found it necessary to mention the quotation; "The African-American community, first of all, is not a monolithic community on this issue", despite the fact that I did not insinuate otherwise, and thus this only further highlights that you have misconstrued my words.

    •  Just as much Catholic as AA church leadership. (0+ / 0-)

      We have a double-whammy to overcome.

      “It has to have fire, or I won’t do it” – Angeles Arrien from Get Real! Wise Women Speak

      by CoyoteMarti on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 10:29:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's quite the diverse group of Democrats (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allergywoman, JGibson, Chitown Kev

    ...who are holding up marriage equality in Illinois. Yet the Sun-Times is pinning the blame entirely on the Black Caucus? Even I fell for that!

    "It's not enough to be in the majority, you have to stand for something." -Russ Feingold

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 08:47:42 AM PDT

  •  Sadly, My State House Rep. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades

    Daniel Beiser is against marriage equality.

    Side note: my former House Rep., Jay Hoffman, is against SSM but voted for civil unions (unlike Beiser).

  •  Thank you for this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sapelcovits

    Tipped and recced.

    and even the Illinois Observer has written questionable commentary on marriage equality.

    Polling this spring in the districts of African-American legislators revealed overwhelming opposition by rank-and-file African-American voters.
    But that result contradicted a December PPP poll that shows that African American voters in Illinois are in favor of marriage equality (although I don't quite believe the 60-16 margin that PPP indicates.

    Over at the gay blog Joe.My.God I wanted to see the raw poll that was apparently conducted.

    One of the JMG commenters e-mailed David Ormsby at the Illinois Observer and received this response, which I quote in full from JMG:

    XXXX,

    The private polls, between 6 and 8 eight of them, were sponsored/published/copyrighted in the paid subscription newsletter Capitol Fax in April, which is owned by Rich Miller, who is a consulting editor to The Illinois Observer. However, I am not at liberty to release the data.

    But I can tell you, in general, African American voters across the board in those House districts are strongly opposed to same sex marriage. There are indeed some variations among the districts, but minor. Personally, I was stunned at the level of the opposition among the grassroots voters.

    Additionally, African American ministers in each of the districts have spoken forcefully against SB 10 in their churches, which are centers of political power in AA communities.

    Since Friday, I've heard that some "strategy" debates have included mobilizing primary challenges against African American lawmakers who are opposed to the bill. Such challenges, would be, charitably, an uphill climb.

    As you and your friends debate, please consider this new element: http://www.illinoisobserver.ne...

    Thank you for reading and writing.

    DO
    David Ormsby
    Editor
    Rich Miller
    Consulting Editor

    Is there anyone that can get access to these private polls in AA Districts (which could all be downstate)?
  •  I wish more in the St. Louis suburbs supported it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JGibson

    I can understand why those two Reps in Forby's Senate District would have reservations (it's a red area), but those in districts that baconmander blue Madison county (111, 113, 114) have no excuse.

    "Didn't anyone ever tell you? There's one thing you never put in a trap—if you're smart, if you value your continued existence, if you have any plans about seeing tomorrow—there's one thing you never—ever, put in a trap. …Me." -The Eleventh Doctor

    by KingofSpades on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 12:10:05 PM PDT

  •  Baffled by Nekritz and Sente (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, sapelcovits

    I guess Sente's district is somewhat in doubt, but she beat Sid Mathias a moderate Republican handily and should be safe going forward.

    But, Nekritz I just don't understand. Her district is part of that large swath of Northshore suburbs that are all pretty liberal when it comes to social issues.

    Nekritz is leading the charge against public unions and to see her side against marriage equality too... Well, let's just say with Democrats like that who needs Democrats.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site