The referendum to spend $35 million on the Peoria Public Library system passed overwhelmingly:
Advisory Proposition To Issue $35,000,000 Library Bonds
| Yes | 9,951 | 71.59% |
|---|---|---|
| No | 3,949 | 28.41% |
The referendum was advisory and non-binding, so the next step is for the library to get City Council approval for their plans.
City council members are usually reluctant to raise property taxes, fearing voter backlash. But last night, the voters showed that they don’t mind having their taxes raised for basic city services (in this case, library service). I think the council should consider that as they start working on the budget.
The other referendum on the ballot was, “Should the State of Illinois Prohibit Smoking In All Indoor Work Places and All Indoor Public Places?” Results:
Advisory Proposition To Ban Smoking In All Indoor Work Places And All Indoor Public Places
| Yes | 9,191 | 66.84% |
|---|---|---|
| No | 4,560 | 33.16% |
This was the most meaningless referendum on the ballot. As originally proposed by Councilman Chuck Grayeb, it was supposed to ask voters if they wanted a smoking ban in Peoria. Grayeb didn’t have the votes to get that question on the ballot, so this question was substituted. These results will be put in the form of a resolution that will be forwarded to Springfield, where it will be received, filed, and ignored.
When Dunlap voted on library bonds the vote was a tight 50/50. Peoria votes 71.59% in favor. In I the only one that looks at these numbers and wonders how exactly that is possible. Most folks I spoke with thought the vote would be 70% against. I am a supporter but this vote just seems a little off. Fraud?
“These results will be put in the form of a resolution that will be forwarded to Springfield, where it will be received, filed, and ignored.”
I don’t know about that. The map I was working off wasn’t great, so this is a little Q&D, but of 118 house districts in Illinois, 50 (by my count) are in Cook County and 5 more are partially in Cook, so that’s 55 representatives who already have a local smoking ban (Cook County’s) and have every political incentive to spread it statewide to even out competition. That’s ALMOST a majority right there.
Outside Cook County, we have bans in
DuPage: Hinsdale, Wheaton
Lake: Buffalo Grove, Deerfield, Highland Park, Lakeforest, Libertyville, Lincolnshire, Lindonhurst, Long Grove, Vernon Hills
Champaign: Champaign and Urbana
McLean: Countywide
Sangamon: Springfield, proposed countywide
So that’s most of Lake County, which is another 4 votes (not counting split districts that cover Cook and Lake; they’re counted above). Two big cities in Du Page, so another 2 there let us say. Sangamon is 2; McLean is 2. Champaign 103 is another one, and then there are 3 other districts in the county (which we’ll ignore for now).
So we’re looking at 55 Cook County votes and another 11 or so from communities and counties that have smoking bans in place. That’s 65 votes, a majority.
Major population centers who haven’t weighed in include Rockford, the Quad Cities, East St. Louis, Peoria, and maybe Carbondale. And Peoria just advisory referenda’ed 2/3 in favor of a ban.
So if I’m Michael Madigan, I’m starting to think I have the votes in Cook and Lake Counties ALONE to get this passed, plus a handful from other places, and all their reps can bill it as “levelling the playing field for McLean/Lake/Cook/Sangamon County businesses,” and I can a) assure reps from non-smoking-ban places, like Peoria, that there’s 2/3 support in their city (or whatever, by city); and b) let reps in places where the ban does NOT have 2/3 support make political hay out of voting against it without any fear that it won’t pass.
55+11 would equal 66, not 65. Doh.
I put my comments on my blog site on the library issue. I stand by my facts.
[...] What does the non-binding referendum in support of an indoor smoking ban in Peoria really mean? C.J. Summers doesn’t think it means much at all, and even I disparaged its relevance last night on WCBU. In contrast, Eyebrows McGee makes a good argument in the comment section of the Peoria Chronicle post about the referendum’s potential usefulness to state legislators. [...]