Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment (2016)

Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment

Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
State and local government budgets, spending and finance
Status
a Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment| Origin
State legislature

* * *

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 2.1 Measures in other states
* 2.2 Amendment design
* 2.3 State of the ballot measure campaigns
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Ballot title
* 3.2 Ballot summary
* 3.3 Constitutional changes
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.1.1 Officials
* 4.1.2 Former officials
* 4.1.3 Organizations
* 4.1.4 Unions
* 4.1.5 Individuals
* 4.2 Arguments
* 4.2.1 Official arguments
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Opponents
* 5.1.1 Officials
* 5.1.2 Organizations
* 5.2 Arguments
* 5.3 Official arguments
* 6 Background
* 6.1 Other transportation lockbox measures
* 7 Campaign finance
* 7.1 Support
* 8 Media editorials
* 8.1 Support
* 8.2 Opposition
* 9 Polls
* 10 Path to the ballot
* 10.1 House vote
* 10.2 Senate vote
* 11 State profile
* 11.1 Presidential voting pattern
* 11.1.1 Pivot Counties (2016)
* 11.1.2 Pivot Counties (2020)
* 12 Recent news
* 13 Related measures
* 14 See also
* 15 External links
* 15.1 Basic information
* 15.2 Support
* 16 Footnotes

2016 measures

November 8
Transportation Lockbox Amendment a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Illinois as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was approved.

| A "yes" vote supported this amendment to prohibit lawmakers from using transportation funds for anything other than their stated purpose.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this amendment to prohibit lawmakers from using transportation funds for anything other than their stated purpose.

|

In order for a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to win in Illinois, it must be approved by at least 60 percent of those voting on the question or by a majority of those who cast a ballot for any office in that election.

## Election results[edit]

Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  3,796,654|  78.91%
No| 1,014,461| 21.09%

Election results from Illinois State Board of Elections

## Overview[edit]

### Measures in other states[edit]

Voters in Maryland and Wisconsin approved transportation lockbox measures in 2014, and California voters approved a lockbox measure relating to local government, public safety, and transportation funds in 2010.

### Amendment design[edit]

The amendment was designed to prohibit the Illinois Legislature from using transportation funds for non-transportation related projects. Specifically, legislators were permitted to spend revenue derived from taxes, excises, fees, or licenses on vehicles, fuels, transportation infrastructure, and transportation operations on transportation costs and projects.

### State of the ballot measure campaigns[edit]

Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding, the campaign in support of the amendment, raised $3.8 million. About 26 percent of contributions came from the Fight Back Fund, which donated $1 million. Opponents did not organize a campaign. The state's largest newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, recommended a "No" vote. Polls indicated that around 80 percent of Illinoisans supported the amendment prior to the election.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title was as follows:[1]

“  | The proposed amendment adds a new section to the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution. The proposed amendment provides that no moneys derived from taxes, fees, excises, or license taxes, relating to registration, titles, operation, or use of vehicles or public highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit, intercity passenger rail, ports, or airports, or motor fuels, including bond proceeds, shall be expended for other than costs of administering laws related to vehicles and transportation, costs for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and betterment of public highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit, intercity passenger rail, ports, airports, or other forms of transportation, and other statutory highway purposes, including the State or local share to match federal aid highway funds. You are asked to decide whether the proposed amendment should become part of the Illinois Constitution.[2] | ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The ballot summary was as follows:[1]

“  |

The proposed amendment adds a new Section to the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution that provides revenue generated from transportation related taxes and fees (referred to as “transportation funds”) shall be used exclusively for transportation related purposes. Transportation related taxes and fees include motor fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and other taxes and user fees dedicated to public highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit (buses and rail), ports, or airports.

Under the proposed amendment, transportation funds may be used by the State or local governments only for the following purposes: (1) costs related to administering transportation and vehicle laws, including public safety purposes and the payment of obligations such as bonds; (2) the State or local share necessary to secure federal funds or for local government transportation purposes as authorized by law; (3) the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, and operation of highways, mass transit, and railroad crossings; (4) expenses related to workers’ compensation claims for death or injury of transportation agency employees; and (5) to purchase land for building highways or buildings for to be used for highway purposes.

This new Section is a limitation on the power of the General Assembly or a unit of local government to use, divert, or transfer transportation funds for a purpose other than transportation. It does not, and is not intended to, impact or change the way in which the State and local governments use sales taxes, including the sales and excise tax on motor fuel, or alter home rule powers granted under this Constitution. It does not seek to change the way in which the State funds programs administered by the Illinois Secretary of State, Illinois Department of Transportation, and operations by the Illinois State Police directly dedicated to the safety of roads, or entities or programs funded by units of local government. Further, the Section does not impact the expenditure of federal funds, which may be spent for any purpose authorized by federal law.[2]

| ”

|
|

### Constitutional changes[edit]

Illinois Constitution

Preamble
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV • Schedule

See also: Article IX, Illinois Constitution

The measure added a Section 11 to Article IX of the Illinois Constitution. The following text was added:[3] Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

Section 11. Transportation Funds

(a) No moneys, including bond proceeds, derived from taxes, fees, excises, or license taxes relating to registration, title, or operation or use of vehicles, or related to the use of highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit, intercity passenger rail, ports, airports, or to fuels used for propelling vehicles, or derived from taxes, fees, excises, or license taxes relating to any other transportation infrastructure or transportation operation, shall be expended for purposes other than as provided in subsections (b) and (c).

(b) Transportation funds may be expended for the following: the costs of administering laws related to vehicles and transportation, including statutory refunds and adjustments provided in those laws; payment of highway obligations; costs for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and betterment of highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit, intercity passenger rail, ports, airports, or other forms of transportation; and other statutory highway purposes. Transportation funds may also be expended for the State or local share of highway funds to match federal aid highway funds, and expenses of grade separation of highways and railroad crossings, including protection of at-grade highways and railroad crossings, and, with respect to local governments, other transportation purposes as authorized by law.

(c) The costs of administering laws related to vehicles and transportation shall be limited to direct program expenses related to the following: the enforcement of traffic, railroad, and motor carrier laws; the safety of highways, roads, streets, bridges, mass transit, intercity passenger rail, ports, or airports; and the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation, and administration of highways, under any related provisions of law or any purpose related or incident to, including grade separation of highways and railroad crossings. The limitations to the costs of administering laws related to vehicles and transportation under this subsection (c) shall also include direct program expenses related to workers' compensation claims for death or injury of employees of the State's transportation agency; the acquisition of land and the erection of buildings for highway purposes, including the acquisition of highway rights-of-way or for investigations to determine the reasonable anticipated future highway needs; and the making of surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates for the construction and maintenance of flight strips and highways. The expenses related to the construction and maintenance of flight strips and highways under this subsection (c) are for the purpose of providing access to military and naval reservations, defense-industries, defense-industry sites, and sources of raw materials, including the replacement of existing highways and highway connections shut off from general use at military and naval reservations, defense-industries, and defense-industry sites, or the purchase of rights-of-way.

(d) None of the revenues described in subsection (a) of this Section shall, by transfer, offset, or otherwise, be diverted to any purpose other than those described in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section.

(e) If the General Assembly appropriates funds for a mode of transportation not described in this Section, the General Assembly must provide for a dedicated source of funding.

(f) Federal funds may be spent for any purposes authorized by federal law.[2]

|

## Support[edit]

Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding led the campaign in support of the measure. The group called the measure "The Safe Roads Amendment."[4]

Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-118) sponsored the amendment in the Illinois Legislature.

### Supporters[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

* Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-118)
* Sen. Gary Forby (D-59)[5]
* Sen. Bill Haine (D-56)
* Rep. Thomas Bennett (R-106)[6]

#### Former officials[edit]

* Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D)[7]
* U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (R)

#### Organizations[edit]

* AAA Chicago[8]
* American Council of Engineering Companies
* American Council of Engineering Companies-Illinois
* Americans for Prosperity Illinois
* American Traffic Safety Services Association
* Associated General Contractors of Illinois
* Champaign County Chamber of Commerce
* Edwardsville Glen Carbon Chamber of Commerce
* Excavators, Inc.
* Federation of Women Contractors
* Fox Valley AGC
* Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association
* Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers
* Illinois Black Chamber of Commerce
* Illinois Chamber of Commerce
* Illinois Chapter of American Society of Civil Engineers
* Illinois Construction Industry Committee
* Illinois Democratic County Chairmen's Association
* Illinois Economic Policy Institute[9][10]
* Illinois Petroleum Council
* Illinois Professional Land Surveyor's Association
* Illinois Republican County Chairmen's Association
* Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association
* Illinois Society of Professional Engineers
* Illinois Soybean Association
* Illinois Trucking Association
* Illinois Valley Contractors Association
* Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting
* Lake County Contractors Association
* Metropolitan Planning Council
* Mid-West Truckers Association
* Naperville Chamber
* Northwestern Illinois Contractors Association
* PCA Midwest
* PCI of Illinois and Wisconsin
* Rockford-Winnebago and Belvidere-Boone County Better Roads Association
* Southern Illinois Builders Association
* Southern Illinois Construction Advancement Program
* Transportation for Illinois Coalition
* Underground Contractors Association of Illinois
* Will and Grundy Contractors Association

#### Unions[edit]

* Illinois AFL-CIO[8]
* Illinois State Council of Operating Engineers
* International Association of Iron Workers
* Iron Workers District Council of Chicago and Vicinity
* Iron Workers District Council of St. Louis and Vicinity
* IUOE, Local 150

#### Individuals[edit]

* Todd Maisch, President and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and co-chair of the Transportation for Illinois Coalition[11][12]
* Mike Kleinik, Executive Director of the Chicago Laborers District Council-LMCC and co-chair of the Transportation for Illinois Coalition[11][12]

### Arguments[edit]

Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding's “When"

Todd Maisch, CEO and President of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, told Progress Illinois the following about the amendment:[13]

“  |

The Illinois Chamber of Commerce applauds the unanimous Senate vote today for putting the Lockbox Amendment--an Illinois Chamber initiative--on the November ballot. This constitutional amendment, HJRCA 36, will protect monies collected for transportation infrastructure, and ensure that they are only spent on road, rail and bridge projects [...] Since 2003, more than $6.4 billion has been swept from the state's Road Fund, and this Lockbox Amendment can stop that.[2]

| ”

|
|

The Illinois-Indiana-Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting wrote the following in support of the amendment in its Spring/Summer 2016 issue of its newsletter, The Monitor:[14]

“  | Establishing the lockbox is necessary to maintain Illinois’transportation systems due to the state continuously diverting money away from the road fund. [...] If no action is taken to raise revenue forinfrastructure needs,the statewill lose an additional $110 billion over ten years in vehicle repairs and congestion costs. Illinois is in dire need of investments in infrastructure, which in turn will promote business and economic growth. Tell everyone to vote yes on the Safe Roads Amendment.[2] | ”

|
|

#### Official arguments[edit]

The argument in support of the amendment found in the Illinois voter guide was:[1]

“  | Historically, the State and units of local government have used portions of revenue from transportation funds for other purposes. Approval of this amendment will ensure that transportation funds are used only for transportation purposes. This limitation provides a dedicated source of funding for projects that will increase the quality of Illinois’ roads, bridges, bridge and road safety inspections, and mass transit. Improving the quality of our roads and highways will help reduce accidents and damage to vehicles caused by road conditions or hazards.[2] | ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

The following legislators voted "nay" on HJRCA 36 during its final reading in the Illinois House of Representatives:[15]

* Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-25)
* Rep. Laura Fine (D-17)
* Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-57)
* Rep. Pamela Reaves-Harris (D-10)

#### Organizations[edit]

* Better Government Association[16]
* Taxpayers Federation of Illinois[17]

### Arguments[edit]

Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-25), Rep. Laura Fine (D-17), Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-57), Rep. Pamela Reaves-Harris (D-10) were the four legislators who voted against placing the amendment on the ballot. In an op-ed, the legislators explained their reasoning:[18]

“  | We were the four votes in the General Assembly against placing this question on the ballot. We did so not because we don’t value transportation as a critical component of a strong economy. Without a doubt, there should be strong protections for investment in our road, bridges, ports, and rails.

But experience has demonstrated that unexpected events can have drastic impacts on our state budget. A major natural disaster or economic turmoil can blow huge holes in a budget, even in states in healthy financial condition - which Illinois is decidedly not.

This amendment would severely curtail the ability of the state to react to these types of events. If a school can’t open because of insufficient funding, what good is the new state road that runs by? How are farmers served by new bridges if our state universities aren’t educating the next generation of agricultural experts? A new bus or train line won’t help a young parent get to her job or class if she can’t afford safe, reliable childcare.

Other states that have passed transportation funding lockboxes, such as Maryland, have release valves for emergencies. There, the governor and a supermajority of legislators can declare a fiscal emergency. In that instance, the threshold for tapping into transportation funds for general purposes can only be reached when there is broad consensus for the need to do so. The proposed Illinois amendment is missing a safety valve.

Constitutions are meant to be broad documents. State governments are intended to serve as laboratories of democracy. Enshrining this type of language in our state’s core legal document undermines the ability of elected officials in the future to respond to the challenges of the day.[2]

| ”

|
|

Greg Hinz, politics and government columnist for Crain's Chicago Business, argued:[19]

“  | A few decades ago, with good intentions, Illinois added a restrictive spending section to its constitution. It's known as the pension clause, and, largely thanks to it, paying workers excessive retirement benefits now is a higher priority than schools, health care, law enforcement and other needs.

The Safe Roads Amendment is the pension clause on steroids. Vote "no."[2]

| ”

|
|

Jim Dey, an author for the News-Gazette, wrote the following in a column about HJRCA 36:[20]

“  | The amendment is unnecessary. All legislators have to do to stop raids on the transportation fund is to stop raiding the transportation fund.[2] | ”

|
|

### Official arguments[edit]

The argument in opposition to the amendment in the Illinois voter guide was:[1]

“  | Approval of the proposed amendment unnecessarily limits the power of the State and local governments to appropriate public revenues for the general welfare of all Illinoisans in order to protect funding for one particular purpose - transportation. Our elected officials should be asked to prioritize the use of public funds, but this amendment would restrict their ability to spend funds as the elected officials and taxpayers deem fit. As a result, elected officials may be asked to reduce funding for other priorities, such as education or social service programs.[2] | ”

|
|

## Background[edit]

Voting on state and local government budgets, spending, and finance

Policy
Budget policy
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

City budgets
County budgets
Spending limits
School budgets

### Other transportation lockbox measures[edit]

See also: State and local government budgets, spending and finance on the ballot and Transportation on the ballot

Voters in California approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 22, in 2010 that prohibited the California State Legislature from allocating revenue from fuel taxes in specific funds to the state's general fund.[21]

In 2014, voters in Maryland and Wisconsin decided on transportation fund lockbox measures. Maryland's Question 1 established a transportation fund defined by the state constitution, required that the fund's revenue only be used for transportation-related projects, and required that the revenue not be transferred (with certain exceptions). Wisconsin's Question 1 required that transportation-related revenue could only be used for projects under the purview of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Both measures were approved.

Illinois and New Jersey voted on transportation lockbox measures in 2016. The amendment to the Illinois Constitution was designed to prohibit the state legislature from using transportation funds for non-transportation related projects. Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding, the support campaign, spent $3.8 million to help the amendment pass. New Jersey Question 2 pitted Gov. Chris Christie, an amendment supporter, against his lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, who opposed the amendment. Voters approved the measure 54.5 to 45.5 percent. Question 2 required that all revenue derived from taxes on motor fuels be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 3, a transportation lockbox measure, in October 2017.

The following table illustrates the outcome of each transportation lockbox amendment:

State  | Initiative  | Year  | Percent “Yes”  | Percent “No”

|
|
|
|

California | Proposition 22 | 2010 | 60.62% | 39.38%
Maryland | Question 1 | 2014 | 81.65% | 18.35%
Wisconsin | Question 1 | 2014 | 79.94% | 20.06%
New Jersey | Question 2 | 2014 | 54.51% | 45.49%
Illinois | Amendment | 2016 | 78.91% | 21.09%
Louisiana | Amendment 3 | 2017 | 53.13% | 46.87%
Average |  |  | 68.13% | 31.87%

The Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment was the first ballot measure ever in the state to address the topic of state and local government budgets, spending, and finance.

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for Illinois ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:

Support: | $3,780,860.62
Opposition: | $0.00

As of January 17, 2017, one ballot question committee, Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding, registered to support the amendment.[22] The committee received $3,774,140.22 in contributions.

### Support[edit]

PAC  | Amount raised  | Amount spent

|
|

Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding  | $3,780,860.62  | $3,775,779.60
Total | $3,780,860.62 | $3,775,779.60

The following are the five top donors who contributed to Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding as of January 17, 2017:[22]

Donor  | Amount

|

Fight Back Fund | $1,000,000.00
Excavators, Inc. | $300,001.00
Carpentry Advancement Fund | $250,000.00
Illinois Road & Transportation Builders Association | $200,000.00
Great Lakes Region Organizing Committee | $200,000.00

## Media editorials[edit]

### Support[edit]

* Daily Journal said: "So lock up the transportation funds. Also lock up fees collected for parks, schools, etc. Too long, and too often, people have been misled that something was going to solve all our tax problems — like the lottery — and it never did."[23]
* The Herald Whig said: "Over the past 13 years, Illinois politicians have raided the road fund at a rate that averages nearly $500 million a year. Those dollars could have been used to build or repair roads and bridges. Thousands of construction jobs would have been created. Wages from those workers would have helped fuel the state economy. Those funds and those opportunities are gone, but voters with a yes vote in November's referendum can make sure the road fund will not be raided again."[24]
* Quad-City Times said: "But things are that bad in Illinois. Perhaps handcuffing the General Assembly is the only way forward. Perhaps robbing the feckless governing class of options can force the necessary top-to-bottom overhaul in a state with the nation's worst credit rating. Perhaps this hope is little but a pipe dream. Either way, Illinois lawmakers haven't upheld their end of the bargain. They've taken cash intended for roads and bridges and used to to [sic] prop up themselves and the failing government they oversee."[25]
* The Telegraph said: "Not convinced? Leave an hour early on Nov. 8 and, before going to the polls, take a leisurely ride along some of the roads in the region. This time, though, pay attention to the bumps and jolts that have become the background music to the daily task of getting around Illinois. Then remember voters are being given the power to change a practice that never should have been allowed."[26]
* The Times said: "The ballot measure makes complete sense. It ought to be approved — by a wide margin. It also ought to serve as a wake-up call for state legislators and budget makers."[27]

### Opposition[edit]

* Chicago Sun-Times said: "Nobody would be talking about lockboxes if our pathetic Legislature and governor would only come to terms on a new state budget that responsibly balances spending and revenue overall. No one doubts that transportation projects are in a sorry state in Illinois, with roads and highways in need of billions of dollars of repairs even as money collected from a gas tax, tolls and license fees is spent elsewhere. But the solution is a budget, not a shell game. A lockbox is nothing but an admission of failure, and we urge you to vote the idea down November."[28]
* The Chicago Tribune said: "Yes, we wish lawmakers would stop dipping into that money. Again, that is completely within their control. But a constitutional amendment would take away the flexibility required if there's an unexpected drop in revenue, a serious emergency or a crushing recession. It would be a mistake to protect road-building at the expense of education, social services, health care and other needs."[29]
* The Daily Herald said: "Responsible states that establish lockboxes for certain funds leave open the option of legislative action in a crisis, so that everyone who would break into them would have to be able to get permission or at least justify the action to voters. This amendment provides no such alternative."[30]
* The Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus said: "But the Illinois Constitution is meant to be a broad document. Amending it specifically to protect one single source of funds opens up a Pandora’s Box where bad things can happen."[31]
* The Southern Illinoisan said: "It may be tempting to vote “yes” on Nov. 8 on this constitutional amendment. After all, it sounds like a good deal. Its premise is a solid idea. We can see why a lot of people would vote for this amendment. But making it an amendment to the state’s Constitution is taking it too far. Let’s force legislators into looking into making it a law. Vote “no” on the constitutional amendment."[32]
* The State Journal-Register said: "In other words, voters could pass this amendment, have remorse down the road and find themselves stuck with it for a long time. Let's also remember that efforts to fix a major source of Illinois' budget woes in the first place — its ballooning pension obligations — have been stymied as well by the strictness of the Constitution. ... This constitutional amendment only hamstrings our already beleaguered budget and benefits a specific industry. Voters on Nov. 8 should reject the simplistic, feel-good appeals and cast the wiser, long-term choice: No."[33]

## Polls[edit]

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

* The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute conducted a poll from September 27 to October 2, 2016, and found support for the amendment to be 80 percent.[34]

Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment (2016)

Poll | Support | Oppose| Undecided| Margin of error| Sample size
Paul Simon Public Policy Institute
9/27/2016 - 10/2/2016 | 80.0%| 13.0%| 7.0%| +/-3.3| 865
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Amending the Illinois Constitution

The Illinois General Assembly was required to pass the amendment by a 60 percent majority vote in both chambers in order to place the amendment on the ballot. HJRCA 36 was approved by the Illinois House on April 22, 2016, with 98 "yeas" and four "nays." The amendment was unanimously approved by the Illinois Senate on May 5, 2016.[35]

### House vote[edit]

April 22, 2016

Illinois HJRCA 36 House Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  98|  96.08%
No| 4| 3.92%

### Senate vote[edit]

May 5, 2016

Illinois HJRCA 36 Senate Vote

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  55|  100.00%
No| 0| 0.00%

## State profile[edit]

Demographic data for Illinois

| Illinois| U.S.
Total population:| 12,839,047| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 55,519| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 72.3%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 14.3%| 12.6%
Asian:| 5%| 5.1%
Native American:| 0.2%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 2.2%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 16.5%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 87.9%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 32.3%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $57,574| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 16.8%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Illinois.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

### Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Illinois

Illinois voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

#### Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, 11 are located in Illinois, accounting for 5.34 percent of the total pivot counties.[36]

#### Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Illinois had 11 Retained Pivot Counties, 6.08 percent of all Retained Pivot Counties.

More Illinois coverage on Ballotpedia

* Elections in Illinois
* United States congressional delegations from Illinois
* Public policy in Illinois
* Endorsers in Illinois
* Illinois fact checks
* More...

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Illinois Transportation Funds Amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment (2016) - Google News

## Related measures[edit]

This type of measure is called a "lockbox" measure, which is designed to give voters the opportunity to say that funds raised for or by a certain purpose must be spent in that general area as well. The overall concept of a "lockbox" is to prevent fees and other revenue that is generated through one use from ending up in the state's general operations budget, instead ensuring that those funds are spent in a way related to how they were generated.

The following statewide "lockbox" measures qualified for the November 2016 ballot:

* Alabama Rules Governing Allocation of State Park Funds, Amendment 2
* Arizona Allowed Uses of Revenue from Sale of State Trust Lands Amendment, Proposition 123
* Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment
* New Jersey Dedication of All Gas Tax Revenue to Transportation Amendment, Public Question 2
* California Proposition 52, Voter Approval to Divert Hospital Fee Revenue Dedicated to Medi-Cal (2016)

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* 2016 ballot measures
* Illinois 2016 ballot measures
* Laws governing the initiative process in Illinois

## External links[edit]

### Basic information[edit]

* House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 36
* Illinois 2016 Constitutional Amendment Guide

### Support[edit]

* Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding
* Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding Facebook
* Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding Twitter

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Illinois Secretary of State, "Proposed Amendment to the Illinois Constitution," accessed October 5, 2016
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
3. ↑ Illinois General Assembly, "Full text of HJRCA0036," accessed May 6, 2016
4. ↑ Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding, "Homepage," accessed September 26, 2016
5. ↑ Land Line Magazine, "Illinois voters to decide on transportation 'lockbox'," August 23, 2016
6. ↑ Illinois News Network, "Item on November ballot would ensure transportation funds no longer diverted," August 31, 2016
7. ↑ The State Journal-Register, "Ray LaHood and Ed Rendell: Vote 'yes' on roads amendment," October 19, 2016
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Safe Roads Amendment, "Supporters," accessed October 9, 2016
9. ↑ Illinois Economic Policy Institute, "Vote YES on the Illinois Transportation Funds Amendment," July 18, 2016
10. ↑ Illinois Economy Policy Institute, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Sauk Valley, "Stop diverting transportation tax dollars now," May 4, 2016
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Reboot Illinois, "Road fund "lockbox" amendment a smart move to protect Illinois highways, bridges," April 28, 2016
13. ↑ Progress Illinois, "Illinoisans Poised To Vote On Road Fund Amendment In November," May 5, 2016
14. ↑ Illinois-Indiana-Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting, "The Monitor," accessed September 15, 2016
15. ↑ Illinois State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 36," accessed September 14, 2016
16. ↑ Better Government Association, "Lockbox Amendment not the Right Route for Illinois," October 17, 2016
17. ↑ Illinois News Network, "Taxpayer group opposes transportation-fund ‘lockbox’ ballot item," October 25, 2016
18. ↑ The Southern Illinoisan, "Guest View: Proposed 'lockbox' amendment would curtail state's abilities," October 7, 2016
19. ↑ Crain's Chicago Business, "Why you should vote 'no' on the Safe Roads Amendment," October 22, 2016
20. ↑ News-Gazette, "Jim Dey: Amendment game gums up the works in Springfield," May 1, 2016
21. ↑ California Secretary of State, "California General Election Official Voter Guide, November 2010," accessed January 9, 2018
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Illinois State Board of Elections,"Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding," accessed January 17, 2017
23. ↑ Daily Journal, "Let's stop raiding road funds, vote 'yes' on road measure," August 29, 2016
24. ↑ Herald Whig, "Illinois amendment will allow voters to halt road fund diversions," May 10, 2016
25. ↑ Quad-City Times, "Editorial: In Illinois, road fund needs protection," September 2, 2016
26. ↑ The Telegraph, "Editorial: State transportation funds need secured," August 22, 2016
27. ↑ The Times, "OUR VIEW: Let's stop raiding Illinois road funds," August 29, 2016
28. ↑ Chicago Sun-Times, "‘Stop me,’ says Springfield, ‘before I hurt again’," May 8, 2016
29. ↑ The Chicago Tribune, "Vote 'no' on roads amendment. Then vote 'yes' for change in Cook County," October 18, 2016
30. ↑ Daily Herald, "Endorsement: No on 'Safe Roads' constitutional amendment," October 24, 2016
31. ↑ QCOnline, "Editorial: Lockbox amendment would open Pandora's Box," October 20, 2016
32. ↑ The Southern Illinoisan, "Voice of The Southern: Vote no on ‘lockbox’ amendment," November 1, 2016
33. ↑ The State Journal-Register, "Our View: Safe roads are good, but lockbox isn't smart route to get them," October 1, 2016
34. ↑ Belleville News-Democrat, "Illinoisans want term limits, redistricting and ‘lockbox’ on road funds," October 5, 2016
35. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `status`
36. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Andrew Heath • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Jimmy McAllister • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup
Content Strategy: Josh Altic
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content|

Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora

v • e

State of Ohio
Columbus (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy