How did they vote?

SB 1739 — a bill to expand gambling with five new casinos in Chicago, Rockford, Danville, Park City and a location in the south suburbs as well as video slot machines at racetracks and in Chicago airports — now moves to the Illinois House for consideration.

Late Wednesday afternoon, the Illinois Senate debated and passed SB 1739 by a vote of 32 to 20 (with one voting present).  SB 1739 is a proposal to vastly increase gambling in Illinois. This predatory gambling expansion bill was sponsored in the Illinois Senate by State Senators Terry Link (D-Lincolnshire), and Donne Trotter (D-Chicago).

Look at the official voting record of how your state senator voted: click HERE to download it.

We are grateful to State Senator Dale Righter (R-Mattoon), who was the only lawmaker to speak out against SB 1739 in defense of families and common sense. 

This bill was amended to remove Internet gambling, but the bill still includes 5 new casinos, and slot machines at 6 racetracks and Chicago’s two airports.   The city-owned casino for Chicago will have 4,000 gambling positions while the number of gambling positions at the other casinos will increase to 1,600.  With the ability to purchase additional positions for a maximum of 2,000, existing casinos would nearly double in size.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to email or fax your state representative about this anti-family legislation.  Ask him/her to vote NO to SB 1739.  You can also call the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

We’re grateful that nine Democrat senators voted against more gambling in the Land of Lincoln, but it’s disturbing to note that six Republican senators voted in favor of this massive anti-family gambling bill despite the fact that the Illinois Republican Platform identifies gambling as being harmful:

We call on the Governor and the General Assembly to balance the state budget and provide for a responsible capital development program without resorting to the expansion of gambling, which harms Illinois’ families and our state’s business climate and presents costly challenges for both law enforcement and social service agencies.

Far too many “conservative” lawmakers exhibited concern about the gambling interests within their districts rather than serving the best interests of the families of Illinois. Republican State Senators who voted yes to SB 1739 are:  Jason Barickman (Bloomington), Kirk Dillard (Westmont), David Luechtefeld (Okawville), Matt Murphy (Palatine), Chapin Rose (Champaign) and David Syverson (Rockford).  

Read more:  Harms of Legalized Gambling

Contact your state representatives now!

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

This week, a bipartisan group of 11 members of the Illinois General Assembly filed an amicus curiae brief defending the constitutionality of Illinois law defining marriage as the union of a husband and a wife. Led by Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Westmont) and Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton), the legislators’ brief supports a motion to dismiss the ACLU and Lambda Legal lawsuits filed by Thomas More Society attorneys, on behalf of downstate county clerks who were allowed into the case to defend the law.

“We welcome the bipartisan support for Illinois’ marriage law offered by this respected group of legislators,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. “They rightly point out that under our constitutional system, the issue of how the government treats domestic relationships is reserved to the General Assembly.”

The legislators assert that the judicial branch should not rewrite the state’s marriage laws, stating that “to do so would be to place the court in a position of acting as a super-legislature, nullifying laws it does not like. That is not our proper role in a democratic society.” They also claim that such action would, “Dramatically interfere with the constitutional guarantee of separation of powers by which the general assembly is empowered to make public policy….”

The legislators also cite several sociological arguments stating that “… the marriage structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents ….” The legislators also supported the religious liberty concerns raised by the amicus brief of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, also filed this week, indicating that “of great concern to us is hostility that may be shown to Illinois’ religious minorities” who oppose same-sex marriage.

The amicus curiae brief is available HERE.

The proposed amici curiae, Senator Kirk Dillard, Senator William Haine, Senator Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), Senator Darrin LaHood (R-Peoria), Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), Representative David Reis (R-Olney), Representative Joseph Lyons (D-Chicago), Representative Michael Connelly (R-Naperville), Representative Richard Morthland (R-Moline), Representative Patti Bellock (R-Westmont), and Representative Paul Evans (R-Highland), all of the Illinois General Assembly, are represented by retired Cook County Chancery Court Judge, Robert V. Boharic.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your state representatives and state senators, urging them to support HJR 95 and its call for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

State Senator Matt Murphy (R-Palatine) has introduced SB 1932, the “School Choice Act,” which would provide to parents vouchers worth up to $3,800 or the actual tuition of a private school, whichever is less. Vouchers would be available to students in grades 1-8 who attend “low performing” or “overcrowded” schools in the Chicago School District 299.

Low-performing schools are those that rank in the lowest 10 percent in terms of the percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test, and “overcrowded” schools are those that have 70 percent or more low-income students and are among “the most severely overcrowded 5 percent of schools in the district.”

This bill should receive unequivocal, enthusiastic bi-partisan support. Anyone who cares about the welfare of children and the right of parents to determine how their children are educated should support this bill.

Those on the left who care deeply about “choice” should support this bill. Those who support a mother’s right to choose to end the life of her baby and who support children’s right to choose their “gender,” should certainly support the right of parents to choose where their children spend seven hours a day, 180 days a year, for 13 years.

Those on the left who claim to care deeply about “social justice” should welcome this bill because it enables parents and legal guardians who have fewer material advantages than many to escape the worst performing schools in the city — schools in which no child should spend their days. The School Choice Act would provide these parents with just a fraction of the freedom that Barack Obama had when he chose to send his daughters to one of the most prestigious private schools in the nation where tuition runs about $30,000 per student, per year.

Some questions:

• What possible reasons could there be to oppose this bill other than political indebtedness to teachers’ unions who fear the effects of competition on their jobs?
• Why should schools that parents don’t want their children to attend and that are staffed by teachers whom parents don’t want to teach their children continue to operate?
• How do legislators who oppose school vouchers justify compelling disadvantaged parents to send their children to substandard and often dangerous schools to which they, the legislators, would never send their own children?

It seems that only a callous and self-serving legislator could oppose such a just, compassionate, and reasonable bill.