ILLINOIS ISSUES ELECTION SURVEY

Senate candidates on tax relief, spending limits and energy

IN this election year, Illinois Issues presents its third biennial survey of candidates for the Illinois General Assembly. The 1980 survey was conducted during the spring of 1980, and candidates were asked questions on areas of voter interest: limits on local and state spending, legislative goals, energy and the most important issue of 1981. They were also asked the hypothetical question: "If the budget were balanced and there were 'extra' state funds, what would you want the state to do with those funds?" Candidates were also asked to predict which party would control the two chambers of the legislature.

This first survey report analyzes the response by Senate candidates. Of 35 Senate candidates who won in the March primary, 24 or 69 percent responded; they included 13 Democrats (6 incumbents, 7 challengers) and 11 Republicans (4 incumbents, 7 challengers).

The survey of candidates for the Illinois House will be reported in two parts: the Downstate candidates (Districts 31-59) in the September magazine and the Upstate candidates (Districts 1-30) in the October magazine.

SENATE candidates believe the Republicans have a chance to gain control of the House, but not the Senate. If candidates surveyed are correct, reapportionment will be the biggest issue before the General Assembly next spring, and some form of limits on state spending has a good chance to pass, at least in the Senate. Other indications from the survey of Senate candidates are that tax relief is as important to Republicans as it is to Democrats and that if the Illinois Senate could determine the state's energy policy, heavy reliance would be placed on developing coal.

Almost all candidates surveyed believe Republicans have a chance to win a majority of the House seats in the November election (see table 1). One would expect optimism from each candidate for his or her own party, but 77 percent of the Democratic candidates believe the Republicans have a chance to win control of the House. Republican candidates almost unanimously (91 percent) think they can do it. Democrats are optimistic (69 percent) that the Republicans will not control the Senate, but 73 percent of Republicans think it is possible for their party to win.

The Democrats now hold a majority in the House by one seat, and they have a six-seat edge in the Senate. Since all 177 House seats are up for election, either party could win the House. But in the Senate with only 20 seats of 59 up for election and only two — possibly four districts — where the opposition party could win, it is unlikely that the Democrats will lose control.

The biggest issue for the General Assembly next year will be reapportionment, according to one-third of the candidates surveyed (see table 2), but this choice is weighted by Democrats. One-half the Democratic candidates named reapportionment as the biggest issue, while only 9 percent of the Republicans named it. The biggest single issue among Republicans is worker's compensation, which 27 percent listed (no Democrat named it). Recently approved changes in the worker's compensation laws may be sufficient action to relegate this issue to the backburner, but candidates from both parties think economic development and the loss of industry will be one of the major issues next spring.

The other big issues named by candidates include tax relief, growth of government, budget, energy and education. Candidates were not limited to one answer, and several named more than one big issue.

Tax relief as an issue next year was named by 18 percent of the Republicans and 16 percent of the Democrats. But if the issues of tax relief, growth of government and budget were combined as parts of one issue, this general topic is considered the big issue by 45 percent of the Republicans and 50 percent of the Democrats.

Only one candidate, incumbent Jack Schaffer (R., Cary), who is running unopposed in the 33rd district, believes the Equal Rights Amendment will be the biggest issue facing the General Assembly in 1981.

It seems obvious why reapportionment rates so high among Democrats. They now control both House and Senate, and much of their power to elect the majorities is because of the reapportionment of legislative districts 10 years ago. But their dependence on the solid Democratic bloc of legislators from solid Democratic districts in the city of Chicago may be threatened. The U.S. census is expected to show a shift in population within the state and specifically the loss in population from Chicago to the suburbs in Cook County and the five other metropolitan, counties. The problem for Democrats is that the suburbs in those counties tend to be Republican. Logic would, dictate that the areas of greater population would have more districts, but

Continued on page 30

28/August 1980/Illinois Issues

August 1980/Illinois Issues/29

On reapportionment, tax relief, spending limits and energy

Continued from page 28

politics, of course, will be the key motivation. No matter who wins control of the legislature, both parties can be expected to grind the census bureau data into the computers — precinct by precinct — and then to carve out the 59 legislative districts to the advantage of the party. (If a proposition to reduce the House is on the November ballot and passes, the reapportionment task will be a nightmare with one-third of the representatives knowing they cannot be reelected.)

Although reapportionment is top on the list for Senate candidates, it is doubtful the issue will be settled by the General Assembly. If the legislature does not have a plan in effect by June 30, which the governor must approve, the Constitution provides for a special commission; and if the commission cannot resolve reapportionment, the Supreme Court will — as it has done in the past (see "Reapportionment begins now!" in Illinois Issues, August 1978).

On the question of state spending, two years ago Illinois Issues asked the candidates, "If state spending is still tight in FY 1980, which area of spending should rank first in priority?" Seventy-eight percent of the Senate candidates two years ago answered "education"; road funding was second and tax relief was mentioned so seldomly that it was tabulated under "other." This year, Issues asked nearly the opposite question: "If the budget were balanced and there were 'extra' state funds, what would you want the state to do with them?" Nearly 62 percent of the candidates say they would use those funds for tax relief, while only 25 percent named aid to education (see table 3).

Although the two questions are not j strictly analagous, the answers do indicate a shift in priorities from

30/August 1980/Illinois Issues

supporting a general benefit of government aid — education — to a direct government support to citizens — tax relief. And it appears to be a bipartisan response; 82 percent of the Republicans and 83 percent of the Democrats named tax relief. Many Democrats however, were more specific on the type of tax relief — removing the sales tax from food and medicine.

Candidates were not restricted to naming a single use for "extra funds," but tax relief outdistanced all other choices. Besides education aid, other uses for extra funds suggested by both Republicans and Deomcrats were transportation/roads, crime control, energy/environment and aid to senior citizens. Some Republicans singled out mental health for extra funds.

If the Senate candidates vote as they responded to the survey, there may not be any extra state funds, since 83 percent of all candidates (91 percent of the Republicans and 77 percent of the Democrats) support limits on state spending (see table 4). However, there is disagreement on how to implement limits. Democratic challenger John J. Burian (9th D., Tinley Park) favors limitations, but he is "not really comfortable with a fixed or limited spending formula, per se — particularly, if such a spending formula severely restricts the flexibility of government decision-making regarding problems confronting people." Several candidates voiced this concern with flexibility, especially if limits were applied to local government spending.

Republicans are just as strongly committed to limits on local governments spending as they are on state spending. Among incumbent Republicans, however, 100 percent support limits on state spending and 75 percent support limits on local government. Overall, Senate candidates do not support limits on local government to the degree they do limits on the state (see table 5).

Again, the concern was flexibility. Democratic challenger Richard B. Sass (3rd D., Elk Grove) feels that "local government knows better what its needs are and can be held accountable. Limits on local spending would stifle the growth and potential of a particular community." Most candidates did not elaborate on their answers, but those who did generally shied away from any constitutional limitations on spending.

Although state government in Illinois has not developed an energy policy, the General Assembly has become more and more involved in energy issues. Coal development bonds were authorized in the 70's and some tax incentive legislation for solar energy and conservation of energy have been passed.

If the 82nd General Assembly does become more involved in developing an energy policy, it appears from the answers to the Issues survey that the development of Illinois coal will be the priority. Overall, 87 percent of the Senate candidates named the greater use of Illinois coal. Some mentioned the need to relax pollution control standards to stimulate the production of coal, while others stressed that coal development must proceed only in a manner that is safe to the environment.

Many candidates answered the question on energy with suggestions for development of more than one resource, including nuclear power, conservation, solar power and gasohol. In fact, a few stressed that the state should avoid dependence on one single energy source. (The candidates' complete answers to this energy question are published in the "List of Senate Candidates.")

The one striking difference between parties on the energy question was that no Democratic candidate named nuclear power while 42 percent of Republican candidates did. In most cases, Republicans that included nuclear power in their answer stressed the "safe" development of this energy source.

Conservation was mentioned nearly as often by Republicans as by Democrats, and specific measures varied from strict enforcement of speed limits to state contract provisions requiring efficient energy use.

Candidates were also asked what their prime legislative goals are if elected November 4. Those answers are listed by each candidate in the "List of Senate Candidates."

— Caroline Gherardini
— John G. Martin

August 1980/Illinois Issues/31