How wealth and race shape who decides property tax referendums
The big picture: " Voter Turnout, Race, Income and the Fate of Property Tax Referendums" was the first study by Treasurer Maria Pappas' office that compared income, race and homeownership status in relation to referendum voter turnout.
Average turnout last year for tax-related referendums was about 46%.
But for voters with median household income less than the county median of $81,800, turnout was only 34%. Turnout jumped to nearly 63% for voters with median household incomes over $150,000.
Between the lines: Referendum voting is lower than overall turnout as voters often skip the measures because of lack of information or not being impacted by the outcome.
State of play: Last year, Cook County voters were asked to weigh in on 35 property tax-related referendums, 30 of which were tax increases. Voters approved 26 measures.
Several asked voters to borrow above state limits to improve parks, schools and a new library, and nearly all of those measures passed.
Smaller municipalities are limited by state law in how much they can increase property taxes, but voters in south suburban Robbins and Palos and west suburban Riverside passed measures that would allow a hike.
Voters in suburban Thornton Township voted against raising property taxes to fund mental health care, but Chicago voters approved two new mental health care programs through a 0.025% increase.
Zoom in: One of the most well-known referendums on the primary ballot was Mayor Brandon Johnson's "Bring Chicago Home" initiative, which would have raised transfer taxes on properties that sold for over $1 million to help address homelessness. It failed.
Wealthier property owners would have been most adversely affected by the measure, and more higher-income voters weighed in during the primary than lower-income voters.
Another case in point: In south suburban Robbins, fewer than 73% of residents are homeowners and the median household income is less than $38,000, compared to over 97% home ownership in North Shore Kenilworth, which has a median household income over $250,000.
Robbins had one of the lowest turnouts in last year's primary (14%) while Kenilworth had one of the highest (33.5%).
By the numbers: Average voter turnout in majority white taxing districts was 55% in last year's elections, compared to 33% in Black-majority and 29% in Hispanic or Latino.
Average referendum turnout was about 46%, up from 34% over the previous four years. This jump was despite Cook County last year having its lowest turnout for a presidential election in more than 30 years.
What's next: There's a consolidated election on April 1 with eight property-related referendums on the ballot, including an increase in taxes for mental health services in Palatine and taking on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt in several western suburbs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
8 hours ago
- USA Today
I'm a Democrat who left Texas. New GOP maps will silence Latino voters.
I joined my fellow Texas Democrats in leaving the state to deny Republicans the required quorum they need to pass manipulated congressional maps. This summer, Texas tragically lost more than 135 of our neighbors, many of them children, to the devastating July 4 floods. In the wake of that heartbreak, Texans deserved leadership, compassion and action. Instead, Texas Republicans are exploiting the tragedy to launch a blatant and calculated power grab. They've hijacked what should be a special legislative session focused on helping grieving survivors to instead do the bidding of President Donald Trump and push through new congressional maps − a process normally conducted every 10 years after the Census. This isn't just political opportunism. It's an insult to the people who lost their lives and the communities still suffering. This is also a test. In 2024, Democrats nationwide took the Latino vote for granted and paid for it. We can't afford to make that mistake again. We must be clear about what's really happening in Texas now. Republicans are using Latino voters as political pawns. Latino voices, electoral power and ability to fully participate in our democracy are under threat. Democrats must stand up and show that we will not allow them to be silenced without a fight. Texas and national Republicans know the math. They understand that Latinos are now the largest population in our state, and that Texas elections have national consequences for the balance of power in Washington. A redistricting primer: Texas Democrats face their Alamo with new GOP congressional map Rather than work to earn more Latino votes, Republicans, at the direction of President Donald Trump, are instead tactfully carving them out of districts, dividing up their communities and working to silence their influence. Let's be clear:These proposed maps are designed to entrench Republican power, pad the party's slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and rig future elections. They are not a reflection of the will of the people, nor based on any new census data. Republicans' hidden agenda isn't so hidden In Austin, for example, we're seeing the impact firsthand. The maps would eliminate the Latino opportunity district, robbing a diverse, civically engaged city of fair representation at a time when our population has soared. Austin would be forced into a newly drawn Republican district stretching hundreds of miles to east Texas. Similar scenarios would play out across south Texas, Houston and Dallas, where millions of Latinos live. These new Republican maps send a message to Latino voters − and voters in general − that their voices don't matter. As Democrats, we can't wait for an election cycle to speak out and act with conviction. It's not enough to oppose these maps. We must fight for a Texas, and a country, where every voter, in every neighborhood, has an equal voice. After all, a hallmark of a thriving American democracy is that voters choose their elected leaders − not the other way around. Opinion: Texas Democrats know they're fighting a losing cause. At least they're fighting. As chair of the Progressive Caucus' redistricting effort, I've led these fights before, and I'm prepared to do it again. As a Latina and proud daughter of the Rio Grande Valley, I refuse to sit back while Republican leaders silence our communities, try to erase Latino political power and rig our democracy behind closed doors. That's why I joined my fellow Texas Democrats, as I did in 2021, in leaving the state, denying Republicans the required quorum they need to pass these manipulated maps. They've left us no choice. I must do everything in my power to stand up for my constituents and all Texans. That includes not letting these maps get a vote on the floor to begin with. If it can happen in Texas, it can happen elsewhere I believe we have the power − and the people − on our side to stop this shameful scheme. Texans must be willing to show up at hearings, share their stories, and demand transparency and fairness in this process. We need Democrats nationwide to see this moment as a front-line voting rights battle. It's not just another local fight. Because if Republicans make Texas their blueprint, what's to stop them from doing this in other states? Latino voters have seen this play out before. Politicians come around every few years talking a big game about representation, then disappear until the next election cycle. It has to end. The way we fight now with these maps will determine whether we earn the right to ask for Latinos to vote for us later. This moment is how Democrats can start to regain trust with Latino voters, and all communities of color. That means the stakes are high, but so is the opportunity. This is not just a fight about maps. It's a fight about who counts, and who has power in our democracy. History has its eyes on us, and it will remember who met this moment with resolve to win. And who stayed silent. Democratic Rep. Gina Hinojosa chairs the Texas House Progressive Caucus' redistricting effort.
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows How Donald Trump's Approval Rating Has Changed in States He Lost
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. President Donald Trump's approval rating is negative in all of the states he lost in the November election and his popularity has declined further in each one during his second administration. According to polling by Civiqs, which has compiled survey responses in all U.S. states throughout the president's term, Trump's approval rating is declining among those who did not vote for him in the last election, suggesting he is not winning over previous dissenters. Using this data, Newsweek has created a map showing the president's approval ratings in states he lost. Why It Matters Trump's popularity has fluctuated in the first six-plus months of his term in the Oval Office. In particular, some key policy issues, including tariffs and the administration's handling of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's case, have caused some voters to turn against the president. Securing votes from all states in the nation will be important when voters head to the midterms in November 2026, particularly in swing states where every vote matters. What To Know The state in which Trump's approval rating is the most positive among those he lost is Maine, where it sits at -18, though it was better in January, which showed -7 percent. Conversely, the state where he has the least support is Hawaii. In January, his approval rating there was net -43 but has since declined to -53 percent. In some states, his decline has been stark. His approval rating has declined from -19 to -30 in Connecticut, a drop of 11 percentage points. In Vermont, his rating has fallen by 10 percentage points. In New York and New Jersey, his approval rating has barely changed. He has dropped by just 1 percent in these states, meaning his approval rating there is -27 and -24, respectively. This comes after Newsweek analysis revealed that Trump's approval rating is positive in 18 of the states he won in the 2024 election, and negative in 13. National polls show that Trump's approval rating is generally underwater. A survey conducted by Quantus Insights from July 21 to July 23 among 1,123 registered voters showed his rating stands at 47 percent, while 50 percent disapprove. According to the YouGov polling for British newspaper The Times, the proportion of people who disapprove of Trump's job performance has increased from 52 percent in April to 57 percent in July. Other polls paint a more positive picture. One suggested the proportion of college-educated voters who approve of the president's job performance has increased since June. Another showed Trump gaining more traction with Hispanic voters, a crucial demographic that traditionally supports Democratic candidates. What People Are Saying Speaking to Newsweek previously, Mark Shanahan, who teaches U.S. politics at the University of Surrey in the U.K., said: "The GOP is now so wholly wrapped up in the president's fortunes that if he continues to poll so poorly over the next 16 months, it's bound to have an effect on Republican candidates' fortunes. Not releasing the Epstein files is playing very badly with the MAGA base - not least because when he was on the campaign trail, 47 said repeatedly that he would release them. Now, seemingly because he knows the content, he's distinctly more circumspect. The longer this saga rumbles on, the more it will nip at the heels of all GOP candidates. If Trump loses the trust of his base, it will mean trouble for his political acolytes. All they currently have going for them is that Democrats remain rudderless and in disarray." What Happens Next Trump's approval rating is likely to change throughout the remainder of his presidency. His popularity will be tested in earnest when voters head to the midterms in November 2026.
Boston Globe
16 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Democrats disagree (again). This time, it's about school vouchers.
States will have the ability to opt in or out, presenting Democratic governors with a difficult decision, and one that competing advocacy groups are trying to influence. Democrats for Education Reform, a group closely affiliated with veterans of the Obama administration, has become a leading voice urging the party to cross what has long been a red line, and embrace some forms of private school choice — including the Trump program. The group has prominent allies, including Arne Duncan, who served as secretary of education under President Obama. Duncan is working for the group as a consultant. But the group's new stance in favor of vouchers is provocative within the party — so much so that two former leaders of the organization have quit and are creating a rival group that will oppose vouchers, while supporting other forms of school choice. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's private school choice program is funded by a federal tax credit, and will offer families of most income levels scholarships that can be used for private school tuition, tutoring or other education expenses. Advertisement The group's chief executive, Jorge Elorza, a former mayor of Providence, has argued vouchers are popular with many of the working-class Black and Latino voters who tilted toward Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and whom Democrats are desperate to win back. Advertisement This past weekend, Elorza traveled to a Democratic Governors Association meeting in Madison, Wisc., to make his case. He has been pointing to a provision in Trump's budget bill that will potentially allow the voucher dollars to be spent on not only private school tuition, but also tutoring or exam fees for students enrolled in traditional public schools. He called opting into the program 'a no-brainer.' 'This is literally free money,' he said, 'that is broadly supported by the majority of voters who have steadily drifted away from the party. It just makes sense.' It could be difficult to convince Democratic governors. Many are closely allied to teachers unions, which have resisted vouchers for decades. The unions argue vouchers leech students and dollars from public education. 'Vouchers are a vehicle to abandon public education,' said Randi Weingarten, the influential president of the American Federation of Teachers, the nation's second-largest teachers' union. In line with the unions, many Democratic politicians have focused their arguments on protecting public school funding. They are also intent on fighting Trump's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and end racial equity efforts. In a sign of just how fractured Democrats are, a third camp is emerging, situated somewhere between the reform group and the unions. Two former staff members of the group are starting a political action committee and a think tank that will reject vouchers while continuing to push for the expansion of the public charter school sector — schools that are publicly funded, but independently run, and are typically not unionized. The groups will also support other ways for parents to exercise choice, such as making it easier for students to attend public schools outside of their residential zones, and they will push for all schools to be held accountable for student learning outcomes. The political action committee, the Center for Strong Public Schools Action Fund, will support candidates who align with those stances, especially in the South. Advertisement Alisha Thomas Searcy, one of the founders, previously served as the rerform group's regional president for the South, and is a former Georgia Democratic state legislator and charter school executive. Her partner in the new venture, Garry Jones, previously served as the group's political director in Texas. Searcy and Jones split with the group after experiencing legislative battles over private school choice in Georgia and Texas, which are among 18 Republican-leaning states that now offer education savings accounts. These accounts are a type of flexible private school voucher that allows parents to spend taxpayer dollars on private education, for-profit virtual learning, tutoring and homeschooling. Searcy declined to name the funders of the new political action group and think tank. She said they will offer 'a bold, clear vision as Democrats, to show that we are the party that protects public education from those privatization and other attacks, and demands that it work for every student.' Democrats who do support private school choice — including those in the coalition — are looking expectantly toward some of the younger moderate governors in the party, several of whom are being discussed as potential presidential candidates in 2028. Maryland Governor Wes Moore is one of them. In a statement, a spokesperson said the governor was still evaluating the new federal voucher program. A spokesperson for Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who has supported school choice in the past, said his administration was also reviewing the program, and pointed out that it does not go into effect until 2027. Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
