If you want to vote before the Tuesday, Nov. 6, election, you first must come to grips with some overlapping and confusing voting options.

Thinking your way through them can feel like pushing thumbtacks in your forehead: Ouch!

The first option, absentee voting, started in late September and runs until Monday, Nov. 5.

Most voters are familiar with these long-established absentee voting procedures. The one big change is you used to need a reason to absentee vote, such as you were going to be out of town. A recent policy change means voters need not have a reason to vote by absentee ballot.

Now for the confusion.

Another option, “early voting,” is under way and runs through Saturday, Nov. 3. Early voting is just what it sounds like — an opportunity to cast your ballot before election day. Started in 2006, the process is very much like in-person absentee voting: You show up at the county clerk’s office, fill out the application and cast your ballot in person.

But there are two differences with “early voting.”

First, you must show a valid photo identification.

Second, there are some different hours.

Now for one more voting option.

If you did not register to vote by the Oct. 9 deadline, but still want to vote in the Nov. 6 election, you can do that, too.

There is an option called “grace-period voter registration.” The process allows you to show up in person at the county clerk’s office where you both register (or process a change of address) and vote in the same visit. That option ends Saturday, Nov. 3, an extended deadline compared to the 2010 schedule. Grace-period voters need to show two forms of identification, at least one of which includes their current address.

No doubt the goal of “early voting” and “grace-period” voting is to make it possible for more citizens to participate in elections. But the system we have now might actually be confusing enough to be counter-productive to that goal.

The good news is there are plenty of voting opportunities. Find the one that fits and use it.

___

Oct. 24, 2012

Rockford Register Star

Proposal won’t fix Illinois pensions, but worth your vote

Pension reform is a critical issue for Illinois, which has the largest unfunded pension liability in the country. There’s a question on the November ballot that deals with pensions, although it will do nothing to fix Illinois’ mess.

However, we still think you should vote yes on the Illinois Public Pension Amendment.

Voters will be asked whether to change the Illinois Constitution to require a three-fifths vote instead of a simple majority when legislators want to increase pension benefits.

It’s unlikely legislators would vote to sweeten pensions in a state that owes $83 billion to its five public pension funds, but it’s better to set a higher threshold.

Illinois will pay more than $632 billion for pension benefits between now and 2045, according to a recent report by the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative government watchdog organization.

Last year’s income tax increase was gobbled up by pensions. If the legislature continues to neglect meaningful reform, pensions will one day consume so much of the budget that there won’t be any money left for education, social services or anything else the state provides.

The governor’s office says that since 2010 the state has cut $2 billion in education spending and $3 billion in social service spending because of the pension obligation.

We wish the amendment would provide meaningful reform, but it does not. The Policy Institute dubs it “fake, do-nothing reform.” Although we agree the effect would be negligible, passage would send a message to lawmakers that voters understand how critical an issue pension reform is and will hold them accountable for the failure to do anything about it.

Critics think the proposed amendment would allow legislators to reduce pensions benefits for current workers or retirees. It does not. However, benefits for current workers or retirees cannot be ignored in pension reform discussions.

There won’t be money for anyone unless the problem is dealt with. A reduced pension would be better than no pension.

That’s a discussion for lawmakers when they reconvene next month. On Nov. 6, vote yes to take a small step toward recognizing that there is a pension problem.

___

Oct. 27, 2012

The (Crystal Lake) Northwest Herald

Message is dire from Illinois budget task force

The numbers aren’t a secret.

Illinois is $9 billion behind in paying its bills.

The state’s public pension systems are underfunded by more than $85 billion.

Unfunded liabilities for health care benefits for public retirees exceed more than $1 trillion.

An analysis of Illinois’ growing fiscal crisis, released Wednesday by the State Budget Crisis Task Force, puts our situation in dire terms.

Despite a Medicaid reform package passed earlier this year and other expense cuts, Illinois remains in a deep fiscal hole. The task force concluded that Illinois “cannot simultaneously continue current services, keep taxes at current levels, provide all promised (public retiree pension and health care) benefits, and make needed investments in education and infrastructure.”

The task force’s analysis is light on specific recommendations. In general terms, it concludes that a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases “probably will be needed.”

It also acknowledges that “pension reform is necessary to salvage the benefits of future retirees.”

We agree that spending cuts and pension reform are vital. Illinois taxpayers are not in a position to give even more, however. Not after last year’s income tax increase. Not after decades of wasteful spending and other mismanagement in Springfield.

Gov. Pat Quinn and members of the Illinois General Assembly have known for years that tough decisions were necessary. Unfortunately for everyone, they continued to put those decisions off.

That can’t happen anymore.

We hope that voters are listening. And after the Nov. 6 election, those elected to office must act.

___

Oct. 25, 2012

The (Springfield) State Journal-Register

Obama visit was worth an unpaid bill

The howling was predictable and partisan at the news that city of Springfield officials were no longer actively seeking to get President Barack Obama’s campaign to pay a four-year-old, $55,500 bill for police protection and other expenses.

Obama was in town on a very hot August day in 2008 to announce that he had chosen then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate on a historic presidential ticket.

Yeah, there’s no question about it. The president of the United States, who will spend hundreds of millions on his two presidential campaigns, is stiffing the city that helped put him on the map.

It’s poor manners. It’s rude. It makes him look like a deadbeat.

It was also worth every penny.

While the city is out $55,500 — or roughly 0.0045 percent of its annual budget — it received publicity worth at least 10 times that from the worldwide audience that saw news coverage online, in print and on television, of the first black nominee of a major party standing outside our most historic building announcing his vice presidential choice.

Regardless of what you think of Obama’s record since then — and this page probably views it more favorably than the tens of thousands who flocked to our website from the Drudge Report on Wednesday — would you take that moment back from Springfield? What about the one that preceded it in 2007 when Obama announced he was running?

We wouldn’t. And the same goes for any presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat. Illinois is no longer a swing state, so the rare visit by a presidential candidate is valuable publicity that our city would not be otherwise receiving.

It’s also worth noting that Obama was the sitting U.S. senator from Illinois at the time and was speaking largely to his constituents. In retrospect, billing him for that may not have been the most polite thing the city could have done, either.

The city, the state and country face tremendous challenges. This is not one of them.