YES: The Crime Victim Bill is supported by Human Rights Watch:
Since its early growth in the 1970s, the crime victims' movement in the United States has successfully pushed for protection of victims' rights in state and federal legislation as well as through constitutional amendments and court decisions. As of 2007, all 50 states have statutes protecting victims' rights, and 33 states have amended their constitutions to enhance and protect victims' rights. ...Legislation and court decisions, however, have provided at best inconsistent protection for victims' rights. First, some state laws have not clarified whether victims of crime can take action to enforce their rights, and if they do take action, what remedies they have. Second, it is often costly for victims to retain counsel in order to seek remedies for rights violations. Third, victims and legal professionals may not be aware of victims' rights laws or the means by which they can be enforced.
Enforcement has also been a problem. As one advocate told Human Rights Watch
All 50 states have passed victims' rights laws. But there's not enough enforcement. For example, in Illinois it's required that all victims' rights are posted in every courthouse in the state. But they are not. Some judges are saying "I don't want to upset the defendants" and so they're refusing to comply. So, there are a lot of things that are written in principle in constitutions across the states that are not being done
YES: The millionaire tax helps all the schoolsI had to read this text a few times but that's what it says:
Should the Illinois Constitution be amended to require that each school district receive additional revenue, based on their number of students, from an additional 3% tax on income greater than one million dollars?
NO: The phrasing of the medical cannabis question is not to be trustedI personally don't smoke, and considering the reputation of California weed, I'm wary of encouraging others to smoke. But this is irrelevant. According to the Annals of Epidemiology, there is no evidence medical marijuana turns everyone into junkies, and in fact, legalizing medical cannabis reduces its use among adolescents.
Even once you make up your mind, the tricky wording in the referendum might have you fooled. The words "local municipality" seem positive. But in effect this could spell the end of medical marijuana. Because this is what happened in some in Oregon:
According to the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and drugs, there isn't evidence that dispensaries create crime, so the only reason to push this onto the municipalities is to un-legalize it.
A research study in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs found that medical cannabis is used to treat variety of conditions including chronic pain, migraines and AIDS-related problems. Denying it to people who are suffering then becomes a pointless attack on the sick. Not a nice thing to do to do.