Illinois state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Illinois state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Illinois; a state budget is not the federal budget.
Explore Illinois readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Illinois officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Illinois effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Illinois change.
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
20 of 20 reviewed Illinois actions match · 13 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Illinois stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Illinois has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois · your comparison | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Illinois stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Illinois has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois · your comparison | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Illinois appropriations act.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Illinois stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Illinois has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois · your comparison | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Illinois’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Illinois stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Illinois has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois · your comparison | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Net enacted appropriations across General Funds, other state funds, and federal funds. The total includes operating and capital authority after the official workbook's negative $6.272 billion revolving-funds adjustment.
Shares of the $67.8 billion in taxes reported as general revenue by Illinois's governmental activities. This denominator excludes federal grants, service charges, investment income, business-type activities, and locally collected property taxes.
Audited governmental-activity expenses by public function. This $105.0 billion accounting total excludes the state's separately reported business-type activities and is not the FY2027 appropriations total above.
Audited government-wide activity for Illinois's primary government. Revenue is the sum of all program revenue and general revenue in the Statement of Activities; these are accounting results, not the FY2027 budget.
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Illinois candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
Unfortunately, Margaret Croke will not be the independent check-and-balance taxpayers deserve. She has worked directly for the governor in numerous positions, and he has helped bankroll her campaigns. Croke is a Springfield politician who has voted for the state’s budgets. She will simply be a rubbe…
Unfortunately, Margaret Croke will not be the independent check-and-balance taxpayers deserve. She has worked directly for the governor in numerous positions, and he has helped bankroll her campaigns. Croke is a Springfield politician who has voted for the state’s budgets. She will simply be a rubber stamp, and it’s that lack of accountability that has gotten us into this mess.Bryan Drew — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Margaret has always governed with the belief that fiscal responsibility and protecting vulnerable communities go hand in hand, and she will bring that commitment to fighting for all Illinois families to the Comptroller’s office.
Margaret has always governed with the belief that fiscal responsibility and protecting vulnerable communities go hand in hand, and she will bring that commitment to fighting for all Illinois families to the Comptroller’s office.Margaret Croke — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Taxpayers deserve to see a full picture of where our public money goes with true budget-to-billing transparency. As our Comptroller, Margaret will implement software systems to show the full lifecycle of our dollars from the line item in the state budget to the time the bills are paid and the money …
Taxpayers deserve to see a full picture of where our public money goes with true budget-to-billing transparency. As our Comptroller, Margaret will implement software systems to show the full lifecycle of our dollars from the line item in the state budget to the time the bills are paid and the money is out the door impacting our communities.Margaret Croke — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Darren Bailey knows that hardworking families across Illinois are struggling under the weight of high taxes, rising utility bills, and skyrocketing costs of living. As governor, he will fight to lower taxes, cut wasteful government spending, and bring real fiscal responsibility back to Springfield. …
Darren Bailey knows that hardworking families across Illinois are struggling under the weight of high taxes, rising utility bills, and skyrocketing costs of living. As governor, he will fight to lower taxes, cut wasteful government spending, and bring real fiscal responsibility back to Springfield. Darren will champion policies that put more money back in the pockets of everyday Illinoisans, support small businesses, and attract new jobs to our state. It’s time to make Illinois a place where families can afford to live, work, and thrive again.Darren Bailey — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗
Walk ins for everyone because everyone deserves DMV services; feasibility study for Drive up for the small transactions. Review the budget for waste and spending to allow discounts for Veterans and Seniors.
Walk ins for everyone because everyone deserves DMV services; feasibility study for Drive up for the small transactions. Review the budget for waste and spending to allow discounts for Veterans and Seniors.Diane M. Harris — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Many DMV offices have closed inconveniencing residents. Currently Kiosks exist in just 15 spots, mostly urban, leaving most of Illinois behind. My plan will offer kiosks in areas that are forgotten, speed up the Fast Lane service and update the 1980s systems risk hacks offering modern technology and…
Many DMV offices have closed inconveniencing residents. Currently Kiosks exist in just 15 spots, mostly urban, leaving most of Illinois behind. My plan will offer kiosks in areas that are forgotten, speed up the Fast Lane service and update the 1980s systems risk hacks offering modern technology and innovativeness for all: a unified online portal will streamline services, present drive up services, maintaining cyber security while keeping you and your families data safe. I believe in hard work, high ethical standards, and a servant-minded leadership. Review the 885M spending budget for waste and fraud and bring relief to Veterans and Seniors on their vehicle registrations. Everyone deserves a leader who will put the people first. I'm committed to Faster, Fairer service for all! As your Constitutional Officer, I'm fit for duty and ready to go to work for you!Diane M. Harris — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Conservative leader with proven customer service experience to better meet the needs of the DMV office. Retired Liability Representative from ComEd and small business owner. Currently elected as Joliet Junior College Trustee and 23rd Precinct Committee. She’s also appointed to the Joliet Public Libr…
Conservative leader with proven customer service experience to better meet the needs of the DMV office. Retired Liability Representative from ComEd and small business owner. Currently elected as Joliet Junior College Trustee and 23rd Precinct Committee. She’s also appointed to the Joliet Public Library. Her experience with budgets, management, customer relations, and professionalism prepared her for the roll as Secretary of State. She is ready and committed to serving all Illinoisans with excellence, integrity and will put the people first. She has 3 adult children and one dog.Diane M. Harris — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Illinois candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Illinois legislators and Illinois’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Illinois’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
18 matching sponsorships or proposals · 16 Illinois incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Illinois House · District 85 · D–IL
1 proposalMar 21, 2025 · House: Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee
Rep. Dagmara Avelar · Sponsored
Creates the Community-Based Organization TRUST Act. Provides that, unless presented with a federal criminal warrant, or otherwise required by federal law, a community-based organization that receives grants or any other appropriation from the State shall not provide contact information or information concerning citizenship or immigration status in response to any immigration agent's inquiry or request for information regarding any individual. Provides that the Attorney General shall enforce the provisions of the Act. Provides that the Attorney General may adopt rules to administer and enforce the Act. Effective immediately.
The latest official Illinois General Assembly record shows this action on March 21, 2025: House: Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee.
The official record directly addresses immigration status, immigrant services, asylum, deportation, or immigration enforcement. It does not update or establish an effect on the displayed foreign-born population share.
Retained Illinois evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Provides that, unless presented with a federal criminal warrant, or otherwise required by federal law, a community-based organization that receives grants or any other appropriation from the State shall not provide contact information or information concerning citizenship or immigration status in response to any immigration agent's inquiry or request for information regarding any individual.Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. representative for Illinois, District 7 · D–IL
1 proposalApr 2, 2025 · Introduced
Rep. Danny K. Davis · Sponsored
Grants to improve child care workforce, supply, quality, and access in areas of particular need (a) In general Section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618), as amended by section 2, is further amended by adding at the end the following: (e) Grants To improve child care workforce, supply, quality, and access in areas of particular need (1) In general Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the preceding provisions of this section shall not apply to this subsection. (2) Appropriations (A) In…
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The official record directly addresses wages, income support, employment services, apprenticeships, or workforce development. It does not establish an effect on Illinois's median household income.
Retained Illinois evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Grants to improve child care workforce, supply, quality, and access in areas of particular need (a) In general Section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618), as amended by section 2, is further amended by adding at the end the following: (e) Grants To improve child care workforce, supply, quality, and access in areas of particular need (1) In general Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the preceding provisions of this section shall not apply to this subsection. (2) Appropriations (A) In…Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. representative for Illinois, District 3 · D–IL
1 proposalMay 12, 2025 · Introduced
Rep. Delia C. Ramirez · Sponsored
119 HR 3013 IH: To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the authorization of appropriations for comprehensive service programs for homeless veterans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity.
The official record directly addresses rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, homelessness, or housing supply. It does not establish an effect on Illinois's median gross rent.
Retained Illinois evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
119 HR 3013 IH: To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the authorization of appropriations for comprehensive service programs for homeless veterans.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Illinois House · District 8 · D–IL
1 proposalJan 10, 2023 · House: Session Sine Die
Rep. La Shawn K. Ford · Sponsored
Amends the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Act. Provides that, subject to appropriation, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority shall establish a program to provide grants to law enforcement agencies to equip firearms used in the line of duty by law enforcement officers with laser sights. Provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, law enforcement officers may not purchase a laser sight purchased under the grant program when the law enforcement officer purchases the officer's service firearm after retirement. Provides that a laser sight purchased under this grant program shall be owned by the law enforcement agency that purchases the laser sight. Provides…
The latest official Illinois General Assembly record shows this action on January 10, 2023: House: Session Sine Die.
The official record directly addresses firearms, ammunition, firearm access, carrying, storage, enforcement, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Illinois's firearm mortality count or rate.
Retained Illinois evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Provides that, subject to appropriation, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority shall establish a program to provide grants to law enforcement agencies to equip firearms used in the line of duty by law enforcement officers with laser sights.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Illinois House · District 49 · D–IL
1 proposalJan 7, 2025 · House: Session Sine Die
Rep. Maura Hirschauer · Sponsored
Amends the Reimagine Public Safety Act. Provides that subject to appropriation, the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention shall create an assault weapon and large capacity ammunition feeding device buyback program. Provides that subject to appropriation, the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention shall purchase operable assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices from the owners of those weapons and devices who wish to sell them to the State. Provides that permanently inoperable assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices are ineligible for the buyback program. Provides that the buyback program shall permit the owners of firearms that are not assault…
The latest official Illinois General Assembly record shows this action on January 7, 2025: House: Session Sine Die.
The official record directly addresses firearms, ammunition, firearm access, carrying, storage, enforcement, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Illinois's firearm mortality count or rate.
Retained Illinois evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Provides that subject to appropriation, the Office of Firearm Violence Prevention shall create an assault weapon and large capacity ammunition feeding device buyback program.Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. representative for Illinois, District 8 · D–IL
1 proposalJul 6, 2026 · Introduced
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi · Sponsored
Feasibility study on training programs for stars The Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget, and the head of any other appropriate executive agency shall jointly— (1) conduct a feasibility study regarding resources required to establish a program to provide STAR employees with pathways for acquiring further training and higher education, including fellowships, scholarships, apprenticeships, and tuition assistance, if the employee…
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The official record directly addresses wages, income support, employment services, apprenticeships, or workforce development. It does not establish an effect on Illinois's median household income.
Retained Illinois evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Feasibility study on training programs for stars The Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget, and the head of any other appropriate executive agency shall jointly— (1) conduct a feasibility study regarding resources required to establish a program to provide STAR employees with pathways for acquiring further training and higher education, including fellowships, scholarships, apprenticeships, and tuition assistance, if the employee…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Only current Illinois officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Illinois statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.