The Tribune Editorial Board, of course, can endorse any political candidate it wants to, including Gov. J.B. Pritzker (“We endorse Pritzker for Illinois governor,” Oct. 11). However, commending him for his COVID-19 response is simply wrong.
Many of his decisions were political and not based on “solid scientific advice,” as the endorsement notes. It also states: “Even among those who did not support him politically, he engendered trust during some of the darkest hours in the history of this great state.”
Did the editorial board actually survey people before making this statement? Pritzker’s decision regarding allowing nursing home residents to suffer and die without family should not be just glossed over.
Illinois provided a terrible response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research ranking states according to the results of their COVID-19 policies ranked Illinois as 46 among all 50 states and the District of Columbia with a grade of F.
Where else can someone with a failing grade be commended and promoted?
— Anthony DiGianfilippo, Hinsdale
No mention of climate change
While I agree with the Tribune Editorial Board’s endorsement of J.B. Pritzker over Darren Bailey, my jaw dropped when I realized that in this time of spiraling environmental disasters, the board made no mention of climate change. It is a huge issue on which the candidates have very different views.
— Doug Burke, Oak Park
Candidate’s lack of experience
I read the Tribune Editorial Board’s nonendorsement of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kathy Salvi (“Tammy Duckworth for US Senate,” Oct. 12), and it seems the biggest detriment to her candidacy is her lack of experience. “But Salvi has never held any elected office,” the editorial laments.
Contrast that with the previous day’s endorsement of Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who had no previous experience holding public office. The editorial showered Pritzker with adulation for the job he has been doing. So it seems lack of experience wasn’t a problem for Pritzker.
It’s too bad the editorial board didn’t give Salvi the benefit of doubt with her lack of experience.
— Tony LaMantia, Chicago
Taking issue with editorial
The Tribune Editorial Board’s effort to sink Amendment 1 on the ballot sickens me (“Vote ‘no’ on Amendment One,” Oct. 10). If I had the time, I’d attack all its misdirection, but let’s just stick to one: “right to work.”
The editorial states: “Individual workers would not be able to choose whether or not they wanted to be a dues-paying member of a union if one was bargaining for them at their workplace.” Our beloved GOP members of the U.S. Supreme Court, who have been tearing down every rightful part of our justice system — remember that abortion used to be a right — have ruled the workers have that right.
Well, just think about it: The union busts its butt to protect workers in their jobs, stands up for workers who are unduly fired, fights for higher wages for the workers — and now the editorial board says workers should be able to get all those services free of charge.
— Lee Knohl, Evanston
Law of unintended consequences
The Tribune Editorial Board editorialized against passage of the proposed state constitutional amendment known as Amendment 1, which would enshrine in the constitution the rights given to workers in existing legislation, plus more.
The editorial board did not mention my primary concern, and that is the law of unintended consequences. If legislation as passed has glitches, the state legislature can make amendments to it. Lawmakers are already doing that with the SAFE-T Act. Presumably those legislative amendments, if passed, can be effective in time to prevent unintended consequences of the literal language of the legislation. It is a relatively simple task to correct existing legislation with amendatory legislation.
But if there are defects in a constitutional provision, the voters must approve any changes, and those would occur only many months or years after the constitutional provision went into effect. Moreover, there may be accrued rights that cannot be changed.
We are already seeing that in the constitutional provision on pensions, which will now cost the state several hundreds of millions of dollars into the future.
There are no real reasons to pass Amendment 1 and many not to pass it.
— Frank L. Schneider, Chicago
Useful view of Amendment 1
Thank you to the Tribune Editorial Board for Monday’s editorial about Amendment 1. I found it much more useful and informative than either of the arguments I keep seeing: “Vote for it because it’s good,” and “Vote against it because property taxes are going up regardless of your vote.”
— Bill Page, Morton Grove
Sending the wrong message
Regarding “Ex-nonprofit leader avoids prison time on fraud charges” (Oct. 12): Exactly when will the judges in this state consistently send the message that stealing, um, misappropriation of public money will get you prison time?
It seems like the only lessons learned here is to be sure to misappropriate funds when you are older, politically connected or ideally both.
— Pat McMillan, Robinson
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
