Illinois labor leaders claimed their push to enshrine public union supremacy in the Illinois Constitution was the “blueprint” for other states. Now both California and Pennsylvania are following Illinois’ lead.

Pennsylvania’s House Bill 950 is worded exactly like Illinois’ Amendment 1. Illinois labor leaders recently claimed Illinois’ amendment is the “blueprint” for other states, such as Pennsylvania.

The Wall Street Journal, Crain’s Chicago Business, Chicago Tribune, Daily Herald and News-Gazette all said voters should say ‘no’ to Amendment 1. They see it as giving government unions power to force higher taxes and weaker laws.

Down to the wire, and three myths are still being pushed by 'Workers' Rights Amendment' advocates. Affects all workers? False. Other states do it? False. Won't increase property taxes? False.

Former Democratic Chicago Ald. Michele Smith said she recommends a ‘no’ vote on Amendment 1. She said the Illinois Constitution doesn’t need another restriction to keep state lawmakers from fixing the state.

Proponents of Amendment 1 claim it applies to all workers, mimics other state constitutions and would help the economy. Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.

Despite proponents’ claims, the rights outlined in Amendment 1 cannot apply to non-government employees. U.S. Supreme Court precedent already makes that clear. So did the proposal’s Illinois Senate sponsor.

A constitutionally required pamphlet intended to inform voters about Amendment 1 includes misleading and inaccurate claims. It fails to alert voters what they are really voting on, which is a property tax increase.

Illinois government unions admit spending very little on representing workers – the core purpose of a union. Maybe that’s why so many government workers are leaving the unions. Now government union bosses want taxpayers to pay for union failures.

An Illinois appellate court cleared the way for Amendment 1 to stay on the Nov. 8 ballot. Regardless of whether the change to the state constitution might violate the U.S. Constitution, the process for putting it on the ballot was valid, justices ruled.