Amy L. Grant: 2024 candidate for Illinois House District 47

Bio

Party: Republican

Office Sought: Illinois House District 47

City: Wheaton

Age: 69

Occupation: General Assembly Member full time

Previous offices held: DuPage County Board Member

How should the state respond to the influx of migrants bussed here from Southern states?

Chicago and Illinois have designated themselves as “Sanctuary Places.” With no plan or resources to deal with this influx, we now have thousands of migrants taxing an already severely strained Human Services safety net. We don't know who is here or where they are ultimately settling.

Illinoisans and residents of the 47th District are compassionate and generous people, eager to offer assistance to people in need. We need to demand immediately that the Feds stem the tide of illegal border crossings. We need to document who is here and exactly where they are.

We're not prepared to absorb this influx financially. We need to stem the tide, work with private and public sources to provide aid. The effect on the state budget is devastating; adding billions of dollars we did not account for. Every region in the country is now a border area. It's a systemic problem that must be solved first at its source. The state has little power to do anything but cope with this influx.

Are you satisfied with the state's existing ethics policies for senators and representatives? If so, what about the policies should reassure Illinoisans that elected leaders abide by high standards? If not, what changes need to be made?

Ethics policies are already stringent. This has made individuals and political organizations cleverer to discover workarounds and loopholes. Cheaters, cheat.

I'm very much in favor of a strong code of ethics for all elected officials from local boards all the way up to the President of the U.S. to adhere to. Being ethical must start at the onset of every elected position of public trust. Officials should expect to be held to high ethical standards, and accept the responsibility of exhibiting that in public and in private.

Residents and voters should hold their representatives to those higher standards. The standards in place exhibit absolute clarity with regard to the policies and their intent. Adding more rules and policies has proven ineffective. Electing only “rule followers” and “policy obedient” officials is the best cure. No public official should be against being held to higher ethical standards.

Would you support a requirement that election petitions include a line asking candidates for their campaign email address?

Election petitions for me are an opportunity for me to humbly ask people to support me. I've always had a very small group requesting signatures supporting my candidacy for the ballot. I'm not opposed to requiring an email address. Collecting signatures in “less than ideal” weather can be a daunting task. If this policy is to solve the practice of paying circulators for signatures, I'm not sure this is the solution.

Asking for signatures is an opportunity for introducing yourself, or often reintroducing yourself. Any candidate that doesn't take full advantage of the chance to state “Why I'm running?” or “What makes me more qualified?” is missing the best chance to hone their message and reaffirm their commitment for seeking office.

In short, I'm not for or against adding this requirement. It may make acquiring signatures a little longer. On the other hand, if it means candidates would be more active seeking signatures themselves, it might just be to their advantage.

How well do you think criminal justice reforms made in recent years are working? What, if any, changes need to be made?

Election petitions for me are an opportunity for me to humbly ask people to support me. I've always had a very small group requesting signatures supporting my candidacy for the ballot. I'm not opposed to requiring an email address. Collecting signatures in “less than ideal” weather can be a daunting task. If this policy is to solve the practice of paying circulators for signatures, I'm not sure this is the solution.

Asking for signatures is an opportunity for introducing yourself, or often reintroducing yourself. Any candidate that doesn't take full advantage of the chance to state “Why I'm running?” or “What makes me more qualified?” is missing the best chance to hone their message and reaffirm their commitment for seeking office.

In short, I'm not for or against adding this requirement. It may make acquiring signatures a little longer. On the other hand, if it means candidates would be more active seeking signatures themselves, it might just be to their advantage.

We now have an assault weapons ban in Illinois. What if any changes should be made to the law? What more can be done to improve gun safety?

Positive: Body cameras protect police and the public. “No Cash Bail' is an issue of sensitivity in my district. People want to “be safe,” and “feel safe.” The county courts and prison are in the middle of my district. We've seen an increase in violent crime. With No Cash Bail, the likelihood of arrestees returning for trial decreases, and having alleged criminals out of prison leads to more crime. Sentencing guidelines are worthy of review but make penalties more subjective for judges.

This leads to lawyers shopping for judges and criminals shopping for places to commit crimes. Law enforcement in suburban/rural areas were rarely included in the process. My main objection with the legislation was that our very knowledgeable State’s Attorney, Bob Berlin could have provided more qualified input. He offered, he testified, and some improvement was added after the original legislation faced fierce opposition. The sponsors of the bill were not open minded to input as they should have been.

Illinois is the only state in the nation that mandates regular behind-the-wheel tests for senior drivers. Do you support any changes?

Guns are always controversial, making it difficult for rational discussions. Legislation is often initiated in the after a tragedy involving a crime with a firearm, perpetrated by a disturbed person prone to hateful acts. People are rightfully upset by these awful events. 2nd Amendment backers make the case that the right to defend oneself is even more vital in these instances.

Debating this issue in good faith never seems to happen. Differences in densely populated urban areas vs lightly populated rural areas cause deep philosophical divides. We know for a fact Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the country yet still has extremely high violent crime with guns. The answer is not solely gun bans.

It’s time for a firearms summit; planned in advance, with appointees among all stakeholders from all regions of the state. Having this kind of ad hoc panel, not reacting to a tragedy, but facing the issue on its merits may offer a better road to effective gun policy.

What personal qualifications do you bring that would make you an effective legislator?

I would support some changes. The age policy is outdated, as people are living longer, more active and healthier lives. Being aged 75 today is quite different today than from years ago. Many people in this age group are still in the workforce, by choice or need, and their driver's license is vital for their jobs. Ironically, some of those jobs include driving and delivery positions. Many have been driving with few or no moving violations since earning their driver's license.

The fact that we are the ONLY state mandating these tests, suggests we might consider a different metric for this process. At the very least, the age requirements should be revisited and adjusted.

Anecdotally, I can share that my weekly driving trips to Springfield of nearly 200 miles each way offer plenty of chances to witness unsafe driving. It is not seniors who I observe performing reckless maneuvers or texting while driving. Maybe we're testing the wrong demo?