SPRINGFIELD — Though they fell short, advocates for the Invest in Kids tax credit scholarship program should take some pride in their vain attempt to save it.

They pulled out all the stops, from an effective media strategy to a relentless inside game that included the presence of hundreds of schoolchildren in the Capitol last week chanting “save my scholarship” to legislators within earshot. 

It was always going to be an uphill battle, but they made it seem as if the program, which has benefited more than 41,000 low-income students since it was created in 2017, had a real chance at renewal. 

But the program ultimately succumbed to political gravity when lawmakers declined to extend it beyond its scheduled time to sunset at the end of this year. 

“The General Assembly decided against investing in kids,” the leaders of the Save My Scholarship coalition said in a statement. 

The disappointment is understandable. But the outcome was unsurprising. 

The program was created as part of a compromise between then-Gov. Bruce Rauner and state legislative Democrats that paved the way for the former to sign a major school funding reform bill into law in 2017. 

Rauner had wanted a full-scale voucher program, but settled for the scholarship program, which provided a 75% income tax credit to those who donated. The program was capped at $75 million annually. 

It was controversial from the beginning, with progressive lawmakers and powerful allies, most notably the state’s teachers unions, opposing it on ideological grounds, claiming that it siphons money away from public schools.

But there is a difference between now and then. 

In 2017, the state’s governor was a Republican and longtime advocate for school choice. The Democratic legislative leaders were products of Chicago’s once-dominant parochial system.

There was a need for compromise that year. In 2023, not so much. 

Rauner is gone, having lost the 2018 election to Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

While Pritzker said he would sign an extension of the program if it was approved by the legislature, he did not actively push for its renewal. 

Also gone are former House Speaker Michael Madigan and former Senate President John Cullerton. In their wake are expanded supermajorities in the legislature, especially in the House. 

Democrats now have a 78-40 majority in the House, their largest since the 1960s. 

There’s an argument to be made that if House Speaker Chris Welch, D-Hillside, put an extension of Invest in Kids on the board for a vote, it would have enough to pass with all 40 Republicans and just enough Democrats. 

But Welch was insistent that he would not call the bill in the spring unless it had 60 Democrats in support. During the fall veto session, the threshold was raised to 71 Democrats — the amount needed to pass bills post-May 31 that have an immediate effective date. 

Though informal whip counts varied, it was clear that an extension probably had the support of less than half the Democratic caucus. With that, it was never going to be called for a vote. 

So Invest in Kids the program is effectively dead. 

But — and this point too often has gotten lost in the debate — that does not stop wealthy people who have supported this program for the past five years from supporting scholarships for low-income students. 

It won’t be through this program and they will not receive a state income tax break for their donation, but those motivated to support children benefiting from private school scholarships can still do so. 

Or to put it more succinctly, the can keep investing in kids on their own. 

A few more observations from veto session:

Another issue that divided Democrats was the lifting of the state’s 36-year-old moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants. Pritzker vetoed the initial legislation in August amid concerns about the lack of regulatory safeguards and that it would open the door to more than intended.

But unlike Invest in Kids, lawmakers were able to find a compromise that ultimately sailed through the legislature with solid bipartisan majorities. Pritzker has promised to sign the bill. 

The aim of the legislation is to support the construction of small modular reactors, which are about one-third the size of traditional nuclear power plants. The moratorium will not be lifted until 2026. And that’s OK. 

These SMRs could provide cheap, safe, carbon-neutral energy on a small scale, but the earliest they could come online in Illinois is the 2030s due to the lengthy federal permitting process for nuclear. 

“We’re just lifting the ban to allow investments by these companies that are working in this space in this new advanced nuclear technology to say ‘Illinois is open,'” said state Sen. Sue Rezin, R-Morris, the bill’s sponsor. 

Illinois is phasing out coal and natural gas with the goal of 100% clean energy generation by 2050. That won’t be done without nuclear, a key source of carbon-free baseload energy.

Longer term, SMRs could be part of the solution to grid reliability concerns in downstate Illinois. Lifting the moratorium is viewed as a first step. 

Beyond the nuclear moratorium being lifted, it was a quiet veto session in Springfield. 

There was no attempt to override Pritzker’s veto of a bill giving Ameren a “right of first refusal” to build out new transmission lines in downstate Illinois.

Advocates say they will be back in the spring with a new bill that will also include Commonwealth Edison. But as long as Pritzker is opposed to the concept, it will be a tough climb. 

Another bill that did not get a vote was “Karina’s Bill,” which would clear up ambiguity in state law by requiring law enforcement to confiscate firearms when serving an emergency order of protection. 

Karina Gonzales of Chicago and her 15-year-old daughter were fatally shot, allegedly by her husband, just days after an order of protection was granted against him. 

Currently, a person’s FOID card is revoked when an order of protection is issued against them, but that does not always lead to their guns being taken away.

This issue will likely be back during the spring session, as will be the debate over how to transition Chicago to a fully-elected school board. Senate and House Democrats are divided on that. They have until April to figure it out.

At issue is whether to stick to a hybrid approach — elect 10 members in 2024 with 11 being appointed by Mayor Brandon Johnson before a full transition to a elected board in 2026 — or elect all members in 2024.

House Democrats support the former and Senate Democrats the latter.

The Chicago Teachers Union, which supported a fully-elected board a few years ago, prefers the House’s hybrid approach. Their lack of urgency is not surprising — their handpicked mayor will be the one appointing half the board. 

Either way, it should make for an interesting spring session.

Speaking of that, the legislature released their calendar for the spring session. They will be back in Springfield Jan. 16 with a scheduled adjournment date of May 24.