Illinois voters could get a chance this fall to decide whether residents who earn more than $1 million a year should pay more in taxes, as some Democratic lawmakers are trying to convince a supermajority of their colleagues that it will resonate with families squeezed by rising costs.

The millionaire’s tax is one of two proposed constitutional amendments the Illinois House could take up as soon as this week, ahead of a deadline to place questions on the November ballot. The second would reframe how voting maps are drawn for the Illinois General Assembly.

In a party-line vote, the millionaire’s tax was approved by a House committee on Tuesday, and the redistricting amendment was sent to the Senate after the House passed it 74-38 on Wednesday.

The millionaire’s tax amendment proposal would ask voters whether to impose a 3% tax on the portion of individuals’ net income exceeding $1 million, with the proceeds split between property tax relief and public schools. It could raise around $2.2 billion in additional tax revenue, according to estimates.

“On the working families in my district who are struggling to stay in their homes, on the senior who bought their house in the ‘80s when it cost $80,000, that is now valued at $1 million …  The fairest way to offer those families relief is by asking the folks who are doing astronomically better than ever to pay a little bit more,” Democratic state Rep. Will Guzzardi of Chicago said in support of the bill.

The specifics of how the funds would be distributed aren’t outlined, an issue several Republican opponents seized on during Tuesday’s committee debate.

“How do people know what they want if they don’t know what they’re getting?” Republican state Rep. Steve Reick of Woodstock asked at the hearing.

“I think they know if they want a millionaire tax or not,” responded state Rep. La Shawn Ford of Chicago, the chief sponsor of the measure and the Democratic nominee for Congress in the 7th District. Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch is also a sponsor.

Though the legislation to put the bill on the November ballot cleared the committee, it’s unclear how much support it has in the full House or in the Illinois Senate. Under state law, the proposed amendment would have to pass both chambers with supermajority support by May 3 to get on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. Then, voters would decide whether to adopt it.

A nonbinding advisory question asking whether there should be a 3% tax on income exceeding $1 million for property tax relief won with 60% of the vote in 2024.

The measure has echoes of Gov. JB Pritzker’s failed 2020 effort to amend the state constitution to create a graduated income tax structure in Illinois. The 55%-45% vote was one of Pritzker’s most notable political losses since he took office in 2019. It also touches on a push from former Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who has long fought for property tax relief via a constitutional amendment.

But unlike the graduated income tax measure, the millionaire’s tax amendment would apply only to about 32,000 tax filers, Ford said, citing figures from the state’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability.

A billionaire and Hyatt Hotels heir who is eyeing a potential 2028 presidential run, Pritzker has made affordability a centerpiece of his agenda this year. He’s pushed an ambitious housing proposal and a string of other measures aimed at showing the Democratic base he can deliver progressive results in his deep-blue state.

The millionaire’s tax, however, hasn’t been one of them. Pritzker didn’t include the proposal in his list of priorities at the beginning of the legislative session, though he has repeatedly voiced support for the concept of a graduated income tax more broadly.

Asked last month about levying a new tax on millionaires to relieve property taxes, Pritzker deflected much of the blame for high property taxes on local governments but said he believed a millionaire’s tax could alleviate some of the burden.

“Every year, it seems property taxes just go up and up and up, and we’ve got to deal with that problem, and I don’t think it’s just a millionaire’s tax, if that were to happen, that would be the answer,” Pritzker said.

During the debate on Tuesday, Republican opponents questioned how the money could be protected for its stated purposes, and some business groups opposed the potential cost on small business owners.

Small business owners who file taxes under personal income tax returns “could be hit by this surcharge or change, even as larger multinational corporations get a pass,” said Noah Finley, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

Illinois Democrats passed the second constitutional amendment question out of the House on Wednesday, which would enshrine protections for majority-minority districts for the Illinois legislature into law. Welch, the sponsor of the redistricting measure, told lawmakers in the House Executive Committee that the amendment is designed to preempt any potential repeal of the Voting Rights Act by the conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court.

The measure would assign a priority order to several criteria for drawing state House and Senate districts. It requires, in order of priority, that Illinois legislative districts be equal in population; provide equal opportunity regardless of race; have districts with racial minority influence; be contiguous and be compact. Currently, the Illinois constitution only requires districts to be contiguous, compact and equal in population, with none being more important than the other.

“Gutting the Federal Voting Rights Act would be detrimental to how maps are drawn

to create a legislature that looks like this state,” Welch said. “The people of Illinois deserve a legislature that looks like them. They deserve Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Koreans, Vietnamese. They deserve Muslims in the legislature, women leaders.”

The push comes one year after the Illinois Supreme Court sided against state Republicans in their lawsuit challenging the state General Assembly map. The court’s Democratic majority wrote that the plaintiffs waited too long to contest the maps drawn in 2021, but did not address Republican arguments of unconstitutional gerrymandering.

If passed and approved by voters in November, the amendment on majority-minority districts would take effect following the 2030 U.S. census, when districts are redrawn.