Loading record
Issue tracker
Compare sourced statements from candidates and officials in Illinois on license-plate camera networks.
This tracker covers fixed camera networks that log passing vehicles and let agencies search their movements. A warrant rule, a funding pause or a shorter retention period is not the same as a ban, so each statement is placed on the specific remedy the speaker supports. Each position names its speaker and links its source.
Illinois secretary of state
Limit retention and use
This is not about taking useful tools away from law enforcement.
Giannoulias supports continued police use of license-plate readers with enforceable privacy and data-sharing limits.
2
End the network
Ban the cameras or cancel the contract.
8
Restrict it
Cut funding, pause, require warrants, or limit how data is kept and shared.
4
Keep using it
Defend current use as an investigative tool.
Republicans and Democrats both appear on 3 of the 7 steps in Illinois. 14 statements from officials and candidates are counted in Illinois. 1 more is critical without naming a remedy.
Races where more than one candidate has a recorded position, ordered by how far apart the candidates are on the steps above.
Bobby Richardson said the Kendall County Sheriff's Office and many municipalities have license-plate readers and that searching other agencies' cameras should rest on prior permission built on trust between agencies.
Jose Villagrana said people are uneasy about law enforcement gathering information about where they go, questioned whether it amounts to a Fourth Amendment search and said the office should ease back and take a look at its use.
Noonan supported keeping Flock cameras as an investigative tool, while calling for regular audits and limiting access to detectives and supervisors.
Coolidge said he would keep license-plate cameras but impose a zero-tolerance policy for misuse and clear rules for access.
Each statement is placed on the strongest remedy the speaker firmly supports. When a speaker offers alternatives, such as a ban or tighter regulation, the statement is placed on the milder one. A placement describes that statement alone. It does not summarize everything the speaker has said.
Criticism of misuse is not, by itself, a call to end the cameras. Statements that criticize the systems without naming a remedy are listed separately. Companies, advocacy groups and researchers appear for reference and are not counted in the totals.
A candidate or official with no statement on record has no position here. Address results match statewide offices, the U.S. House district, state legislative districts, and city or county offices for the address you enter.
These tracker downloads are licensed under CC BY 4.0. Credit The Dispute Index, link to this tracker and the license, and note any changes. The license covers the downloaded compilation and DI position labels. Case pages, other site text and linked source material have separate rights.
Each camera statement keeps its own remedy label. An empty position means the statement has not been placed. Statements without a specific remedy are labeled separately.
The generation time records when this data snapshot was prepared. For votes, date records the vote date and as_of records the tracker date. For statements, date records when the statement occurred and as_of records when DI first published it. These dates do not mean every source was rechecked then. Empty fields mean the information is not included in this download. Count votes and statements separately; multiple statements can belong to the same person.
