Representative Mike Quigley's Political Positions

Office: U.S. House (IL) - District 5, Democratic
Project Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.
Mike Quigley has refused to provide voters with positions on key issues covered by the 2014 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests. Mike Quigley is still welcome to submit the test at any time.

What is the Political Courage Test?

This candidate has demonstrated 0% courage during the test.

*Note: This percentage is calculated based on the number of issue areas addressed by the candidate on the Political Courage Test at the conclusion of the testing period. It does not indicate support or lack of support by Project Vote Smart.

Issue Positions

In response to the increasing unwillingness of candidates to answer issue questions, Project Vote Smart has researched Presidential and Congressional candidates' public records to determine candidates' likely responses on certain key issues. These are provided below as a courtesy to voters.

Vote Smart's Research

  • Planned Parenthood. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Family Research Council. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • National Right to Life Committee. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2012 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. H Amdt 509. 111th Congress. Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 11/07/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Planned Parenthood endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2012 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Planned Parenthood endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. H Amdt 95. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds For Planned Parenthood. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 02/18/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 3. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding of Abortion. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 05/04/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Family Research Council. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • National Right to Life Committee. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. NARAL Pro-Choice America endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2012 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. H Amdt 509. 111th Congress. Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 11/07/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Planned Parenthood endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2012 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Planned Parenthood endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. H Amdt 95. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds For Planned Parenthood. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 02/18/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 3. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding of Abortion. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 05/04/2011. (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. OP-Ed - Eliminating bad tax expenditures is key to financial sustainability. 30 September 2010. "If tax expenditures are working, they should be kept. But if they are ineffective or even counter-productive, they must be adjusted, replaced with a direct spending alternative, or eliminated. Americans feel the effects of tax expenditures everyday--through higher taxes. Eliminating bad tax expenditures that benefit special interest groups would mean that we could lower income taxes for all Americans, without raising revenue." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Chicago Tribune “ Questionnaire. 9 February 2009. "No taxes should be raised during a recession. The residents of Cook County are already being hurt by the record taxes from Todd Stroger -- the tax hike that I have fought as County Commissioner." (votesmart.org)
  • National Taxpayers Union. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported reasonable tax and spending policies as defined by the National Taxpayers Union 7 percent of the time in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Calls For Smarter, Safer Spending. 3 February 2010. "I agree with President Obama that we must extend middle-class tax cuts, but end the support for those making over $250,000 a year." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. OP-Ed - Eliminating bad tax expenditures is key to financial sustainability. 30 September 2010. "If tax expenditures are working, they should be kept. But if they are ineffective or even counter-productive, they must be adjusted, replaced with a direct spending alternative, or eliminated. Americans feel the effects of tax expenditures everyday--through higher taxes. Eliminating bad tax expenditures that benefit special interest groups would mean that we could lower income taxes for all Americans, without raising revenue." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Chicago Tribune “ Questionnaire. 9 February 2009. "No taxes should be raised during a recession. The residents of Cook County are already being hurt by the record taxes from Todd Stroger -- the tax hike that I have fought as County Commissioner." (votesmart.org)
  • National Taxpayers Union. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported reasonable tax and spending policies as defined by the National Taxpayers Union 7 percent of the time in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Calls For Smarter, Safer Spending. 3 February 2010. "I agree with President Obama that we must extend middle-class tax cuts, but end the support for those making over $250,000 a year." (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. HR 5297. 112th Congress. Small Business Lending Fund and Tax Law Amendments. Mike Quigley voted Yea on 09/23/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Prosperity. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • The Club for Growth. 04/18/2012. "On the votes used to calculate its ratings, The Club for Growth attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2010, The Club for Growth gave Mike Quigley a rating of 0 percent." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 5297. 112th Congress. Small Business Lending Fund and Tax Law Amendments. Mike Quigley voted Yea on 09/23/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Prosperity. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • The Club for Growth. 04/18/2012. "On the votes used to calculate its ratings, The Club for Growth attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2010, The Club for Growth gave Mike Quigley a rating of 0 percent." (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. Chicago Tribune: Editorial Board Questionnaire. 1 November 2011. "The administration has done an excellent job so far promoting educational reforms and laying the groundwork for the reauthorization of a reformed No Child Left Behind Act. For example, the Race to the Top program illustrates how the Federal government can use its resources to incentivize states to hold themselves to a higher standard and implement unprecedented reforms. The reforms motivated by Race to the Top are desperately needed. Students in America used to test better than any other students in the world but now ranked against European children America is on par with Lithuania--behind 10 other nations. Studies suggest that the quality of teachers is the single most important factor affecting student performance; so as we strive to improve student achievement, teachers must be held accountable for the outcomes of their students. While teachers should be evaluated based on a variety of criteria including class room observation, test scores must be taken into consideration." (general2010.elections.chicagotribune.com)
  • Mike Quigley. U.S. House, Dist. 5: Mike Quigley. "Race to the Top is one the most innovative and effective education tools the Federal Government has ever developed. What the first round of distributed funds has shown us is that, with a large enough pool of funds, we can actually incentivize states to hold themselves to a higher standard and implement significant education reforms. Two of the most important elements of education reform supported by Race to the Top are unified national standards and the development and use of student test data to evaluate teachers. As we learned under the current No Child Left Behind law, without national standards we are faced with a race to the bottom where states lower their standards in order to reach superficial goals. The development of core national standards is a must, and Race to the Top moves states toward adopting these standards by giving more points, and therefore funds, to those who do." (www.suntimes.com)
  • Mike Quigley. Chicago Tribune: Editorial Board Questionnaire. 1 November 2011. "The administration has done an excellent job so far promoting educational reforms and laying the groundwork for the reauthorization of a reformed No Child Left Behind Act. For example, the Race to the Top program illustrates how the Federal government can use its resources to incentivize states to hold themselves to a higher standard and implement unprecedented reforms. The reforms motivated by Race to the Top are desperately needed. Students in America used to test better than any other students in the world but now ranked against European children America is on par with Lithuania--behind 10 other nations. Studies suggest that the quality of teachers is the single most important factor affecting student performance; so as we strive to improve student achievement, teachers must be held accountable for the outcomes of their students. While teachers should be evaluated based on a variety of criteria including class room observation, test scores must be taken into consideration." (general2010.elections.chicagotribune.com)
  • Mike Quigley. U.S. House, Dist. 5: Mike Quigley. "Race to the Top is one the most innovative and effective education tools the Federal Government has ever developed. What the first round of distributed funds has shown us is that, with a large enough pool of funds, we can actually incentivize states to hold themselves to a higher standard and implement significant education reforms. Two of the most important elements of education reform supported by Race to the Top are unified national standards and the development and use of student test data to evaluate teachers. As we learned under the current No Child Left Behind law, without national standards we are faced with a race to the bottom where states lower their standards in order to reach superficial goals. The development of core national standards is a must, and Race to the Top moves states toward adopting these standards by giving more points, and therefore funds, to those who do." (www.suntimes.com)

Vote Smart's Research

Vote Smart's Research

  • League of Conservation Voters. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 2454. 111th Congress. Energy and Environmental Law Amendments ("Cap and Trade"). Mike Quigley voted Yea on 06/26/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Sierra Club. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Sierra Club endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 910. 112th Congress. Energy Tax Prevention Act. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 04/07/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • League of Conservation Voters. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 2454. 111th Congress. Energy and Environmental Law Amendments ("Cap and Trade"). Mike Quigley voted Yea on 06/26/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Sierra Club. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Sierra Club endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 910. 112th Congress. Energy Tax Prevention Act. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 04/07/2011. (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Honored for Fighting for Common-sense Gun Control. 20 October 2010. "It is an honor to be recognized and I thank the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence for the work they do each and every day to keep our communities free of gun violence...It is vital to the safety of our neighborhoods, as well as our national security that we start enforcing the laws on the books, by closing the gun show loophole and preventing suspected terrorists from buying weapons. We also have to invest more in proven, community-based solutions to reduce violence and give our children a chance to live in peace." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Reclaiming the Middle Ground on Gun Ownership. 28 June 2010. "Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court affirmed sensible restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. When the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's gun ban earlier today, it reiterated that communities can keep guns away from schools and out of the hands of felons and terrorists. But, today, the gun show loophole makes a mockery of sensible prohibitions like these." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Video: Rep. Mike Quigley on the chances of passing gun control legislation. 14 January 2011. "Well the Supreme Court did rule last summer that there were 2nd amendment rights, but it didn't say they were unlimited. It basically said not everyone can get a gun, and they can't get any gun they want or take it anywhere they want. Well they were alluding to people who might be dangerously mentally ill or terrorists or people who are felons...I basically think they were saying there are limitations that local governments could put in place. I'd like to see the federal government do some of those." starting at 1:27. (www.pbs.org)
  • Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. The Chicago Sun-Times: Congress Must Act to Close Gaps, Strengthen Gun Laws. 13 March 2011. "Americans across the country from Fort Hood to campuses in DeKalb and Blacksburg to the Pentagon and Columbine continue to wonder how dangerous individuals have access to such deadly weapons. The answer is that Congress has refused to embrace a common-sense, life-saving middle ground on gun control that protects citizens while respecting the Second Amendment. When the Supreme Court recently recognized a constitutional right to own a gun in the home, it eliminated the National Rifle Association's tired fund-raising argument that any gun control regulation is a precursor to revoking all gun-owning rights. But it also made the critical distinction that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right. In the interest of public welfare, communities can keep guns away from schools and out of the hands of terrorists, felons and the mentally ill." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. When Will Congress Take A Stand On Gun Control? 23 February 2010. "This Congress has allowed unlicensed gun dealers to sell guns at gun shows to people on terrorist watch lists and refuses to reauthorize the assault weapon ban. Congress has failed to hold the middle ground on guns. Blair Holt was willing to take a bullet to protect a stranger. Is it too much to ask this House to take a tough vote to protect our kids?" (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. U.S. Representatives Convene Chicago Forum on Gun Show Loophole. 19 August 2010. "It has been law in the United States since 1993 that there are three groups of people who should never be allowed to buy guns in this country: terrorists, felons, and the mentally ill [¦] Yet inexplicably any of them can walk into a gun show tomorrow and buy a firearm. Each gun sale performed without a background check in states like Indiana undermines law enforcement in Illinois, and contributes to the epidemic of illegal guns that is decimating our city." (votesmart.org)
  • letter: (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Honored for Fighting for Common-sense Gun Control. 20 October 2010. "It is an honor to be recognized and I thank the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence for the work they do each and every day to keep our communities free of gun violence...It is vital to the safety of our neighborhoods, as well as our national security that we start enforcing the laws on the books, by closing the gun show loophole and preventing suspected terrorists from buying weapons. We also have to invest more in proven, community-based solutions to reduce violence and give our children a chance to live in peace." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Reclaiming the Middle Ground on Gun Ownership. 28 June 2010. "Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court affirmed sensible restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. When the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's gun ban earlier today, it reiterated that communities can keep guns away from schools and out of the hands of felons and terrorists. But, today, the gun show loophole makes a mockery of sensible prohibitions like these." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Video: Rep. Mike Quigley on the chances of passing gun control legislation. 14 January 2011. "Well the Supreme Court did rule last summer that there were 2nd amendment rights, but it didn't say they were unlimited. It basically said not everyone can get a gun, and they can't get any gun they want or take it anywhere they want. Well they were alluding to people who might be dangerously mentally ill or terrorists or people who are felons...I basically think they were saying there are limitations that local governments could put in place. I'd like to see the federal government do some of those." starting at 1:27. (www.pbs.org)
  • Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence endorsed Mike Quigley in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. The Chicago Sun-Times: Congress Must Act to Close Gaps, Strengthen Gun Laws. 13 March 2011. "Americans across the country from Fort Hood to campuses in DeKalb and Blacksburg to the Pentagon and Columbine continue to wonder how dangerous individuals have access to such deadly weapons. The answer is that Congress has refused to embrace a common-sense, life-saving middle ground on gun control that protects citizens while respecting the Second Amendment. When the Supreme Court recently recognized a constitutional right to own a gun in the home, it eliminated the National Rifle Association's tired fund-raising argument that any gun control regulation is a precursor to revoking all gun-owning rights. But it also made the critical distinction that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right. In the interest of public welfare, communities can keep guns away from schools and out of the hands of terrorists, felons and the mentally ill." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. When Will Congress Take A Stand On Gun Control? 23 February 2010. "This Congress has allowed unlicensed gun dealers to sell guns at gun shows to people on terrorist watch lists and refuses to reauthorize the assault weapon ban. Congress has failed to hold the middle ground on guns. Blair Holt was willing to take a bullet to protect a stranger. Is it too much to ask this House to take a tough vote to protect our kids?" (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. U.S. Representatives Convene Chicago Forum on Gun Show Loophole. 19 August 2010. "It has been law in the United States since 1993 that there are three groups of people who should never be allowed to buy guns in this country: terrorists, felons, and the mentally ill [¦] Yet inexplicably any of them can walk into a gun show tomorrow and buy a firearm. Each gun sale performed without a background check in states like Indiana undermines law enforcement in Illinois, and contributes to the epidemic of illegal guns that is decimating our city." (votesmart.org)
  • letter: (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • American Public Health Association. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 2. 112th Congress. Repealing the Health Care Bill. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 01/19/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Statement on House Resolution to Restrict Reproductive Health Care. 20 January 2011. "The repeal of health care reform would be a step backward for patients across America." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Issue Position: Health Care. 1 November 2011. "Congressman Quigley is proud to support the historic health care reform package that will extend health care coverage to 32 million Americans including 70,000 of his constituents. He believes that comprehensive health care reform is vital to our citizens and future prosperity of the nation. Although the health care bills passed by Congress will go a long way toward mending our broken system, Mike knows that this is just the beginning of its reform." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Issue Position: Health. 1 November 2011. "First and foremost, Mike Quigley knows we need an overhaul of our health insurance system that will provide affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. This can be accomplished by building upon-not tearing down-our preexisting healthcare system, while utilizing the doctors, providers and plans already in place. Government needs to step in to provide solutions for those who lack full coverage, while not disrupting care for those who are satisfied with their current plan. Mike Quigley will work to support President Obama's initiative to provide a range of affordable private insurance options based on the same benefits that he would receive as a member of Congress." (votesmart.org)
  • American Public Health Association. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 2. 112th Congress. Repealing the Health Care Bill. Mike Quigley voted Nay on 01/19/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Statement on House Resolution to Restrict Reproductive Health Care. 20 January 2011. "The repeal of health care reform would be a step backward for patients across America." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Issue Position: Health Care. 1 November 2011. "Congressman Quigley is proud to support the historic health care reform package that will extend health care coverage to 32 million Americans including 70,000 of his constituents. He believes that comprehensive health care reform is vital to our citizens and future prosperity of the nation. Although the health care bills passed by Congress will go a long way toward mending our broken system, Mike knows that this is just the beginning of its reform." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Issue Position: Health. 1 November 2011. "First and foremost, Mike Quigley knows we need an overhaul of our health insurance system that will provide affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. This can be accomplished by building upon-not tearing down-our preexisting healthcare system, while utilizing the doctors, providers and plans already in place. Government needs to step in to provide solutions for those who lack full coverage, while not disrupting care for those who are satisfied with their current plan. Mike Quigley will work to support President Obama's initiative to provide a range of affordable private insurance options based on the same benefits that he would receive as a member of Congress." (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. HR 5281. 112th Congress. DREAM Act. Mike Quigley voted Yea on 12/08/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Federation for American Immigration Reform. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Federation for American Immigration Reform. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 5281. 112th Congress. DREAM Act. Mike Quigley voted Yea on 12/08/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. Cong. Quigley Stands with Key LGBT Leaders to Introduce ENDA. 25 June 2009. "I echo the sentiments of President Lincoln when I say that in the end, we simply must do what's right, what's just, and what's fair...The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a watershed piece of legislation, not only for the GLBT community, but for the country as a whole. When we discriminate against one, we discriminate against all of us, and our United States suffer unless we are all equal. I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation and end discrimination in all of its forms." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Statement on Ruling that Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional. 4 August 2010. "Today's decision proves what I have known for a long time: this country is always moving in the direction of greater equality and greater fairness. I applaud the court for recognizing that the right to marriage is one all Americans should be able to enjoy and I sincerely hope that this decision is upheld against any challenges to it." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Statement on Supreme Court Allowing D.C. Same-Sex Marriage Law To Stand. 3 March 2010. "It is a joyous day both for these couples and for the gay community across the country, as the struggle for marriage equality has won its first victory south of the Mason Dixon line. I applaud the Supreme Court's decision not to interfere with the new law of Washington, D.C., but I know the struggle continues. Today, our ongoing march toward full civil rights took an important step, and I remain committed to achieving marriage equality for all Americans." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley, Gutierrez, Schakowsky Hold Hearing on Same-Sex Marriage. 17 October 2011. "It is incumbent upon us to put an unconstitutional law under the congressional microscope. Indiana officials, using the offensively-named Defense of Marriage Act, told a young grieving widow that the civil union recognized here in Illinois wasn't valid a few miles away in Indiana, and so she has no right to seek damages or peace [¦] Let us hope that while this Congress may not strike down this discriminatory policy, the courts can still protect our civil rights. Our country's foundation of justice and equality depends on it." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Letter To The Honorable President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schumer, And Chairwoman Lofgren. 9 February 2010. "Currently, U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents may sponsor their spouses (and other immediate family members) for immigration purposes. But, same-sex partners committed to spending their lives together are not recognized as 'families' under U.S. immigration law and thus do not have this same right. As a result, tens of thousands of binational families are either already living separately, face imminent separation, or have left the U.S. entirely in order to remain together. This is unacceptable, and we believe comprehensive immigration reform legislation must include a strong family reunification component inclusive of LGBT families." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 2965. 112th Congress. Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. Mike Quigley voted Yea on 12/15/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Human Rights Campaign. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • American Family Association. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the American Family Association 5 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigely. Quigley Speaks Out Strongly Against DOMA. 15 April 2011. "The rights of our citizens are not granted by any branch of government, they are guaranteed by the Constitution. When the Legislative or the Executive Branches fail to uphold these rights, it has historically been the Judicial Branch which returned our nation to the principles of the Constitution...In 1996, Congress got it wrong with the passage of DOMA. But in 2010, our Judiciary got it right...But let's be clear: DOMA isn't just an unconstitutional law, it's dumb public policy...The legislative record of DOMA shows that its true purpose was simply to express moral disapproval of gay and lesbian couples and families. During floor debate, members repeatedly voiced disapproval of homosexuality as "immoral" or "depraved."...That legislative history represents a stain on this great institution we are all a part of today as well as a betrayal of one of American's most fundamental values: that in this country, we judge every individual on the content of his character. DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996. The fact that it is such recent history makes it more painful. For even then, I believe we knew better." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Calls on Obama To Recognize Same-Sex Married Couples in Census. 16 June 2009. "On May 14, 2009, I joined many of my colleagues in sending you a letter to voice our shared belief that same-sex married couples, in states that recognize the marriage, should be counted in the 2010 Census. This recognition of same-sex married couples will ensure the collection of proper and accurate data, so that the integrity of the Census is not jeopardized, which I fear will happen if this information is omitted. As stated in our letter, my colleagues and I do not believe that simply reporting data about same-sex married couples in the 2010 Census is a recognition of same-sex marriage. However, the omission, or "scrubbing" of the data from these couples will misidentify and misrepresent many people who are legally married in a growing number of states across our country. Since the Census is a portrait of America, information about legally married, same-sex couples should not be "scrubbed" from the record." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley signed the Freedom to Marry: Democrats Say I Do Pledge. "The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples." (www.freedomtomarry.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Pelosi, Nadler, 130 House Members File Amicus Brief on Federal Case Against DOMA. 10 July 2012. "Heightened scrutiny applies: the brief agrees with Justice Department's position that lesbians and gay men are an identifiable minority group that lack sufficient political power to obtain the consistent and favorable treatment of lawmakers; as a result, they need the protection that heightened judicial review provides. Congress's treatment of gay men and lesbians illustrates that this group has been unable to prevent harmful laws or achieve desired policy results that directly impact their lives. Gay men and lesbians are a historically disfavored minority that has often been targeted for legislative action based on stereotypes and bias, making it inappropriate for courts to grant laws like DOMA the same presumption of validity afforded to most acts of Congress. Instead, laws that single out gay men and lesbians for harm warrant judicial skepticism and heightened review. This requires the government to show that Section 3 serves a significant federal interest, and even BLAG seems to concede that it loses under this standard. Even under rational basis as applied by the Supreme Court in cases where the rights of a minority are at stake, Section 3 is unconstitutional. Section 3 does not achieve, but undermines, the actual interests served by the programs that take marital status into account, and denying recognition to couples who already are married under state law does not rationally serve any of the reasons relied upon by Congress in 1996 or created in response to this litigation." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Cong. Quigley Stands with Key LGBT Leaders to Introduce ENDA. 25 June 2009. "I echo the sentiments of President Lincoln when I say that in the end, we simply must do what's right, what's just, and what's fair...The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a watershed piece of legislation, not only for the GLBT community, but for the country as a whole. When we discriminate against one, we discriminate against all of us, and our United States suffer unless we are all equal. I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation and end discrimination in all of its forms." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Statement on Ruling that Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional. 4 August 2010. "Today's decision proves what I have known for a long time: this country is always moving in the direction of greater equality and greater fairness. I applaud the court for recognizing that the right to marriage is one all Americans should be able to enjoy and I sincerely hope that this decision is upheld against any challenges to it." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Statement on Supreme Court Allowing D.C. Same-Sex Marriage Law To Stand. 3 March 2010. "It is a joyous day both for these couples and for the gay community across the country, as the struggle for marriage equality has won its first victory south of the Mason Dixon line. I applaud the Supreme Court's decision not to interfere with the new law of Washington, D.C., but I know the struggle continues. Today, our ongoing march toward full civil rights took an important step, and I remain committed to achieving marriage equality for all Americans." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley, Gutierrez, Schakowsky Hold Hearing on Same-Sex Marriage. 17 October 2011. "It is incumbent upon us to put an unconstitutional law under the congressional microscope. Indiana officials, using the offensively-named Defense of Marriage Act, told a young grieving widow that the civil union recognized here in Illinois wasn't valid a few miles away in Indiana, and so she has no right to seek damages or peace [¦] Let us hope that while this Congress may not strike down this discriminatory policy, the courts can still protect our civil rights. Our country's foundation of justice and equality depends on it." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. HR 2965. 112th Congress. Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. Mike Quigley voted Yea on 12/15/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Letter To The Honorable President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schumer, And Chairwoman Lofgren. 9 February 2010. "Currently, U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents may sponsor their spouses (and other immediate family members) for immigration purposes. But, same-sex partners committed to spending their lives together are not recognized as 'families' under U.S. immigration law and thus do not have this same right. As a result, tens of thousands of binational families are either already living separately, face imminent separation, or have left the U.S. entirely in order to remain together. This is unacceptable, and we believe comprehensive immigration reform legislation must include a strong family reunification component inclusive of LGBT families." (votesmart.org)
  • Human Rights Campaign. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • American Family Association. 04/18/2012. "Mike Quigley supported the interests of the American Family Association 5 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigely. Quigley Speaks Out Strongly Against DOMA. 15 April 2011. "The rights of our citizens are not granted by any branch of government, they are guaranteed by the Constitution. When the Legislative or the Executive Branches fail to uphold these rights, it has historically been the Judicial Branch which returned our nation to the principles of the Constitution...In 1996, Congress got it wrong with the passage of DOMA. But in 2010, our Judiciary got it right...But let's be clear: DOMA isn't just an unconstitutional law, it's dumb public policy...The legislative record of DOMA shows that its true purpose was simply to express moral disapproval of gay and lesbian couples and families. During floor debate, members repeatedly voiced disapproval of homosexuality as "immoral" or "depraved."...That legislative history represents a stain on this great institution we are all a part of today as well as a betrayal of one of American's most fundamental values: that in this country, we judge every individual on the content of his character. DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996. The fact that it is such recent history makes it more painful. For even then, I believe we knew better." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Quigley Calls on Obama To Recognize Same-Sex Married Couples in Census. 16 June 2009. "On May 14, 2009, I joined many of my colleagues in sending you a letter to voice our shared belief that same-sex married couples, in states that recognize the marriage, should be counted in the 2010 Census. This recognition of same-sex married couples will ensure the collection of proper and accurate data, so that the integrity of the Census is not jeopardized, which I fear will happen if this information is omitted. As stated in our letter, my colleagues and I do not believe that simply reporting data about same-sex married couples in the 2010 Census is a recognition of same-sex marriage. However, the omission, or "scrubbing" of the data from these couples will misidentify and misrepresent many people who are legally married in a growing number of states across our country. Since the Census is a portrait of America, information about legally married, same-sex couples should not be "scrubbed" from the record." (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley signed the Freedom to Marry: Democrats Say I Do Pledge. "The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples." (www.freedomtomarry.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Pelosi, Nadler, 130 House Members File Amicus Brief on Federal Case Against DOMA. 10 July 2012. "Heightened scrutiny applies: the brief agrees with Justice Department's position that lesbians and gay men are an identifiable minority group that lack sufficient political power to obtain the consistent and favorable treatment of lawmakers; as a result, they need the protection that heightened judicial review provides. Congress's treatment of gay men and lesbians illustrates that this group has been unable to prevent harmful laws or achieve desired policy results that directly impact their lives. Gay men and lesbians are a historically disfavored minority that has often been targeted for legislative action based on stereotypes and bias, making it inappropriate for courts to grant laws like DOMA the same presumption of validity afforded to most acts of Congress. Instead, laws that single out gay men and lesbians for harm warrant judicial skepticism and heightened review. This requires the government to show that Section 3 serves a significant federal interest, and even BLAG seems to concede that it loses under this standard. Even under rational basis as applied by the Supreme Court in cases where the rights of a minority are at stake, Section 3 is unconstitutional. Section 3 does not achieve, but undermines, the actual interests served by the programs that take marital status into account, and denying recognition to couples who already are married under state law does not rationally serve any of the reasons relied upon by Congress in 1996 or created in response to this litigation." (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. Video: Quigley on Defense Spending and Priorities. 29 September 2010. "Rather than recalibrating our security strategy to fight the non state actors who attacked us we continue to spend and spend to combat the enemy of a different era. We can no longer continue to spend real money based solely on those theoretical threats....We have spent over a trillion dollars trying to buy middle east security at a gun point....It is time to step back, evaluate our global needs and build a military to match those needs as if we were starting from scratch." (youtu.be)
  • Mike Quigley. Have 10 Years in Afghanistan Made Us Safer? 12 October 2011. "Every major U.S. victory the U.S. has had in the fight against terrorism has come not on the ground in Afghanistan but through targeted attacks such as those that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the recent strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen [¦] Al Qaeda is an enemy without borders, and so now we must have a strategy without borders. The question now is: Will we adjust our strategy to reflect today's circumstances, or will we continue to live in the past, repeating this destructive cycle of sending dollars and troops to a mission no longer central to American security?" (votesmart.org)
  • Mike Quigley. Video: Quigley on Defense Spending and Priorities. 29 September 2010. "Rather than recalibrating our security strategy to fight the non state actors who attacked us we continue to spend and spend to combat the enemy of a different era. We can no longer continue to spend real money based solely on those theoretical threats....We have spent over a trillion dollars trying to buy middle east security at a gun point....It is time to step back, evaluate our global needs and build a military to match those needs as if we were starting from scratch." (youtu.be)
  • Mike Quigley. Have 10 Years in Afghanistan Made Us Safer? 12 October 2011. "Every major U.S. victory the U.S. has had in the fight against terrorism has come not on the ground in Afghanistan but through targeted attacks such as those that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the recent strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen [¦] Al Qaeda is an enemy without borders, and so now we must have a strategy without borders. The question now is: Will we adjust our strategy to reflect today's circumstances, or will we continue to live in the past, repeating this destructive cycle of sending dollars and troops to a mission no longer central to American security?" (votesmart.org)

Vote Smart's Research

  • Mike Quigley. REP. QUIGLEY GETS REALLY SPECIFIC. 13 May 2011. "Rep. Quigley's Social Security plan represents a balanced approach that is very similar to the plan presented by the Fiscal Commission. He raises the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax to 90 percent, raises the retirement age to 68, switches to the chained CPI, and makes the benefit formula more progressive. Looking at numbers from the Social Security Administration, it looks very likely that these changes would at least ensure 75-year solvency." (crfb.org)
  • Mike Quigley. REINVENTING GOVERNMENT The Federal Budget. May 2011. "Social Security represents one of the pillars of social justice in this country: the right of workers to retire in dignity instead of poverty [¦] Private accounts"while politically attractive in this anti-government era"are fraught with unknowns: How much will these accounts costs? Who will manage them? Where in the federal budget will the money come from to cover the transition costs? Ironically, those advocating private accounts in the name of smaller government will actually be creating another layer of government in order to manage the accounts. To minimize the impact on future beneficiaries"and to restrain costs"we must act now to ensure the solvency of Social Security. Our children depend on it." (crfb.org)
  • Mike Quigley. REP. QUIGLEY GETS REALLY SPECIFIC. 13 May 2011. "Rep. Quigley's Social Security plan represents a balanced approach that is very similar to the plan presented by the Fiscal Commission. He raises the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax to 90 percent, raises the retirement age to 68, switches to the chained CPI, and makes the benefit formula more progressive. Looking at numbers from the Social Security Administration, it looks very likely that these changes would at least ensure 75-year solvency." (crfb.org)
  • Mike Quigley. REINVENTING GOVERNMENT The Federal Budget. May 2011. "Social Security represents one of the pillars of social justice in this country: the right of workers to retire in dignity instead of poverty [¦] Private accounts"while politically attractive in this anti-government era"are fraught with unknowns: How much will these accounts costs? Who will manage them? Where in the federal budget will the money come from to cover the transition costs? Ironically, those advocating private accounts in the name of smaller government will actually be creating another layer of government in order to manage the accounts. To minimize the impact on future beneficiaries"and to restrain costs"we must act now to ensure the solvency of Social Security. Our children depend on it." (crfb.org)

Key

Candidate Answer Official Position

Candidate had the Political Courage to address this issue directly.

Inferred Answer Inferred Position

Candidate refused to address this issue directly, but Project Vote Smart inferred this issue position based on the candidate's public statements, voting record, and evaluations from special interest groups.

Unknown Answer Unknown Position

Candidate refused to address this issue.

 Project Vote Smart's Research

Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position.