* As subscribers already know, the House Executive Committee attached hostile Democratic amendments yesterday to two GOP-sponsored open primary bills. The amendments are identical to SB 600, which is legislation backed by Republican insurgents to force a popular vote to elect GOP state central committee members. The state party, you will recall, is completely and unalterably opposed to the “reform” proposal, which is backed in the Senate by conservative state Sen. Chris Lauzen.
The amendments’ HDem sponsor explains his rationale, with tongue planted firmly in cheek…
“I’m trying to give the Republican Party what it has insisted for the last six or eight weeks it wants: open and transparent elections,” said Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat who pushed for the change.
Lang, of course, was referring to GOP demands that a special election be held to force Blagojevich-appointed US Sen. Roland Burris out of office.
* The GOP reaction…
Rep. Michael Tryon, a Crystal Lake Republican, said political parties are private organizations that should have the right to self-governance, and it would be “very wrong” for one political party to dictate to another how to operate.
Rep. Skip Saviano, an Elmwood Park Republican who also is a Republican State Central Committee members, said the Democratic leadership flat out is trying to retaliate against Republicans for calling them out on inconsistencies over how to handle Burris’ controversial appointment. It also would kick the GOP when it’s already down, when they hold minorities in both chambers and don’t hold a single constitutional office. “This is an attempt to keep the Republican Party in disarray,” Saviano said to Lang during a House committee this morning.
Saviano said there’s been a longstanding agreement that each political party could conduct its own business. “Now, they’ve crossed the line.”
Then again, the numbers favor the Democrats, which have enough votes to send the bill to the Senate without a single Republican vote. “If they want it to be a done deal, Democrats could pass it and hijack the Republican Party,” Saviano said. “I mean, that’s what this is all about.”
Thoughts?
LIVE session coverage...
- Heartless Libertarian - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:30 am:
As a person who, right now, is strictly a voter and an occasional blogger, I think it is a good idea. I mean, I don’t like the fact that it is the democrats forcing the GOP to do something. But, I do believe that people choosing the leadership of the party is better than the bosses.
- Ghost - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:34 am:
The GOP gets handed gems like the Blago and Burris scandals to them rebuild. Unfortunetly they cant resist pushing that flashing red self destruct button.
I actually wish the GOP would recover; a real opposition provides healthy debate and counterbalance in the political process. But the GOP seems more interested in eating its own young.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:35 am:
If it goes to court which it will, I can see them either throwing it out or requireing both parties to do follow the same rules.
My guess is the courts will rule against the legislation.
- colt 45 - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:35 am:
you may have said it best in cap fax this morning, rich. “insurgent Republicans aided by Democrats…” is spot on. the insurgents just don’t realize what they’re doing, in my humble opinion. btw, i loved seeing that in print.
- clearly - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:36 am:
What bosses? Right now the leaders of the Illinois Republican Party are elected by precinct committeemen and County Chairmen. You know, the volunteers who make up the backbone of the Party. I hardly think precinct committeemen qualify as “bosses”
- scoot - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:37 am:
It’s soo good to see the Dems focusing on a capitol bill, reform, & cleaning up the mess and corruption leftover by their leader Blago.
To take it this far w/ the GOP shows they are scared of the 2010 elections.
- ConservativeVeteran - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:48 am:
Some articles, about this bill, state that it would implement open primaries. Illinois already has open primaries. I have a B.A., in political science, from the University of Arkansas. While I was there, I learned that the U.S. has three types of primaries: closed, open, and wide-open. If a state has closed primaries, each voter must declare a party when he or she registers to vote. During primaries, each voter may only receive the ballot of his or her party. If a state has open primaries, voters aren’t required to choose a party, when they register. During primaries, each voter may choose which party’s ballot he or she prefers. Some states, that have wide-open primaries, require the voters to choose a party, when registering, and other states don’t require that. During primaries, in states, that have wide-open primaries, each voter receives a ballot that includes candidates of all parties.
According to the above definitions, Illinois already has open primaries. St. Rep. Lang supports the bill which would implement wide-open primaries.
I support SB 600. All republican primary voters should have the right to vote for their party leaders.
- Ghost - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:51 am:
I doubt the dems are scared of the 2010 GOP canidates. It is more like poking a body with a stick to see if its truly dead.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:53 am:
“If your opponent is choleric, seek to irritate him.”
Sun Tzu
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:54 am:
Again with the hijacking comments?
Hijack what? OH, a perpetually losing minority state party. Hijacking the Illinois GOP is like hijacking a 50 year old crop duster barely able to clear the corn fields. Who do these “bosses” think they are? What do they think they are protecting?
Yeah, political parties are private organizations, but they have public impact. How they decide whom to nominate and support for our public offices matters to Illinoians. The days of petty political fiefdoms with secret handshakes and goat-riding initiations belongs in the past.
The Illinois GOP can’t get worse. The “leaders” of the Illinois GOP - aren’t. They are perpetual losers demanding public reform yet claiming privacy rights when the mantel of reform is hoisted onto them. They can’t have it both ways - as a matter of fact, they still can’t even have it.
Change or die, dummies!
- MikeintheSuburbs - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 10:56 am:
This “line” has already been crossed. It’s called the State Election Code. In it there is extensive regulation of how political parties are to nominate candidates and what hoops new parties have to jump through to get recognized. Both parties basically agreed on those provisions to make it as difficult as possible to have more than two political parties on the ballot. If they were really “private enterprises” then they wouldn’t be getting what amounts to near monopoly status guaranteed by state law.
- Amuzing Myself - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 11:03 am:
If CV above universally believes that last statement and takes it to it’s full conclusion, then every voter in the state should also be able to vote on every piece of legislation. After all, shouldn’t we have a say?
There would be no need for party conventions because voters would decide everything in their respective primaries - or any primary they choose to vote in if some legislation passes, and really there could be no need for a Legislature because “We The People” would vote on everything.
I realize party matters differ from government, but the idea of “voting” on some things and not others is the point. We elect leaders to vote on issues for us, and I don’t have a problem with that same idea applying to a political party.
- Madison County Watcher - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 11:09 am:
It’s time to let the parties PAY for the costs of the County Clerks administering these private elections. The parties are PRIVATE enterprises, therefore let them reimburse the taxpayers for their private ventures.
As well, it’s time for partisan affiliations to be stricken from the General Election ballots. It’s bad enough that the taxpayers PAY for the primary, which is nothing more than a marketing scheme to promote the political establishment, but then the parties get FREE, taxpayer-funded advertising on the general election ballots.
Also, get the words Republican and Democrat off the state statutes. I would favor regulation of political parties generally, but the state has no business writing individual parties into the law books.
- Bubs - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 11:30 am:
SB600 is unconstitutional, and these latest partisan shenanigans by the Democrats demonstrates exactly why. The government has a legitimate interest in overseeing actual elections. But a governement domionated by one party cannot dictate to the minority party, through legislation, how to conduct its internal affairs, such as selecting internal leadership.
Regrettably, it is now obvious that this whole thing will indeed wind up in court. The insurgents and their new Democratic allies will lose hands down.
A friend of mine who runs a state vendor business just called to tell me they are shutting down operations in a week, since the state currently owes $800,000 in back bills, which is about to surge to $1.2 million at teh end of March, and without some sort of payment they can’t meet payroll next week. When they called the state personnel, financal honcos called back to inform them that the State of Illinois currently has $900,000 whole dollars left in the checking account, and there is no money to pay them.
2,000 Illinois children are about to lose Early Intervention Rehabilitation at the crucial period of 1-3 years old, which, research has confirmed and reconfirmed, will negatively and permanently impact their lives. 250-300 jobs are about to end. I suspect that this business will have a LOT of company in the next 30 days, as the impact of the fiscal crisis hits home.
I’m certainly glad the legislature and pundits are spending their time fooling around with nonsense like SB600.
Pingback ArchPundit | The Illinois Circular Firing Squad TeamWill Not Be Outdone - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 11:33 am:
[…] But the Democrats aren’t content to let their good fortune go without making a little good fortune on top of it and the effort by social conservatives to mandate the election of State Committeemen gets some help in the form of Lou Lang. […]
- Put up or shut up - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 11:39 am:
If Mike Tryon thinks he’s part of a “private” organization, like the Girl Scouts or PETA or the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes or whatever, then fine. He can have his own private club and stop asking the state to pay for primaries and other perks. That’s what a being a private club means.
Tryon’s another one of these me-me-me Baby Boomers who wants all the perks but none of the responsibilities of government.
If you don’t think your own Republican voters deserve a vote, then leave the Republican party and start your own private club. Republicans believe in promoting democracy.
- Secret Square - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 12:00 pm:
It all boils down to the question of “Who is the Republican Party?” Is it anyone who votes Republican with regularity, or is it only the active party volunteers/workers (i.e. precinct committee persons, officeholders, donors, etc.)
One of the reasons Democrats have been enjoying electoral success of late is that they operate on the assumption that anyone who votes Democrat is, by definition, at least a potential Democrat. Look how well Obama persuaded ordinary folk who may not have voted Democrat in years, or ever, to think of themselves as an integral part of his campaign. The GOP needs to start doing the same thing in reverse — open themselves up to the growing number of people who have serious qualms about the way Obama, Quinn, Madigan, Stroger, Daley, et al, are running the show. Convince them that they, too, can be part of a great wave of change, without having to sacrifice their day job or family life to do it.
Forcing the GOP to change its ways by law seems to be clearly unconstitutional to me. But I would encourage them to embrace this change voluntarily. (Didn’t they used to elect the central committee by popular vote years ago?) If they are to have any hope of winning elections in the future, they are going to have to become a less exclusive club.
- c'mon - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 12:12 pm:
I don’t think Jack Roeser and crew have fully thought out the implications of their little scheme with the Democrats.
They are self-described ultra-conservatives, isn’t small government part of their philosophy? How is a government dominated by the Democrats telling the Republicans how to govern themselves small? They are sabotaging their own party and doing their best to squander the best Republican opportunity in years because they want to sit at the big boy table. Pretty sad.
- underdog - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 12:22 pm:
===Yeah, political parties are private organizations, but they have public impact. How they decide whom to nominate and support for our public offices matters to Illinoians. The days of petty political fiefdoms with secret handshakes and goat-riding initiations belongs in the past.===
Voters decide who to nominate for public office but like 45 other states, the ILGOP picks their Party leaders in a form other than direct elections. The RNC Chairman and officers aren’t elected in a presidential election, they are chosen by a group of leaders within that organization. Here, those leaders are precinct, ward and township committeemen - who are elected by republican primary voters. The same leaders who work the phones, walk the doors and work to elect R’s like Peter Roskam. Further, this issue was given a forum at a statewide convention last year and was overwhelmingly defeated.
Beyond the obvious reasons to question an unconstitutional legislative action dictating Party matters, the fact Democrats have used this issue to dangle and distract from the last 6 years of mismanagement and nonsense is a mistake.
- Steve - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 12:36 pm:
The status quo Republicans only fear their party will be taken over by real Republicans.Republicans who aren’t looking to “cut” deals with Democrats.
- clearly - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 12:42 pm:
“The status quo Republicans only fear their party will be taken over by real Republicans.Republicans who aren’t looking to “cut” deals with Democrats. ”
Yeah, those “real Republicans” who are working with Democrats right now to get this unconstitutional garbage passed.
- Another Vet - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 1:14 pm:
I’m against SB600.
The idea of SB600 as a reform or restoration is a fraud, and the ‘insurgents’ know it.
Under current law, Republicans can already choose direct elections. That’s how the Dems do it.
The issue was considered at the last state election, and handily rejected. Note how they claim the voters didn’t know what they were voting on, and at the same time claim that the vote was rigged. Which is it? Amazing how the know-nothing voters rejected the insurgents 4 to 1. Coincidence? What a bunch of pathetic sore losers.
Lauzen has proposed three amendments, so they wouldn’t even go back to 1987–it would be a whole new ballgame.
This is Vietnam type madness. The folks in Carpentersville, and Lauzen, want to destroy the party to save it.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 2:34 pm:
I think it is time for Senator Lauzen to join the Democratic party. He certainly seems to want to give them all the control in making decisions for the Republicans. Perhaps he should just become one of them and leave the Republicans alone!
- OneMan - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 2:37 pm:
At this point part of me thinks it would be entertaining to see what happens with the Lauzen/Carpentersville crowd wins.
I am sure the purification rights would be entertaining…
- Boone Logan Square - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 3:12 pm:
. “This is an attempt to keep the Republican Party in disarray,” Saviano said to Lang during a House committee this morning.
Saviano added: “We’re doing just fine on that score without help.”
- Tom Joad - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 6:02 pm:
In the early 1980’s The Democratic National Committee required the Democrats to have equal gender representation in their state party organizations.
The Democratic State Central Committee was 90% male. The Democrats had to hold elections among precent committeemen, township chairmen or ward committeemen in each Congressional district to appoint a person of the opposite sex from the incumbent committeeman to serve from the same district. At the next primary, Democrats elected one man and one woman in each district.
To change the state statute to accomplish this, Democrats had to get the agreement of the Republicans to change the law.
After some negotiations, the law was changed to allow each party to have its own rules enacted into law. The Republicans chose the current system.
It was agreed then that each party would be allowed to enact their own party rules into law, without interference, to avoid the party in power dictating party rules to the other party.
SB 600 goes against this agreement. This short term victory for Democrats could come back to haunt them in the future. Perhaps each party should let the other party determine what is best for themselves!
- Jake - Thursday, Mar 26, 09 @ 8:11 pm:
I was under the impression Radogno was in support of a popular vote to elect GOP state central committee members. Am I mistaken? Would you consider her an “insurgent”?
- Valerie - Friday, Mar 27, 09 @ 11:31 am:
This link is to a list of direct election supporters- hardly a “small group of insurgents.”
http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=1407
- reformer - Friday, Mar 27, 09 @ 1:36 pm:
The GOP of IL is full of DEMS!!!!! They give money to them, they support them, they run against good GOP candidates. Andy and the boys need to go away…far away. The Combine needs tobe retired.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 27, 09 @ 1:39 pm:
Oh, please. You don’t make gross exaggerations like that in your job, do you?