56 Comments - x ace - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:26 am: Yes , accountability should be the key element of representative government. But ain’t working that way. - Doug Dobmeyer - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:35 am: No, there should not be any restrictions, as the lame duck is a legitimate session time. As you saw in the recent Congressional lame duck some actual good came from it. It also may be the only way these political gutless wonders may pass a tax hike needed in the state and yet avert a casino expansion that would be fool hardy. Doug Dobmeyer - phocion - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:03 am: No. This is the only time that legislators appear to have the courage to do the right thing. As polling has shown, the majority of the public demands high levels of service combined with low taxes. These unsustainable, unrealistic expectation can only be surmounted in the rare periods when elected officials are free to work for the public good rather than voting whichever way the wind blows. - bored now - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:05 am: no. we pay legislators a lot of money. i want my monies’ worth… - Wensicia - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:13 am: No, this seems to be the only time our elected officials have the guts to do what’s necessary or right. Would DADT have passed in Congress if they had waited? - Aldyth - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:30 am: I wish I could expect ethical and transparent behavior from the Illinois Legislature. Given that I cannot, getting the tax increase done now is better than not getting it done at all. They’ve known for at least two years that it was needed and wouldn’t put their jobs on the line to do what was necessary. - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:43 am: voters said solve the problems…if legislature can do it who really cares about time or date We vote no. - MrJM - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:52 am: No. But I do think they should change the name of the veto session to the wild-card session. – MrJM - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:54 am: No, they’re elected for their term. It’s a pretty short window. Back in the day, new presidents weren’t sworn in until March. - Superdave - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:54 am: That’s nonsense! When a Representative or Senator is elected, this part of the term is part of their victory. Its no less legitimate. The complaint is purely partisan. I didn’t hear Republicans makes this complaint when they impeached President Clinton during the lame duck session or when they created the Department of Homeland Security during the lame duck! - Ghost of John Brown - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:05 am: A slightly different take - reduce the lame duck session. I understand the lame duck session in the fall. What I don’t understand is the lame duck session in January. There is no practical reason why the swearing in of new officials can’t be done on January 2nd/3rd (depending on the day of the week). If there is new business to be conducted in January, it should be conducted with the newly elected officials. - titan - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:07 am: Yes. The legislation thrown together in the last minute, lame duck rush is frequently not well drafted and causes as many probems as it fixes. A supermajority requirement would be appropriate. - WRMNpolitics - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:17 am: No, however there should not be a change in the rules related to number of votes needed for passage of legislation between a veto session in Nov-Dec and a lame duck session in Jan. This is the same legislature as in 2010. - Jim Ridings - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:40 am: I disagree that a lame duck session allows those who are leaving a chance to be courageous. I think it is the opposite. It gives them the chance to be cowardly. That is the only word for someone who votes the opposite of the way he would vote if he had to be accountable to the voters. Lame duck sessions should be eliminated, even for veto considerations. - downstate hack - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:42 am: No, The voters elected them to a full term. Lame duck or not they still legally represent the people of their districts, and should not be prevented from doing their duty. - OneMan - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:45 am: Yes I wish veto session was really that, but the reality is different, so I don’t have a problem with it. - just sayin' - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:51 am: I think your take on lame-duck is a good one Rich. It’s all constitutional and it’s why they were elected. It’s all part of the usual job. Plus we already pay them too much for their part time jobs. The last thing we should be doing is excusing them from even more work days. - Secret Square - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:51 am: “We elected them to a full term” So just start the new term earlier. Swear them in ASAP after Jan. 1, or even on Dec. 1, right after the veto session. Really, with modern transportation and communications is there any reason to wait two full months after the election to inaugurate new members? - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:54 am: Of course not, we elect legislators to their full term, that includes the lame duck portion if they aren’t reelected. It’s humorous to me that some of the same people who argue for term limits so that politicians aren’t beholden to interest groups are against the lame duck for providing the same scenario. - MikeMacD - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:56 am: No. For many of the same reasons as has already been commented. I don’t follow him but has Mr. Reeder ever made an argument in favor of term limits? - PFK - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:57 am: I’m not against the lame ducks participating until the end of their term. By now, a good number of the lame ducks have in fact stepped down and have already been replaced with the people who got elected in November. However, there is no reason for such a long lame duck session. Legislators ought to be sworn in immediately after the election results are certified. Why not? - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:15 am: I missed the Scott Reeder column and the Tea Party protest of the extension of Bush tax cuts during the Congressional lame duck session. Could someone please post a link? - Way Northsider - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:17 am: No. The so called lame duck sessions are often the most productive and legislators are legislators until the next guy takes office. They should keep doing their jobs. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:22 am: Extending the time period of a 3/5ths majority required to pass legislation until inauguration day may make more sense than an outright legislation ban. If it is important, they can get 3/5ths. - Shemp - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:50 am: I suppose it depends if your party of preference is in power. However, I agree with Titan 8:07 that the legislation is either rushed or not well thought out. There’s little room for debate or public discourse. If this were truly the time for courageous action, there would be a lot more reform action prior to discussing tax increases. Meaningful reform in Illinois seems to require 10x the courage of a tax increase. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:53 am: No, no, no In theory it should be a regular session, but during this period accountability is lost. The lame duck session is frequently used as a way to get last favors in for their favorite constituency and to vent their anger toward those ungrateful voters who have booted them out of office. Best solution would be to compress the time between the election and the next working session to a bare minimum. Jan 1 would work. Barring that lame duck sessions should be available for only emergency actions. - Fed up - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:02 am: Yes. This is a sham. These extra days were added on just for the purpose of screwing the Illinois taxpayer and then running for the hills. - Pat Robertson - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:04 am: No. I agree with most of the reasons others give for saying no, and would add that I wonder how many people complaining about lame duck sessions favor term limits, which would make legislators lame ducks for their entire final term rather than for a few weeks? - Just saying - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:06 am: You will never receive a more honest vote from a legislator than on a day in which they have no one to appease. I say vote on as many bills as possible during the lame-duck session. - Segatari - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:12 am: This question is applicable to the US Congress as well. As much damage as the lame ducks did it’s pretty clear cut how much a lame duck session can be abused. The consequences of these Democrats who were too terrified to actually vote BEFORE the election and DEFEND their votes to the taxpayers will be felt for years and years to come. - Shemp - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:13 am: “- Just saying - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:06 am: You will never receive a more honest vote from a legislator than on a day in which they have no one to appease. I say vote on as many bills as possible during the lame-duck session.” Unless of course a politician is looking to curry a favor for a post Assembly job…. Nah, that would never happen. - The Ghost of Shadrack Bond - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:21 am: No. It’s a legitimate portion of the terms the legislators were elected to serve out. Unfortunately, many times the reps don’t have the political cover or gumption to address major issues other than during lame duck sessions - Alas.... - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:27 am: No. Sometimes - like now - this way offers only apparent hope for solutions. - Jim Ridings - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:31 am: There should be no lame duck sessions at all. After the election, the legislature should not come back into session until the new legislature is sworn in. - Boone Logan Square - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:44 am: No. If you want to regulate the voting behavior of legislators, put real controls on campaign financing and spending. The permanent campaign cycle now makes lame-duck sessions more important for actually getting the work of the state done. - state mope - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:55 am: Yes. New legislation passed in the lame duck session commits the new general assembly to laws that many did not vote for. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:03 am: No. Legislators are elected to serve a full term. Whether they are choosing not to run for another term or are voted out of office after the election doesn’t matter. They are in office for that term and should do their business (whether you agree with it or not). - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:07 am: ==Yes. New legislation passed in the lame duck session commits the new general assembly to laws that many did not vote for.== If the new legislator objects, they can pass legislation that overturns the work of the lame-ducks. To the question: No. It is an unfortunate reality that the “leaders’ lock”remains in place until a legislator’s term in the chamber is almost over, so some legislation in need of bipartisan support cannot pass until the lame duck. Unfortunately, we end up with poorly crafted bills mixed in with those that have been cooking for a year or more. - Federal Farmer - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:16 am: I find it amusing that many accept as reasonable the notion that their elected officials only vote their conscience when they are lame ducks, due to their otherwise needing to appease the voters. If the voters want one thing but the legislator feels that isn’t right, s/he should do it anyway and accept the voter’s backlash if s/he doesn’t successfully instruct the voters as to why they are wrong. - Joe from Joliet - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:16 am: What? And get nothing done? I agree with Jim Ridings, tho. - Robert - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:21 am: No. Scott Reeder is assuming an ideal world of a responsible electorate. Lame duck session are where necessary but unpopular work takes place. - Logical Thinker - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:40 am: I suppose it’s well within the rights of the representatives to continue to legislate until their terms are over, so to answer the question: NO, they CAN continue to do their jobs. It does not mean that it is right however. Maybe the issue is that there is a 2 month gap between the election and the swearing in. The voters voted to make certain adjustments and wanted certain things done (we can debate what those were). It’s hard for me to stomach 2 1/2 months of legislation–after the elections–which are in direct conflict with the will of the voters. This cuts both way and both parties are guilty of it so it’s not an indictment of one party or another. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:15 pm: No. Voters, just like legislators can be self-interested and unreasonable. The lame duck session can allow necessary but unpopular legislation to pass. - state mope - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:27 pm: ‘If the voters want one thing but the legislator feels that isn’t right, s/he should do it anyway and accept the voter’s backlash if s/he doesn’t successfully instruct the voters as to why they are wrong.’ That’s the way it should work. But, why didn’t our legislature do the right thing and fix the structural budget deficit by raising taxes or making major cuts prior to the lame duck session? - Christine Kaplan - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:31 pm: Yes, its a shame that legislatures only have the courage to vote for bills when they are no longer facing public scrutiny. Its a joke. Another commenter brought up the issue of DADT, but I would strongly suggest that it only passed because many of those voting did so knowing that they would not be held accountable for that vote, both for and against. Regardless of whether you consider the action right or wrong, it was done during a lame duck session, and that is wrong. - Barry S - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:42 pm: I think what the Illinois voters really want is a realistic approach to the financial armagedon that is upon us. Nobody likes paying more in income taxes but our state rate is significantly lower than Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, and most other states. To pretend that there is some magic cost cutting initiatives that can fix this NOW is a process that must be looked at. Medicaid, Workmen’s comp, benefit programs, all need to be scrubbed and painful and meaningful cuts need to be made. How about this: 2% individual increase, 1% corporate increase, sunsetting and tailing back in a few years while the economy improves and growth in expenditures gets under control. I didn’t vote for Quinn because I thought he would be too beholden to unions, etc. but I do believe he is being honest about where Blago left the state and how urgent this is. Hopefully something can get done in the veto session so there can be a chance at restoring Illinois fiscally. - levois - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:01 pm: The lame ducks shouldn’t be allowed to vote on anything that would cause any damage to the healthy ducks coming in. - Bond_player - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:03 pm: Normally raising taxes is a sure fire vote killer. However with the increased taxes Illinois can start a new put people to work program and that way everyone can have a Government job. Ain’t life grand in Illinois? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:43 pm: If I had my druthers, I wouldn’t change anything about the lame duck sessions. It’s a solution in search of a problem. Anyone else find it interesting that John Fritchey’s replacement is Kathleen Moore and not Ann Williams, who was elected in November but won’t be sworn in until next week? Was it a snub to Williams or a favor? She won’t have to make any of the tough votes during the lame duck session, so it could be good for Williams to have Moore take the heat for these votes. The Williams-Moore thing is about accountability, and I find that a bit more troubling than what is on the agenda in this week’s session. Moore gets to parachute in at the behest of the ward committeemen who appointed her for about 2 weeks of work. If things play out the way they might, she could be voting on some of the most controverstial, sweeping legislative reforms introduced in decades. Then she’ll disappear from the General Assembly and we’ll be left to argue over who to thank/blame for the resulting legislative decisions. I don’t know Moore and don’t want to speak ill of her, so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that she’ll vote based on her conscience and for what is best for her district. Having said that, this is an odd appointment at a crucial time and I haven’t seen this discussed anywhere yet. - zatoichi - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 2:23 pm: As others have said, lame duck or not, the ones leaving are still getting paid to do the job. Change is part of politics and there are regular shifts of control. The problems do not change because of an election. Blaming a lame duck for anything they come up with is simply hiding or creating cover. The same basic issues will still be there 12 months from now which is plenty of time to get something done. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:46 pm: As long as we are dreaming about changes that will never happen, I would like to see the reverse: eliminate all sessions other than the lame-duck each election cycle. That is the only time our gutless wonder “leadership” get any work done anyway, apparently. Then reduce legislative pay by a percentage of cooresponding time reduced, of course. Win-win! Oh, wait, I forgot: compensation reductions are only for state employees in Illinois… not legislators (or judiciary… or higher ed… etc…) - Justa Joe - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:53 pm: Yes, absolutely. They spend most of the rest of the time posing, posturing, politicing and establishing shell bills for quick action when no one is looking. Need at least a step toward transparency. - Tom Joad - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:00 pm: The lame duck session is the only time the legislators can stand up to the special interest lobbyists and vote the way they want to. The least amount of pressure is one them since the election is so far away. Government has operated with lame duck sessions since 1818. Don’t change now. - Jerry 101 - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:21 pm: I’m good with the current system. The current GA was elected to serve through the end of the current session. Most of the members will continue to serve in the next session, and can be held accountable (and either rewarded or punished, depending) next election season. If you don’t want legislation of consequence to move during the period between the election and the new session, then move the start of the new session up so that it starts immediately after the election results are certified. Some kind of determination will have to be made over what to do with races that are still being contested due to recounts or legal action after the certification date, but such occurances are pretty rare (except in Minnesota, apparently). Not that I think that’s a good idea. Oftentimes, the most important legislation gets done during the “lame duck” period. Lame ducks don’t have to worry about upsetting voters, and they don’t have to worry about upsetting Lobbies (except the one(s) they’re going to work for). So, yay for lame ducks! - park - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:25 pm: The voters overwhelmingly defeated con-con a couple years ago. Let them stew in the juices of bad government, including the lame duck session. No, don’t change a thing. - Logic not emotion - Wednesday, Jan 5, 11 @ 10:43 am: Park: Although I would love for there to be some positive changes, the reason I voted against the con-con was out of fear the powers that be would use that opportunity to make a flawed system even worse. Based upon Illinois’ political history, everyone has a right to be very skeptical. When you’re up to your neck in water and can’t swim, the last thing you want is more water. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.