* Tribune…
Rauner said his campaign to collect enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot asking voters to amend the constitution to enact term limits has collected 320,000 signatures so far.
* That’s a bit more than he said he had almost a week ago…
“I’ve brought in U.S. Term Limits, an independent group, to acquire 300,000 signatures by May 4,” Rauner said at the town hall, one of several stops on a suburban bus tour. “They already have 310,000 but we probably need 450,000 to net down to 300,000.”
- Demoralized - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:32 pm:
Wouldn’t sign the petition and I’ll be voting no if it makes it on the ballot.
- Anon - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:35 pm:
Look for a boost on election day, and high-quality sigs. Looks like ads are up paying signature gatherers in various parts of the state.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:36 pm:
I look forward to the challenging of the petitions, “who gets who” election lawyer wise, and “who” will be the name of YGG person, “challenging” the petitions, and who will be paying the lawyer who is spearheading the challenging.
Should be as good a drama as Rahm’s Mayoral residency challenge in the drama department.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:38 pm:
“…of the person challenging…”
Yikes!
- Norseman - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:41 pm:
If this monstrosity gets by the courts, I’ll happily vote no.
- Worn Out Committeeman - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:48 pm:
To OW and others. Is it my imagination or are Republican primary voters just crankier when you call them about voting and pitching your candidate. Might be more harm than good?
- Fan - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:49 pm:
This would be great if passed. Agine the phrase “Career Politician” could no longer be used in attack ads.
- low level - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:50 pm:
“High quality sigs” - Anon 3:35pm
Not what I saw. The question takes up half the page and by the presentation of the circulators I doubt that good signatures were being obtained - at least from the ones I saw.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 3:59 pm:
===Is it my imagination or are Republican primary voters just crankier when you call them about voting and pitching your candidate. Might be more harm than good?===
Saturation is way over, like drowning a plant, having an impact with lower ballot races.
In Kendall, for example, I have gotten 3 bank to back RoboCalls, left, no joke, for 10 minutes max, had one on boice mail, and while receiving, one was on “call waiting”.
People calling, little “more” patience by me, at least, but I like to hear the spiel, if its a “push” plus gathering, negative in tone, if they can answer questions, but in some races like Sandack, or Pihos, or Berrios, for example, I am sure the plant drowned with all the saturation.
Door to Door, or Precint work by the local “Captain/Committeeman” could and usually does have the must impactful lever to impact voting tendencies.
People like to be asked for their vote, especially by the candidates themselves; RoboCalls are the opposite of that.
- ash - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:09 pm:
I was always opposed to the idea of term limits and felt that fir elections provided a way for citizens to voice frustrations…. then I moved to Illinois. Since living here, I am not nearly as opposed to limiting terms as I once was. In fact, Mr. Speaker tends to have me leaning toward favoring them.
- Downstate - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:10 pm:
I was told today that the polling on term limits in Illinois is plus 60% among Democrats and even higher among Republicans.
Rauner only gains ground against Quinn by cloakig himself in that.
- ash - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:11 pm:
make that fair elections.
- Bill White - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:11 pm:
=== Saturation is way over, like drowning a plant, having an impact with lower ballot races. ===
I hope to publish a coffee table book with all the Matune and Sandack mailers we’ve received.
- Worn Out Committeeman - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:12 pm:
Thanks
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:20 pm:
===I hope to publish a coffee table book===
It’ll be more like War and Peace, in more ways than one. lol
- Holdingontomywallet - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:28 pm:
I’m all for it. I am tired of these politicians who are constantly preparing for the next election and raising campaign funds when they should be governing.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:31 pm:
===who are constantly preparing for the next election and raising campaign funds when they should be governing. ===
And term limits will stop this only in the last allowable term, unless, of course, the legislator decides to run for another office.
I’m an agnostic on this idea. But it won’t solve the problem you say you’re most concerned with.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:32 pm:
===…politicians who are constantly preparing for the next election and raising campaign funds when they should be governing.===
Then you get the “waiting out” of politicians who then become Lame Ducks, so something has to wait 2 years longer than need be, because the “landscape” could be different.
“Six of one…”
- VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:38 pm:
It is interesting - I’m not a big fan for similar reasons as Rich.
But Colorado has had this in place for over a decade and I’d be interested in what problems they have had with it. I am not aware of term limits hobbling their government at all. As a matter of fact, Colorado’s state government has been extremely balanced between the two parties since term limits had passed, and it has become a very competitive state for both parties nationally.
So - based on reality, term limits hasn’t destroyed state government - at least in Denver.
- Bill White - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:39 pm:
Instead of this . . .
=== I am tired of these politicians who are constantly preparing for the next election and raising campaign funds when they should be governing. ===
We will see this . . .
=== Politicians in their final term will be voting for whoever promises them the most lucrative lobbying or consulting gig once they can no longer run for office ===
- Anonymous 85 - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:40 pm:
My brother, who is a political scientist, caused me to rethink my support for term limits several years ago. Sure, sounds great on the state level (think Mike Madigan) or even at the congressional level (think former term-limit supporter John Shimkus, who has been in the U.S. House for 18 years). However, once you have legislators limited to, say, six years or eight years in office, it’s the staff that becomes incredibly influential: elected officials will turn over at a faster rate under term limits, and they will be all the more dependent on staffers as they try to get their bearings in a hurry, figure out how to make a big impact quickly (for better or worse!) in order to justify their run for a different office once their limit in the current office is reached, etc. Unelected staffers — even less accountable to the voting public than their bosses — would wield power to a greater degree than ever before. Not my idea of an improvement in the democratic process.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:42 pm:
===it’s the staff that becomes incredibly influential===
You’ve apparently never met Tim Mapes.
- Excessively Rabid - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 4:49 pm:
==politicians who are constantly preparing for the next election and raising campaign funds==
To be replaced by rich guys who are tired of having to buy politicians and have decided to just buy the office for themselves instead so they can cut out the middle person and loot the state in peace.
- Anon - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 5:04 pm:
Low level- I meant high quality signatures from election day gathering. Not hard to get perfect sheets when you are standing outside a polling place.
- x ace - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 5:05 pm:
Shimkus Ran and Got Elected on a Term Limit Pledge; Then Reneged !
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 5:31 pm:
I thought this was an “expand the House” petition.
- low level - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 5:52 pm:
Tim is part of MJMs staff and the point is still valid :
you vote for a legislator, not a staffer (or the chief thereof)
In states with term limits, people we don’t vote for (staff, lobbyists) are the ones who wind up with imstitutional knowledge and become more influential.
- Robert the Bruce - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 5:57 pm:
They were out collecting signatures near the St Patrick’s Day parade in Chicago. One canvasser complained to me “Everybody is from out of town” rather than asking me to sign.
- low level - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 5:58 pm:
Bill White is exactly correct - especially in California, the last term they hold out for the best lobbying offer.
What is really bad about this Rauner proposal is it subjects the legislative branch to term limits and not the executive. Term limits on your state rep / senator, but a Gov Rauner can run forever?
You do not have equal branches of government then.
- Odysseus - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 6:48 pm:
Term limits are a blindingly terrible idea. They limit the good that any good candidate can do, and it’s not at all clear that they limit the bad any bad candidate can do. They devolve power from actual elected officials onto party machines and unelected bureaucrats, both of whom can have longer horizons than any individual politician. They will almost certainly cause more bad ideas to be introduced by inexperienced legislators.
I will be voting no.
- Percival - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 8:18 pm:
Term limits have been around long enough for research to emerge on the effect. There are negative unintended consequences. Limits may be the only way out once the political scene gets as one-man dominated as it is here, but they also has every capacity for “be careful what you wish for.”
- DuPage Dave - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 8:37 pm:
Term limits are for people who can’t get elected otherwise. It’s saying “We’re out of ideas, folks.” I’m sorry to see this garbage take hold in Illinois.
- Filmmaker Professor - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 8:48 pm:
For those people who hate lame duck sessions, won’t term limits mean perpetual lame ducks? Just asking.
- low level - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 9:18 pm:
Yes. Now try lame duck sessions with 1/3 of the members of both chambers leaving, looking for political jobs when they are termed out.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 10:54 pm:
OW :
I would not fight the petitions before the State Board of Elections.
I would defeat them in court.
And if the suit isn’t filed by the ACLU, what is the point in having an ACLU?
If Christine Radogno wants to serve another 16 years, I say she has that right as long as her constituents agree.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 11:06 pm:
- YDD -,
Money better spent in court. That is true.
That might be the best avenue, but run parallel tracks; Court and the BOE(?)
“Commander Galloway”, the IL Senate would never be the same without her, would it?
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 17, 14 @ 11:32 pm:
==The procedure for determining the validity and sufficiency of a petition shall be provided by law.== (Article XIV, Sec. 3, Illinois Constitution)
If the signature collection goes well, perhaps the GA will tighten the rules a bit this Spring! LOL
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Mar 18, 14 @ 7:12 am:
Term limits may solve one set of problems, but they create another set. The remap amendment is probably a better bet with fewer negative side effects, but it won’t solve all the problems its supporters say it will either.
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Mar 18, 14 @ 7:23 am:
Rauner wants a plutocracy, so his pushing for term limits makes perfect sense. I, myself, prefer a democracy and am thus opposed to undemocratic term-limit propositions.