Question of the day
Friday, May 19, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Press release…
The Illinois Senate has advanced a measure spearheaded by Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno that would allow for permanent term limits of all four state legislative leaders.
“This constitutional amendment is a significant step forward in demonstrating to Illinois residents how serious we are about restoring their faith in government,” said Radogno (R-Lemont).
When the 100th General Assembly was sworn in this past January, the Senate adopted its new rules, which for the first time put in place term limits for Senate legislative leaders. As a result, Senate rules limit both the Senate President and Minority Leader to a maximum of five terms (10 years).
The measure advanced Friday, Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 2 (SJRCA 2), would permanently create leadership term limits via constitutional amendment by limiting the terms to five General Assemblies (10 years) for the Illinois Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, House Minority Leader and Senate Minority Leader.
If approved by both the Illinois Senate and House with a three-fifths vote, SJRCA 2 would be on the Illinois ballot in November 2018.
The proposal is here.
* The Question: Do you support this idea? Click here to take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Ahoy! - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:12 pm:
Voted Yes, we have term limits for executives and legislative leaders have immense power, so it makes sense to help keep it in check.
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:13 pm:
Yes, because entrenched leadership has been a contributing factor to our current mess.
- whetstone - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:19 pm:
Yes. It’s a good compromise with broader term limits that balances keeping expertise with preventing excessive control my individuals, and while I’m skeptical of how much it’ll help, I doubt it will hurt either. And that makes it a good trade chip.
- walker - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:20 pm:
Yes, As a moderately harmless deflection from a major, anti-democracy demand.
- 37B - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:20 pm:
Agree with Ahoy!
- Anon - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:21 pm:
When only lobbyists (former legislative leaders) know how the system truly works, Illinois will be in even worse shape than it is now.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:21 pm:
The problem in Springfield is the lack of change in leadership positions.
There is plenty of turnover among regular members.
New leaders would at least have different favorites.
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:22 pm:
Yes, because it’s a nice compromise between term limits for legislators and no term limiting at all. It would, in effect, give Rauner a ‘win’ while also removing the “because….Madigan” excuse.
- Texas Red - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
Typical of state and Fed governments, always preparing for the last crisis - in this case the MJM crisis.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:25 pm:
I voted no because they aren’t including term limits for Governors. Include Governors and I’d vote yes.
- Tommydanger - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:27 pm:
I oppose term limits for elected officials, but I support this initiative for leadership posts.
As opposed to term limits for elected officials where I believe the voters are in a position to ‘limit’ their legislator’s terms, the leadership term limit question is more complicated and far more removed from normal democratically influenced pressures.
I fear the potential of loss of institutional knowledge and the over reliance on lobbyists if legislators were term limited. No such worry for the leadership posts. There are more than enough capable leaders on both sides of the aisle to replace any leader who is term limited.
While there always is the potential of a Medvedev/Putin ruling from the shadows scenario (Springfield, not Washington)I think whomever was in the post would be largely independent of any other member, Madigan included.
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:27 pm:
Who wants to see a doctor with no experience? How about a car mechanic? Think of how many lousy votes a legislator will take to get their next job at the end of their term.
- Smitty Irving - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:28 pm:
NO! Everywhere term limits are adopted, whatever the variation (membership vs. leadership) they are to do one specific thing - take out a legislative leader (Willie Brown in CA, John Martin in ME) who out worked opponents … and just happened to be a Democrat. In Illinois, it is recognition the GOP can’t beat Madigan, even with a GOP drawn map.
- DuPage - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
Voted no, they are just trying to distract from the problem which is this governor’s agenda, and the threats he has made to any Republican that does not in lockstep with him. The legislators and for that matter the voters can remove any of the legislative leaders by voting them out.
- Nick Name - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:32 pm:
Voted no. It could give Rauner (or any governor) leverage in controlling the legislative branch by trying to control who each caucus, in each chamber, chooses for its respective leaders.
Lot’s of opportunity for abuse, I say.
- Fax Machine - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
If it makes the ballot it will get at least 75% yes
- Lech W - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
Voted yes - once they get one constitutional amend question on the ballot - it would be easier to get two or up to the max of three. We might be able to get an amendment to the constitution to change Article XIII , section 5
- Anonymous - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
No. The problem in Illinois is with the governor not with the leaders of the GA.
- ryan - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:36 pm:
Absolutely. There are so many businesses (I mean job creators) wanting to move to Illinois just as soon as this passes. /s
- pawn - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:37 pm:
Term limits for leadership, yes, for legislators, no.
- Huh? - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:46 pm:
No. We already have term limits called elections. They occur every few years. On addition, each chamber of the GA elect their own leadership.
- Smitty Irving - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:47 pm:
Lech W -
Article XIII Section 5 is there because of Article VII Section 6. Going to change that also?
- VanillaMan - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
I favor term limits.
- Mike Cirrincione - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:52 pm:
Voted no. Include an end to gerrymandering, and I might change my vote. In reality and the big picture, it needs to be done on a National basis.
- illinoised - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 2:53 pm:
I think we would be better off eliminating lobbyists
- Schooladmin - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:01 pm:
I voted no. The constitution is the guiding umbrella for all major areas of government. It is not intended to become another collection of narrowly focused statutes. It seems too often we look to change the constitution rather than to take difficult action on issues better managed through the traditional legislative process.
- AlfondoGonz - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:01 pm:
No. It’s undemocratic.
- Norseman - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:03 pm:
No. Not until we term limit the governor.
- Smitty Irving - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
Lech?
- LessAnon - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:30 pm:
Yes. The single, most-impactful move that could be made to give power back to those elected by the people rather than a couple of career politicians in power decade after decade.
A longshot but possible, this could also make for more competitive races for legislative leader posts each General Assembly, rather than the current “can’t cross the speaker/leader” mindset.
- A guy - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:30 pm:
A very easy to cast “yes”. Hard to imagine that answer would need to be explained to anyone in Illinois. Then one reads the comments here…
- LessAnon - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:31 pm:
BTW, I agree there should be term limits for the Governor if there are term limits for legislators.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:34 pm:
Madigan would get two things from allowing the constitutional amendment to pass:
1 - gain a bit of a reformer reputation
2 - guarantee that no one will ever serve longer than he as House Speaker
He would be 85 when forced out of office, assuming he could maintain his power base through 2026.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:48 pm:
I voted yes, but I should have read the comments first. I also support gubernatorial term limits to go along with GA leadership limits.
- Chicago 20 - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
Absolutely not.
In these days after Citizens United and unlimited dark money buying elections and politicians I’ll be a conservative a keep this part of our State constitution the same.
- JS Mill - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 4:02 pm:
No, it already exists. Go vote.
- Responsa - Friday, May 19, 17 @ 4:03 pm:
Yes. Yes. Yes. The person can still run for his/her regular legislative seat and be elected by his own local constituency for as long as he is wanted. They just wouldn’t be able to stay in leadership roles forever. An excellent approach.