Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Judge may delay trial a week
Next Post: Morning Shorts
Posted in:
* 3:28 pm - Gov. Pat Quinn just announced that he has used his amendatory veto pen to change longstanding state law. Quinn has unilaterally altered statutes that require voters to declare their party affiliation during primary elections.
From a press release…
Today Governor Quinn issued an amendatory veto of House Bill 4842 to create a fairer primary election system in Illinois. The Governor’s amendatory veto eliminates the requirement that a voter publicly declare political party affiliation when voting at a primary election. Under current Illinois law, a voter must declare a party affiliation before voting in the primary election, which is then recorded as public record.
Whatever you think about the merits, the bizarre thing about this AV is that the underlying bill is only tangentially related to the subject at hand. He basically wrote a new state law from scratch.
The bill, HB 4842, “Requires (now, permits) the State Board of Elections to publish an Internet voters’ guide before each general primary in the same manner as before each general election.”
That’s all it did. The bill struck language stating “has the discretion to” and replaced it with “shall”
Quinn’s amendatory veto, however, adds several new sections to the bill, then changes those sections to his liking.
From the Illinois Constitution…
“(e) The Governor may return a bill together with specific recommendations for change to the house in which it
originated. The bill shall be considered in the same manner as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members elected to each house. Such bill shall be presented again to the Governor and if he certifies that such acceptance conforms to his specific recommendations, the bill shall become law. If he does not so certify, he shall return it as a vetoed bill to the house in which it originated.” [Changed cite after commenter suggestion]
Here’s the problem. Quinn had no objection to the actual bill. His objection is to sections he added to the bill from standing law. I just cannot see how this is constitutional. If I’m wrong, please correct me in comments.
…Adding… After reading my always bright commenters, I’m becoming more convinced that this may actually be consitutional after all. Whether the GA thinks so is another matter. Still waiting on responses from House and Senate leaders.
*** UPDATE *** The House Democratic response was, as usual, “It’s under review.” The Senate Democratic response essentially says the same thing…
The Senate President is generally supportive of measures designed to increase voter participation. However, the General Assembly will conduct a compliance analysis to determine if the Governor’s actions today alter the fundamental purpose of the original bill. This analysis and any formal legislative action will begin in the House.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:36 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Judge may delay trial a week
Next Post: Morning Shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The constitutionality is questionable, but the campaign can certainly get a leg up with that AV. Populist move on the Governor’s part.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:42 pm
The “phony populist” strikes again!!!
Comment by raising kane Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:44 pm
This seems blantantly unconstitutional even more so that when Blago moved money around in direct contradiction to the intent of the General Assembly. Gov. Quinn cannot be the executive and legislator at the same time. If he would like to write legislation, he should consider running for the Illinois General Assembly.
If this is Constitutional, why did Quinn stop with just radically changing the way primaries are undertaken in IL? Why not implement an automatic run-off provision or move the primary from the current date to sometime in the summer or fall? Why not change any or all requirements to vote in Illinois? All of these could seemingly be accomplished by simply AVing a piece of legislation that has some tangential connection to elections.
Comment by SangamoGOP Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:45 pm
Doesn’t the House have a longstanding policy that regardless of the merits of an AV such as this, that they don’t agree with the Governor’s interpretation of this power, and doesn’t the House always move to override these types of AV’s?
Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:47 pm
See County of Kane v. Carlson, People ex. rel. City of Canton v. Crouch, Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. v. Zagel amongst others. The courts in Illinois have a pretty strong history of siding with the executive in these matters. I’m taking this info from a good article Kirk Dillard wrote in the July 1988 Illinois Bar Journal.
Comment by bedwetter Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:48 pm
===always move to override these types of AV’s===
No. They just rule that the guv overstepped his authority and the whole thing dies in Rules Committee, including the underlying bill.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:49 pm
Rich, you are not wrong. This clearly oversteps his AV authority. Even so, it puts everyone in an awkward position b/c the public hates having to declare a party, and the public does not understand how what the Governor did violates his Constitutional responsibilities. Double Whammy.
Comment by RJW Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:50 pm
Wow, wonderful populist move showing Quinn to be a man of the people! (/snark)
I’m thinking about that primary ad with Harold Washington, when he talks about Quinn’s competence. If I were Brady, I would not make a major issue of this now. If Brady does, then Quinn gets to change the subject to a “populist” issue and gains. Instead, I would publicly call out Quinn for abusing the powers of his office.
Then, when this amendatory veto gets smacked down by the IL courts (which will probably happen pretty quickly), pounce with a few well-placed ads. List times when Blago did the same thing as Quinn, again tying Quinn to his former running mate. Heck, through in one of the particularly damning passages from Harold Washington for good measure. Then keep hitting at the theme all summer long- Quinn is over his head, can’t manage the office, doesn’t understand his role, etc.
Of course, this is Brady. He and Quinn have not been able to go more than a week or two without a serious blunder, so I expect him to bungle this in 5…4…3…2…1…
Comment by South Side Mike Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:53 pm
The objection is stated here:
{Though this bill is an important step towards making our primary elections fairer and more competitive, it is not enough.}
He rejects the effort for greater fairness in primary elections as being incomplete.
He goes on to outline what would be enough to earn his signature to become law.
His amendatory veto would appear constitutional due to its objection to the legislation as incomplete.
They can certainly over-ride his veto; and the bill will become law as written. In the interim; there is no primary election before the Veto Session, so his recommendations do not have the effect of becoming law, and in fact will not become law unless adopted by the legislature.
This has all the choreography of a Baryshnikov ballet.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:53 pm
You know, I guess we’ll see if it stands, but I think this is great and I doubt that it would have happened any other way.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:53 pm
Ugh . . . I thought Blago was gone. This seems like
something from his old play book.
Comment by Downstate Dem Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:54 pm
Rich, you are reading the wrong part of the Veto section of the constitution. Go a couple paragraphs down:
“(e) The Governor may return a bill together with
specific recommendations for change to the house in which it
originated. The bill shall be considered in the same manner
as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be
accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members
elected to each house. Such bill shall be presented again to
the Governor and if he certifies that such acceptance
conforms to his specific recommendations, the bill shall
become law. If he does not so certify, he shall return it as
a vetoed bill to the house in which it originated.”
Comment by George Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:54 pm
Ah, George, you beat me to it…. He’s got the right. I don’t it should be as easy as it is, but the IL Const. is what it is.
Comment by Ahoy Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:56 pm
Changed. But he still doesn’t have the right. None of those sections he changed were in the original bill. At least, that’s how I’m figuring the GA is gonna see it. We’ll see.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 3:58 pm
South Side Mike, no court will ever have the opportunity to strike down the AV, because it can’t even be considered until the House comes back in session–AFTER the election. The House will (as it has traditionally done) rule the AV out of order and the underlying bill dies. By then the election is over. Quinn gets his populist ‘man of the people’ pitch, and nothing ever happens after that. All in all a very good political move by Governor Quinn. Brady make an issue out of it? The ins-and-outs of AV’s is insider stuff; public doesn’t know or care about it. But they DO like the basic idea. Good Move Pat!
Comment by IVote Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:00 pm
Let’s face it, Quinn didn’t dream this up himself. Who would have been his advisor(s) on this AV?
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:01 pm
Responsa, I think you’re probably wrong there.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:01 pm
Why should Quinn stop here? Why not rewrite — I mean A/V — the BIMP to add more revenue? Can he create an income tax increase by amendatorily vetoing the budget?
If this is legal, Quinn is thinking too small once again. If it’s not illegal, it probably should be.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:02 pm
Look up Thompson’s AV of SB 536 during the 83rd GA. He basically rewrote the Labor Relations Act singlehandedly and in a constitutional challenge the court upheld his authority to do so. Sure, the GA ain’t gonna buy it, but PQ is exercising authority that has legal precedent.
Comment by bedwetter Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:02 pm
OK, Rich. You know him far better than I.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:03 pm
See if we had a con-con we could take away the governor’s ability to use the AV.
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:03 pm
Blago used to do this all the time and it almost always went nowhere. Senate and House rules (Senate Rule 9-2(a); House Rule 78(c)) limit AV’s to addressing “the Governor’s objections to portions of a bill, the general merit of which the Governor recognizes, and shall not alter the fundamental purpose or legislative scheme set forth in the bill as passed.”
It would be a stretch for the Gov’s changes to fit within those rules. Of course, rules can always be suspended…
Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:03 pm
Brady has voted against the open primary. Now Quinn has moved to eliminate declaring a party, which is the number 1 reason people don’t vote in primaries. The big majority is on Quinn’s side on this one.
Comment by Reformer Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:04 pm
How exactly does this help him? A few prior commenters have called the move “populist,” but I don’t see how stopping the declaration of party for a primary makes him a “populist.” This whole thing doesn’t make sense.
Comment by tikkunolam Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:05 pm
IVote, thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t that familiar with IL AV law. But Quinn better be careful, or else an AV comparison bill to Blago could be in the works, no matter the popularity of particular subjects.
Comment by South Side Mike Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:06 pm
Rich, your point is well made, but the part about “objections” comes from Art. IV, Sec. 9(b) of the Constitution, which applies to a regular veto. Sec. 9(e) applies to an amendatory veto, and it refers only to “specific recommendations”, not “objections”.
Comment by anonymous Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:07 pm
So Governor Do-Little has decided to create a law using power he feels he has constitutionally.
He has sat around flip flopping while Illinoisans get beaten around their heads and shoulders on a daily basis, but NOW he decides to use some magical constitutional powers?
Where has he been?
This is like being on a lifeboat for a month slowly dying and wondering who has to be thrown to the sharks, when suddenly the Captain who repeatly told us he was powerless, decides to pull a ukelele out of his butt because he was bored and wanted to sing a song.
If Quinn was Superman all this time, do you think he ought to do more than just use his super powers to melt a chocolate bar?
What does the Governor see as a limit to his super constitutional law creating powers? REALITY?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:08 pm
In general, Constitution trumps House and Senate rules.
Still waiting on responses from House and Senate leaders.
Madigan will be consistent with what he tried to do during Blago’s “Rewrite to do Right” campaign, and say it isn’t allowed.
He was wrong, then, though, and would be wrong again.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:08 pm
When this open primary issue has been put on advisory referendum in some 20 townships, it garners more than 80% of the vote. Brady is on the unpopular side of this one.
Comment by Reformer Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:08 pm
Its a “stunt” yes, but its not effective until the legislature approves the recommendations.
Comment by GOP4EVER Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:10 pm
Madigan and Cullerton should lob a couple of real shell bills on various subject matters over to the Governor every session. Just for fun. Just to see what his whimsy is at that time.
Actually this is obviously a farther stretch than those shell bills that help actual legislation get around the rules. But as long as it gets to come to a vote I guess it could pass muster constitutionally. But it still makes you wonder why he couldn’t get a legislator to throw an amendment at the bill last May. And at least it won’t cost as much as free rides for seniors.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:10 pm
===He was wrong, then, though, and would be wrong again. ===
Except he can keep it bottled up in Rules and kill the whole thing. The underlying bill isn’t exactly crucial.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:12 pm
This is not uncommon and occured with a bill last year changing the prompt payment act. It’s not a science in how the House tech staff will approach this AV, but it probably stands a good chance of being overriden…not because of the content but because of the action itself….and veto falls after the general election…
Comment by Leroy Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:13 pm
Except he can keep it bottled up in Rules and kill the whole thing. The underlying bill isn’t exactly crucial.
Right, and Quinn isn’t going to take it to trial to compel the House to hear it.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:13 pm
- I don’t see how stopping the declaration of party for a primary makes him a “populist.” -
Well, most people like the idea that their vote is secret and not held as a public record. This makes that possible in the primary.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:14 pm
It’s not that unusual for a governor to make unrelated additions in an AV…HB723 last year is a top of mind example. That bill had to do with slating, and Quinn issued an AV that called for a question to be put on the ballot. Hardly anyone blinked there.
Comment by PFK Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:16 pm
Yes, but political parties are member organizations with the purpose of running candidates for political office. The primaries are an efficient and just means of choosing within that large member organization the candidate that will represent that organization in the election.
Primaries aren’t just the “first” round of voting, with the “final round” in november, even though they seem that way.
Why would someone choose to vote for a representative of the member organization if they weren’t a member?
Comment by George Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:18 pm
===Why would someone choose to vote for a representative of the member organization if they were not a member? ===
George, while I agree with you, many if not most don’t seem to. We could go back to having conventions to pick our nominees.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:23 pm
===Hardly anyone blinked there. ===
Um, dude, they overrode that AV. It was unanimous in the Senate and only 9 sided with PQ in the House.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:24 pm
Rich,
{None of those sections he changed were in the original bill.}
You originally indicated that his amendatory veto did not object to the bill presented. He did; he objected to the original bill as being incomplete, and his AV makes changes he believes would make it complete.
They don’t have to accept the changes at all. This is election year pandering; and I believe is done with the blessing of all involved, who can view the underlying bill as a throw away.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:24 pm
First, good for Brady because if he gets elected it sets a nice little power grab precedent. GOP can skip sponsoring bills and just send them to Brady.
Second, Brady will likely miss this vote. Most people hate the closed primary but it’s not going to be a big vote getter.
Third, this thing will die because I believe both parties require closed primaries to nominate for President.
Comment by Good One Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:27 pm
I believe both parties require closed primaries to nominate for President.
In IL they do, but Quinn’s AV would change that. There is no federal requirement for closed primaries in presidential races.
Comment by dave Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:32 pm
George: “Why would someone choose to vote for a representative of the member organization if they weren’t a member?” Either party could (and probably would) organize it’s die-hards to (for example) to nominate a wing-nut (or weaker candidate) from the other party so “our” guy wouldn’t have to run against a harder-to-beat “real” candidate. (Face it, Dillard would be a heck of a lot harder to beat that Brady, IMO). On the question of constitutionality, this is how the Supreme’s would look at it: The House passed it, the Senate passed it, the Governor approved it. In the AV situation, it just goes in a little different order. Same constitutional formula. If an AV were approved by the House and Senate (and this one won’t be), it would pass constitutional muster, I’ll bet!
Comment by IVote Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:33 pm
http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf
Those are the GOP rules. No open primaries. I think the Dem rules are the same. It’s not about federal law, it’s about the party convention rules and whether delegates are seated.
Comment by Good One Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:38 pm
Are open primaries a big issue out there right now? I don’t see it.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:38 pm
With all the problems facing this state, this is what Quinn is worried about?
Comment by LincolnLounger Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:42 pm
The Governor may object to the bill and make recommendations for change, but to add a new section and essentially veto current law will be ruled non compliant. The cionstitutional question is for the courts and this will not be challenged. It will be ruled non compliant and Madigan may attach the language to another vehicle for a vote.
Comment by Stupid Human Tricks Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:43 pm
Those are the GOP rules. No open primaries. I think the Dem rules are the same. It’s not about federal law, it’s about the party convention rules and whether delegates are seated.
Well… then they have changed post-primary in 2008, as there were Presidential open primaries in 2008.
Comment by dave Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:43 pm
Can someone please explain how this benefits Quinn (or anyone else on his party’s ticket)?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:44 pm
Bottom line for now at least is this. Quinn can campaign on how he’s including the great unwashed (those who say they won’t participate in primaries because you have to ask for a specific ballot)in the electoral process. Might get him an additional 2 or 3 points. After the election, I don’t see Madigan releasing the thing from Rules and even if he does, will Currie call it? Remember also that the bill sponsors have to file a motion to accept or reject, but they also have the right to do absolutely nothing and the thing dies on the vine.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:46 pm
This wouldn’t create an “open primary.” Voters would still have to declare a party and then stick with that party, but in the secrecy of the ballot booth.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:47 pm
dave, those were the rules for 2008. maybe you can tell me who did the open primary. I think there might be some limited open primary beauty contests. Here is the Dem rule.
A. Participation in the delegate selection process shall be open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats.
1. Democratic voters shall be those persons who publicly declare their Party preference and have that preference publicly recorded
Comment by Good One Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:47 pm
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf
Comment by Good One Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:48 pm
===Might get him an additional 2 or 3 points===
Doubtful. It will help him with his TV ad campaign, however. And he’ll include it in all of his endless soliloquies when answering reporters’ questions.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:48 pm
Again, GO, we’re not talking about a strictly “open” primary here. Party declarations are still required, but in secret.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:50 pm
but to add a new section and essentially veto current law will be ruled non compliant.
Let’s get hypothetical here… Say a law was passed to change some kind of regulation for counties, municipalities, townships, etc. But since the statutes governing those entities are all over the place, the original legislation missed a governing statute. Or the legislation maybe even left out one of them on purpose (such as Townships).
So… the Governor AVs the legislation, adding in an entirely new section that wasn’t in the original language of the bill, so that the bill can be applied to all of those entities equally.
Yes, the subject matter would be similar, but such a scenario makes your statement of “but to add a new section and essentially veto current law will be ruled non compliant” ring quite hollow.
What people (Madigan) need to see is that it isn’t unconstitutional just because you don’t want it to happen.
Comment by George Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:51 pm
There goes the direct mail campaign to targeted voters. Oh, I forgot, Quinn doesn’t do direct mail….
Comment by Louis Howe Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:56 pm
Rich, the terms here are pretty vague. If you look at fair vote, you’ll see Illinois is not listed as “closed” because you can change your affiliation on election day. Also, at the same site, you can see that the so called open primaries in the south require you to vote in the same party primary if there is a run off, i.e you had to declare the first time.
If you take away the open declaration of party affiliation, you’ll lose votes at the party conventions. For Dems, that means handing those votes to Madigan and whatever novel way he comes up with for selecting delegates.
Comment by Good One Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:02 pm
Even better than the constitution, try to find an old copy of the Madigan report on executive branch amendatory veto powers. It’s golden.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:20 pm
So, it’s not a true “open primary”. You just don’t have your party affiliation announced to the world. You still have to confine your votes to one party or the other, no “cross-voting”? correct?
Comment by TimB Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:20 pm
Correct. But CA Democratic Party vs. Jones might make this a problem under the US Consitution… http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0530_0567_ZO.html
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:24 pm
Inside baseball. This won’t even register with voters.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:51 pm
- This won’t even register with voters. -
Maybe not a huge number, but Quinn being able to say he gave the voters a secret ballot in the primary will register with some.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:58 pm
I think it will register, fed up, because voters don’t like declaring party ID at all.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:58 pm
Quinn makes a move toward open primaries. Good for him!!! Whether people appreciate it or not this could expand and intensify electoral competition.
Closed primaries allow the party establishment on both sides to control the process and limit the choices of voters and compromise their privacy
Open primaries could improve the chances of thoughtful independent candidates of which we are in such great need. The ridiculously short primary seasons are a time when some real choices are often available. Open primaries would allow voters to find the best candidates across the political spectrum. The closed system is clearly the one favored by the party hacks.
And face it the primaries are not just the parties working out their nominations. Primaries in many cases are THE elections—DEMS in Cook Co or the Republicans in Dupage. Once those primaries are over the elections are essentially over. Nov voting is a formality.
Comment by jaded voter Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 6:02 pm
What’s Quinn’s angle? It may or may not be a justifiable change, but I don’t see this as some big issue that’s gonna rally a lot of troops.
Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 6:05 pm
Got to say I like the sentiment behind Quinn’s move, but question the timing as well as if it has a prayer of passage.
Comment by Gregor Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 6:51 pm
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:58 pm:
I think it will register, fed up, because voters don’t like declaring party ID at all.
I wonder if this is such a good thing for Chicago democrats. I might be more likely to take a Republican ballot now if I know my Alderman won’t know about it and ignore my requests for city services. Sure there won’t be many candidates on the ballot, but at least they cant hold it against me anymore.
Comment by Edison Parker Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 7:23 pm
Edison Parker - You make a good point that Quinn can say this will lead to politicians being more accountable to all of their constituents.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 8:06 pm
Just so I understand (sorry for my denseness): you would declare which ballot you want, but there would be no public record on party affiliation? The only thing people would know is that you voted in the primary?
Comment by Upstate Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 8:27 pm
While I would love to see this become law, for many of the reasons others have already brought up, there is no way this ever sees a vote in the House, as it far exceeds the AV powers of the gov according to Madigan, a ConCon delegate when the AV was added. Back in the Thompson years, agencies often rewrote legislation, usually with the intention of legitimately improving the bills, until the Speaker finally had enough and drew the line in the sand, killing bills he agreed with philosophically because the gov had gone beyond simply cleaning up faulty legislation. The SUBSTANCE of the AV message was often added to a vehicle bill, but the Speaker was making his point on the use of the AV. For Quinn to now pander on something that has never been heard in a committee, rather than proposing and fighting for it, is yet another example of going for the publicity pop.
Comment by Herky Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 9:00 pm
Kudos to Quinn on his idea to sell Asian Carp to the Chinese. See, a broken clock is right at least two times a day.
Comment by Will County Woman Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 9:05 pm
This smacks of the same kind of crap we had to put up with his predecessor. It’s meaningless and PQ knows it. Stand up and do something for the state that is real. As a Republican who is less than enamored with Brady I want PQ to show me why he desrves my vote!
Comment by Fed-Up Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 9:05 pm
Herky said:
“there is no way this ever sees a vote in the House”.
I agree, but that’s not the issue. It won’t be addressed again before the election. It’s obviously a move made for the election, one I think will be very popular. Many people, especially independents, don’t like declaring a party affiliation.
Also the argument that “there are more important things for Quinn to be worrying about” is silly. How much time do you think he actually spent working on this bill?
Comment by Chicago Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 9:08 pm
To me, this tells me that Quinn is not interested in being re-elected; but he’s interested in tying up loose ends that he feels needs to be done. Why is he concentrating on the primary operations? Why isn’t he trying to solve the budget? It looks like a very little manner that makes Quinn appear to not grasp the bigger picture. I say this will backfire on him with the voters. Many will say “that’s nice, but what about the 13 billion? About my lack of a job? About how high my property taxes still are?
Comment by Paul S. Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 10:32 pm
Paul S.,
Good for Quinn to attempt to open up the primary. Maybe the jello gov is regrowing a spine.
The massive budget problem has been kicked down the can for years and years. things will get worse before they get better. Nobody is going to do anything serious about it. Quinn couldn’t even if he had a great plan because guys like Madigan and Cullerton will always preserve the status quo.
Serious grown up gov’t will only come when we the voters replace many many of the current establishment types and hacks who populate the seats in Springfield. Open primaries provide an opportunity.
No Quinn fan but he is right on this one.
Comment by jaded voter Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:39 pm
- It’s meaningless and PQ knows it. -
I think you’re the only person who “knows” this.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:58 pm
Well, he got a decent sub-head from the Sun-Times, anyway (key phrase: “Weaken Party Bosses”). This is good politics. And probably gets killed in the Veto Session.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 7:12 am
This will do virtually nothing for quinn politically. If it would, we’d have legislative candidates highlighting this issue, and few do. Boland maybe? Black?
As to the above poster saying this was quinn growing a spine, that’s absurd. He attached this to a piece of legislation that no one cares about. If the bill dies in it’s entirety, no one is going to really care.
Hopefully it will stay in the news for a while because it helps to paint quinn as a guy without focus.
Comment by Nothing to See Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 7:18 am
It’s not nothing. Have you seen the front of the Sun-Times? Usually when a politician gets a front page spot like that, it’s because he died or did something stupid and/or criminal.
Yeah, the bill will die later in rules committee, but in the end it was worth doing it just for the cover and story about “taking on party bosses”.
Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 7:56 am
“This will do virtually nothing for quinn politically.If it would, we’d have legislative candidates highlighting this issue…”
Can you say they haven’t? The leaders won’t push it because it makes electoral politics much more difficult.
He’s getting good headlines about an issue that isn’t at the top of voters’ minds but addresses an issue many have an opinion about - an opinion on Quinn’s side.
“If the bill dies in it’s entirety, no one is going to really care.”
It won’t die before the Veto Session. And the Veto Session is…after the election. Ergo, Quinn took on party leaders and fought for fairer, more open elections as far as the 2010 cycle is concerned.
I said it above (I was anon 7:12), it’s good politics for Quinn.
Comment by FillB Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:04 am
-It’s not nothing. Have you seen the front of the Sun-Times? Usually when a politician gets a front page spot like that, it’s because he died or did something stupid and/or criminal.-
That’s right. Quinn is on the front page of the Sun times talking about some innocuous election law provision that won’t affect anyone for two years instead of talking about jobs and the economy. I’m a Brady guy. Hopefully, he’ll be on the front page of the Sun Times tomorrow about a similarly unimportant item.
I wonder if Quinn’s direct mail outfits used these lists that he’s so critical of today.
Comment by Nothing to See Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:15 am
Hey, it’s better than a huge front page story about him being the target of a new federal investigation. That’s usually what comes with a cover like that.
Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:27 am
The concept of additional privacy in declaring one’s party preference is laudable and a good first step in creating reforms to an antiquated electoral system. However, the method chosen by the Governor leads to more questions than answers about the legality of the AV.
With all the problems that face the citizens of Illinois, I doubt that this is a high priority. The Governor, with this non-issue, is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Comment by WRMNpolitics Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:32 am
This is more like Clark Kent discovering he is Superman in order to sharpen his pencil.
If Quinn’s power is legit, he should have been appying it for the past year on real issues.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:46 am
“I’m a Brady guy.”
Really.
“Hopefully, he’ll be on the front page of the Sun Times tomorrow about a similarly unimportant item.”
Gassing puppies?
Sorry. Couldn’t resist. He’s not governor. If he becomes governor, then he probably will be at some point or another.
“I wonder if Quinn’s direct mail outfits used these lists that he’s so critical of today.”
If Pat Quinn had a direct mail outfit, they almost certainly would. But Pat Quinn’s mail consultant is usually on par with the Yeti, Harvey the Rabbit and Metro East’s own Piasa. No such creature has been proven to exist.
Comment by JSF Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:52 am
I was fed up first and this is one of the few moves by Quinn that I actually like.
Comment by Fed up Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:58 am
actually JSF I’m not talking brady on the front page. I’m talking Quinn. I hope he keeps talking about things that register about 38th on the public’s priority list.
Quinn is trying to change the focus of the public away from jobs, the economy, and the budget. It won’t work. And this AV looks more like avoidance of reality than political reform.
Comment by Nothing to See Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 9:23 am
SB 1666 sponsored by Sen. Bomke would establish open primaries. When it came up for a vote last spring, Sen. Brady voted NO. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/senate/09600SB1666_04012009_021000T.pdf
Comment by Reformer Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 9:54 am
Playing to the media is not the way to govern; I am a Democrat, have no problem declaring it, and am dismayed by the latest move from my party’s nominee. Let’s fix what’s broken…not find solution to non-problems just because the Tribune will like it, Governor. And its unconsitutional.
Comment by Oh please... Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 9:57 am
This is such an old issue. In the mid-seventies the issue was used by Dave Robinson (an old Quinn/Walker protege during that General Election. Robinson created a photo op by staging a bonfire of precinct lists that revealed the partisan voting behavior of registered voters in primary elections. When asked by one of his more naive volunteers why he was burning the marked precinct lists, Robinson cynically laughed and said, “The Primary is over.”
Quinn’s “bold” staging of the issue with his AV illustrates the political value of pandering to the public now. He couldn’t do it during the primary because his own election organization was using the marked precinct lists. All the campaigns were. And that the marked lists are such an efficient and economical political tool is why, even for the best of reasons, the open primary initiative will never succeed.
Comment by Observing Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 10:11 am
The political powers of IL don’t want change or reform. Open primaries diminish or dilute their power. They will never vote for open primaries.
Quinn did the only thing possible, put the issue out there in the Public square, try to educate the voters and the media about the value of open primaries. Open primaries could only improve our electoral options. Quinn is making an effort cynics.
Quinn is also planning to sell our carp to the Chinese for a profit. Good market based solution.
2 good ideas in one week from Quinn.
Name ONE good idea from Daley, Madigan or Cullerton this year or last. And no squeezing every last dime out of citizens doesn’t count.
Quinn has been a disappointment, but maybe he is starting to make a turn for the better.
Comment by jaded voter Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:25 pm