Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

Many lawmakers in this part of Illinois were originally appointed to their offices and later won election in their own right. State Sen. Sue Rezin, R-Morris, was appointed in 2010 after Gary Dahl resigned, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family and trucking business.

John Anthony, R-Plainfield, was appointed as a state representative in 2013 after his predecessor, Pam Roth, announced her resignation because she was moving to Texas as the result of her husband’s transfer.

Sen. Tim Bivins, R-Dixon, was appointed in 2008 after Todd Sieben became an ethanol lobbyist.

In 2013, Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Freeport, was chosen to replace Jim Sacia, who resigned.

Mautino himself was appointed in 1991 after his father, Richard Mautino, died.

They missed one. Rep. Roth was appointed to the House after then-Representative-elect Sue Rezin was appointed to the Senate.

* The Question: Should Illinois hold special elections when vacancies occur instead of appointments - perhaps depending on how much time is left in the terms? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

polls

And, yes, I know there are rules about holding state Senate elections after vacancies happen, but there are still interim appointments. This question is about abolishing most appointments in favor of quick special elections.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 12:56 pm

Comments

Too expensive to hold special elections.

Comment by NoGifts Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 12:58 pm
Democracy too expensive for you, NoGifts?

Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 12:59 pm
Voted “No”.

“Why?”

These appointees face the voters fairly quickly. It’s not like 4 years are going by…

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:01 pm
Too expensive, low turnout … and as time goes on … no-one seems to care (70% run unopposed).

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:04 pm
Too expensive. The appointment process is a little bit democratic, and elections are only marginally more democratic. So I think for a term of office that is less than 2 years for a state legislative position - an appointment is very appropriate.

Comment by siriusly Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:09 pm
Voted yes. We have seen how costly one vote can be.

Comment by Blue dog dem Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:09 pm
I voted “yes” because, you know, democracy.

Comment by Dome Gnome Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:09 pm
Voted ‘no’. As long as the appointment goes to the next general election, and not to the end of the 4-year term.

Comment by Bogey Golfer Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Appointments should last only as long as the next scheduled election cycle (primary or general) unless there is not time for the candidates to get onto the ballot. Then go on to the next cycle. Ideally, an appointment should not be for more than 18-24 months. If the appointee really wants the position, he/she needs to work for it, not have it handed to him/her by the Party.

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:10 pm
I voted yes to holding elections. One reason is I’ve seen too many cases of an elected official retiring early in order to pick their replacement and often passing on the seat like it was family property. The second reason is it concentrates power because the appointee now “owes” the person who appointed them.

Comment by Chicago Guy Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:14 pm
Huge fan of democracy here, but I don’t have a problem with appointments between elections.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:14 pm
Yes.

Any vacancy lasting longer than three or six months.

Cost is not an issue. If Speaker Madigan thought Illinois had 100 Mill for a presidential library, then spending a fraction of that over a few years in honor of democracy is cheap by comparison.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm
Yes, if the regular election is more than1 year away.

Comment by Federalist Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm
Voted ‘no,’ We should not allow people to resign midterm. If you resign midterm, you should have to pay for the special election out of your own money.

Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm
No: election units of government can’t afford to add more elections to their costs.

Comment by Wow Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm
With Anon21 on this one. As long as next election is less than 2 yrs away, use appointments.

Comment by walker Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:16 pm
Voted no. Appointees are vetted by the insiders who matter, special elections are expensive, and voter turnout is horrible for them. 7% for the most recent special election. Appointees usually are very similar, at least idealogically, to whoever they are replacing. Does it really matter who presses the button?

Comment by #freedumb Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:18 pm
== With Anon21 on this one. As long as next election is less than 2 yrs away, use appointments. ==

Cosigned.

Comment by thunderspirit Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:19 pm
It depends on how much time is left in the vacated position before the normal election. If there is more than 60% time left before the next election, have a special election.
However, if there is less than a half of term left, appoint someone to fill the vacancy.

Comment by Mama Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:19 pm
Formerly known as- the cost for special elections is not a state cost - it’s the local election authorities your county clerks, public facilities closed to host polling places, etc.

Comment by siriusly Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:24 pm
Voted no. Agree with OW. What was the voter turnout for LaHood, almost less than 0?

Comment by pool boy Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:25 pm
Another method is conducting the ==special election== simultaneously with the next regularly scheduled election, regardless of when the vacancy occurs.

We recently held elections on March 18, 2014, November 4, 2014, February 24, 2015 and April 7, 2015. Adding a race to the ballot on one of those dates is affordable and has precedent.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:25 pm
Voted Yes. Congress does it. Makes sense.

Comment by Come on Man! Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:26 pm
Can’t fill it. That should read.

Comment by GV Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:31 pm
@siriusly - that is right. Spit balling more of a method where the state underwrites the costs of a special election.

The Times gives five examples since 1991, so something like that should not be prohibitively expensive, but the 1:25 comment may be easier?

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:33 pm
I concur with OW and VM.
Great minds think alike?

Comment by Jake From Elwood Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:36 pm
Though the Times is only writing about one region. Even so, special elections would not be so frequent as to be a burden imho.

Maybe we just draw straws until the gridlock passes lol? Thanks for earlier reply, @siriusly.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:38 pm
If it is not broke do not fix it! This is Illinois, we have bigger fish to fry!!!

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:38 pm
I think your question is indirectly related to the redistricting process that the State has. That process is corrupt so it is only natural that filling those openings is corrupted as well. The Leaders despise elections, they despise anything they can’t control. Who cares what the voters think?

Comment by Just Me Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:40 pm
No. Cost and turnout!

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:42 pm
I’m not a fan of appointment to elected office. Depending on the length of the term remaining, there should either be a special election or the seat should remain vacant.

One more note on this — given the bit of controversy over filling the position when Judy Baar Topinka passed away, I’m a bit surprised that no reform bill has passed.

Comment by Gooner Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:44 pm
Counties can not afford special elections that have a small turnout. The SBE has been able to pay the portion of election judge costs for the 18th District elections.
Plus all holiday overtime the counties paid out with having elections after the 4th of July and Labor Day.
With most counties forcing office holders to cut budgets Illinois needs to adopt the Indiana plan the divides the county into polling locations rather than individual precincts polling sites. With the Indiana plan you can vote at any site in the county.

Comment by yea more changes Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:44 pm
No. An appointment is probably the only way I’ll ever be able to get one of these sweet gigs.

Keep hope alive. Vote no.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:54 pm
I’d say interim appointments are fine and organize a special election as soon as possible depending on length of the current term. Especially in cases of resignation, death, or removal.

Comment by Levois Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:59 pm
A LOT more than that! It’s close to 30-35%. It’s the Corrupt picking the corrupt to maintain their control. BAD FOR ILLINOIS

Comment by Ben Franklin Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:01 pm
No, too expensive. More people probably line up for chicken in Ladd than vote in a special election

Comment by Tommydanger Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:10 pm
Yes. Hold elections - however imperfectly, works for the US House. If appointments are necessary, do them the way the US Senate does - at the next general election the position is on the ballot for the remainder of the original term.

Another pernicious effect of appointments? When the partisan party has a large pool to select from (like the Sangamon County GOP with 25ish of the 29 County Board members), you only get insiders selected.

Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:30 pm
I have been an election judge and have seen how low the turnout is for special elections. Ballots have to be printed based on the number of registered voters plus a few extra in case there are spoiled ballots. Judges have to be in place and are paid for the day even if only 7% of registered voters take the time to vote. Early voting has to be provided as well as absentee ballots prepared even if not used. Cost is in the thousands of dollars.

I would like to say yes as this is a democracy but the reality is that our citizens do not participate during regular elections much less special elections.

Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:32 pm
This is the closest poll I’ve seen on Capfax.

Comment by Downstate GOP Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:34 pm
No to special elections; all state districts are gerrymandered anyway.

I suggest that if the elected official resigns, then the losing candidate in the prior election succeed to the seat, as if elected.

There are at least three benefits: (1) resignations, especially those strategically timed to hand off the seat to relatives or cronies, will be reduced; (2) more elections will be contested, especially those of long-serving, senior members; (3) the successor in office will have the support of voters, perhaps more voters than would vote in a special election.

Comment by Anon III Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:38 pm
===election units of government can’t afford to add more elections to their costs===

My brother lives in Texas. He was appalled that Illinois appointed a state comptroller for two years. That never would’ve happened down there. They have a tradition of special elections. It becomes a matter of priorities. We always find money for some things, so why not these?

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:46 pm
That’s what happened to Mark Todd. He was appointed to Christine Johnson’s position as DeKalb County Treasurer when Johnson was appointed to fill State Sen. Brad Brzynski’s spot when he resigned.

Todd then won an uncontested election as treasurer.

Trouble is, when Todd was first appointed to the position, he was already in trouble with the FDIC for his part in running Farmers State Bank into the ground when he was a VP there.

That’s right, a guy who is now not permitted by the feds to work as a banker was DeKalb County Treasurer as long as he wanted to be.

The GOP failed us by appointing on the basis of loyalty and relationships instead of competence or greed or whatever Todd’s problem is. The Dems failed us by not contesting the race and producing oppo research highly pertinent to the office.

So while my answer is that we should stick with appointments for the sake of stability, I would certainly like to see the time period shortened during which appointments occur. That would ensure we can stay with the devil we know/elected for a longer period of time. Also, maybe some of these people who resign for no good reason right after the deadline for special elections might instead stick out their terms of office.

http://www.citybarbs.com/?s=mark+todd+fdic

Comment by yinn Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:55 pm
Special elections would be a great candidate for a trial of “vote by mail”.

Comment by a drop in Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:10 pm
Waste of money. We already have a democratic process. Last time I checked, the Committeemen were elected to perform this duty. Yes, they are partisan, but I don’t see an issue with the same party holding onto the office for the remainder of the term.

Comment by Southwest Cook Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:34 pm
voted no but wanted to vote yes until the public takes control of the regular election cycle option and hold elected officials accountable we/they deserve appointments

Comment by railrat Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:39 pm
No

For the love of all that is holy, did anyone see how much it cost to hold the special election for Aaron Schock’s seat?! This is just for Sangamon County alone: http://wymg.com/news/101101-sangamon-county-wont-ask-for-special-election-reimbursement/

And here is the statement from County Clerk Don Gray about turnout, which was a massive 8.8%: http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150910/NEWS/150919969

Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:47 pm
Name/Nickname/Anon @ 1:15 pm:

= We should not allow people to resign midterm. If you resign midterm, you should have to pay for the special election out of your own money. =

Would you also require the estate of Rep. Golar to fund a special election?

Comment by cover Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:56 pm
I went with “no”.
You would have to have a special primary and a special election, and the turn outs are typically very low.

If it was structured such the party committees picked the party nominees (so as to avoid the special primary), then you would basically have the system we have now in most places, but with the added expense of an election (that would pick the party selected nominee of the stronger party in the district).

Comment by titan Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 4:17 pm
Appointments are much cheaper and quicker than special elections. May not be as effective (we ended up with the LaHood kid who is even further right than Schrock). If more than 60% of term left, have the election at the next regularly scheduled election of any sort.

Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 4:30 pm
Level the playing field leave it vacant until next election

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 6:30 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: The Kasich lesson
Next Post: More like this, please

Last 10 posts:

Open thread (04-29)
Isabel’s morning briefing (04-29)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today's edition (04-29)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (04-29)
Live coverage (04-29)
Reader comments closed for the weekend (04-26)
Isabel’s afternoon briefing (04-26)
Things that make you go 'Hmm' (04-26)
Did Dan Proft’s independent expenditure PAC illegally coordinate with Bailey's campaign? The case will go before the Illinois Elections Board next week (04-26)
PJM's massive fail (04-26)