Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Morning shorts
Posted in:
First of all, getting 280,000 valild signatures on a complicated issue like this won’t be easy.
A group of Illinoisans says it’s time to end the Legislature’s practice of last-minute deals and votes on the state budget and other important issues.
The Illinois Democracy Project has formed to amend the state Constitution in the November 2008 election. The amendment would require legislation to have a 21-day review period before lawmakers could approve it. Legislation deemed an emergency by top leaders and a special panel could still be approved quickly under the proposed amendment.
This “group” (with a small handful of members and no discernable or disclosed funding source) also assumes that just because there’s a delay that anyone will actually read the legislation. There are thousands of bills each year, and most legislators just don’t read them. Giving them more time probably won’t change things. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer that they all read the legislation as well. But whether this idea will make it so is another question entirely.
More likely, the people who will benefit most from the constitutionally stalled bills will be bigtime lobbyists, who spend most of their time slowing down or stopping legislation rather than passing them. They do this by nitpicking the bills to death. Lots more time gives them lots more nits to pick. While this may look good on its face, I wonder if it has more to do with another agenda.
Here’s the actual text of the proposed Constitutional Amendment.
(a) Public Review Period: Except bills passed as emergency legislation, the final vote required for any bill to meet the procedural requirements for passage shall not be taken before a public review period of twenty-one calendar days has elapsed since the latter of the date on which the bill was filed or, if the bill has been amended, the date on which the bill was last amended.
(b) Joint Committee on Emergency Legislation: Prior to the election of the presiding officers of either house in odd-numbered years, the Secretary of State shall publicly draw by random selection the names of forty members of the House of Representatives, and the Governor shall publicly draw by random selection the names of twenty members of the Senate, and the members of the General Assembly whose names are drawn shall comprise the Joint Committee on Emergency Legislation. The member with most time served in the General Assembly shall be the chairperson, with ties in service resolved by lot. Any vacancy shall be filled within thirty days by a public random selection of the name of a member of the same house and by the same state authority that selected the member whose departure created the vacancy.
(c) Emergency Legislation: If a bill is declared by the presiding officers of both houses to be emergency legislation, and if the bill describes a state of emergency and explains why a delay would exacerbate or render the bill ineffectual as a response to the emergency, and if at least three-fifths of the members of the Joint Committee on Emergency Legislation cast record votes in favor of a resolution recommending passage of the bill, then the bill may be considered concurrently and immediately in both houses and, if at least three-fifths of the members in each house cast record votes in favor of the bill, the bill shall be declared passed and, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10 of this Article, shall take effect immediately upon being signed into law by the Governor.
Again, the goal isn’t bad at all. It may have stopped some pretty lousy bills from being passed (the SBC debacle comes to mind).
But if legislators won’t stand up for their rights now, why would this make any difference?
*** UPDATE *** YDD makes an interesting, if a bit harsh, point in comments.
The… moron who drafted this has obviously no legislative experience. Flip it around the other way: no amendments to any bill within 21 days of final passage. I can’t think of any bill of substance that passed without some amendments to atleast fine tune it in the last three days. Once amended, most of those bills pass with landslide majorities.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 1:40 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Morning shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is inside politics, and won’t get the signatures. Also, if I remember correctly I thought the last time voters tried to amend the state consitution (remember Pat Quinn’s term limits push), the Illinois Supreme Court said voters do not have that type of power. A Con Con would be required. Is that true? Anyone remember the opinion?
Comment by Niles Township Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 1:50 pm
It should be fine. From the Constitution:
====Amendments shall be limited to structural and
procedural subjects contained in Article IV. ====
Article IV covers the Legislature.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 2:00 pm
The #$%^&!! moron who drafted this has obviously no legislative experience. Flip it around the other way: no amendments to any bill within 21 days of final passage. I can’t think of any bill of substance that passed without some amendments to atleast fine tune it in the last three days. Once amended, most of those bills pass with landslide majorities.
Rich, I think you missed another big point. If the goal is to create a “public review period,” somebody please tell me how this is going to encourage the general public to actually read the bill? Does this organization think there are actually 280,000 registered voters who feel they’re being deprived of due process?
They’ll be lucky to get 100,000 signatures.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 2:34 pm
From a lobbying point of view anything to slow down the process but that can backfire too as sometimes having no time in which to lobbying for or against a particular bill is sometimes best. Will this help with the budget? NO! Unless you can analyze that with previous budgets and other figures to decipher what’s changed - increased programs, expired programs, new programs, etc. - extra time won’t amount to any real help in understanding it. A budget is just a bunch of numbers and doesn’t really tell you anything.
Comment by Springfield Lobster Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 2:39 pm
Even if this idea is sound (which it isn’t) the timing of this scheme will doom it from the start. We will have a mandatory vote on whether or not to hold a new state Constitutional Convention on the 2008 General Election ballot. So why bother with this plan now, unless it is being foistered upon us by those who want to insure that the Con Con vote fails in 2008.
Comment by fedup dem Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:02 pm
Sounds like a plan drafted at Knuckleheads on fried baloney special day.
Let’s begin with theee Most Obvious…spending is debated in committees for weeks. three more weeks is not needed.
Substantive bills usually move around the building for many many days.
Now someone wants for something called the Democracy Project to pronunce it “soup”
I would prefer we require CaptFax to read everything and tell how and when to vote.
Lord saaave us from the reforms.
Comment by Capt. Obvious Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:18 pm
===Sounds like a plan drafted at Knuckleheads on fried baloney special day.===
What the heck? But pretty funny.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:20 pm
We won’t have a Con-Con in 2008 because some front group funded by Madigan and/or Jones will put out a massive PR campaign or even a real campaign to quash it.
That said, I like this idea. What does it hurt to give the general public - you know, the ones who vote for the officials who are SUPPOSED TO BE governing us - a week-long period to view spending bills? What do rank-and-file members have to lose? They already are stripped of most or all of their guile when the new session starts. Illinois has become an oligarchy of sorts and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Last year, the momentum against the national GOP grew quickly. Part of this disdain had to do with excessive earmarks, last-minute insertions, taking spending away from members who were in hot water and pork that went a long way to help getting Conressmen re-elected. Accusations of cronyism and favoritism were abound. Illinois politicians should learn that lesson.
At least one can hope…
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:25 pm
Sorry, that last post was from me. My cookies were screwed up.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:29 pm
“Sounds like a plan drafted at Knuckleheads on fried baloney special day.”
Rich - If you don’t recognize the reference you must be spending too much time at the Sangamo Club in Springfield these days - Knuckleheads is a bar on Peoria Road that also serves “food.” Fried baloney is one of the specials - It’s not just for lunches in the County jail any more.
Comment by Just the Facts Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:39 pm
Just for the record, I only go to the Sangamo Club maybe once or twice a year for parties.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:43 pm
Rich, thanks for starting the discussion on this issue. Clearly, the knee-jerks who read your blog will need some educating in the next two years.
The amendment is not the product of just one or a few knuckleheads. It evolved over the years from discussions with folks, like me, who have watched the General Assembly at work for years. In my case, since 1981, in Springfield, at the Capitol, every session for a quarter of a century.
The ad hoc group that finally determined to take this route to restore the pulse of democracy at the Capitol was formed only six weeks ago. Already hundreds of thoughtful citizens have joined the effort. We’ll get the signatures. This amendment will empower citizens, reduce leadership control over the caucuses and result in improved legislation while bringing a halt to policy that could not pass in the light of day.
Jim Broadway
Comment by Jim Broadway Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:43 pm
Hey Rich could you or somebody explain (to us mild hacks and politicos) what has to happen for a con con to occur and what happens at these rare events?
Comment by 105th Blues Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:44 pm
Hey, Broadway, the only people who can criticize my commenters are me. Go screw yourself.
(Well, that broke a couple of my own rules, but I feel better for it.)
While you’re at it, how about disclosing your group’s finances?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:51 pm
Con Con is not happening!
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:51 pm
Also, Broadway, by looking at your website, it appears you have dozens, not “hundreds” of “supporters.” I hope you don’t have the same math problem with your petitions, or you’re gonna come up way short. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 3:57 pm
For years I’ve made a practice of reviewing my local school budgets ($127 million per year for my HS and $20 million for elementary), and not a single person besides me (not even the Boards themselves) have asked a single question about these budgets.
This isn’t a “podunk” area. Our HS district has over 100,000 registered voters in it.
The simple fact is that virtually no voters care about how their tax dollars are spent, or rules enacted.
The only ones who seem to make an issue of this are those with “Don Quixote” syndrome like me, or the special interests who want to make sure their narrow needs are being met in budgets and legislation.
280,000 signatures will never happen for this, and I believe it’s a valueless waste of time.
Comment by PalosParkBob Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:34 pm
“Con-Con is not happening!”
If this is true, hundreds of thousands of teachers, state employees, and retirees will be breathing a sigh of relief, as their constitutionally protected pensions are not “diminished” by a Con-Con re-write.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:43 pm
Sir, to paraphrase Sen. Bentsen, I have been to Knucklehead’s on Fried Baloney Day (usually Saturday if the baloney boat has docked)and listened to many lame ideas.
I believe I can say without dispute that this bit of wacko nonsense would have been tossed out on Peoria Road in a nanosecond.
P.S. Jim, on behalf of many people who have hung around the building for decades, the “21 day solution” serves no purpose other than giving lobbyists who are slow of foot a chance to land a little cheese.
PPS: CaptFax is more of a Yacht Club kinda guy. Da ‘Mo Aint His Show.
Comment by Reddbyrd Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:43 pm
For the record, I am not a Yacht Club member and don’t intend to join and only go there for one reception a year.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:48 pm
Oh…groups like mine and reporters could have a field day if there were a waiting period on the budget between when it is introduced and when it is finally voted upon. We’re not necessarily talking about the big three, capital spending, Medicaid and education — but stuff like opera tickets, baseball stadiums and corporate welfare… Or how about that individual who is the subject of a special line item for some service — say rehab for an injury — but was ruled ineligible for said service by the bureaucracy for whatever bone headed reason.
It’s a decent pork busting idea. Put the budget on the web and let bloggers, reporters, and other interested parties plow through it and report what they find. The really egrigious stuff will get picked up on by the press and public.
And let’s be honest, we put waiting periods on guns this state, and body counts from government actions are far higher than anybody elses.
Don’t think you’d need a constitutional amendment, though…Just some reform minded ambitious types in the political fray…
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:50 pm
Exactly is how limiting amendments more democratic?
Because that is what this does. The rules committee would have to cut off any debate 21 days before the end of session to even pass anything. And then if a problem creeps up….you can’t pass anything because it’s too late. So every bill can sit around and ‘be read’ but if anything useful is figured out from that, the entire bill dies or the bill is enacted with problems.
Brilliant.
Beyond that the example of electric dereg is really stupid. I remember watching a session from the balcony in which a State Lege member from Pennsylvania was discussing the issue of dereg before it passed. I wasn’t in Springfield much then and I even saw a public hearing.
Hearings are generally more productive than a review period–it’s during hearings that actually different experts might just show up to offer advice–bad advice the day I was there, but still advice.
Beyond that, the press covered dereg fairly well. They lost a lot of nuances, but the average person, hell the average lege member, would have done better reading the Sun-Times and Trib’s coverage on the issue. There weren’t any smoking guns in the bill, there was a question of whether the bill would achieve a decent market to provide competition to the big producers (not so much we now know). Other than technocrats, no one would have learned more from the language of the bill than they learned from a major daily.
If you want to get rid of shell bills, don’t restrict amendments and passage, change the underlying procedures and Constitution. They’re a practical solution to a institutional constraint.
I’d ascribe some dark motive to this idea, but frankly it’s so incredibly stupid I don’t have to rely on malice.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 4:55 pm
Whooooo, 21 days of scintillating nitpicking coverage of the state budget. That’s three weeks Redfield and Wheeler won’t be able to stand up.
If nothing else, it’d probably and finally kill off newspapers, the last bastion of budget coverage no one reads.
It is nice to see a bunch of guys who’ve been shut out and powerless get together and complain about being shut out and powerless all in the name of the common man.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 5:09 pm
I think the wording should be changed from the Secretary of State and Governor pulling the legislative members names from a hat for the Commission to the Comptroller and Lt. Governor — they need jobs too to justify their existence.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 5:51 pm
Another glaring example of the morons Blagojevich has hired. What do you expect?
Comment by Easy Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 6:29 pm
Um, huh?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 6:32 pm
Man, this two minute hate has been awesome!
I think we should do this once a week…invite some ‘guest’ to the board with a loony idea and tear him to shreads! Rich himself leading the charge made it all the more inspiring.
Comment by Stomp Da Yard Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 8:18 pm
CaptFax, did not mean to dis you with the Yacht Club item…just meant you are more of an outdoorsman. Should have suggested the Firefighter’s chickenfry as a more likely venue than the ‘MO.
Comment by Reddbyrd Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 8:52 pm
Great idea “Stomp.”
Rich could start with a weekly invite to each of the Senate Republicans. That’d get him through Valentine’s Day.
Comment by Frank Booth Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 8:59 pm
So anyway, wasn’t it just the other day that the regulars here were patting ourselves and the Fearless Leader on the back for having really cleaned up the place and run off all the nitwits?
Memo to group: They’re back. Exhibit A: “Easy.”
On the other hand, Reddbyrd turns in an early contender for Post of the Year.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:32 pm
This has been an enjoyable thread. And, I agree, Reddbyrd’s comment is a definite early contender.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 9:51 pm
So, if enacted, the bills will be amended on a Thursday. The GA will go home for 3 weeks and come back for the vote. Won’t be additional debate. This is a stupid idea - Broadway had no other way to get his name in the paper since nobody reads his education poop sheet.
Comment by 4 percent Wednesday, Jan 17, 07 @ 11:23 pm
Thanks for the props, Captain Fax.
A whole six weeks, Jim? That explains alot.
Why 21? Is that number of some astrological significance? Why not 22 or 30 days? Why not six months?
Heck, why not just tear up every law written since the Ten Commandments and leave it at that?
You guys make it sound as if we’d be better with a government of 3500 years ago. Or no government.
I admit, democracy is at best a 2-3 steps forward, 1 step back process. That step back can flustrate certain personality types.
Of course, there are other forms of government where everybody marches forward to the steady step of a single drum. We call those “totalitarian dictatorships.”
All this measure does is concentrate power in the hands of a bunch of randomly selected lawmakers, who will promptly be fed to the lobbyists. Because they are randomly selected, there is no systemic accountability. Some Joe screws up or turns out to be “pocket lint,” he isn’t replaced by a better alternative. He’s replaced by another randomly selected Joe. Maybe better, maybe worse, but certainly not based on merit or reason.
I disagree with Jeff Trigg most of the time (like on the notion that computerized redistricting is unbiased), but at least his “reforms” have some rationale for them.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 4:50 am
YDD, what in the heck are you doing up at 4:50 AM posting (or were you just getting in)?
I thought it was a serious idea until I read the part about the joint committee on emergency legislation. Then I laughed out loud. There were definitely some “joints” involved then this thing was drafted.
Hey Broadway, how about sharing some of your knarly buds!
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 11:07 am
Con-Con will appear on the ballot in Nov. 2008 when voters will decide whether it’s time to convene a new constitutional convention. The constitution gives us this opportunity once every 20 years. Those who are willing to wait for the General Assembly to reform itself won’t have another chance to bypass the legislature until 2028.
Comment by respectful Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 11:16 am
Back to ILGA transparency if I may, I agree we need more, not sure about the Constitutional amendment.
I’d like to toss out a simpler, related reform idea. If you browse the ILGA website, you will see that a huge portion of their workload are bills which
“Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the short title.”
They typically change an instance of “and” to “and’ or “the” to “the.” The legislators use these bills to put a “hold” on a section of the compiled statutes, ensuring they are involved in any proposals.
But it’s easy to find examples in the docket of such “holds” that go through a 1st or even 2nd reading on the floor! Then, bam! in the final days of the session, it is passed by both houses and the text is published on the website.
These holds are routinely being used to frustrate transparency. Seems to me a rules change, no 1st readings without actual substance, would be a big help and a lot simpler than a Constitutional amendment.
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 12:15 pm
I should add, these “tech” place-holders are even reported out of committee - with no significant text!
Comment by Hugh Thursday, Jan 18, 07 @ 12:47 pm
Hey Rich,
It appears to me that you, not Broadway, has the math problem. I just checked the web site and there are well over 200 names posted currently. In my book, that amounts to hundreds, not dozens.
Comment by Jarhead Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 7:33 am