Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Understanding Trump
Next Post: Rate Duckworth’s new TV ad
Posted in:
* Chris Kaergard’s latest column makes a good point about how legislative turnover is dealt with in Illinois. It’s a particularly important issue in the Peoria area…
In the last five years, [the Peoria region has] seen replacements for both House and Senate. Incumbent senator Dan Rutherford was sworn in as treasurer in 2011, with a committee tapping then-Rep. Shane Cultra to take his seat. Cultra’s seat was filled by another committee with a young up-and-comer named Jason Barickman.
Barickman, as an appointee, later ran against and beat Cultra in a primary for the Senate seat. He was succeeded by Josh Harms in the House after a competitive primary. (Harms withdrew from the ballot after being nominated for a second term, and his replacement in the election was, again, chosen by party leaders.)
In Peoria, shortly after being re-elected in 2010, Sen. Dale Risinger stepped down abruptly. A collection of GOP party chiefs in the sprawling district selected Darin LaHood to succeed him in 2011. When LaHood won the special election for Congress last year, it fell again to party leaders to pick a successor in closed session, and Chuck Weaver got the nod.
My brother Doug, who occasionally comments here, lives in Texas and he’s appalled by all the appointments to fill vacancies in Illinois. Down ‘yonder, they hold special elections to fill their vacancies.
* Kaergard asked Gov. Rauner about this issue…
Rauner — whose political wishes have, shall we say, often been taken into account in some of the GOP vacancy appointments in the last 18 months — may have been a bit surprised at our question, but didn’t dismiss it.
“That’s a great question, and I think that’s a topic we can take up and discuss,” he said before inviting input on ideas and pivoting back to his term limit and remap stump speech.
* The Question: Should Illinois fill state legislative vacancies with special elections? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:14 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Understanding Trump
Next Post: Rate Duckworth’s new TV ad
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Special Election have a tremendous cost, and can trigger other special elections. I do think the process should be more open than a closed door party meeting.
Comment by Tom Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:18 am
Let’s pay off the debt first before adding another expense.
Comment by Anono Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:18 am
I think that there should be a special election. The state, in theory, functions with a deliberate separation of powers. Our current process of appointments has a small group of party insiders effectively select the candidate and that group can be pretty easily influenced by a governor and weakens the balance of power within the government.
If the governor has a preferred candidate, they should be required to follow the standard retail politics model of selling that candidate to the voters rather than anointing another insider or foot soldier.
Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:23 am
I agree with Tom. They aren’t just tremendously high cost though. They also have horribly low turnout. I don’t see how they are any more “let the people decide.”
Special elections for Senators appointed to a term greater than two years would not be unreasonable along with other reforms to make the process more regulated and transparent. I mean if municipalities have to post newspaper notices, notices online, etc. then why shouldn’t state legislative appointments?
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:24 am
Voted “No”, this time.
“Why?”
Generally, it would be my choice to want an election. Honestly, I have no problem with the party holding the seat, and the locals there, deciding who is that replacement.
It’s does stifle the opportunity, in the specific case of the 81st District seat, an opportunity for factions to hash out a person to fulfill the duties, but… Illinois State House seats are 2 year terms, and Illinois State Senate appointees face the voters quicker, so I voted “No”
In November, the voters will get a choice. Im cool with that, even if it’s not my first choice.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:25 am
Voted yes. Only so many straight-outta-highschool citizens for Rauner to choose to fill seats. Perhaps the people of Illinois should have a voice lest we be remised to allow know-nothing 20-somethings (I am one, too, by the way) to make policy-affecting votes in between photographing their lunch and creating a hashtag to support their campaign #TrustNo1Over25 #ExceptionMakesTheRule #SugarDaddyRauner
Comment by AlfondoGonz Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:26 am
I voted no. The cost of holding special elections could create a further strain on the budgets of the local election authorities (mainly counties), and those budgets are normally at exactly what is needed for the mandated elections. A special election would need election judges, polling places, ballots, and polling equipment that needs calibration; all that costs money. Not to mention staff time that polls people from other assignments to run a special election. All for what? An election that will get maybe 15-20% turnout. If the State would reimburse the local election authorities, then maybe.
Comment by Mr.Morris Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:30 am
No, no money for this.
Comment by burbanite Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:32 am
Voted no. If the vacancy is created more than a year prior to the general election, then I could consider a special election. Otherwise appointing a replacement until the general is fine.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:33 am
Rich, would there be a special primary election and then a special general election?
Or would the parties slate the candidates for the special general election?
Or would it be a “pool party” non-partisan election where anyone and everyone can jump in and the top vote getter completes the term?
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:33 am
Qualified No, sticking to my reasons from 10-15-15’s QOTD-
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.
https://capitolfax.com/2015/10/15/question-of-the-day-2134/
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:35 am
voted no; special elections carry a high cost to the taxpayer and often yield lower turnouts than general elections and primaries
Comment by Mattman Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:41 am
Perhaps a special election for Senate appointments with more than two years left on the term during the next previously scheduled election (primary, municipal, statewide general, whatever it is)?
A special election for a state legislative vacancy would be costly for what will surely be dismal turnout. Just look at how few voters came out for the special in the 18th congressional race.
Comment by John Gregory (ex-IRN) Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:44 am
I said “no,” but only because of the expense (not because I’m against democracy).
Comment by Dome Gnome Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:47 am
Voted yes. Acknowledging the difficulties to be worked out, government by appointment enables a small partisan cadre to install its preferred office holder, thus reinforcing its ideological control while conferring all the advantages of incumbency in a future election. Especially with regard to legislative offices, government by appointment is fundamentally undemocratic.
Comment by Just Chilling Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:50 am
Very tough one, but I voted no. On the surface, I think the people should be the electors. With vacancies, you have the added cost of the election which is a lot in some counties. Also, whoever has the greater pot of money to strike first and strike hard is at a great advantage that way.
Not that having the party pick is without it’s problems. But there is some semblance of a process that has some vetting and takes into account discussion and compromise.
In the end, costly special elections for 2 year seats is the decider for me.
Comment by A guy Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:51 am
Voted No again because it is a two year term and the costs….
Comment by OneMan Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:01 pm
Voted Yes, agree with Just Chilling’s reasoning. I moved here from a different state and feel like Doug that that is not how it should be.
Comment by 32nd Ward Roscoe Village Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:16 pm
Yes. At one point every countywide elected GOP office holder here in Sangamon County had first become a countywide elected official via appointment.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:33 pm
Leave them vacant until the regular election. We can’t afford special elections.
Comment by Cheryl4 Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:38 pm
I voted yes. The current system has been abused by incumbents who resign in order to let a relative or supporter take over their seat. They then have a big advantage in the race. They are also obligated to the people who selected them. The current practice is the antithesis of democracy and should end.
Comment by Chicago Guy Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:44 pm
Fun Facts: Below is how each state fills its legislature’s vacancies.
Governor Appoints (11): AK*, HI, ID, KS*, MD*, NE, NC*, SD, UT*, VT, WV*
Special Election (25): AL, AR, CT, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NH, NJ, NY, OK, PA, RI, SC, TX, VA, WI
Political Party Appoints (6): AZ, CO, IL, IN, ND, NJ
County Board Appoints (6): MT*, NM, NV, OR, WA*, WY*
Legislature Appoints (2): OH*, TN**
*Political party has formal role in process, is not ultimate authority.
**Special election if time remaining in term is greater than one year.
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/How_vacancies_are_filled_in_state_legislatures
Comment by Nuke the Whales Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:50 pm
I have mixed emotions on this subject. I support special elections if the term to be filled is longer than two years, but appointments for shorter time frames.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:51 pm
I voted “yes.” I live in the Peoria area and basically have had no voice on my representatives in the legislature. All my reps have been appointed, which immediately gives them the power of incumbency,so much so that the Democrats have not tried to run more than token candidates to oppose them. Perhaps, in a special election, it might be more competitive.
Comment by G'Kar Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:51 pm
Turnout is not a good reason not to have special elections to fill legislative vacancies. One comment complained that there might be only 10-15% turnout. That’s not unusual for some municipal elections, but we don’t propose getting rid of those.
Another comment also touched on municipal elections for filling state senate vacancies. Why not use both municipal elections and primaries to fill vacancies in house and senate seats? Counties are already set up to operate polling places for those elections so there would be minimal extra cost.
One other concern with special elections would be the cost of having both a special primary and special general election. But since the special election would be for less than a full term, why not have a single open ballot with all candidates from whatever party or independent who file a petition?
Comment by muon Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:51 pm
Wasn’t there a conversation (on this blog?) after the Schock debacle about the cost of such elections?
Comment by NIU Grad Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:04 pm
Leave vacant until next election. Representative ran for the seat, let them stay or give up the vote for their district.
Comment by yes, I said that Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:05 pm
I’d agree with appointments or vacancies for short terms, only holding a special election if it will be open more than a year.
Regarding term limits naturally being imposed by the election cycle… that would require challenger candidates. If there were a good pool of challenger candidates and an informed citizenry turned out to vote, then we’d have natural term limits or turnover.
Comment by Fairness and Fairness Only Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:11 pm
If a Senate seat goes vacant with 28 months or more on the term, current law provides for it to be filled at the General Election in the middle of the term.
Comment by titan Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:14 pm
Voted no, but only partly. The way it is done now makes sense for short terms like those of House members running every two years. Squeezing another election in there is just crazy talk. Four year terms, though, should be filled by election if the vacancy falls in the first year to eighteen months of a four year term.
Comment by LessAnon? Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:21 pm
Leave it vacate,piling bills on munger’s desk is no different than piling them on Judy’s
Comment by Rabid Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:24 pm
Voted no. Cost prohibitive.
Comment by Stones Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:41 pm
Yes - Because State Legislators should represent the people - - not the governor.
Comment by Mama Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:50 pm
If there were special elections the amount of resignations would dwindle! 30-35% of our legislature were appointed before they were elected. This appointment business is nothing more than baton-passing to an heir apparent; the power brokers select their pawns and ask us to elect them later. It has to stop.
Comment by Baruch Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:59 pm
I voted NO. Most districts incl the Peoria area discussed the new rep is a foregone conclusion. Wait til next cycle and save some money.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 2:35 pm
Don’t make an appointment. Just wait until the next regularly scheduled election. And the poor constituents will have to get by without representation until then. It may be to their advantage to go without.
Comment by One of the 35 Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 3:28 pm
Yes. In the most recent example of the House 81st it would have taken the decision out of the personality conflict hands of DuPage Chairman and put it in the hands of the people that are being represented. The whole process was a lie to the voters of the 81st anyway. DuPage Chairman had his mind made up before the interview with the 6 candidates - that’s some real transparency for you. (Snark)
If the argument is special elections cost too much, there must be a better method of a true panel instead of an oligarchy in the case of the 81st. An example of a panel could be: Party County Chairman, immediate past elected official to that office, the cooresponding House/Senate member of the same party and the head of the party.
Comment by Casper Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 4:27 pm