Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Behind the Quigley numbers *** UPDATED x1 ***
Next Post: It’s probably worse than we think
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column takes a look at a biennial GOP war…
Every two years, the Illinois Republican Party tears itself apart over a piece of legislation that supposedly would allow rank-and-file party members to have more say in party affairs. This year may be worse than usual, however.
Senate Bill 600, sponsored by Sen. Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora), would stop the practice of allowing Republican township, ward and precinct committeemen to elect state central committeemen. The bill would instead force the GOP to adopt the same rules as the Democrats and allow primary voters to elect the state central committee.
Most people don’t care about this, and I can understand if you’re with them. But since this tiny little change has been one of the most divisive issues in the Illinois GOP’s recent history, it’s worth a closer look.
The concept has always been vigorously opposed by the Republican establishment, partly because of who is pushing it. Lauzen is among a large handful of “insurgent conservatives,” whose most prominent member is ultraconservative activist Jack Roeser. The insurgents have sharply criticized the state party for its allegedly top-down insider ways and its refusal to allow them a seat at the table.
The “powers that be” have complete disdain for the Roeser/Lauzen types. The insiders view the insurgents as troublemakers who can’t win elections and instead blame party leaders for their own failures. They worry the bill would spark endless intraparty battles and divert precious financial resources away from their attempts to fight the Democrats. Plus, they simply don’t want to give up any power to “those people.”
The ultraconservative activists say they want elections because the insiders have locked them out of the system. They were enraged last year at the state GOP convention in Decatur, when delegates voted to pass a resolution in favor of retaining the status quo. The insurgents claim the vote was rigged.
Republican state legislators are put smack dab in the middle of this fight every time the bill is introduced. Two years ago, the bill was unanimously passed by the Senate, but House GOP leadership strong-armed the House Republican sponsor into giving up the bill, then sat on it until the session clock ran out. That, of course, infuriated the insurgents.
The state Senate’s new GOP leader has been put into an awkward position by the legislation. Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) is a moderate Republican who was allied with the “insider” faction and was vigorously opposed by the insurgents. She hasn’t yet fully consolidated control over her caucus, and this legislation is not making her task any easier. Complicating matters further, Radogno has taken a strong stand in favor of calling a special election to fill Barack Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat. That means opposing a bill to open up the party process to voters would appear hypocritical.
Radogno signed on as a co-sponsor of Lauzen’s bill, which surprised the heck out of party leaders. The bill was set for a committee vote last week, and legislators’ phones were ringing all day from very upset people on both sides of the issue.
Things got even weirder when Republican Sens. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) and Matt Murphy (R-Palatine) removed themselves as co-sponsors of the legislation. Brady is running for governor and Murphy is seriously considering a bid for Cook County Board president. Murphy was backed by Roeser the first time he ran, and both men are very conservative. But they apparently believed that winning support from party leaders was more important at this stage of the game.
The Democrats, of course, love this bill. With their own party facing one nightmare after another, anything they can do to weaken, divide and distract the GOP is viewed as a good thing.
Republican Party insiders completely freaked when they learned Rep. Paul Froehlich, a former conservative Republican who switched to the Democratic Party, had filed to sponsor the bill when it gets to the House. With a Democrat controlling the bill, the Republicans couldn’t slow-walk the legislation into oblivion again, so they figured that House Speaker Michael Madigan was behind the maneuver. The Republicans worry Madigan could use the bill to essentially blackmail GOP leaders to get in line when it comes time to vote on tax hikes, or anything else he chooses.
Last week’s vote was eventually delayed. But this fight is far from over. And if you still wonder why the Republicans would bother to wage a civil war over this issue, you’re not alone.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 6:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Behind the Quigley numbers *** UPDATED x1 ***
Next Post: It’s probably worse than we think
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If the righties get their way, they’ll draft Dick Cheney to run for Burris’ seat, like they saddled us with Alan Keyes against Obama.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 7:37 am
Dear Rich:
Let’s start the day off with some fact statements, because the issue of whether either the voter-elected precinct committeemen or voters themselves should elect the state central committee should stand on the merits of that proposal. I’m sure there will be claims that the advisory vote taken on this matter at last year’s state convention was rigged, fixed, or somehow conducted in a manner against the Convention Rules to disadvantage the proponents of direct voter election.
The vote taken was in accord with the Convention Rules, was fundamentally fair, and the issue was well debated and understood by delegates.
Activists from both sides were allowed to expound on their views on the proposal during a lengthy convention committee meeting attended by by at least 500 persons. Senator Lauzen was treated with tremendous respect by a quiet crowd, and did a great job explaining the proposal, as did many other activists on both sides of the issue. However, the proposal failed to generate a simple majority of support, and the committee recommended adoption of a resolution to continue election by the precinct committee chairmen. After that, the activists on both sides had almost an entire day after to work the issue before the convention floor session.
On the convention floor, a voice vote was taken on the resolution to retain election by precinct committeemen was taken, and was not determinative. A request for a standing vote was made. A hand-count of delegates during a period when persons were not allowed to enter or leave the convention floor was taken. The announced result was overwhelming support for retaining the current system.
While convention rules allow for the submission of substitute resolutions and even roll-call votes or written ballots, these must be submitted in writing with the support of county chairmen. Activists had 24 hours to get this done, but nothing was submitted. In any case, the vote was so overwhelming that such tactical moves would not have altered the outcome.
Let the debate begin today, but let’s hear the substantive arguments and not be swayed by unsubstantiated claims of mysterious manipulation at the convention. If the legislature determines to mandate direct voter election by statute, it will be in direct oppostion to the unambiguous views of the elected grassroots personnel as clearly expressed during the convention.
Comment by Chad Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 8:03 am
As a “so-called” rightie… I cried foul the second Keyes was announced and that was before his complete personality disorder kicked into full swing. I’m still wondering how a former ambassador developed such a case of foot-in-mouth disease.
Comment by John Bambenek Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 8:04 am
I understand the reasons the establishment is against direct election, but it’s a tough sell, just like the unions and their anti-secret-ballot bill. Still, do they really want the Democratic GA writing their party rules? Is no compromise possible?
I was in Iowa in 1988 when the fundamentalists, energized by Pat Robertson’s candidacy in the caucuses, flooded the county GOP conventions that elected the state committee, rolled the old-school Main Street bankers, lawyers and farmers and took control of the party.
Brady and Murphy are interesting; they must think it will help them raise money from the LaSalle Street GOP faction.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 9:11 am
Yes, giving Republicans their vote back in their own State Party that’s been horribly mismanaged under the current system of selecting its leaders is worth fighting for. Of course it is. Accountability is always worth fighting for.
By the way, this is only a “fight” because the horrible leaders who fear facing Republicans in a real election are making it a “fight.”
Thanks though. I know Republicans appreciate an Obama supporter weighing in on IL GOP governance. I’m sure Republicans will give it the weight it deserves.
Comment by Simple Answer Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 9:19 am
Certainly this helps the idea that Republicans are against “big government” only when they don’t like the proposal, and are very much in favor of government intrusion when it suits their interests.
Let’s be clear: The state does not have the right to tell a private, voluntary membership organization how to choose their leadership. End of story.
Whether we should or should not have direct election of the central committee by primary voters is irrelevant.
Comment by Limited Government Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 9:30 am
Am I suffering deja vu or didn’t we sufficiently beat this horse to death last week?
Comment by Adam Smith Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 9:44 am
The “righties” that are pushing this clearly cannot see the forest for the trees……AGAIN!
This idea was shot down at the convention overwhelmingly, and for good reason. I can’t believe these guys that see conspiracy in everything McKenna does as chairman and believe in the whole “combine” thing are so willing to overlook the very real possibility that Madigan could get Democrats elected to the state central committee and practically destroy the party structure from the inside out.
This is a very loud handful of fanatics obsessed with an issue that is totally “inside baseball” continuing to make life miserable for the average Illinois Republican just looking for a decent candidate to support that has a chance to win in the fall.
They’ll never learn. But everyone should remember: Roeser has been yelling like this for over 20 years. How many of those battles has he actually won? Balance that with how much damage has been done in primaries like 2002 and 2006.
If they can’t see they’re playing right into Mike Madigan’s hands and HELPING elected more Democrats in Illinois and knock this garbage off, it will be clear that this is more about a couple of large egos trying to play wedge politics for their own short-term benefit at the long-term expense of the conservative cause that continues to get no where with Democrats in control of everything.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 9:46 am
Is it worth the fight? NO. Look at who runs the Democrat Party whose members are selected by popular vote in the primary. It is not a group commited to grass-roots responsiveness and cleaning up the corruption and dismantling the combine. With the plan proposed, what you end up with is a bunch of legislative leaders and County powerbrokers. Thus, the efforts and will of the rank and file Party members are made subservient to the will of the legislative members and local powerbrokers. This is not a silver bullet. It is simply a debate that has become a feud, and a bitter one at that.
Comment by Cousin Ralph Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 9:48 am
Limited Government, you should really check some facts before you spout off.
It was legislation that took this same voting right away from Republican voters 20 years ago.
The bill that’s pending just reverses that power grab that was done by statute.
You just don’t know what you are talking about. Illinois law has all kinds of provisions that impact the political parties. Parties are intertwined with public offices all the time, like when they fill vacancies.
Your attitude does expose the problem however. Yes, the IL GOP is so “private” it can’t win any significant election anymore.
When we’ve got “leaders” who think their mission is to run a private club, we start to see the scope of the morass.
Instead of being a “private club” I thought a political party’s objective was to attract at least 50%+one of the entire electorate in a state.
It’s pretty scary that only the Democrats understand this simplest of concepts.
Comment by Illinois Republican Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 9:59 am
The GOP in Illinois has been sunk for over a decade. What are the “insiders” fighting over? Power in a perpetual minority party? Yes. Because it beats not being in power at all. Ask those favoring the legislation. They have watched this ship sink deeper into the ocean, and have been denied any say in how to resurrect it.
Power to the people! Democracy over proven failure! Sorry insiders, but you can’t continually lose for a decade and expect to remain in power. Not only does the GOP lose while you are in charge of the GOP, the voters in Illinois lose since they do not get a choice on Election Day because you “insiders” haven’t a clue.
And enough with the hate speech. I’m tired of listening and reading insults about how “fundies” are like this or that, how ignorant they are, how narrow minded they are, and all the rest. You are insulting milliions, yet expect their support? They are not any more unenlightened than any other voter group. Enough with the hatred against voters who believe in proven social traditions. It is outrageous how some people feel entitled to lead those they label as ignorant, yet demand that these same ignorami pay for the failed social government programs opposed by conservatives.
No one has a monopoly on intelligence and common sense. I believe in diversity. Everyone can contribute to the challenges we face together in this state. Stop shutting out those you have labled as unworthy of political power, because by doing so, you continue to shut yourself out of political power.
Look around “insiders”. Open the doors and windows and admit your failures, and start asking for help from those who wish to help. You might just discover the reforms need to win a statewide office or two.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 10:10 am
The self indulgent leadership of the Republican Party is bankrupt in all was possible. Their policies are what have marginalized the party to second or third tier status.
Remember it was t his group who chose Alan Keys as a candidate for senate.
Continuing the policies of marginalizing a significant part of the party will assure continued failure.
Eliminate the 20 year old law and move on to better days.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 10:16 am
you are so right, Rich, why are they making a mess of it for themselves? maybe they want to be consistent and fix a system that does not include the average voter. it’s an important principle. wish the result of inclusion worked well on the Democratic side. look at what an autocratic institution the Democratic State Central Committee is. process does not necessarily result in progress.
Comment by Amy Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 10:23 am
This really doesn’t mean anything to anyone but a few insiders that really haven’t done anything politically productive for a LONG time.
It would be nice if the media instead asked better more relevant questions like, where are the new ideas and fresh faces rather than keeping score on small bore things like these.
Comment by Shore Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 10:57 am
Riddle me this: What exactly does this “power of the people” movement expect to gain?
Power in the party? Not likely, as has been pointed out if put to a public vote the winners will likely be those with the best name recognition, not “grass roots” types.
A more conservative platform? I don’t know if that’s really possible.
More conservative candidates? Check the result of the last umpteen primaries, there is no shortage of conservative candidates who have either won or been competitive in the primaries.
No, the only way those who continually push this, and we all know who they are, the only way they have any gain is to keep this fight going ad naseum. It almost makes me think that certain people “pushing this” would rather this otherwise minor issue would continue to fail so they can keep bringing it up and think they’re still relevant. How else do you explain such a dumb strategy at the convention.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 11:02 am
Rich, thank you for the background on this. It’s very helpful in explaining why the law exists as is.
The Green Party has given serious consideration to challenging this law as currently written - and the issues we have with it wouldn’t change if amended in the manner suggested. Remember that the law as written, or as potentially modified, is designed specifically for two particular political parties, yet is applied to all established parties in the state. Supreme Court case law says that the State can not tell a political party how to internally organize itself. The only caveat to that is that the internal organization of a political party in Illinois can have a direct bearing on what candidates wind up on the ballot, because of the slating system. And that caveat is very unclear, because few states have a system anything like what Illinois has.
At the core of the problem here is that Illinois has a semi-open primary system where there’s really no control on participation. Crossover voting is commonplace in Illinois depending on the dynamics of an election. When you combine the nature of the semi-open primary with the reality of the state-mandated system for organizing a political party, the result is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the political party. And recent Supreme Courts have actually meandered in the direction of strengthening political party freedom of association. A critical test coming down the pike will be an attempt by the Idaho Republican Party to get a closed primary, which would require partisan voter registration.
As for the bill at hand, if what you’re saying is accurate, then if it were to pass, and I was an ornery old-school Republican, I would take the State of Illinois to court, on the grounds that Mike Madigan has no right whatsoever to tell my party how it’s going to be organized. And I’m not sure that’s a court fight certain people would want to see.
Comment by Phil Huckelberry Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 11:08 am
Here we go again!
The current statute in question now gives the state parties the option of direct election by voters at a primary of the party state central committee, or election through committeemen on a county by county basis.
The Illinois GOP has elected to continue the process of election through committeemen on a county by county basis. At its last convention the issue was debated to death on a committee level and the proposed change was handily defeated.
The matter then came up during the general session of the party and on a stand up vote was handily defeated by over a 3-1 margin. Give Andy McKenna credit. He could have denied the measure from coming to the floor. He didn’t. He let it go to a voice vote. Then for good measure, a stand up head count vote. For all the cries of a McKenna “dictatorship” by the perpetual malcontents, that one just doesn’t stick.
With a huge room filled with over 500 attendees for the committee meeting debates, and with all delegates present for the main vote during the general session, I still await an explanation from the malcontents over how the entire process was “rigged.”
Now those who are angry that they lost by a huge margin are demanding the Democratic Party dominated GA to force the Republican Party to change to be just like the Democratic Party.
I am an elected committeeman. I was a delegate to that convention. I sat in on all of this. Call me an eye witness.
Quite frankly, the party “reforms” everyone is demanding will not be solved by “direct election” instead of taking away that power from elected committeemen. Hey, the voters elected me in part to perform that job. Otherwise, eliminate the precinct committeemen and the grass roots they represent once and for all.
What the malcontents want is a small cadre of like minded dictators on the State Central Committee who will waive a magic wand and solve all GOP problems and run a slate of Abraham Lincolns.
I prefer our current decentralized system. I don’t see any magic wands in our future nor a slate of Abraham Lincolns. The malcontents wouldn’t support a modern day Abraham Lincoln anyway. He would be too “liberal” for their tastes.
The party will not be fixed by “insider” structural changes that won’t mean a thing. The party will be fixed by focusing on a message that resonates with voters and by fielding candidates that the voters will elect to office.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 11:56 am
To repeat myself, the battle keeps going because just as religions need demons, zealots need issues to demonize, and we can no longer get rid of KJ.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 12:11 pm
Republican Slogan for 2010 and beyond!
Load the gun. Point at foot. Pull Trigger.
Comment by Speaking at Will Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 12:40 pm
A lot of Senators sponsored or supported this because the loud-mouthed Conservatives have threatened to ruin anyone who refused to support it, and the legislators buckled to avoid trouble, despite the 2008 Convention vote of 78%-22% against direct elections. “Rigged” elections do not turn out 78-22.
Now that it is on the front burner and in committee, the same legislators have suddenly realized that the majority of Republicans simply do not want this - only a small cadre of power-hungry Conservatives do. So they began backing off.
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 1:06 pm
Rich:
In direct answer to your question, it is not worth fighting over, and it is such an obscure issue I’m surprised you used it for your Sun Times column.
SB 600 is just not going to pass. Speaker Madigan has long taken the approach that each party writes its own rules, and he will not want to set a new understanding on this. The GOP did not attempt to change the Democratic Party rules when Daniels was Speaker, and Madigan will not do it to us. He understands and respects the role of a party to determine its own process.
Tom Cross and the House Republicans will not take this seriously, and certainly will not want to offend the thousands of precinct committeemen/captains who voted to keep things as-is. The Seante Republicans have always been more indulgent of their conservative members, so I would not place too much emphasis on the past favorable votes on thie activity in that chamber.
There is, frankly, not much reason to take the proposing activists very seriously. Outside of a few places, like McClain County, they have been unable or unwilling to prepare in advance to elect their colleagues as precinct committeemen. Many of them fail to engage in the simple political activity necessary to get appointed to a county delegation for a convention. Those that do often arrive at the conventions unprepared, and perhaps unwilling, to convince others to their point of view with either logic or kindness. Even when given an open and unobstructed platform at the convention committee and the first contested, counted vote in memory, they were not able to demonstrate minimal traction. It is foolish to think that such an approach and track record will ever get convince the elected precinct committeemen to voluntarily give up their current privelege to elect the State Central Committeemen. They see how these activists have performed, and understandably do not want to see them in charge.
To the Bill, its passage would mean little or nothing, other than a shift of membership to the elected officials. The activists would not find the new group any more friendly to their organizational objectives.
If anything, placing so much emphasis on SB 600 is an admission by these activists that the only way they can increase their influence in the Party is to try to force their way in from the top. I started responding to this issue because certain bloggers were wildly misrepresenting what happened at the convention last year. However, SB 600 is such a misdirected “Hail Mary” pass that I suggest everyone move on to other priorities.
Comment by Chad Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 1:26 pm
So the conservative GOP inspired by Obama’s message of change has decided to jump on board and seek change themselves….
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 1:55 pm
The County Chairman soundly defeated this at last year’s GOP State Convention - why do Lauzen/Roeser need to keep this up???
Comment by Concerned Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 4:15 pm
==why do Lauzen/Roeser need to keep this up???==
Because if they don’t, people might figure out that they really aren’t relevant to where the GOP currently is at, and certainly not relevant to where it has to go.
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 4:22 pm
Good Point
Comment by Concerned Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 4:35 pm
The “moderates” “logic” makes no sense. On the one hand, they repeatedly state that conservatives are a minuscule portion of the Republican Party. Yet, in the next breath, they fear a vote by all republicans because then conservatives will win and control the party. Which is it. Could it be the “moderates” fear that what they call a vocal minority is really the majority of the party?
Comment by liberty Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 5:01 pm
Liberty,
Last time I checked, Illinois was not all suburbs and rural counties, but also included the City of Chicago, and its Machine Democrats. How would you feel about a freely elected Daley/Madigan operative sitting on the Republican SCC from anyone of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Congressional Districts? If you think that is impossible, go look at some of the South Side vote totals from last November. It would not take much at all for a crossover to put a Democrat in.
That is one of the reasons why this rule was put in.
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 5:40 pm
Bubs, two questions.
1) can you point to any time back when direct elections were allowed (pre-late 1980s) when a democrat won a seat on the republican central committee? and
2) if it can be done, why don’t republicans do it to the democrats in the rest of the state?
I’m guessing that is a fight neither side wants. Besides, for someone to vote for a central committeeman they have to be a registered Republican. Do you really think democrats would take a Republican ballot to vote for this post?
Comment by liberty Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 6:01 pm
1. This request is silly, given this rule has been in for some thirty years. But here’s an example from strong Conservative Tom Roeser (who opposes SB600, by the way) about a “Republicrat” from years ago, in an article about Doug Ibendahl, one of the screamers on this issue:
TomRoeser.com
August 16, 2007
“[Ibendahl] sees himself as the enforcer of conservative ideology, along the lines of the medieval Dominican friar Savaronola. Kjellander’s head on a plate, preferably still gasping for breath is what Ibendahl wants: also to return the State Central Committee to “democracy” which means the way it used to be when Pete Granata, a boss of the West Side Mafia Bloc, a Republican state senator, was on the Committee and packed a gun under his vest while he sat near me when I went to SCC meetings representing my employer, Bob Stuart of Quaker Oats. I rather nervously agreed with almost everything Sen. Granata said, noticing the protuberant bulge under his vest.”
2. Republicans don’t have the same overwhelming (to put it mildly) majority anywhere in a Congressional District that the Democrats do in teh South Side and South Suburbs of Cook County.
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 6:17 pm
Giving lauzen a say at all is akin to giving Oberweiss the key to the castle.
Comment by downinflloridalaughing Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 7:40 pm