32 Comments - Levois - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 10:44 am: It should be almost similar to the US Constitution. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 10:45 am: ==conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment== 1) evidence of unconstitutional behavior; or 2) evidence of criminal behavior; or 3) inability to perform duties of office. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 10:48 am: Failure to faithfully and effectively carry out the duties of governor. That includes, but is not limited to: –Dereliction of duty –Malfeasance –Incompetence –Incapacity Minimums, mind you. - laura - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 10:50 am: 1.) Upset Mike Madigan enough that he no longer wants to deal with you - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:01 am: Unconstitutional behavior or criminal behavior would have to be the minimum. There should also be some sort of clause due to longer term medical incapacitation due to illness. Transitory conditions such as heart attack where recovery is expected should be treated differently than something like a stroke which has a less certain recovery cycle. - Muskrat - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:04 am: The General Assembly should be extraordinarily reluctant to overturn the will of the people. Fighting with the GA or “losing their confidence” or being a completely untrsutworthy SOB should nto be grounds for impeachment. Evidence of criminal activity (with minor stuff ignored/left for the courts) or catastrophic financial mismanagement that threatened the future of the State’s financnes should be about the only reasons. If there were some scandal that were not criminal, but so fundamentally destroyed the ability to govern (i.e., whole cabinet resigns en masse, massive street protests) then it would be understandable, but not for average or even nasty policy disputes. example: Governor Ryan emptying Death Row as a good thing; if a governor wanted to pardon ALL state prisoners… impeach him before he signs the paper. - pchappel - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:05 am: I’ve never been a fan of the vague “high crimes and misdemeanors” definition… So perhaps something more concrete like an actual indictment in a felony case? Conviction seems too high a bar, since it is already too late at that point one would hope… As it stands now, it seems like both parties see it as another political tool to go after the other party’s executive, and I think it should be something else altogether, but then just my opinion I guess… - Ghost - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:07 am: I would say generally the same standard that applies to termination of public employees: Any conduct which harms the reputation of his office or renders him unable to perform his duties. This would include public policy conduct unbecoming type considerations which we use to fire State employees. Such as legal conduct that calls the office into disrupte like hanging out with known criminals; conduct of taking large payments from people you do business with; Signing off on agreements with private business where a family mmber or friend is an owner or sits on the board etc. - Shelbyville - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:09 am: Failure to show up to work. I believe that I would get canned for that. - anon - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:13 am: Impeaching a non-sitting governor would be futile. Setting standards for impeachment should be not “minimum” or “maximum,” just standards. The 1970 Constitution is incredibly vague, deliberately I am sure, on the subject. Given the type of politics embraced by Illinois, the current “standards” are probably as minimum (and maximum) as we are likely to see. The current law does not even state who presides at the impeachment of an executive officer who is not the Governor. - Ta Da - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:14 am: More than ten letters in your last name. - Carleenp - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:16 am: unconsitutional actions, criminal violations, and incapacity to perform. Someone mentioned incompetence, but that is too subjective. What one person finds incompetent, another often champions. - anon - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:17 am: Please also be aware that impeachment is NOT a conviction, only a call for a trial to determine if someone is worthy of removal from office. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:21 am: I think you guys are all looking at this the wrong way. There’s no such thing as “minimum” standards. There are standards, period. One could argue that the lack of any standards is the reason that so many notorious governors have remained in office. But in reality, it doesn’t matter what the standards are, unless you change the impeachment powers from “may” to “shall”, impeachment will always be political. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:41 am: The Constitution defines the responsibilities and authorities of the governor. Most of the members of the General Assembly are attorneys and trained in the law and interpreting it. They “should” have the expertise and wisdom to determine if the perceptual threshold of an impeachable situation has been met. For Illinois that’s about it. Other states may provide some helpful case law on the subject however my guess is most mirror the U.S. standard. - Speaking At Will - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 11:41 am: The minimum standard should be 60 votes in the house. The constitution does not need to be changed in this area. Sure it’s vague, but so what, impeachment is not something that has been abused in Illinois to this point in our history. - Steve - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:00 pm: Failure to adhere to the Illinois State Constitution. - Bill - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:07 pm: I agree with Levois. High crimes and misdemeanors. Irritating the Speaker and calling him a republican are neither nor is advocating for a GRT nor is suing the House. - Excessively rabid - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:10 pm: The old Dear Abby standard for deciding on a divorce works quite well: Is the state better off with him (or her) or without him (or her)? - Pat collins - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:18 pm: There is theory, and there is practice. The US constitution was based on “institutions” protecting their turf, so to speak. These days, we really have parties who protect their turf. So, from my point of view, the language of the 1970 constitution is ok. It’s quite similar to the language of the previous constitutions. In practice, the legislature can and SHOULD impeach a governor when his actions are such that even a substantial membership of his party in the legislature will go along with it. Note that the GA, may by law, decide if the Gov is incapacitated mentally or otherwise, and the SC will review at once any challenge to such a law. Then the Lt. Gov takes over. Conviction or even indictment is enough, but even “acting badly”, “losing support” or how else you want to say “is not effective” is enough. Now, such action ought not to be taken lightly, as you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict - 2/3 of the total Senate, that is. - Cal Skinner - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:29 pm: Deliberately breaking the law repeatedly. That’s the standard I applied when I filed an impeachment resolution against Frank Kirk, Dan Walker’s Director of Local Governmental Affairs. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:31 pm: Doing a job in office so poorly that there are 60 votes available to impeach him/her. - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:33 pm: Cubs fan. – SCAM so-called “Austin Mayor” http://austinmayor.blogspot.com - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 12:35 pm: I’m with SCAM. - Squideshi - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 1:05 pm: I’m not convinced that there is not an existing standard for impeachment. In the absence of any other guidance, I would argue that impeachment proceedings are governed by common law precedent; and I haven’t personally done the research, but it appears that some other may have at least touched upon the issue as it relates to state legislatures. (A full examination may require looking back into the origins of impeachment proceedings.) - decaturvoter - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 1:14 pm: failure to perform his/her duties as stated in the Constitution. failure to resided in the Governor’s Mansion during the General Assembly’s sessions. abusing the expenditures of the State of Illinois to fund pet projects over required state services. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 2:35 pm: Crud. S-CAM and Rich have foiled my plans for 2010… Go Cubbies! I have to say, I think vague in this area is good. The US Constitution lists “high crimes and misdemeanors” but leaves it up to the Congress to define those terms. As others have noted, if the standard is a conviction of some sort the time to act has already expired by that point. Leave it up to the legislature to define what is impeachable. The voters will either agree or disagree in the next election. If you want language more specific than the “silent” Illinois Constitution, refer to the US Constitution (even in light of the parameters I noted above). For those who want some legal point of reference written as a minimum (unConstitutional or illegal activity) there already has been an instance of the Executive not following the Constitution (when he “allegedly” illegally transferred funds without legislative consent) and the House has yet to act… So is that a compelling enough rationale or not? - Crafty Girl - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 2:35 pm: A couple of things come to mind that could rise to level of impeachable offense. Criminal indictment is probably a given. Conduct involving, to use a quaint phrase, “moral turpitude.” Abuse of constitutional authority/wilful disregard of constitutional authority and/or limits. Clear, repeated violations of ethics and/or election laws. Patterns of behavior indicating questionable judgment/boys behaving badly/girls gone wild/conduct unbecoming the office kind of fall into a gray area. I’d say that’s why the system is designed for the House to conduct an impeachment investigation and the Senate holds a hearing. Some stuff may not pass a sniff testin an investigation, but under further scrutiny at hearing may not rise to a level that requires someone to be removed from office. - anon - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 2:42 pm: Look at what he did You could impeach him For messin’ with the kid (with apologies to Mel London and Junior Wells) - Jechislo - Tuesday, Jun 24, 08 @ 6:51 pm: What the State of California said. - Disgusted - Wednesday, Jun 25, 08 @ 5:24 am: I’d go along with Wordslinger and would add: When confidence in his/her management of the affairs of the State of Illinois consistently fall below 50% with the voters of Illinois. - Bruno Behrend - Wednesday, Jun 25, 08 @ 6:23 am: The question - as posed - alone, is enough to argue for a Constitutional Convention. Absent proper guidance, the real answer is, “Once the Mayor, the Speaker, and the Senate President agree…” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.