Morning shorts
Friday, Oct 17, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Appellate Court lets con-con question stay as is on ballot
Efforts to alter a question on the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters if Illinois should hold a constitutional convention were blocked Thursday by a state Appellate Court.
The ruling means that the question, which a Cook County judge has ruled was misleading, will remain on the ballot as is. Instead, voters will be handed a notice with a neutral version of the question, though they must cast their votes on a ballot that features the old language.
* Assessor Houlihan: I believe the time has come to exercise this right and call a constitutional convention. For me, two issues dominate. The education and revenue articles of the state constitution need to be changed.
* Constitutional convention: Remedy or waste of money?
* Major interest groups split on rewriting Illinois’ constitution
* Sheriff says he’s changed the system, will restart evictions
* Evictions to resume Monday
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart says he’ll end his prohibition on foreclosure evictions Monday now that new language has been added to court orders aimed at protecting renters who are not properly informed their landlord has lost the property.
The Sun-Times reported this week that Cook County judges began using a new court document for foreclosure evictions that specifically names tenants living at the foreclosed property and states how long they are allowed to remain in units — the length of their lease or 120 days, whichever is shorter — before deputies are allowed to haul out their belongings.
* With new court procedures, Cook County to resume evictions
After suspending all evictions related to mortgage foreclosures in Cook County, Sheriff Tom Dart announced Thursday that he would resume those evictions starting next Monday.
The reversal comes after a week of discussions with the court officials responsible for handling mortgage foreclosures to create language that would ensure the rights of good-standing tenants in foreclosed buildings.
* Dart Announces Evictions to Resume Monday
* Thousands show up for flood relief funds
* More than 1,650 CPS students paid for good grades
* Dipping our toes into the car pool
* Ill. issues conditional license to Countrywide
* State hopes to give local economy a $1 billion boost
State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias pledged Thursday to deposit $1 billion more in state money into Illinois banks and credit unions, saying it would help ease the credit crunch and bolster the taxpayers’ return on investments.
The move is designed to help financial institutions loan money in Illinois communities suffering from rising unemployment and the nation’s economic tizzy.
“It’s critical that Illinois take steps now to ease this crisis and get financial institutions lending to local business and consumers again so that this international crisis does not spread to other sectors of the Illinois economy,” Giannoulias said.
* Transitional Jobs programs provide a pathway out of poverty
* Geography and the Invisibility of Poverty
* Poverty elimination needs to include asset building
* Fourth Generation Poverty
* Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes
* Sun-Times: Durbin for U.S. Senate
When it comes to the U.S. Senate, voters need someone who can deliver.
Sen. Dick Durbin has shown he can do just that.
* Friday Beer Blogging: Iceland Edition
- Just Askin' - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 9:16 am:
I haven’t seen anything written about who is responsible for drafting the ConCon question. Where/Who did that language come from?
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 9:53 am:
What’s the story on Houlihan and Con-Con? He usually keeps such a low profile. Is he trying to stick Madigan?
- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 10:03 am:
JA–that was from a legislative committee I believe.
Where did Alexi “find” a billion bucks to invest?
- Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 10:11 am:
=== The ruling means that the question, which a Cook County judge has ruled was misleading, will remain on the ballot as is. Instead, voters will be handed a notice with a neutral version of the question, though they must cast their votes on a ballot that features the old language. ===
I’m not in favor of a con-con, but that’s just wrong.
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 10:13 am:
Typical Blago blather on the car pool lanes.
Hundreds of millions are being spent to add lanes of traffic to the toll system (completely at the expense of the highway users), traffic is disrupted for years, but he wants to inject himself into something else he knows nothing about.
Without waiting to see how the system benefits all, he wants to push a political agenda which costs the bankrupt state nothing.
I have an idea. Open the new lanes and see how the traffic works. After a period of time model the concept of car pool lanes and see if the results justify the efforts.
- cermak_rd - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 10:19 am:
I just voted at Berwyn City Hall. Brisk business they’re seeing there. I had to wait in line! And there was a line when I left. No wading through judges to get to the con-con question, it was first up on the ballot, even before president.
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 10:26 am:
Cermak, really? My sample ballot has it at the end.
- cermak_rd - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 10:30 am:
Yes, I voted electronically, and it was at the start. The end questions were all the silly advisory referenda.
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 10:46 am:
Interesting. Like I said, my sample in Cook has Con-Con at the end with all the advisories.
If the Con-Con question is at the top of the ballot at the polling places, you’d have to think it really boosts the chances for passage.
I can’t recall any referendum question leading off a general election ballot. Has anyone asked David Orr where he stands on the issue?
- R.A. - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 11:30 am:
After voting early, I am reminded of the best arguement for Con-Con: the need for a new judicial selection/retention process in Cook County.
There were well more than 50 judges up for retention. I’m an attorney who has worked in the Cook County government/political/legal system for almost 15 years and I could make informed decisions on only about 10 of the judges.
If it’s that difficult for me to make an informed vote, it is impossible to expect an average voter with no experience in the legal system to make an evaluation on judges.
What a joke.
- Anon III - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 11:55 am:
I keep reading that a constitutional convention will cost $78 million. What is the source for that number? How does that break down? Does it include the cost of an election for delegates?
On an apples to apples basis, what is the cost of running the general assembly?
- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 11:59 am:
VQ- He didn’t “find” it. He’s just switching the way some money is invested. His office invests billions every day - they just took $1 billion from low-yielding investment options and shifted it to the state deposit program. (If I understand it correctly)
- cermak_rd - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
R.A.
I found the judicial selection easy. I used the grid from voteforjudges.org which has all the bar associates (except chicago bar association) in a handy grid for each one so you can see who’s qualified, who’s not, who’s recommended…
This system beats the heck out of any system where the powers that be name judges.
- Nearly Normal - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 12:42 pm:
Con-Con question at the top of the ballot in McLean County as well. I voted on Tuesday so no paper or anything about the language.
No waiting, either. The computerized voting machine was not working earlier and I was the first after the county clerk employee tweaked it. She said it was the same problem with the software they had for the last election. Now she and staff have to tweak all the computerized voting machines in time for the Nov 4 election.
Luckily, the majority of voting in the county is with the optical scan ballot and the computer machines are used for those who ask for them or need assistance in voting.
- Jim Rockford - Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 12:53 pm:
Cermak,
The “powers that be” have already determined who the judges will be. In most cases, your vote only validates the choices of the party bosses. One of the Chicago papers ran a story this spring describing how candidates seeking party approval would grovel before the slating committee, each flaunting their connections and past efforts on behalf of the Democratic party. As for legal abilities, I don’t recall that coming up. Merit selection is the way to go. Vote YES for the con con.