40 Comments - one observer - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 10:57 am: The rules change would probably be a good thing, but the ability to decide what bills move or even get to a roll call is what the parties fight over in elections. Hard to see a majority party agreeing with this. And if the current minority parties would assume the majority, they wouldn’t want this rule change either. So I don’t think the change will ever happen. - howie - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:03 am: I find it ironic that in a democracy, one individual can hold up legislation based solely on whether that individual is against the particular piece of legislation or not. That concept should change. - VanillaMan - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:05 am: House and Senate Republican leaders said Thursday that Democratic Speaker Michael Madigan wields too much power, denying rank and file lawmakers the opportunity to vote up or down on key issues. And Madigan has the power to decide this issue too. The other leaders have to work out a solution with Madigan so that future speakers are curbed. It is not in his self interest to yield, but he may be willing to adopt changes that will impact future speakers. As long as Madigan has the power, there is no reason to expect him to give it up. That’s just plain human nature. So it doesn’t matter how great the idea is. Without Madigan’s buy in, it is DOA. Deal with it by dealing with Madigan. The rule makes sense if you believe that it is better for a governmental body to open debate and to allow minority parties opportunities to share in decision making. The rule makes sense if you believe that it is better to have diversity. Importantly, however, is the question whether the rule’s goal is more important than what is being currently achieved without the rule. What will be the impact of such a rule on how the GA currently operates? What will the GA be giving up? While it appears that in the name of good government and democracy, this rule should be enacted, let’s recognize how it also changes the legislative process. Currently, Illinois government is broken. It absolutely is a national embarrassement. You have to wonder how much worse the situation could become. In light of the massive disaster that is Illinois government currently, any change should be accepted and given a trial run. But Madigan is King. He knows it. Deal with it by dealing with him within any framework he decides upon. This is one of the major flaws within our current state constitution. We warned everyone about it, but NOOOooo, the majority decided not to try and change it via a convention. We have to deal with that too. - What planet is he from again? - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:05 am: It sounds like a good idea to me, after all, Madigan (or Jones or Cullerton or Phillip or [fill-in-the-blank] doesn’t represent us all, but I suspect in reality it would be futile, the Speaker/President would find other ways to wield the same power. - Steve - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:05 am: These reforms sound good.At least there would be more open debate.I doubt Chicago Democrats want that.They like things the way they are.What’s the downside of the current majority passing no reforms? Nothing. - Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:10 am: Some rule changes are clearly in order, no matter who is the majority. When one individual member of the Rules Committee can object to a bill being sent to the floor for full debate, then there is something wrong with that system. The majority party should not fear anything, as they still have the votes to defeat the measure. It also will help end the “mushroom” mentality of Springfield and involve the rank and file in more day to day activities. Do I expect such changes to occur? No. Am I being cynical? No. - wordslinger - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:13 am: Ultimately, I think it’s a waste of time. A floor debate may change a legislator’s mind, but never a vote. Still, I think a Committee of the Whole on the commission’s report would be in order. Why not? The commission’s focus on the General Assembly is a bit odd. Wasn’t Blagojevich the problem? - 47th Ward - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:15 am: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This bill, on its face, sounds reasonable. In practice, however, I can foresee it being used by the minority party to get roll calls on any variety of politically charged issues. I suspect it will lead to gamesmanship not statesmanship. - Ravenswood Right Winger - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:16 am: I’d love to see the number of committees reduced. A lot of people become chairman of some worthless committee just for the bump in salary. - KeepSmiling - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:19 am: I think its a waste of time. The public doesn’t currently seem upset about partisan politics, or the power that party organizations exert over elected officials and campaigns. Maybe we should be concerned, but corruption and money are the hotter issues. A prime example of voter apathy on this issue is playing out at the fed level. Obama proclaimed his intention for bi-partisan support and then it didn’t work. The public seems to have shrugged it off. Not angrily, just “what do you expect?” Now the public will see if the Dems get their bullet proof majority and we’re back in no-need-to-compromise business as usual. Point is, there’s no motivation or public expectation for those who have power to give up any of it. - Wumpus - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:43 am: Madigan won’t let this up for a vote. This is a terrible system, especially when someone I don’t “like” is that one person. - You Go Boy - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:48 am: It sounds reasonable, but I agree with many above that “good intentions” can go awry. Also, I do believe there are a good number of members who like to wail about too much power in the hands of a few, but ultimately it is that very thing that helps them off the accountability hook on countless issues, and can use it to explain away so much to their frustrated constituencies. - Plutocrat03 - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:52 am: On the surface the reform makes sense. Like many things there are unintended consequences. In the case of a strong positive leader, they can forestall the basest actions of a body out of control. At the same time, we saw how Emil Jones was able to halt all actions of the Senate and House. As long as there are decent checks and balances the reforms should proceed with caution. - ivote - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 11:54 am: Sounds good on its face, but understand how it would work in the “real world” . . . if a bill the leader wants to kill gets a hearing, he (or she) will just replace any recalcitrant committee members with other who are sure to vote the “right” way. This will solve nothing. Most legislatures (look at U.S. House!) work in a similar fashion–if the chair doesn’t want a bill discussed, it’s never on the agenda. And iuf the leadership doesn’t trust a chair, the bill gets assinged to another committee! A not-so-fair way of doing things? Probably not. But think of the mischief if all 6000++ bills in a 2 year session were required to be heard in Committee. . .which under this proposal could be forced by the minority party. A nice “feel good” proposal that just wouldn’t work in real life! - Rich Miller - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 12:01 pm: Getting 8 or 16 sponsors is just too easy. The general concept is good, but the minimums are far too low. This “reform” is based on a bill sponsored by GOP Sen. Matt Murphy. He had another bill, I think last year, which would require a hearing if a simple majority of all members signed on as co-sponsors. I’d go with that one. The reason? Elections have consequences. If the majority party wants to squash a minority party bill, it should have that right. Otherwise, why bother holding elections? But legislation with clearly demonstrated bipartisan support should be moved forward. - TT - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 12:06 pm: Is there a reason why every bill shouldn’t be voted on? I can’t think of any - MOON - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 12:10 pm: ivote 11:54 am You hit the nail on the head. The problem is not the power belonging to the Leader. The problem that would surface if these “Reforms” took place is the utter chaos. The legislature would be in session 24 hours a day , 365 days a year. - Cubs Fan - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 12:21 pm: The idea isn’t terrible in theory. However, the number of sponsors threshold needs to be considerably higher because the proposed minimums make it far too easy to play “Gotcha”. I would suggest that if a majority of members had signed on as co-sponsors, that could serve as a trigger to force a hearing. The HB1 ethics fiasco in the Senate last year comes to mind. - Ghost - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 12:27 pm: Rich pretty much summed up the post I was intenfing to make. Senate has 59 members. 8 sponsors is less then 8% of the mebership. You could create a new type of filibuster by pushing a storm of bills. The theory says the number of sponsors shows the bill has a chance, that low a percenatge of support does not communicat i has a chance. If you have say 24 of the 59 as sponsors, that tells me it has a chance and is worth being forced to a vote. On the house side you have 118 memebrs, so lets go with a target number of 48 sponsors to force a vote. After all, if you can get at least the number of sponsors I proposed, then forcing the vote is not intended to psend meaninful time getting the bill passed, but purley a political game and a bill that had no life in it. We have enough games by the GOP already flooding the chamber with past due meaningless bills. We do not need any disgruntled party running around pushing a blizzard of functionaly useless paper in the GA. - Rich Miller - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 12:38 pm: ===We do not need any disgruntled party running around pushing a blizzard of functionaly useless paper in the GA.=== In theory, the minority party could sponsor tens of thousands of bills and flood the committees with this proposal. If you look back at the 1994 session, the HGOPs did just that with floor amendments. Practically shut down the chamber. When they took the majority that fall, the Repubs banned floor amendments, fearing Madigan would retaliate in kind. So, the more I think about this idea, the stupider it gets and the more I regret even making it a QOTD. - VanillaMan - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 12:46 pm: Friday Song Time! Don’t Stand So Close To Me - Sting, enhanced by VanillaMan Impeached governor, the subject Of criminal inquiry Feds want him so badly Knows he should not be free Inside his administration Crime ruled upon the stage Deal marking – fund raising The public is now outraged Don’t stand, don’t stand so Don’t stand so close to Otto His friends, now so forgetful You know how bad pols get Sometimes it’s not so easy To have been the Governor’s pet Indictments, investigation So bad it makes them cry Expensive lawyers, they’re waiting Don’t care if you will fry Don’t stand, don’t stand so Don’t stand so close to George Loose talk about reforming New governor will try and try Strong words in the papers The proposals fly It’s no use, this is Illinois The Land of the Corrupted Gov Poor old Land of Lincoln Now a joke the comics love Don’t stand, don’t stand so Don’t stand so close to Rod Don’t stand, don’t stand so Don’t stand so close to Roland Don’t stand, don’t stand so Don’t stand so close to Walker Don’t stand, don’t stand so Don’t stand so close to Stratton - Johnny USA - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:04 pm: I’m not convinced Madigan is doing a bad job. If Madigan *was* doing a bad job or abusing his authority, the media would let me know, just as they have in the cases of Todd Stroger or Rod Blagojevich. I usually don’t get too concerned until the crescendo reaches those levels of alarm. - Johnny USA - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:04 pm: oops, forgot to add, so NO I don’t think this change is needed. - Captain Flume - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:21 pm: In so many ways, the “democracy” we cherish is an illusion. Someone further up the blog asked wasn’t Blagojevich the problem? Perhaps he was a problem, but he was not the problem. The problem is the autocracy created by the House and Senate leadership. That autocracy is built on control of campaign funds and political power. Every new General Assembly with a Democrat majority within the lifetimes of both my grown children have had the same Speaker. That particluar fact seems questionable, if not unallowable, as a matter of beneficial public policy. It corrupts the process of open debate and public influence on the elective process. Our elected public officials may sometines act in the best interest of the public, but they should always act in the best interest of the public, not always in their own best interests. Until the members of the General Assembly force democracy on their own chambers, there is little hope the public can change the current autocracy. - EmptySuitParade - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:34 pm: Saying Madigan has too much power makes about as much sense as saying StateWideTom is too short to be a leader because no one can see him when sits in his big green chair. All of the ideas might be worth something if state spending wasn’t the subject of endless hearings and meetings all year long he fact that the media and public ignore them is not Madigan’s fault. Why bend the rules so a small clique of blow hard rule the majority? - MOON - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:42 pm: Rich……..Refresh my memory. Wasn’t it the Republicans that introduced these rules in the GA that put so much power in the hands of the Leaders? Now that the Rep. are in the minority they want the rules changed! Wasn’t it Quinn who reduced the size of the House membership which in turn concentrated so much power in the Leaders? Now he wants the rules changed as suggested by his “Reform Commission”. I thinks it all sounds like sour grapes. As the saying goes “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it”. The Republicans and Quinn made their bed so now let them sleep in it! - Rich Miller - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:43 pm: ===Perhaps [Blagojevich] was a problem, but he was not the problem.=== I want what you’ve been smoking. I feel so lousy this week that I could use a bit of fun. - Jechislo - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:44 pm: Good idea if you’re a Republican. Bad idea if you’re a Democrat. Fantastic idea if you’re an Illinois citizen. - The Doc - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:47 pm: As stated ad nauseum above, partisanship and unintended consequences make some of these reforms seem goofy. It needs to start with redistricting. - Anonymous - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 1:49 pm: The irony of this complaint is rich, Rich. The House (and Senate) rules used to be much more open and “democratic” under Madigan and Senate President Rock in the 80s. Then President Pate Philip was elected in 1992 and he gave us the “total leader control” rules in the Senate. When Daniels was briefly Speaker (94-96), he adopted the same oppressive rules in the House. The Republicans in the two chambers ran roughshod over the Democrats for two years. Then Speaker Madigan unseated Daniels in 1996, but mostly kept his rules in place. Now the Republicans are whining about the tyranny of the Speaker. Talk about hoist with your own petard! http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/hoist%20by%20your%20own%20petard.html - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 2:09 pm: I find it ironic that in a democracy, one individual can hold up legislation based solely on whether that individual is against the particular piece of legislation or not. That concept should change. Fine. Let’s strip the Governor of his veto power as well. That ought to make everybody happy, right? The irony of this complaint is rich, Rich. The House (and Senate) rules used to be much more open and “democratic” under Madigan and Senate President Rock in the 80s. The REAL irony of this complaint is that it was Pat Quinn’s infamous “Cutback Amendment” that reduced the size of the General Assembly, made it more partisan, and concentrated more power in the hands of party leaders. Can we all just look in our rear view mirror over the past three years, when it was House Speaker Mike Madigan who “single-handedly” stood up to the goofy, embarrassing and unconstitutional actions of our former Governor? Now that Rod the Extortionist is no longer around, you want to disarm the General Assembly? Who then, will provide the checks-and-balances the next time a Governor or some special interest group pushes ill-advised or unconstitutional legislation? Before you know it, we’ll have: - Bans on late-term abortions - Criminalized same-sex relationships - 4/5th majority required to raise taxes - Absolute caps on property taxes for school districts - Term limits for all elected officials - Recall of all elected officials …and all manner of populist yet dubious legislation enacted into law. I say “Let the Patrick Collins and the Republicans complain all they want.” If voters actually care, and think Democrats are doing a bad job of running the General Assembly, they’ll vote to put Christine Radogno and Tom Cross in charge. - Captain Flume - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 2:18 pm: While it may be true that Madigan “signle-handedly” stood up to Blagojevich, let’s not forget that the power to help Blagojevich get elected twice also rested with the help of Madigan’s support. Blagojevich ran his office much like Madigan runs his. As smart as Madigan is and with as much influence as he wields, his blinders to public good when it comes party politics cannot be discounted. - 47th Ward - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 2:24 pm: ===Blagojevich ran his office much like Madigan runs his=== Would you care to elaborate and tell us all of the similarities you’ve found? I suspect you might be the only one who believes that statement to be accurate. Anyone who’s paid attention to both of them for the last six years would likely disagree with that BS. - MOON - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 2:25 pm: CAPTAIN Please provide us who are less informed than you of instances where Madigan used his “blinders to public good when it comes to public good”? Be specific, none of this it feels good so must be good nonsense! - ConfusedByrdParade - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 2:32 pm: Took the braintrust a little bit longer today to scribe the talking points, eh? Understandable. You people haven’t had to play defense for quite awhile, and none of you like working on Friday after Daddy goes back home. Nice try on trying to divert the issue at hand with snarky comments and other nonsense, but it ain’t working. The only reason the sta”state finances” are being discussed outside of regular session days “all year” are the razzle-dazzle powerpoint shows held all around the state by House Dems. The media stopped covering it because the meetings weren’t particularly newsworthy, and the public attendance was never overwhelming. You have a great future- hope Pravda is hiring. - Majority of Me - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 2:34 pm: Only 16 co-sponsors in the House? That bill could still qualify for the Century club. It’s too low of a requirement, as others have said. - Carl Nyberg - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 4:34 pm: I think the issue is the legislature. If there was a way of advancing constitutional amendments outside the legislature and some sort of limited referendum process it would create some pressure on the legislature to be more responsive. - 47th Ward - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 4:41 pm: It’s called a Constitutional Convention Carl. I think you were, like me, one of the 30% that voted for it. Maybe next time. - Carl Nyberg - Friday, May 1, 09 @ 8:14 pm: Why not have a provision that allows county or municipal government to amend the Illinois Constitution? - anonymous1 - Saturday, May 2, 09 @ 12:04 pm: it doesent matter even if the bill gets out of rules it would go to exec in either chamber and the chair would just not call the bill. the commission members are a bunch of amateurs that have no idea about how the legislative process works. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.