17 Comments - Excessively Rabid - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 12:47 pm: I’m leery of initiative processes in general - too easy for them to be dominated by hysterical nutjobs. Initiatives are a big part of why California is even worse off than we are. I don’t see this process as creating that kind of problem, but don’t see it being useful either. - jaded voter - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:03 pm: Quinn has little power to do much of anything. Real power rests with Mike Madigan. Quinn isn’t strong enough to really fight him. Quinn is getting back to being more like himself. He is getting his ideas out to the public like he did with open primaries in one of the ways he can. He’s probably hoping some pol will slam what he is doing to draw attention to his ideas. He isn’t strong enough to be governor. He’s acting more like the good gov’t advocate he was prior to getting elected. Advocacy not governing is his strong suit. - RFR - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:15 pm: Leaving aside the AV, I like the idea. It gives the citizenry more voice in the legislative process without the drawbacks of the California system. If the General Assembly thinks the proposal is a bad idea, they have the power to stop it, but then would have to explain to the people why it was a bad idea. I think it might be a good idea to expand it to other areas of legislation depending on how it works in this context. - Commonsense in Illinois - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:16 pm: Well, Quinn being the populist he is I can’t say I’m too surprised by this. In the same vain, since this is Illinois, I’ve got to ask how many of any particular petition’s signatures will be those of dead people…? Just asking… - Matt - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:21 pm: I kind of like it. I think 100k signatures is a pretty good benchmark, although if a hooker knifing politician can get more than that, I’m not quite sure… - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:21 pm: I like initiative in general, but I don’t see how this proposal is workable. What are the timeframes in which someone can gather those signatures? Assuming it’s the same timeframes already in the Election code (you can start 24 months out but have to finish 6 months out), if someone waits until the end (i.e. May 2nd this year), you’d be REAL hard pressed to do the signature verification in time to get legislation considered before the sessions ends May 31. You can submit early, sure. But with the 100,000 signatures, I can assure you, every single attempt that every gets the necessary signatures will start in Cook County and likely never leave. Say, for instance, downstate wants to end the practice of legislators holding additional government jobs with, say, the City of Chicago or Cook County… well, good luck organizing that effort south of I-80. Would the signature verification take place before or after the bill is sent to the General Assembly? Would it be the same ornerous criteria by which constitutional amendments and non-binding questions are handled now? For instance, not only are signatures automatically verified for non-binding questinos and constitutional amendments, your petitions have to be separated by election jurisdiction (usually counties, but 7 cities are their own and one part of one city is its own jurisidiction). If you mix jurisdictions, the entire sheet is void. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:23 pm: In this state, political change should be embraced and tried. Not doing anything hasn’t worked out too well, has it? - JeffTrigg - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:38 pm: Illinois still hasn’t figured out what a petition signature is. Quinn is putting the cart before the horse once again. What is a petition signature in Illinois? Some untrained election office worker who looks at a signature for 5 seconds and determines it is “forged” based on a 20 year old signature on a voter registration card and throws it out? We’re all handwriting experts according to Illinois. What a joke. This is too narrow, as it only deals with ethics and campaign finance. It should include more areas. Like our unequal and unfair ballot access laws and our often ruled unconstitutional election laws. Not to mention lazy and sloppy legislation passed by the GA that creates ambiguity and contradictions on the election statutes. Yes, Illinois needs something like this because the legislators making the laws are doing a horrible job as evidenced by our courts having to correct them constantly. We’d be better off listening to the people rather than Madigan. - JeffTrigg - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:43 pm: And btw, on this subject, there is a fascinating conference this weekend and next week in San Francisco dealing strictly with initiative and referendums. The 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy. Leaders from all over the world will be there to discuss stuff just like this. Quinn should be consulting those experts on initiatives and referendums instead of pulling stuff out of his blank. http://www.2010globalforum.com/ - Scooby - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 1:49 pm: I’m skeptical that large scale petition operations are really a vehicle for citizen participation. They are so difficult to pull off, just ask the Libertarians or the Greens. The ones that are successful tend to be well funded. This looks just like another vehicle that will either be used by well funded special interests, or ignored. - JeffTrigg - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 2:02 pm: Scooby, I would suggest a hard option is better than no option at all. The conference I mentioned will have a panel discussion on the issue you brought up. It will be interesting to hear their view on it and how other countries, like Switzerland, deal with that issue. - JeffTrigg - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 2:08 pm: Another thing to mention. The Utah Supreme Court just ruled that electronic signatures are valid. And easier to check or verify. Quinn could also join us in the 21st century instead of proposing 100 year old outdated systems for initiatives and referendums like this is. But credit where it is due. Quinn may be stuck in the 70s with his ideas, but at least he’s proposing something to give the people more of a say. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 2:50 pm: Quinn at his worst. Populist pandering, with, in the end, nothing. A non-binding referendum? Expensive and worthless. - Reformer - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 2:54 pm: Too much democracy in this latest Quinn scheme for the powers that be. Letting voters initiate even nonbinding referendums is distasteful to legislators, which is why this is DOA. - Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 4:27 pm: I agree with the intent (I assume it’s increased voter participation) but not the method. These issues should be dealt with during a concon, but we missed our chance on that one. Perhaps this is Quinn’s attempt to show the League that meaningful reforms CAN be made under the current constitution–but I agree “advisory” status is of little use. Why not a binding vote with a supermajority? - Berkeley Bear - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 4:27 pm: So basically it is a way for voters to tell the Legislature if something they wouldn’t pass should have passed? Something that shouldn’t be necessary. Plus, I don’t see Madigan & Co. caring about non-binding statements from anyone. - duck duck goose - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 4:55 pm: Regardless of the general idea, there are some major problems with the execution. In addition to the problems highlighted by other commenters, this idea seems unworkable. First, what is an ethics bill? Virtually anything could be twisted around to argue that it concerns “ethics”. Second, does the Governor seriously want any citizen to be able to go into LRB and get legislation drafted? That’s insane. You’re going to need a hell of a lot more than the 15-20 lawyers who currently work there. And, say somebody goes to LRB and gets a 500-page ethics bill drafted up. Does anybody think that the 100k petition signers are going to have any idea what’s actually in that 500-page bill that they want to have voted on? There also seem to be some constitutional issues. The av seems to state that the House of Representatives must take a record [sic] vote on the 15th day it is submitted. The constitution, however, requires that bills be read on three separate days. What about amendments? Are we stripping away the constitutional power of each Chamber to amend or reject bills? If not, then this is an empty exercise. This could use more thought… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.