39 Comments - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:23 am: I’m voting no. For largely the same reasons. 18 states have recall of statewide officials, none restrict it to the Governor only, and none take such an aristocratic notion to require a permission slip signed by legislators…. Never once in those 18 states for over a decade has partisan games or special interests gotten a recall petition even close to successful to have an election. There’s no reason for the added check other than to make sure it never happens. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:24 am: Rich- You linked rrstar not PJ star. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:27 am: Worthless. But it should do well enough to win approval. - Tom B. - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:27 am: California is what happens when people are given direct control over changing election results. Our constitution has provisions to deal with rogue elected officials: impeachment. I like that there was some thought in making it very hard to trigger this provision, but that won’t prevent demagogues and fools from using the threat of it for their own political purposes. More campaigns and politics is better for people like me, but I’m still voting no. - Living in Oklahoma - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:30 am: I already voted, and voted yes on the recall measure. The law itself is total garbage, but in Illinois its sort of like a soup kitchen politically, you take what you can get. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:30 am: No — Mike Madigan’s modus operendi is to substitute fake reform for real then have his lackeys crow about it. Don’t give him the satisfaction. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:34 am: Tom- California has only recalled one governor in over a century, and no one defends Gray Davis as someone who should have stayed on. Next example? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:38 am: I’ll be reluctantly voting “no” on this, but only because “heck no” isn’t an option. It’s a gimmick, and I don’t want to give it any more credibility than it deserves. - phocion - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:43 am: I’m voting “No.” We already have a recall mechanism - it’s called an election. Simple minded appeals to the masses are cynical and self-defeating. Voters, your chance is at the polling place on election day. If the guy (or gal) is a bum, throw ‘em out. - Publius - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:45 am: I will probably vote no, but it depends how I feel on election day. This is the only thing I’m undecided about - A-Rog - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:45 am: Voting No. We need less circus, not more. - ILPundit - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:46 am: I’m voting “no” because the idea is just crazy. Especially in our increasingly hyper-politicized world, with the easy ability to raise money via outrage on the internet, this is just courting a lot of future craziness. Ask yourself this question. Illinois is all but certain to elect a Governor this November who gets under 45% of the vote. If we pass recall, what are the odds that we see a recall effort within the next 5 years in Illinois. I would say they are fairly high. And John — what happened to Gray Davis was a travesty, and the perfect example of what I mean. Gray Davis didn’t break a law or create some massive controversy. He got elected to his final term because he was less hated than his opponent — and they were circulating the recall petitions weeks after he took the oath. That’s nothing but asking for an electoral do-over without the requirement that you field an opponent. Very bad stuff. - Tom B. - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:50 am: John, Enron manipulated the energy situation in California, which stirred up the voters. The direct democracy approach through all their ballot measures and the design of their recall law is my larger problem. Re: “defending” Davis, Schwarzenegger has the same massive budget deficits and bad approval, so I don’t think that’s a fair statement to make that Davis deserved to go. The founders designed our government as a Republic for a reason. - Jaded - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:51 am: Voting no. Have always thought recall was stupid. Impeachment worked when we needed it and would work again if need be. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:52 am: No. I whole-heartedly agree with 47th on this one. Elections matter and the only do-over is the next election. - Matt - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:54 am: “California has only recalled one governor in over a century, and no one defends Gray Davis as someone who should have stayed on.” While 45% of the electorate defends him. And I am a little skeptical about this recall amendment because of what happened there. Darrel Issa, a GOP congressman, dropped a TON of his own money into the recall effort for paid canvassers and ads. When successful, he quickly announced he was running, before dropping out amid criticism. Also, does anyone know what the ballot would look like for a recall? Would it be like in California, where on one ballot it includes the question of recall, then a list of candidates who meet the requirements? Would there be a primary? I ask only because in California, with the number of candidates and no run off provision, they faced the prospect of a larger percentage voting against the recall (thus voting for the current governor) than the plurality of the new governor, making it quite undemocratic. I’m still pretty undecided on it. There are many ways to approach it- symbolically rejecting it as reform-lite, accepting it as a step in the right direction, etc. But I’ll keep my eyes open on these comments. Very helpful so far. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:55 am: Voting yes on this proposal provides cover for the elected legislators to duck their responsibilities. Unless a meaningful constitutional amendment is propose that covers recall of all elected officials it is worthless. Vote NO and do not provide the establishment any excuses. - Niles Township - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 11:58 am: No. I simply don’t believe in recall for anyone. We get a chance to elect a governor every four years. If the governor commits a crime, the legisltors should impeach and convict as was done with Blago. Absent that, I believe that recall will only make governing though the hard decision that we need to make even more difficult. Would Ogilve had proposed income taxes if he knew he would be recalled? - UISer - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:07 pm: Voting no… We have recall every four years, it’s called an election. - MrJM - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:08 pm: Q:How are you voting on this constitutional amendment? A: I’m voting “no.” This strikes me as is a tool for political mischief-making — and plenty of mischief is already made with the political tools currently available. – MrJM - fedup dem - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:08 pm: I agree with the Naperville Sun’s argument, and urge everyoneto vote “NO.” - Dirt Digger - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:23 pm: On the one hand, I don’t see what this accomplishes. On the other, I don’t see what it harms. I will probably undervote it. - just sayin' - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:29 pm: Voting no. It’s just another feel good measure with no substance. So typical of this state. Not surprised the Trib is for it, that’s what they specialize in. All talk and do-nothingingness. The Tribune especially needs to get its own act together and stop being a hostile workplace for women before it even thinks about trying to tell the rest of us what to do. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:36 pm: I’m voting “no” on the recall amendment because of the numerous flaws in the text and a general skepticism about recall. IMO, no offices with two year terms should be eligible for recall. However, if we’re going to have recall, I’d like to see it applied to chief executives, e.g. village managers, library directors, park district directors and school superintendents. And I’d like to see it written into law that an official recalled does not get paid on the remaining part of his/her contract. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:37 pm: - MrJM - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:08 pm: “… and plenty of mischief is already made with the political tools currently available.” I presume the tools you mean are the legislators themselves… ;-{)> - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:38 pm: I prob left out a sentence. If Illinois is going to have recall, I favor expanding it to all offices with terms greater than two years. But more than elected officials, I want there to be recall for inept or corrupt executives. These people do as much harm as lousy elected officials. - Montrose - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 12:38 pm: No. I am with Niles Township. That is the same reason I am against term limits. We have election that allow the public to determine if we want someone in office. These other interventions just undermine the electoral process. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:05 pm: =The founders designed our government as a Republic for a reason= Bingo……NO to recall amendment. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:11 pm: I’m voting “no.” Recall is a sap to the ADD instant gratification whiners. We’re already in endless election cycles. Pay attention the first time. Impeachment can work, I hear. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:13 pm: wordslinger, I think you meant “sop,” not “sap.” But I see your point. - Irish - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:25 pm: I am voting yes. This bill is another example of what passes for reform in this State. It has no teeth and to have to ask a Legislature, that is controlled by four party leaders, permission to oust one of their members is ridiculous. However, if this does not pass it will be touted by the Madigans et al, as the voters sending a message that they do not want reform. Elections are the ultimate recall and if politicians were honest and supplied the voters with their platforms so we knew what we were getting that would be sufficient. But this is reality so recall would be a viable option. It is a baby step but maybe it will lead to more baby steps. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:28 pm: - Irish - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:25 pm: “It is a baby step but maybe it will lead to more baby steps.” That’s the reason I am voting NO. This baby step provides the legislators cover and gives them an excuse to claim they are reformers and never do anything else in the area of true reform. - hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:29 pm: voting YES. mostly out of bitterness that concon failed last time but also out of sheer terror of the prospect of gov. jason plummer should something happen to bill - wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:29 pm: You are correct, Freudian slip. - SafeAggie - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 1:35 pm: I am voting no. I agree with most of the arguments presented here. Even though the standard for recall in the amendment ballot question is high, we are already supposed to elect people who we entrust to make difficult (aka “unpopular”) decisions from time to time. Frothing up the electorate to support a recall when a governor makes a tough, unpopular decision is counterintuitive to operating within a representative democracy. Impeachment and trial is our representative recall mechanism, and elections are our backstop. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 2:39 pm: No! Oppose this and any other recall amendment. That’s what elections and impeachment are for. Gray Davis/Calif example should be a lesson. He was not recalled by the voters; they were secondary. He was recalled by Darryl Issa’s $$ and desire to be governor. The joke was on him, however, when Arnold trumped him in the recalled race. Now, it’s even worse w/Citizen’s United and the unaccountable money. Recall started as a populist initiative to give people a counterbalance to the corporate interests has become, like initiatives themselves, a tool of the special interests. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 4:54 pm: NO! This narrowly focused law would be a waste of money to enact and puts the burden of accountability upon the voters, not the legislators where it belongs. - Downstate Commissioner - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 7:37 pm: Will vote yes: if it fails, legislators will say voters don’t want recall. If it passes, they will say that reform passed, even though it is worthless- but the foot will be in the door, and that’s all you expect at this time. - Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 12, 10 @ 10:32 pm: Voting no. This is a sham and I’m not participating in it. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.