* According to WBEZ, just 1200 Chicagoans have applied for handgun permits since the city’s gun ban was repealed.
* Want a government job? Run against Aaron Schock…
In 2008, Democrat Colleen Callahan ran against the Peoria Republican. She lost, but was then named to a job with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The pattern continued last week when Sheila Simon, the state’s next lieutenant governor, announced she was hiring Deirdre “DK” Hirner to be her chief of staff.
You guessed it: Hirner recently lost her race for Congress against Schock.
* The state’s chief tort reform cheerleader has been sued…
Ed Murnane, who has weighed in on his share of court cases as president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, has been sued by a woman who says he crashed into her car after running a red light. He denies any wrongdoing.
In a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Dorothy Hardy says the Feb. 18 crash injured her head, limbs and nervous system and has prevented her from “attending to her usual and customary affairs and duties.”
Mr. Murnane said he was disappointed to learn of the lawsuit, which also names his employer, because police determined he was not at fault after considering statements by him and his doctors.
“This is rather surprising,” he says, adding that “the Illinois Civil Justice League has nothing to do with the incident in my hometown, in my personal vehicle. I’ll seek guidance from legal counsel.”
Quinn totally vetoed four bills that were before lawmakers this fall. The Legislature sustained Quinn on only one of those — a bill Quinn vetoed because it duplicated another bill that he signed.
Quinn also used his amendatory veto powers over the summer to rewrite several pieces of legislation. Lawmakers rejected most of those changes, too. Of 14 bills before the Legislature on which Quinn used his amendatory veto powers, lawmakers agreed with Quinn on only one. That amendatory veto changed the effective date of the law.
(T)he best line during the sunshine bill debate came from Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon.
“We need a see-through government,” Righter said, urging his colleagues to save the bill by scrapping Quinn’s changes.
It’s a great line because, about 12 hours earlier, Righter voted with 47 other senators to shield the performance evaluations of public employees from the state’s open records laws.
Guess you want see-through government but with certain parts blacked out for family viewing.
The newly appointed state representative from Champaign – who will take office in early January – got stuck in an elevator on his way up to the House chambers on the third floor of the Capitol.
And then he got lobbied.
“I get in an elevator with 12 women. The elevator starts to go up and then it stops. We’re stranded,” he said. “One of the women looks around says, ‘This is not good. It’s too bad we don’t have a representative or a senator in here who we could lobby.’
“I just kinda put my head down. Then she goes, ‘who are you?’ I explained my situation and we all had a good laugh. They were suburban women for education. So they gave it to me. They said that ‘these are our issues and our positions.’”
* The Freeport Journal-Standard believes that Gov. Quinn’s hesitancy is a sign of doom…
Any thoughts that Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn had changed his stripes after a narrow victory at the ballot box on Nov. 2 were quickly put to rest last week.
Quinn is back to his familiar role as a crusader for public unions, regardless of the state’s financial predicament.
After both the Illinois House and Senate approved a two-tier pension system for police and firefighters hired after Jan. 1, 2011, the governor refused to answer direct questions on whether he would sign the legislation.
Think about that, just for a second.
Yeah, think about that for a second. The governor wasn’t involved in the negotiations, his staff hasn’t had time to analyze the bill, and the newspaper wants him to jump on board right away?
Still, there’s that nagging issue. It’s called the law.
The state residency law has cost other deserving candidates, including former Chicago Schools Chief Paul Vallas. He wanted to run for governor in 2006 and challenge soon-to-be-indicted incumbent Rod Blagojevich. Vallas was denied because he didn’t live in Illinois at the time but rather in Pennsylvania.
That’s a truly silly comparison. Sherman, turn on the Wayback Machine…
Thomas Ioppolo, an assistant attorney general representing the State Board of Elections, maintained that Vallas’ decision to sell his home in the Beverly neighborhood, obtain Pennsylvania license plates and vote in the 2004 presidential election in Pennsylvania effectively made him a Pennsylvania resident.
Unlike Rahm Emanuel, Vallas registered to vote in Philadelphia. Also, the municipal code is different than the state law governing gubernatorial candidates. Candidates for governor must reside here for three years, not the one year that the municipal code requires. It’s apples to horses.
* And, finally, have a look at how Pete Giangreco threw Gov. Pat Quinn under the bus during an interview about Rahm Emanuel’s residency. Ouch…
* Twenty Eight Percent: With Illinois’s passage of the civil unions bill, more than a quarter of the population of the United States – to be precise, a bit over 28% - now lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or its functional equivalent.
* Taxpayers expect more than ‘no’ votes on pension reform bill: Bost’s explanation for his minority vote (the bill passed 95-18) doesn’t entirely hold water. As we reported Wednesday, Bost said the bill is not a real compromise but is “being promulgated by people who will just be back to change it in the next session.” He believes the bill will be amended by the Senate “and we’ll get a second bite at that apple.”
* When Corrections Don’t Count - In a time-honored but sorely outdated tradition, the Tribune buries a couple of real boners about Rahm and Ron Huberman.
* VIDEO: CapitolView, hosted by Amanda Vinicky and featuring panelists Charlie Wheeler, Mike Lawrence and Scott Reeder
* Why Should We? A closer look at the Cubs’ plea for public money
* Officials warn of conflicts in picking DuPage state’s attorney - Schillerstrom, Birkett at odds over selection process
What happens if you let the notoriously fickle (and sometimes downright dirty) Google search autocomplete feature take over U.S. geography? A completely new State of the Union heavy on universities, history and other peculiarities, that’s what.
Some of the new states are rather obvious, but still provide an interesting look into what Google’s search field algorithms and people’s previous queries “think” you’re actually searching for.
KFC? No brainer. Nebraska football? From what I’ve seen from old college friends who hailed from there, completely obvious choice. Utah Jazz? Hmm. I suppose when it’s the only notable professional sports team going it’s not much of a surprise. Louisiana Purchase? Not what I would have guessed, but Jefferson would surely be proud.
Others are somewhat troubling. What’s going on in Illinois that so many citizens are searching for the lottery?
When I use Google’s Autocomplete, I get “State Fair” as the number one item. It could be a geographical thing, or Google knows how much I love the State Fair. Whatever.
* The Question: What, in your opinion, should be the first Google Autocomplete item for Illinois?
* The tax amnesty program took in more than twice as much cash as expected…
Illinois’ cash-starved budget received a more than half-billion dollar influx of money through its recently completed tax amnesty program, a new report says.
According to the report, tax scofflaws took advantage of the penalty-free period to send in checks worth at least $546 million.
That’s more than double what supporters had originally forecast and more than a similar program raised in 2003. And that total only accounts for November. More money could roll in this month and into January. […]
“While the amounts collected in November 2010 are impressive, it must be stressed that the vast majority of these revenues are not new revenues but rather an acceleration of tax revenue that would have ultimately been collected,” the General Assembly’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability noted.
Yet a clause that would have done exactly that was mysteriously dropped from the megaexpansion bill that cleared the Illinois Senate last week. The bill would add new casinos, authorize a Chicago casino and allow racetracks to install slot machines — but the previous airport clause vanished. […]
According to bill sponsor Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan, the clause wasn’t needed because, if the bill passes, the Illinois Gaming Board would allow “temporary” slots at O’Hare and Midway on its own.
All the removed clause was doing was “confusing people” by allowing them to think the proposed 2,000 slots at the airports would be in addition to the 4,000 allowed at the new Chicago casino, Mr. Link said.
But Mr. Link conceded that the Legislature has not defined “temporary” — meaning that any slots at the airports might be there for decades. And other sources I’ve spoken with say it’s far from clear that the Gaming Board could authorize anything like that on its own.
* And a Crain’s editorial calls an economic development program a tax hike…
A pair of bills jammed through the Illinois House in the veto session last week amount to an enormous tax increase for utility customers across the state. The legislation would require millions of Illinois residents and businesses to purchase gas and electricity at above-market prices from two “green energy” plants to be constructed with state backing.
Naturally, legislators tout the measures as “jobs bills.” The plants—one on the South Side of Chicago, the other in Downstate Taylorville—would create a couple thousand construction jobs and a few hundred permanent positions. State legislators who represent the districts where the plants would be built see a chance to grin for cameras at ribbon-cutting ceremonies and brag about bringing jobs to the area. […]
This is taxation. It is government taking money from one group and transferring it to a smaller group with the political clout to extract special treatment from the state. It’s government propping up businesses that can’t compete in the open market by requiring the people of Illinois to underwrite their extra costs.
Yeah. Kinda like the newsprint and ink tax exemptions for newspapers and magazines. Not to mention the public notice requirements which pad newspapers’ bottom lines.
The businessman renting Rahm Emanuel’s house withdrew from the Chicago mayor’s race today just hours before a hearing to decide whether he could be on the ballot.
Rob Halpin issued a statement saying “the realities of entering the race at this relatively late stage, including the financial and legal hurdles I’d have to leap in order to win, have forced me to reassess my intention to run at this time.”
Halpin’s impromptu candidacy had been in doubt all along and became more questionable after disclosures about the legitimacy of his candidacy petitions. Election law requires 12,500 valid signatures of Chicago voters to get on the ballot.
Halpin submitted about 17,000, but the Tribune reported last week that a number of people allegedly involved in the signature-gathering process said their names were used without their knowledge.
This sounds familiar: Two of the Chicago voters challenging Rahm Emanuel’s right to run for mayor of Chicago are demanding, among other documents, his birth certificate.
Emanuel says he was born in Chicago, but …
(No, wait: There’s no restriction on where the mayor of Chicago can be born.)
Mayoral candidate Jay Stone, son of alderman Berny Stone, was escorted from the hearing after calling for the ouster of Chicago Board of Elections chariman Langdon Neale.
“I challenge you Langdon Neale,” screamed Stone. “You make millions of dollars [through your private law practice],” he said, suggesting some impropriety. Stone has filed only about 250 signatures for his mayoral bid. 12,500 are needed.
M. Tricia Lee and Ryan Graves were also removed from the ballot.
Stone’s father appeared at a recent WBEZ candidates’ forum and attempted to prove that he still has all his faculties. The elder alderman didn’t do so well. Listen…
Attorney Burt Odelson says Emanuel should be disqualified because he didn’t have a city sticker on his car when he claims to have been a Chicago resident.
“If you’re in debt to the city at the time you sign your statement of candidacy, you are disqualified as a candidate. We could find no record of city stickers being purchased from that address in ‘07, ‘08, and ‘09,” Odelson said.
The Emanuel campaign says he didn’t need a sticker on his car when it was with him in Washington, but since he’s been back he does have a sticker on his car.
Hearing officer Joseph Morris said he will try to keep out extraneous issues. For instance, he would not entertain a subpoena to make president Obama come Chicago, raise his right hand and testify what dates Emanuel has been serving him as chief of staff.
“That would be a waste of the president’s time and a waste of my time,” Morris said.
* Perhaps the strongest denunciation of the civil unions bill so far is from a Democrat. State Rep. Brandon Phelps…
“As many in my district already know, I am a very active Christian and have always spoken out against homosexuality,” Phelps said in a news release. “In recent years I have been a co-sponsor of constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and outlaw civil unions just like SB 1716. I am disappointed by today’s vote and I am proud to have voted to preserve traditional family values.
“Current Illinois law prohibits gay marriage, and I do not believe that will change anytime soon. Rest assured that I will continue working to keep marriage between one man and one woman.”
* Dennis Byrne seems almost disappointed that the civil unions bill didn’t include an abolition of the blood relative prohibition…
But the bill does discriminate, as does the marriage act, against civil unions between certain blood relatives. Why should it? Liberals have long contested the logic that the purpose of marriage was broad, in that it lays out the rules, privileges and rights involved in procreation, in the interests of parents and children, and in the interests of society. Obviously, the purpose of a civil union rarely would be procreation, so why should the state deny the right of partners who are blood relatives from having the same protections and rights as anyone else? Don’t anyone point this out to Harris, or he might want to also include fathers and daughters in civil unions.
* And on the other side, two Catholic columnists take strong issue with their church’s position. Carol Marin…
That pledge [by Gov. Pat Quinn to sign the bill] provoked a stern lecture from Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, head of the Springfield Archdiocese. Paprocki wrote:
“If the governor wishes to pursue a secular agenda for political purposes, that is his prerogative for which he is accountable to the voters. But if he wishes to speak as a Catholic, then he is accountable to Catholic authority, and the Catholic Church does not support civil unions or other measures that are contrary to the natural moral law.”
The operative word in Paprocki’s dressing down is “authority.” A church that should be chastened by the failure of its authority to protect children from sexual abuse, a church misusing its authority to conduct the current inquisition of the faithfulness of Roman Catholic sisters, is instead evermore consumed with its authority.
Lastly, you should know I am a proud Catholic. I am Catholic because I respect, follow and support the church’s missionary devotions and its humble, service-based teachings.
But because of my liberal views on gay marriage, the church would prefer to cleanse me of its pews. I am not “pure.”
But guess what?
I’m not leaving. I was baptized, confirmed and married into the faith, and I’m staying put.
Six Illinois House Republicans voted with 55 Democrats last week to approve a civil unions bill. But a few of the Democratic “Yes” votes were a bit more surprising.
All but one of the six Republicans were suburbanites. Bill Black, who is retiring later this month, was the only Downstater. Reps. Suzi Bassi and Beth Coulson were suburban “Yes” votes who are not returning next year. Reps. Mark Beaubien, Rosemary Mulligan and Skip Saviano were the other Republican “Yes” votes, and all three are suburban legislators. None of those were particularly huge surprises. Black has been a more traditionally liberal Republican for years, endorsed by labor unions and backed by many Democrats in his district. Black quoted the late Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen during the debate, citing Dirksen’s crucial vote for civil rights legislation in 1964 as the basis for his own position.
But just about every politically targeted suburban Democratic incumbent who survived the November election also voted for the plan, even though they just came off grueling campaigns against tough opponents. That support was even more newsworthy.
Rep. Keith Farnham (D-Elgin) won by just a handful of votes two years ago and beat the same opponent in a rematch by just 627 votes this year, but he voted for the civil unions legislation. Rep. Carol Sente (D-Vernon Hills) and Rep. Fred Crespo (D-Hoffman Estates) were both Tier One campaign targets, yet they also voted for the bill. Rep. Emily McAsey (D-Lockport) easily won reelection this year despite heavy spending by Republicans and she also voted “Yes.” Rep. Jehan Gordon (D-Peoria) was one of just three Downstate Democratic Representatives who voted for the bill who aren’t also lame ducks. Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo) has not been a target in years mainly because he has cultivated a strongly conservative voting record, yet he also voted the civil unions bill.
Not all targets were on board. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D-Orland Park) voted “Present” last week. McCarthy, who survived a brutal campaign with a relatively narrow victory against a tea party Republican, said he was opposed to the legislation, but wanted to soften the impact by voting the yellow button.
Eleven of the chamber’s 18 lame ducks, all but three of them Democrats, provided needed votes for passage last week. At least some of those members might have voted “No” had they won reelection.
Despite the bipartisan and target-rich vote in favor of the legislation, last week’s action probably can’t be used as a model for non social issue votes, like a tax hike. Black will leave before the January lame duck session. Bassi and Beaubien are strong fiscal conservatives. Saviano is a member of GOP leadership, which is united against the Democrats. Polls showed that suburban voters supported civil unions, but not tax hikes, so those Democratic targets who voted “Yes” probably won’t be on board, either. Many of the Downstate Democrats who voted against civil unions (Beiser, Bradley, Holbrook, Jefferson, Mautino, Phelps and Reitz) will probably also be against a tax increase, mainly because their regions have become so conservative lately.
The debate last week was almost universally respectful and stayed on the high road, except for some weird comments by Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Greenville), who, among other things, called himself an “old-fashioned traditionalist” during his remarks. Stephens has twice had problems with his pharmacy license for alleged substance abuse issues, was recently popped for a DUI and is divorced. There’s nothing spectacularly wrong with any of that whatsoever, but it certainly doesn’t make him an “old-fashioned traditionalist.”
The momentous civil unions bill passed the Senate the following day with 32 votes - two more than the minimum required. One Republican, Sen. Dan Rutherford, joined with 31 Democrats to approve the legislation. Democrats later claimed that Rutherford had made a politically smart vote, if it doesn’t ruin him in a Republican primary. He’ll almost certainly be able to establish a new - and strong - base of Chicago-area fund raising support for being the only Senate Republican to stick his neck out on the bill, and the only statewide officeholder to actually vote for the legislation.
Unlike in the House, where only two Republicans rose in opposition, several Senate Republicans spoke against the bill, and they mostly stayed on message. The Republicans almost universally complained that the Democrats were spending no time on solving the budget crisis and the precarious economic situation while debating social issues.
