Question of the day
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The setup…
On Sunday, on Lincoln’s Birthday, Gov. Pat Quinn called for the passage of a so-called “Lincoln Amendment” to the Illinois Constitution which would allow voters to more easily implement stronger ethics laws and recall elected officials.
“We must have a way for everyday people to gather signatures on a petition and put on the ballot a binding referendum that will improve our government in the 21st Century and centuries beyond,” Quinn said at a news conference at the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago.
Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 52 was filed by Sen. Annazette Collins (D-Chicago) on Friday. If approved, the amendment would give voters the ability to enact ethics reforms to local governments, school districts and the legislative, executive and judicial branches of state government by gathering 8 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. It would be limited to changes that establish and enforce ethical standards, including campaign finance reform, conflict-of-interest voting, pay-to-pay abuses, patronage abuse and misuse of taxpayer funds.
“When it comes to ethics in government standards of conduct for elected officials at the local and state levels, we need to have mechanisms for the voters to set down the rules, put the voters in the driver’s seat, make sure the voters have the last word,” Quinn said.
* Text…
SECTION 5. CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS
Amendments to Section 2 of Article XIII of this Constitution may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal to at least 8% of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election. Amendments shall be limited to subjects that establish and enforce ethical standards for candidates for or holders of office in units of local government, in school districts, or in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of State Government
* The Question: Do you support giving citizens the right to amend the Illinois Constitution to create new ethical standards, including campaign finance reform? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
- Robert M Roman - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 6:18 am:
I voted no; this does not provide citizens with a useful tool for intervening in politics. It merely provides a useful tool for politicians to look ethical.
- Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 6:31 am:
If Quinn thinks the voters know best, why’d be help dump Scott Lee Cohen?
- bored now - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 7:16 am:
i voted yes, but i would be concerned about a lot of things. i suspect collins’ sponsorship is a cheap political stunt (come on, you *do* have to live in your district!). but we do need to shake up state government in illinois, it has been paralyzed the entire 12 years i’ve lived here, and i don’t see it getting any better soon…
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 7:56 am:
No, we shouldn’t have force elected leaders to follow ethical reforms, they should legislate and follow these reforms, themselves. That’s why we elected them. Get the job done and stop trying to evade responsibility by pushing it on Illinois voters.
- Kevin Highland - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 7:56 am:
We need voter initiated referendum for amending the constitution. It shouldn’t be limited to just things regarding ethics.
- jk - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 8:11 am:
Wensicia -
That’s worked so well in Illinois’ 194 years of existence.
- Aldyth - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 8:18 am:
The most meaningful reform of all would be term limits. I don’t see that on the list.
- Cal Skinner - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 8:37 am:
What is needed is term limits for leaders. I don’t see this addressing that.
Again Pat missing the major problem.
- Fed up - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 8:55 am:
Perhaps Quinn should concentrate on telling the voters in Illinois the truth instead of always lying to them. IE tax increase, support for death penalty, taking money from union to guarantee jobs. I think a little honesty would fix some of th problems Quinn thinks we need a constitutional amendment for.
- cover - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:02 am:
I voted no. I suspect most efforts under such an amendment would be expended on misguided campaign finance “reform” efforts that actually make it harder to figure out where political donations originate.
- Adam Smith - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:02 am:
Appropos of nothing, but Lincoln would be in jail under our current ethics laws. His insider deals as a legislator were legendary.
- titan - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:13 am:
Initiative states don’t have a great history of beneficial changes (or limitations on government) adopted through the initiative process (with a few notable exceptions here and there)
- South of Sherman - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:16 am:
I voted yes for the exact same reason that term limits are such a hideously bad idea. We ought to put more power in the hands of people; term limits take away our power to decide for ourselves who we want to have representing us.
As to the amendment, it should be used sparingly, and I suspect that it will be. But it does provide an alternative when the officials we freely elect fail to act in our interest, a useful alternative at least until the next election, when we are free to vote them out.
- Kerfuffle - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:23 am:
I’m with Kevin Highland - If voter initiated referendum is such a good idea, why place limits on it? It is just typical PQ posturing and seems to me to be a bit disingenuous.
- mokenavince - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:44 am:
I voted yes! Things happen in Springfield that just barely move things along.I trust the will of the people more than I trust the politicans
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:48 am:
NO.
We see where one of the last great “reforms”
PQ’s cutback amendment got us
BTW we noticed Cal “Sweaty Palms” Skinner is raving about terms limits. That is a certain path to total control by big bucks lobbos and a handful of staffers. Very bright Calbert.
- mattman - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:50 am:
Some of these things, especially campaign finance stuff, is too complicated. Especially for local governments and school boards, voters could really make things more difficult and keep good folks away from what are mostly volunteer positions.
- so... - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 9:59 am:
One need only look to California to see what a bad idea voter referendums are. They have a hell of a time getting their finances in order because huge parts of their budget are untouchable due to voter referendums, and they can’t really raise taxes due to other voter referendums. Not to mention that referendums don’t really empower individual voters anyway. With very few exceptions, most successful referendums are either backed by wealthy individuals, or large, deep-pocketed organizations. They’re the only ones with the money to be successful. And those groups are hardly unheard in government.
Also, it isn’t explicitly part of the QOTD, but since Quinn mentioned it I’ll address it: We SHOULD NOT make it easier to recall elected officials. The ongoing debacle in Wisconsin proves that. There is a perfectly good mechanism for removing elected officials, it’s called not re-electing them when they are up for re-election.
- JustaJoe - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:05 am:
Voted No. a) would never happen - too many hurdles; b) wastes energy that could be turned to something that has a chance; c) sets a bad precedent - (get a similar amendment for some other subject); d) pols would find a way around it anyway.
We need a climate for and a way to attract and elect better public officials and then “ethics” would not be such a problem. It’s hard to legislate virtue.
- Cal Skinner - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:09 am:
Term limits for leaders, oh commenter who dare not reveal his/her name.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:13 am:
No,
Besides the sad state of affairs when we have to do this so we can get ethics changes. I like others am very hesitant of the referendum process for stuff like this. Finally I think you would end up causing real issues for smaller units of government and school districts. Ethics rules to address non-ethical underlying issues.
- Downstate - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:16 am:
Kevin Highland said it correctly.
A limited ability to change the constitution isn’t enough.
It’s like being on a sinking ship and suddenly we are given the right to throw the crew overboard. When what we really need is the ability to plug the holes.
- mark walker - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:18 am:
The commenters on this thread have just demonstrated the problems with this proposed process for reform. Most public and constituent calls that I have heard for “ethics” reforms (e.g. strict term limits, no legislator salary unless the budget is “balanced”, referendums required for tax increases, rotating leadership in the House, simplistic campaign contribution limits,with no real control of unaccountable third parties) are either very indirectly related to ethics or corruption, or not related at all. Some well-intended suggestions would demonstrably make the situation worse than it is now. Simple solutions, of the kind that would fit and be attractive on a public referendum, would be a distraction from real reforms. Effective solutions to unethical and corrupt behavior, including what is rampant in local governments around the state, would be deeper and more complex.
Of course, there might be something simple that would lend itself to this referendum process, that I am missing. Let’s see it.
This looks like a stunt, but that might be OK if it leads to concrete actions by those who are elected to represent us.
- the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:28 am:
I voted “no” (after reading the comments, of course, to be better informed
). The real problem with this amendment is that it is almost impossible to determine what it means. Does it, as Quinn imply, cover recalls? On the one hand, recalls were enacted as a way to remove officials because of unethical conduct. On the other hand, recalls can also be used for other reasons. Inevitably, most initiatives will be challenged and the Supreme Court will have to decide whether they will be on the ballot or not.
But on a separate note: I find it rather ironic that Governor Quinn is promoting easier recalls, given his high disapproval rating. Same goes for Collins.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:47 am:
I am typically leery of voter initiatives - we have seen how that led, in part, to the evisceration of the California electric power grid. Since waiting for Illnois GA to enact real ethics reforms on their own (we should all be such a lucky fox finding employment as a chicken coop watch dog) is akin to watching All Star Wrestling (lots of action - all fake) we should be able to force their hands. Term limits might be ok, too.
All of this is a waste of time, however. Since any such changes have to be brought thru the GA in the first place, we know whatever ends up being approved and signed ain’t gonna be worth doodly squat. I mean, really, MJM approving term limits? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 10:50 am:
I read the amendment a few times and can’t quite get an idea of what would happen, so I voted no.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 11:00 am:
First of all, to some of you lamenting on the issue of term limits, we have them - they are called elections.
I voted no. We already have ethics laws in place. That isn’t the problem. The problem is enforcement of those laws, or more appropriately, the lack thereof.
Also, I’m generally not in favor of voter initiatives. We elect representatives to do a job. Why have them if we can put our own laws out there to vote on?
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 11:04 am:
No, just a stupid gimmick. As Calif has shown, referendum no longer are the voice of the people, but of the biggest wallet.
- A.B. - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 11:11 am:
No - I look at the nightmare that Wisconsin has faced with wave after wave of recall elections and it makes me sick. The last thing I want is for either political party to have the ability to recall an elected official simply because they disagreed with a policy decision.
- Irish - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 11:21 am:
I voted no because this would not be the will of the people. It would be the will of the best organized and best funded groups. As others have said above, it would be a way that groups like the Civic Committee or the Illinois Policy Institute would be able to attempt to dictate policies they cannot get otherwise.
And if anyone believes that this would be a pure process not tainted by those already in power you are sadly mistaken. There is a reason why the attempt to install recall failed and the ethics reform became watered down rules and why SB51 which is supposed to provide transparency to all bidding and contracts yet exempts all members of the GA, their staffs and constitutional officers. Those in power are not going to let the masses cut into their gravy train, period.
- 44 - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 11:23 am:
Unfortunately, the average voter is no way near engaged enough to make these kind of decisions for the state, and the voters who want to be informed are too often victimized by trusting the Tribune or the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform — organizations who are waging political battles every bit as petty as the behavior they are fighting, but doing it under the guise of “reform.”
- jake - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 11:46 am:
No.
This would provide another opportunity for demagoguery that would distract from efforts towards the real problems confronting the state.
There is another Constitutional Amendment that has gotten out of the House Rules Committee into Finance, and quietly picked up some powerful support. This is HJRCA0012, which would permit the state legislature to enact a graduated personal income tax in place of the flat tax that is now constitutionally mandated. The Governor has said that he would favor a more progressive tax system. He should get behind this one.
- 3rd Generation Chicago Native - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 12:55 pm:
No because recalls and re-elections cost too much money.
Try to vote responsibly the first time or have the DOJ interviene by arresting you at the early morning hours, and then have the legislators vote to impeach you.
- reformer - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 1:22 pm:
Allow votes to bypass the pols and lobbyists? We can’t have that now, can we?
Better to trust that our legislators and the special interests who fund their campaigns know best. What do the people know, anyway?
- reformer - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
- so
Unlike the California initiative and referendum power, the Quinn proposal would be limited solely to ethics issues, Not to taxes and spending, which is what you score the CA process for aggravating. So you’re attacking a straw man.
How about a two-year timeout from the revolving door between the General Assembly and the rail? Does anyone think the legislature would ever approve that?
- Sideliner - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 1:41 pm:
See most of the above “no” comments for detail. It would, mostly, move the lobby/funding/attack campaigns to a new arena.
- TwoFeetThick - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 2:53 pm:
If the founders of our country intended to create a direct democracy, that’s the system they would have established. I prefer our state laws not be dictated by corporate megabuys swaying the vote of uninformed people.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 3:36 pm:
Why not just enact the reform legislation?
Seems like a solution in search of a problem.
- state worker - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 5:25 pm:
Gimmick for both Collins and Quinn, inviting disaster for everyone else.
- Say what? - Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 7:26 pm:
Quinn and Collins- both with their numbers in the toilet? Who would take this seriously? I voted no, simply because of who the sponsors are.