We have likely received an early lesson in how the upcoming spring state legislative session will play itself out with new Republican Governor Bruce Rauner and a Democratic General Assembly.
The Democrats on Jan. 8 jammed through their plan to limit the term of incoming Republican Comptroller Leslie Munger to two years, with a special election in the presidential year of 2016. Rauner appointed Munger to replace Judy Baar Topinka, who passed away in December.
Rauner remained silent in the days leading up to the special legislative session, but House and Senate Republicans went ballistic.
The GOP accused the Democrats of needlessly firing a partisan shot before the new Republican governor was even sworn in. They nit-picked every possible angle, from the legislation’s constitutionality, to the legality of the special session itself, all the way down to the germaneness of the “vehicle bill” the Democrats used to transport their amendment to the governor’s desk.
At one point, House Republican Leader Jim Durkin all but called House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie a liar for claiming that the legislation had nothing to do with a Democratic attempt to pick up the seat in a presidential year, which have favored Democrats since the days of Bill Clinton.
Republican state Rep. Dennis Reboletti called the bill “political thievery.” GOP Rep. Dwight Kay asked Leader Currie, “You really don’t like Gov. Rauner don’t you? Because he’s a Republican.”
More than two hours after adjournment, Gov.-elect Rauner’s office released a statement calling the Democratic proposal a “constitutionally-dubious election bill,” but downplayed the dispute by claiming Rauner “remains committed to working with members of both political parties to pass ‘Judy’s Amendment’ and finally merge the Comptroller and Treasurer offices, which would be a true victory for taxpayers.”
On the merits, the Republicans do have at least one valid point. Whatever you believe about the need for a special election, there is no doubt that Comptroller Munger will have a tough time retaining her post in two years, when Democratic Illinois native Hillary Clinton will likely be on the presidential ballot. The Democrats must’ve had a hard time keeping a straight face when they denied any political motivations.
Many of the Republicans’ other arguments were just plain silly, but what they showed us is a willingness to play attack dogs on behalf of their party’s new governor, while allowing Rauner to remain mainly on the high road. Last week’s vote also helped Durkin and Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno to begin the process of rallying their members around their new governor and serving notice to the Democrats that a new day is coming.
So, while they lost the vote, they actually won. And, besides, Illinois voters aren’t really all that worked up about this issue anyway. While they favor a four-year term for the next comptroller rather than a two-year term and a special election, it’s not by an overwhelming margin.
At my request, pollster We Ask America conducted a survey on Jan. 5 about the comptroller question.
“As you may know,” 1,022 respondents were told, “the recent death of Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka created an opening in that office that will be filled with an appointment by incoming governor Bruce Rauner. Some feel that the appointed comptroller should serve until the next state election in four years, while others think that a special election to fill the spot should be held within two years. Do you think the appointment to replace Comptroller Topinka should last four years or should a special election be held in 2016?”
Just under half, 49.7 percent, said they favored a four-year term, while 45.5 percent of respondents said they wanted a special election in 2016. The rest were undecided.
Only a few demographics clearly favored a two-year term: Democrats, 56 percent to 39 percent; Chicagoans, 53-44; suburban Cook County residents, 52-45; and African-Americans, 52-46. A small plurality of Latinos, 48 percent to 45 percent; and women, 48-47; also supported a two-year term with a special election.
But everybody else favored Rauner’s preference of a four-year term, including Republicans, 62 percent to 33 percent; collar county residents, 55-40; men, 53-42; independents, 52-44; Downstaters, 51-42; and whites, 51-44. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
The special election vote in the Legislature was the Democrats’ last hurrah as the complete majority power in Springfield. They took advantage of an opportunity to possibly pick up a statewide office while they still had a Democratic governor around to sign the bill into law, even though their plan isn’t firmly backed by Illinoisans.
I hope they enjoyed their fun, because those days are now over—at least for four years.
We’re in for some interesting times, campers.
- William j Kelly - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 9:49 am:
The lesson is obvious: rauner is a gidwitz puppet.
- Under Further Review - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 9:59 am:
When Richard M. Daley was elected Mayor of Chicago in 1989, it created a vacancy in the office of Cook County State’s Attorney. The position was filled by appointment and Cecil Partee served as Daley’s successor. Daley had been reelected as prosecutor in 1988. In 1990, a special election was held to fill the remaining two years of the term. The special election coincided with the next countywide election. Democratic candidate Partee lost to his Republican challenger Jack O’Malley.
What’s all the fuss about? Special elections happen.
- MAK - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 10:04 am:
Actually, the concept of an appointment only serving until the next regularly scheduled election (to avoid heavy election administrative costs) is pretty common, see Weisberg v. Byrne and the Coalition litigation to allow voters a voice after Mayor Washington’s death. And as for flipping the seat Democratic because of a possible (and likely) turn-out boost in 2016, the seat will go right back to the 2018 off-cycle (and lower turn-out) election, a roughly fair balance. Maybe if a poll asked voters if they want their right to vote in 2016 with no added costs, you’d see a different result.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 10:08 am:
===Many of the Republicans’ other arguments were just plain silly, but what they showed us is a willingness to play attack dogs on behalf of their party’s new governor, while allowing Rauner to remain mainly on the high road.===
It’s one thing to rally the Caucuses.
It’s another to be seen as Raunerite Lemmings saying things like Dems don’t like Rauner because he’s a Republican.
Sandack, the Prime Minister of the parliament of Owls has decided, I guess, his independence has a price, or is wooing to trade independence for safety at the cost of his own integrity. Disappointing.
Kay was a mess, so much so Reis gas to thank Kay for his Dopey remarks that followed his own Dopey remarks.
The Leaders have a role, but they also are on a $20 million leash. There is no carrot there, but a heavy stick requiring the Leaders to think about how those monies can help…and hurt…their quest to relevancy as Rauner courts 30 & 60 Democratic votes simultaneously.
I want and wanted autonomous GOP Caucuses, working with the governor, not being whinny, for the sake of being so, or for the favor of their Patron.
Big difference being partisan attack dogs and being partisan hacks for a Silent…Rauner.
Rauner?
Utter genius. Well played.
- The Captain - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 10:11 am:
I would expect this dynamic where the Republican legislative members carry the water for Rauner to dissipate a bit going forward. The Rauner victory has given all Republicans some energy and some usable talking points and it’s clear that the Republicans have been invigorated after so many years of having so little ammunition but the nature of session and the relationship with Rauner so far suggest this will wane.
1. A lot of Republican votes will be needed to pass a budget and regardless of whether that comes from cuts or increased revenue, or both, that’s going to be ugly and painful and as the process goes on the stress will grow. You can’t expect these caucuses to both a) take all these tough votes and b) carry all of the political water so the Gov can stay out of the mud and above the fray. It just seems unsustainable.
2. I was expecting to see more names of sitting legislators in the list of names released over the weekend for staff and agency positions. If you’re a Republican legislator hoping to work for the administration but you didn’t see your name or that of your seatmate or the guy/gal who sits in front of you but you did see former Sen. Meeks name in every headline how motivated are you going to be to carry the Gov’s water for the rest of session?
3. The one job that I thought for sure would go to either a sitting or former legislator was their deputy chief for leg affairs. Instead they brought on someone whose experience is notable for his DC and not Springfield work. I can’t imagine that is sitting well with legislators. Regardless of how well he does his job, later in the session when some Republican lawmakers are looking for any excuse to get out of tough votes this issue seems like an easy scapegoat.
It wasn’t that long ago that Rauner was painting all legislators as corrupt. He has clearly spent a lot of time trying to repair those relationships, at least with words. He had a chance over the weekend to start repairing those relationships with actions and passed on that opportunity. It likely won’t go unnoticed.
- Apocalypse Now - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 10:26 am:
===Many of the Republicans’ other arguments were just plain silly, but what they showed us is a willingness to play attack dogs on behalf of their party’s new governor, while allowing Rauner to remain mainly on the high road.===
It’s one thing to rally the Caucuses.
It’s another to be seen as Raunerite Lemmings saying things like Dems don’t like Rauner because he’s a Republican.
Sandack, the Prime Minister of the parliament of Owls has decided, I guess, his independence has a price, or is wooing to trade independence for safety at the cost of his own integrity. Disappointing.
Kay was a mess, so much so Reis gas to thank Kay for his Dopey remarks that followed his own Dopey remarks.
The Leaders have a role, but they also are on a $20 million leash. There is no carrot there, but a heavy stick requiring the Leaders to think about how those monies can help…and hurt…their quest to relevancy as Rauner courts 30 & 60 Democratic votes simultaneously.
I want and wanted autonomous GOP Caucuses, working with the governor, not being whinny, for the sake of being so, or for the favor of their Patron.
Big difference being partisan attack dogs and being partisan hacks for a Silent…Rauner.
Rauner?
Utter genius. Well played.=
Nothing like seeing the guy who always talk about “his party”, always trashing his party. OW. Join another party. A supporter for the GOP, you are not. Dope!
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 10:44 am:
- Apocalypse Now -
When you have a point snd you comment on it here, it’ll be your first, lol.
Attacking me ain’t makin’ a point.
- Norseman - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 10:59 am:
=== A lot of Republican votes will be needed to pass a budget and regardless of whether that comes from cuts or increased revenue, or both ===
Republican votes will be DEMANDED by Madigan and Cullerton in addition to Rauner. Let’s see how the GOP caucuses respond to that difficult reality.
Buckle your seat belt, get the popcorn and watch the show.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 11:15 am:
Acting tough on the House and Senate floor is one thing. Making tough votes is another.
We’ll see if the GOP is willing to do that for Rauner.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 11:38 am:
The choices made here by the ILGA sets the beginning tone for the next 4 years.
- too obvious - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 12:21 pm:
I find it hard to believe that a plurality truly understood the question and were honestly choosing less democracy and less of a voice.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 12:25 pm:
Politics ain’t tiddly winks. This is just another example of the short term benefit, long term liability approach MJM, Cullerton and the rest of Dems have used for years once again provides a detriment to progress.
This was nickel and dime stuff compared to the big issues. Is this just the inability of MJM to see the big picture, or is there more involved here?
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 12:27 pm:
What is going to happen is Rauner will do his best to get the Prairie Whigs into an agreement, then take that support into the GA where the Majority Party will have a big hearty laugh.
The Power in Illinois will only be interested in what the Prairie Whigs are willing to give them in exchange for a budget. Then they will take from the Prairie Whigs the tastiest morsels they find and shove the rest into Governor Rauner’s face.
If Rauner continues to do what he has done regarding the Special Election, he will pretend that he meant to have his lunch eaten and then try to convince the Prairie Whigs that they can win by their loss by showing them some of the $20 million that will be available for their reelection in two years.
Governor Rauner will discover that the Prairie Whigs are the minority party for a reason beyond not holding the governorship.
Madigan will enjoy taunting the new guy, won’t he?
- Ginhouse Tommy - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 1:30 pm:
As I have stated before, at the Dome if you want to dance Mr Madigan is the DJ like it or not. People from outside Ill. including Indiana do not understand the change, if it comes will be very slow. The people in charge have already drawn up a political Great Wall or Maginot line and are ready to do battle. Get ready for fireworks. Not choosing sides, just saying.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 1:38 pm:
- Georg Sande -,
Making it about me is losing. If you can’t make an argument against my comments doesn’t make me a Dem, it just make you Dim.
I’m a Republican, thanks.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Jan 12, 15 @ 4:29 pm:
Vman, is there a cermony today for weakest, crybaby burden who never took a chance on nothing?
Congratulations.
Trippy, dude.