50 Comments - NoGifts - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 12:58 pm: Too expensive to hold special elections. - PublicServant - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 12:59 pm: Democracy too expensive for you, NoGifts? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:01 pm: Voted “No”. “Why?” These appointees face the voters fairly quickly. It’s not like 4 years are going by… - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:04 pm: Too expensive, low turnout … and as time goes on … no-one seems to care (70% run unopposed). - siriusly - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:09 pm: Too expensive. The appointment process is a little bit democratic, and elections are only marginally more democratic. So I think for a term of office that is less than 2 years for a state legislative position - an appointment is very appropriate. - Blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:09 pm: Voted yes. We have seen how costly one vote can be. - Dome Gnome - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:09 pm: I voted “yes” because, you know, democracy. - Bogey Golfer - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:10 pm: Voted ‘no’. As long as the appointment goes to the next general election, and not to the end of the 4-year term. - Anon221 - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:10 pm: Appointments should last only as long as the next scheduled election cycle (primary or general) unless there is not time for the candidates to get onto the ballot. Then go on to the next cycle. Ideally, an appointment should not be for more than 18-24 months. If the appointee really wants the position, he/she needs to work for it, not have it handed to him/her by the Party. - Chicago Guy - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:14 pm: I voted yes to holding elections. One reason is I’ve seen too many cases of an elected official retiring early in order to pick their replacement and often passing on the seat like it was family property. The second reason is it concentrates power because the appointee now “owes” the person who appointed them. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:14 pm: Huge fan of democracy here, but I don’t have a problem with appointments between elections. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm: Yes. Any vacancy lasting longer than three or six months. Cost is not an issue. If Speaker Madigan thought Illinois had 100 Mill for a presidential library, then spending a fraction of that over a few years in honor of democracy is cheap by comparison. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm: Yes, if the regular election is more than1 year away. - Name/Nickname/Anon - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm: Voted ‘no,’ We should not allow people to resign midterm. If you resign midterm, you should have to pay for the special election out of your own money. - Wow - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm: No: election units of government can’t afford to add more elections to their costs. - walker - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:16 pm: With Anon21 on this one. As long as next election is less than 2 yrs away, use appointments. - #freedumb - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:18 pm: Voted no. Appointees are vetted by the insiders who matter, special elections are expensive, and voter turnout is horrible for them. 7% for the most recent special election. Appointees usually are very similar, at least idealogically, to whoever they are replacing. Does it really matter who presses the button? - thunderspirit - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:19 pm: == With Anon21 on this one. As long as next election is less than 2 yrs away, use appointments. == Cosigned. - Mama - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:19 pm: It depends on how much time is left in the vacated position before the normal election. If there is more than 60% time left before the next election, have a special election. However, if there is less than a half of term left, appoint someone to fill the vacancy. - siriusly - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:24 pm: Formerly known as- the cost for special elections is not a state cost - it’s the local election authorities your county clerks, public facilities closed to host polling places, etc. - pool boy - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:25 pm: Voted no. Agree with OW. What was the voter turnout for LaHood, almost less than 0? - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:25 pm: Another method is conducting the ==special election== simultaneously with the next regularly scheduled election, regardless of when the vacancy occurs. We recently held elections on March 18, 2014, November 4, 2014, February 24, 2015 and April 7, 2015. Adding a race to the ballot on one of those dates is affordable and has precedent. - Come on Man! - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:26 pm: Voted Yes. Congress does it. Makes sense. - GV - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:31 pm: Can’t fill it. That should read. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:33 pm: @siriusly - that is right. Spit balling more of a method where the state underwrites the costs of a special election. The Times gives five examples since 1991, so something like that should not be prohibitively expensive, but the 1:25 comment may be easier? - Jake From Elwood - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:36 pm: I concur with OW and VM. Great minds think alike? - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:38 pm: Though the Times is only writing about one region. Even so, special elections would not be so frequent as to be a burden imho. Maybe we just draw straws until the gridlock passes lol? Thanks for earlier reply, @siriusly. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:38 pm: If it is not broke do not fix it! This is Illinois, we have bigger fish to fry!!! - Just Me - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:40 pm: I think your question is indirectly related to the redistricting process that the State has. That process is corrupt so it is only natural that filling those openings is corrupted as well. The Leaders despise elections, they despise anything they can’t control. Who cares what the voters think? - Norseman - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:42 pm: No. Cost and turnout! - Gooner - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:44 pm: I’m not a fan of appointment to elected office. Depending on the length of the term remaining, there should either be a special election or the seat should remain vacant. One more note on this — given the bit of controversy over filling the position when Judy Baar Topinka passed away, I’m a bit surprised that no reform bill has passed. - yea more changes - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:44 pm: Counties can not afford special elections that have a small turnout. The SBE has been able to pay the portion of election judge costs for the 18th District elections. Plus all holiday overtime the counties paid out with having elections after the 4th of July and Labor Day. With most counties forcing office holders to cut budgets Illinois needs to adopt the Indiana plan the divides the county into polling locations rather than individual precincts polling sites. With the Indiana plan you can vote at any site in the county. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:54 pm: No. An appointment is probably the only way I’ll ever be able to get one of these sweet gigs. Keep hope alive. Vote no. - Levois - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 1:59 pm: I’d say interim appointments are fine and organize a special election as soon as possible depending on length of the current term. Especially in cases of resignation, death, or removal. - Ben Franklin - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:01 pm: A LOT more than that! It’s close to 30-35%. It’s the Corrupt picking the corrupt to maintain their control. BAD FOR ILLINOIS - Tommydanger - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:10 pm: No, too expensive. More people probably line up for chicken in Ladd than vote in a special election - Anyone Remember - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:30 pm: Yes. Hold elections - however imperfectly, works for the US House. If appointments are necessary, do them the way the US Senate does - at the next general election the position is on the ballot for the remainder of the original term. Another pernicious effect of appointments? When the partisan party has a large pool to select from (like the Sangamon County GOP with 25ish of the 29 County Board members), you only get insiders selected. - Nearly Normal - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:32 pm: I have been an election judge and have seen how low the turnout is for special elections. Ballots have to be printed based on the number of registered voters plus a few extra in case there are spoiled ballots. Judges have to be in place and are paid for the day even if only 7% of registered voters take the time to vote. Early voting has to be provided as well as absentee ballots prepared even if not used. Cost is in the thousands of dollars. I would like to say yes as this is a democracy but the reality is that our citizens do not participate during regular elections much less special elections. - Downstate GOP - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:34 pm: This is the closest poll I’ve seen on Capfax. - Anon III - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:38 pm: No to special elections; all state districts are gerrymandered anyway. I suggest that if the elected official resigns, then the losing candidate in the prior election succeed to the seat, as if elected. There are at least three benefits: (1) resignations, especially those strategically timed to hand off the seat to relatives or cronies, will be reduced; (2) more elections will be contested, especially those of long-serving, senior members; (3) the successor in office will have the support of voters, perhaps more voters than would vote in a special election. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:46 pm: ===election units of government can’t afford to add more elections to their costs=== My brother lives in Texas. He was appalled that Illinois appointed a state comptroller for two years. That never would’ve happened down there. They have a tradition of special elections. It becomes a matter of priorities. We always find money for some things, so why not these? - yinn - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 2:55 pm: That’s what happened to Mark Todd. He was appointed to Christine Johnson’s position as DeKalb County Treasurer when Johnson was appointed to fill State Sen. Brad Brzynski’s spot when he resigned. Todd then won an uncontested election as treasurer. Trouble is, when Todd was first appointed to the position, he was already in trouble with the FDIC for his part in running Farmers State Bank into the ground when he was a VP there. That’s right, a guy who is now not permitted by the feds to work as a banker was DeKalb County Treasurer as long as he wanted to be. The GOP failed us by appointing on the basis of loyalty and relationships instead of competence or greed or whatever Todd’s problem is. The Dems failed us by not contesting the race and producing oppo research highly pertinent to the office. So while my answer is that we should stick with appointments for the sake of stability, I would certainly like to see the time period shortened during which appointments occur. That would ensure we can stay with the devil we know/elected for a longer period of time. Also, maybe some of these people who resign for no good reason right after the deadline for special elections might instead stick out their terms of office. http://www.citybarbs.com/?s=mark+todd+fdic - a drop in - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:10 pm: Special elections would be a great candidate for a trial of “vote by mail”. - Southwest Cook - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:34 pm: Waste of money. We already have a democratic process. Last time I checked, the Committeemen were elected to perform this duty. Yes, they are partisan, but I don’t see an issue with the same party holding onto the office for the remainder of the term. - railrat - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:39 pm: voted no but wanted to vote yes until the public takes control of the regular election cycle option and hold elected officials accountable we/they deserve appointments - Team Sleep - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:47 pm: No For the love of all that is holy, did anyone see how much it cost to hold the special election for Aaron Schock’s seat?! This is just for Sangamon County alone: http://wymg.com/news/101101-sangamon-county-wont-ask-for-special-election-reimbursement/ And here is the statement from County Clerk Don Gray about turnout, which was a massive 8.8%: http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150910/NEWS/150919969 - cover - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 3:56 pm: Name/Nickname/Anon @ 1:15 pm: = We should not allow people to resign midterm. If you resign midterm, you should have to pay for the special election out of your own money. = Would you also require the estate of Rep. Golar to fund a special election? - titan - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 4:17 pm: I went with “no”. You would have to have a special primary and a special election, and the turn outs are typically very low. If it was structured such the party committees picked the party nominees (so as to avoid the special primary), then you would basically have the system we have now in most places, but with the added expense of an election (that would pick the party selected nominee of the stronger party in the district). - downstate commissioner - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 4:30 pm: Appointments are much cheaper and quicker than special elections. May not be as effective (we ended up with the LaHood kid who is even further right than Schrock). If more than 60% of term left, have the election at the next regularly scheduled election of any sort. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 15, 15 @ 6:30 pm: Level the playing field leave it vacant until next election Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.