Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Question of the day
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Question of the day

Thursday, Jan 7, 2016

* Press release…

State Representative Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield) has filed a new bill to amend the Illinois Constitution to ensure public accountability by making all Illinois elected officials subject to recall. The proposal, House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 44, was filed this week and is co-sponsored by Representative David McSweeney (R-Barrington Hills) and Representative Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove).

Specifically, HJRCA 44 provides for the recall of all State Executive Branch officers and members of the General Assembly; changes the signature requirements for affidavits and petitions for recall of the Governor and expands them to include all State Executive Branch officers and members of the General Assembly. The amendment also provides for the recall of all elected officials of any school district, community college, or unit of local government.

“Simply put, recall is good policy and would ensure a greater degree of accountability than we have now,” Rep. Batinick said. “Having a comprehensive recall law in place would give voters an important tool to keep their elected officials at levels accountable at all times, not just before an election.”

The Illinois House of Representatives returns to session on January 13 at which new bills can begin to receive consideration. Rep. Batinick will continue to add co-sponsors and build bipartisan support for his recall proposal in the coming days and weeks.

* The proposal (click here) would remove the existing and onerous gubernatorial recall requirement of signatures from 20 House members and 10 state Senators (half from each party).

For legislative recall, the minimum petition signature standard would be 15 percent of the total votes cast for Governor in the member’s district. But if the total is at least 10 percent, then a recall election would be held during the next statewide election - and that applies to statewide and local officials as well.

The governor would appoint the successor for any statewide official who is recalled until a special election could be held.

* The Question: Do you support this idea? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.


survey services

- Posted by Rich Miller        

43 Comments
  1. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:44 pm:

    No. Regular elections, plus the expulsion and impeachment processes are good enough for me.

    Recalls are faux-populist,side-show time-wasters.


  2. - Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:48 pm:

    No. Not unless this is going to be tied to significant campaign finance reform. It would make it much, much to easy to target a legislative seat for recall, push the recall with a lot of money from outside groups, and then provide the governor the ability to hand pick the successor until the special election is held?

    There is simply too much room for seats to literally be bought.


  3. - burbanite - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:49 pm:

    What a potential waste of money. Tool for personal vendettas, why should the Gov have power of appt. especially if the official removed is not from the Gov’s party. So in theory you could replace a bunch of Dems with Repubs?


  4. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:49 pm:

    Voted “No”

    “Why?”

    Every two and/or every four years there’s the opportunity to recall any elected official.

    Even Gov. Rauner, today and anything resembling today does NOT warrent recall, and I would work to help Rauner stay. Period.

    ===…would remove the existing and onerous gubernatorial recall requirement of signatures from 20 House members and 10 state Senators (half from each party).===

    There’s a real reason for this ridiculously high hurdle; its to prevent from wasting time by everyone and staving off recall/impeach/removal tin foil hat wearers from yrying to remove snyone who looks at them odd.

    Voted “No”

    Making it easier to make political ramifications becoming governmental removals is a terrible road to go down.


  5. - The Captain - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:50 pm:

    No. Elections shouldn’t have mulligans. If you don’t like the way things are going go win the next election.


  6. - Person 8 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:53 pm:

    The part of it I do support is having something on the books for local recalls. Put in a part that says, “..if no recall law is on the books…”. In alot of smaller parts of the state it takes someone going to jail, or waiting out the current term before voters can get rid of a current official.


  7. - thechampaignlife - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:54 pm:

    No. Elections and impeachment already exist.

    If this were to go forward, it seems that standardizing on the 8% of votes that independent candidates need to get on the ballot would make more sense. Also seems that precinct committeemen should appoint the successor.


  8. - Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:54 pm:

    Voted No. Can someone explain the reasoning behind why Article VII (recall of local officials) uses the Gubernatorial votes as the basis for the required petition signatures? We’re talking LOCAL here. Some vote total may well be under 500!


  9. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:55 pm:

    I favor term limits, because it has been shown to increase racial, occupational and gender diversity in states where it has been enacted.

    But not this. What we’ve seen in states with the recall is an ugly political circus. Wisconsin spent millions and locked themselves up in partisan fights that continue today. California spent even more and ended up with a movie star governor powerless and without credibility to govern.

    Recalls in practice result in a weak governor perpetually focused upon campaigning and not governing. We got a governor like that now without a recall, why do we want more of this?

    Elections within the constitutional framework infer credibility that a highly partisan recall election does not. In a way, we’ve repeatedly seen recall-election winning governors seen more as a Lt. Governor, a Vice President, or just a political hack backbencher keeping the office warm enough for the next real election, than as a real governor.

    This is not reform. This is political pandering on a political perception which doesn’t really exist. There are no solutions in a recall, just more unintended negative consequences, piled upon an atmosphere which drove the recall to succeed, making the entire situation poisonous.

    Yeah - you are the “reformers” guys - but this isn’t reform. Promoting this makes you look like you don’t really know what reform is.

    Try governing instead of grabbing a news cycle? As of today, you people promoting this reform have about as much credibility in governing as Rauner - zip. Nada. Get out of here!


  10. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:55 pm:

    Is this a hidden attempt to open the IL Constitution so they can change everything they don’t like??????


  11. - @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:55 pm:

    “Every two and/or every four years there’s the opportunity to recall any elected official.”

    End of discussion.

    – MrJM


  12. - Jerry Callo - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:57 pm:

    Hard to see how a rep should be recalled when a rep’s term is only two year in duration.


  13. - NoGifts - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:57 pm:

    We should take our votes seriously and have to wait until the next election.


  14. - plutocra03 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:02 pm:

    Reluctantly voted no. In principle it could be a good idea, but with the cold blooded politics practiced in Illinois, reformers could be ousted as easily as bad players.

    Elections have consequences.


  15. - walker - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:05 pm:

    Dear God! Standard political pap, that occurs every cycle.

    These sponsors should be ashamed, if they’re capable of it.


  16. - NorthCenter - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:12 pm:

    I would probably have voted yes if this would just apply to major statewide offices.

    I think local elected officials would be too vulnerable to frivolous attempts of recall. A group of NIMBY’s might have a lot more sway in a small local recall election with extraordinarily low turnout.


  17. - Archiesmom - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:19 pm:

    No. This is why elections exist.


  18. - Benniefly2 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:20 pm:

    This bill would set the threshold for recall in local legislative Districts would be set so low as to make it easy to continually harass reps and lower officials with constant, nuisance recall elections if so desired.

    Count me in the “Elections have consequences” crowd.


  19. - Archiesmom - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:20 pm:

    I’d like a few of these yes votes to explain why they support recall.


  20. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:24 pm:

    I voted no. I’ve never been a fan of recall. I’m not really supportive of do-overs. Of course I’m also not a fan of term limits. I’m supportive of elections. You get your chance there. Don’t like it? Tough. That’s our system.

    If you want to change the system work on the real problem which is map drawing. Don’t try to look for ways to limit who I can vote for or get a do-over if you don’t happen to like what an elected official does.


  21. - Bill White - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:35 pm:

    = = This bill would set the threshold for recall in local legislative Districts would be set so low as to make it easy to continually harass reps and lower officials with constant, nuisance recall elections if so desired. = =

    If the going rate for signature gathering is $1 a pop, a PAC could routinely offer this proposition:

    “Accept this $5,300 from us and support our bill or we will spend $10,600 and within six months you will face a recall special election.”

    Hey, the choice is yours . . .


  22. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:50 pm:

    No. It’s a costly waste of moola to say ” We really can’t stand this person”.


  23. - Been There - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:53 pm:

    I agree with what Word said. Plus
    ====- Jerry Callo - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:57 pm:
    Hard to see how a rep should be recalled when a rep’s term is only two year in duration.====
    Reps are pretty much in campaign mode only 6-7 months after getting sworn in. Recalls would be a joke


  24. - George - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:58 pm:

    This is such a BAD idea.


  25. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:16 pm:

    I voted yes, but would have preferred an option to recall executive positions but not legislative. Two year term is short enough. That said, I strongly support the executive aspect. Being able to recall mayors, governors, clerks, etc. is a worthwhile endeavor.


  26. - train111 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:28 pm:

    No

    All the money and drama from north of the border a few years ago show the faults of ‘recall’ elections for anything–having lots of money and a grudge.
    Impeachment and removal are better.


  27. - Jimmy0 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:38 pm:

    Does anybody else think he’s got something sly planned with the “Governor picks the replacements” part?


  28. - Jimmy0 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:46 pm:

    So if this passes he gets his choice of who he props up in Chicago? Pass.


  29. - Big Joe - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:04 pm:

    Voted NO. Voters should have to live with the official they elected. If you don’t like the job they are doing, vote them out next election. Recall is just a waste of money, and it could just be a way of big money guys like Bruce and his cronies to take out someone and replace them with one of their lackies.


  30. - olddog - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:07 pm:

    Voted no. All I had to do was look at the sponsors.


  31. - princess buttercup - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:10 pm:

    I totally, jumping-up-and-down, happy-dance support a recall mechanism in our political voter-elected public official system. If we have that mechanism, term limits issue becomes moot. You serve at the behest of the voters. Period.


  32. - Anonin' - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:31 pm:

    We voted yes because
    A.more work for consultants
    B.quickest way for the 1%ers totally wreck the state and then sanity can return


  33. - Annon3 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:31 pm:

    Voted no recall elections don’t work.We have recall and they are regularly scheduled elections.


  34. - good ole boy - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:44 pm:

    Another unfunded mandate proposed by the General Assembly member. I thought the Guv’s plan was to rid us of unfunded mandates…..


  35. - Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 4:13 pm:

    No, voters already decide who goes and who stays; the recall process known as an election. Impeachment for egregious, criminal behavior, with help from the feds at times, is enough.


  36. - Cheswick - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 4:13 pm:

    I was “maybe”, “maybe not” until I got to this part: “The governor would appoint the successor for any statewide official who is recalled until a special election could be held.”

    Then I was a definite no.


  37. - Dilemma - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 4:18 pm:

    My concern is that it makes addressing some unpopular problems cause for recall. Legislators in Colorado faced recall because of their support for stricter gun regulations. I fear this could lead to even more stagnation and gridlock, not to mention governing based on polling.


  38. - The Muse - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 4:39 pm:

    No. If they won the election last time, you can always vote them out next time around.


  39. - Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 4:41 pm:

    No. In Illinois, where nearly everything these days is hyper-partisan, throwing another lit torch into the mix will serve no one. An out-of-control governor (like Blago) could potentially be taken care of with the provisions as they are for legislative recall. That should suffice. Representatives and some Senators have to run every two years anyway. As we’ve seen in other states, recall just allows wealthy individuals or groups to distract officials from what they’re supposed to be doing, regardless of how well or badly they may be doing it. For Illinois, I see this as another way to make things even worse than they already area.

    For emphasis: Absolutely not.


  40. - lake county democrat - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 5:06 pm:

    It’s a close call - voted no. But it’s pathetic and funny at the same time to read the commenters who are passionless about gerrymandering claim to be all about the voters. (The same voters who favor all sorts of reforms that their beloved Mike Madigan opposes).


  41. - Payback - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 8:28 pm:

    Yes. I used to oppose Dan Biss in his effort to eliminate or streamline township government. My romantic vision of townships as the last vestige of true Norman Rockwell government close to the people was unsullied.

    After interacting with the local township road commissioner, and finding out that his father and grandfather had the same job, which makes him think that the roads are “his” roads, I’ve come to see some of the worst cronyism, waste, destruction of property and corruption I’ve ever seen at any level of government.

    This in a township where the HQ has no lettering or signage on the building to indicate that the taxpayers own it, where no public notice of the next township meeting is posted anywhere, and of course no website. I’ve come to find that township government in IL is the last holdout of 1970s style patronage and cronyism. The first Mayor Daley would be proud of the township “machine.”


  42. - NewWestSuburbanGOP'er - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:52 pm:

    Yes, especially if it comes back to bite the co-sponsors in the ass and they get recalled!


  43. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:32 pm:

    Concept is ok, but Gov. should not get to fill vacancies and should not apply to offices with a term of 2 years or less.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* *** UPDATED x3 - Pritzker, Curran, Durkin respond *** IEPA issues construction permit to Sterigenics
* *** UPDATED x1 - AFSCME responds *** Janus files union dues refund appeal
* *** UPDATED x1 - "Terminated" by Pritzker administration *** Staff shakeup continues at ALPLM
* Today's number: 37 percent
* Question of the day
* Breaking news!
* Rate James Marter's new campaign video
* The birds are dying
* Wait. What? The Tribune wants downtown cannabis sales
* Opioid deaths declined overall here, but increased for blacks, Hispanics
* East St. Louis firefighter pension fund attempts to trigger state intercept law
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller