CHICAGO (S&P Global Ratings) Aug. 5, 2016–S&P Global Ratings lowered its underlying rating three notches to ‘BB+’ from ‘BBB+’ on Governors State University Board of Trustees, Ill.’s series 2007 and 2012 university facilities system (UFS) revenue bonds and series 2008 and 2009 certificates of participation (COPs), issued on behalf of Governors State University (GSU or the university). The outlook is negative.
“The downgrade and negative outlook reflect our view of Illinois’ ongoing severe challenges due to its weak financial position, and the resultant impact on GSU’s financial position which, in our opinion, creates significant liquidity risk for the university and without correction or intervention, could result in a negative cash balance by August 2017,” said S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Jessica Wood. Additionally, the university’s operations have been deficit on a full-accrual basis for the past couple of years, and this is expected to continue given the state pressures.
Throughout fiscal 2016, the state’s public universities, including GSU, received only a small fraction of historical operating appropriations, placing significant liquidity stress on these institutions given their dependence on these funds to support operations. Furthermore, given the length of the fiscal 2016 budget impasse and the absence of a substantial agreement among elected leaders, it is our opinion that state appropriation outcomes will remain uncertain through at least fiscal 2017. […]
Illinois State University Debt Ratings Lowered To ‘A’ On Fiscal Uncertainty; Outlook Negative
CHICAGO (S&P Global Ratings) Aug. 4, 2016–S&P Global Ratings lowered its long-term rating to ‘A’ from ‘A+’ on Illinois State University Board of Trustees’ auxiliary facilities system (AFS) revenue bonds. In addition, we lowered our long-term rating and underlying rating (SPUR) on existing bonds and certificates of participation (COPs), issued on behalf of Illinois State University (ISU), to ‘A’ from ‘A+’. The outlook, where applicable, is negative.
“The downgrade reflects our view of ongoing operational and liquidity uncertainty attributable to budgetary stresses at the state level,” said S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Ashley Ramchandani. “While the state has provided stop-gap funding and ISU does not have immediate liquidity pressures, state budgetary pressures have, and will, in our view, continue to negatively affect the university such that we believe its credit profile is now more consistent with the ‘A’ rating.”
The negative outlook reflects the aforementioned challenges that we believe the university will continue to face over the next two years, and their potential impact on the university, particularly if the state continues to delay, reduce, or not provide operating appropriations and of Monetary Assistance Program (MAP) funding. The funding situation remains unresolved for fiscal 2017.
The state of Illinois passed a stop-gap budget on the final day of the fiscal year 2016 (June 30), providing higher education institutions with $1 billion of funds to support operations during the first six months of fiscal 2017. Under this budget, which was approved by both houses and signed by the governor, ISU is scheduled to receive approximately $38 million of state operating appropriations and $6 million of MAP funds for spring semester of fiscal 2016. While receipt of these state operating appropriations mitigated liquidity risks, we do not view these stop-gap measures as a long-term solution to ISU’s state funding support given the state has yet to make substantial progress toward a budget for fiscal 2017. Please see the full analysis (published Feb. 22, 2016) for more information.
The ‘A’ rating reflects our view of ISU’s enterprise profile, which we assessed as strong, characterized by stabilizing enrollment, a respectable demand profile with improved matriculation and moderate selectivity for the rating. We also assessed ISU’s financial profile as strong, with robust balance sheet metrics and consistently negative operating performance on a full-accrual basis (though somewhat positive on a cash basis) because of historical softening in enrollment and operating in a challenging state funding environment. Combined, we believe these credit factors lead to an indicative stand-alone credit profile of ‘a’ and long-term rating of ‘A’.
* Mark Kirk on himself, the governor and Donald Trump…
Noting the two oppose Trump, Kirk, who was in a wheelchair, said, “I think the governor and I both suffer, forgive the humor here, from a form of PTSD: Post-Trump trauma disorder.”
* Heh…
Just stumbled Chris Farley style through the railing on my steps. I landed in my hydrangea and broke my labor union yard sign.
Is Chicago’s usually private first lady Amy Rule making an unprecedented sortie into the Illinois comptroller’s race?
Er, no — though Chicago City Clerk Susana Mendoza seemed to suggest so Friday morning.
“Join me and Chicago’s First Lady on 8/22 for an evening on the river,” tweeted Mendoza, who is challenging incumbent Comptroller Leslie Geissler Munger in November.
Turns out that, in this case, “Chicago’s First Lady” refers not to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s wife but to the name of the boat that Mendoza’s campaign fundraiser will be held on.
* The governor just announced the signing of a ton of bills and I’m still going through them, but here’s one of a few he vetoed…
Veto Message for SB 2767
To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois Senate,
99th General Assembly:
Today I return Senate Bill 2767, which would allow certain counties to collect delinquent taxes and fees through private debt collectors.
Current law authorizes large, Chicago area counties to pursue court-adjudicated fines, such as for violation of county ordinances, through private debt collection. Senate Bill 2767 would expand that law to also apply to taxes and fees.
Illinois has the second highest property taxes in the country, and those taxes continue to rise. Many property owners struggle to make tax payments. The current tax sale process provides both counties and taxpayers with a system through which to address unpaid or delinquent taxes. Referring unpaid tax bills to private debt collectors would penalize property owners who are already facing skyrocketing property taxes. First and foremost, we need to make property taxes more affordable.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(b) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return Senate Bill 2767 entitled “AN ACT concerning local government”, with the foregoing objections, vetoed in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR
Thoughts?
…Adding… Rauner also signed HB 5529 today, which critics have said would allow school districts to continue getting around tax caps by over-levying a non-capped fund (like transportation) and then transferring excess money into a capped fund (like education).
* Gov. Rauner appears in a new ad touting an online petition favoring term limits. The ad features one character saying “Let’s get a million signatures this time.” Another follows with “Make ‘em debate it.” The ad is paid for by Turnaround Illinois, Inc., which is one of Rauner’s campaign funds. So it’s very likely that Rauner will use the ad to not only boost his flagging poll numbers (since the issue is so popular), but to also gather up contact information to use against Democrats in legislative races this year.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing an Illinois doctor and two pregnancy care centers filed suit Friday in state court against Gov. Bruce Rauner after he recently signed a bill into law that forces doctors and medical facilities to promote abortion regardless of their ethical or moral views on the practice.
ADF sent a letter to Rauner in May on behalf of numerous pro-life physicians, pregnancy care centers, and pregnancy care center network organizations advising him that the bill, SB 1564, would violate federal law and therefore place federal funding, including Medicaid reimbursements, in jeopardy. ADF also warned legislators about the problems with the bill last year. The lawsuit claims the new law, which is actually an amendment to the existing Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, violates state law and the state constitution.
“No state should attempt to rob women of the right to choose a pro-life doctor by forcing pro-life physicians and entities to make or arrange abortion referrals. What’s even worse is that Illinois did this by amending a law designed specifically to protect freedom of conscience,” said ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman. “The governor should have vetoed this bill for many reasons, including its incompatibility with Illinois law and the state constitution, which specifically protects freedom of conscience and free speech.”
The new law forces medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers “they reasonably believe may offer” them. Illinois law prohibits government from placing burdens on religious conscience without a compelling interest for doing so. Additionally, the Illinois Constitution protects “liberty of conscience,” saying that “no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions.” It also protects free speech, which includes the right not to be compelled by government to speak a message contrary to one’s own conscience.
“Pro-life health care professionals shouldn’t be forced to hand out lists describing how to contact abortionists, yet that’s what this law mandates that they do,” explained ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “If this profane amendment to Illinois’ conscience protection law remains on the books, doctors and medical staff committed to saving all lives will be forced to promote the killing of some children, women will lose access to doctors who unconditionally value human life, and pregnancy resource centers that offer free help and hope to pregnant women will be forced to refer to abortionists. This is the kind of government coercion that the state constitution, the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the very law that was amended were all designed to prevent.”
Mauck & Baker LLC attorney Noel Sterett, one of more than 3,000 private attorneys allied with ADF, is co-counsel in the case, The Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford v. Rauner, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Winnebago County.
The main targets of this new law are those crisis pregnancy centers. Click here to read the lawsuit. And click here to read the letter the group sent the governor in May.
* Meanwhile, the AP has finally gotten around to covering this story. Click here.
2016 MADIGAN PRIMARY OPPONENT FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST MADIGAN AND HIS MINIONS
Mr. Gonzales ran against incumbent Mr. Madigan in the democratic primary for the 2016 election for the District 22 seat tothe Illinois House of Representatives. Mr. Madigan defeated Mr. Gonzales by engaging in illegal acts both by himself and through his vast network of operatives. On Monday, August 8, 2016, Mr. Gonzales filed a 39-count lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois United States District Court against Mr. Madigan and several of his co-conspirators.
WHO: Jason Gonzales
Anthony J. Peraica (counsel for Mr. Gonzales)
WHERE:Everett M. Dirksen United States Courthouse
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
WHAT:Announcement to the public of Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit against Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and others.
* There are those who speculate that the governor’s office is using an alleged September 1 strike date and the potential for union fines if they cross the picket line in an attempt to scare state employees into dropping their full union memberships and switching to “fair share.” This e-mail from the governor’s labor negotiator John Terranova will only increase that speculation…
Colleagues,
My office has recently learned that AFSCME representatives are advising employees about the consequences of crossing the picket line in the event of a strike, which could be as early as September 1. Specifically, we heard that the Union is threatening to fine employees as much as $5,000.
We respect every employee’s decision to join a union. We also respect the relationship that employees have with their union representatives. That’s why employees should reach out to their union representatives with any questions related to the threat of fines for crossing the picket line. Employees can ask their union representatives to see any provisions on this topic in the union bylaws.
As the employer, however, we also care about state employees and their rights. I, for one, found it troublesome that, given a chance to firmly deny that it could or would fine employees for exercising their right not to strike, AFSCME Council 31’s spokesman failed to do so.
In light of the Union’s failure to flatly deny that it could or would fine employees, I feel it is my obligation to ensure employees know their rights.
You have the right to report coercion or intimidation by union officials; the right to change your union dues status in order to protect your hard-earned salary and prevent the Union from imposing fines if you want to work during a strike; the right to request a copy of the Union’s bylaws; and more. If you visit the Team Illinois website, team.illinois.gov/laborrelations, you’ll find answers to questions you’ve raised and some basic information about these employment rights.
For example, you’ll find information posted in response to the number one question we’ve been receiving since the Union first began threatening employees with fines if they cross the picket line: how do I change my union dues status to avoid getting fined? The process is simple. You just submit your dues revocation form to the agency that employs you, and they will modify your payroll deductions accordingly. If you visit team.illinois.gov/laborrelations, you’ll find a link to the online form where you can change your status. Separately, you will need to notify your union in writing of your intent to change your status, and you will find a sample letter on team.illinois.gov/laborrelations.
Please know that the decision is yours - and yours alone. The State cannot and will not advise you one way or the other and will respect your decision either way.
Rest assured, regardless of your status–fair share or full union members–we will treat you the same way. Your wages, hours, or any other terms and conditions of employment will not change if you become fair share (in the same way that they do not change if you switch from fair share to a full dues paying member). Regardless of your status, you will retain all benefits of your union’s relationship with the State as it relates to the terms and conditions of your employment.
As always, please continue to visit the Labor Relations tab on team.illinois.gov/laborrelations for important updates.
Yours,
JT
I’m pretty sure this post will be updated with AFSCME’s response.
*** UPDATE *** From AFSCME’s Anders Lindall…
Rich,
While the governor himself is missing in action—unseen and unheard for nearly an entire week—here in Illinois, public service workers in state government are on the job, protecting kids, caring for veterans and people with disabilities, ensuring public safety and performing all the other vital functions for which they’re responsible every day.
Meanwhile the missing governor’s appointees are piling up one lie after another in a desperate bid to create an alternate reality in which down is up, night is day and Bruce Rauner is a friend to state employees.
No matter how many times they repeat the lies, and no matter who says them—John Terranova, Governor Rauner or anyone else—false statements don’t magically become true. The truth is, no one has been fined by AFSCME and no one will be. No one has been threatened. No strike date has been set nor any strike authorization vote taken. And the cynical, obvious ploy of the Rauner Administration to strip union members of their rights and to silence their voices by weakening their representation is doomed to fail.
AFSCME members are going to keep serving our communities, speaking up through our union and standing up for the fair treatment that all working people deserve.
The Rauner Administration should drop its transparent anti-union campaign and focus on the real priorities of state government and the people of Illinois.
* So, according to US Sen. Mark Kirk, Tammy Duckworth hired a criminal under orders from Rod Blagojevich? Really? Where did that even come from? As we’ve already discussed, a criminal was allegedly hired at the Anna Veterans’ Home in 2007 by the facility’s acting manager, not by Duckworth. And he was told to get out the next day. Nobody has ever said that Duckworth knew about the hiring in advance (in fact, one of the whistleblowers in this bizarre case said under oath that the acting manager was solely responsible) and nobody has ever once alleged that Blagojevich played a role in it.
* Here is a transcript of Sen. Kirk talking to reporters yesterday with his most absurd comments highlighted for your reading convenience…
KIRK: I will be able to send you the picture of me in Qalat, Zabul Province in 2009, where I went on a foot patrol walk with the locals. And I’ve done three served assignments in Afghanistan. I know Tammy would like to take that away from me. I actually went to Afghanistan and I worked for General Vick Nicholson, who is now the commander of ISAF. Let me take a moment; take it one of you wanted to about this man Jesse Bell. That is the center of the case against Tammy Duckworth. The two whistleblowers that came forward, who said to us that the entire dispute was between Tammy Duckworth and the people at Anna nursing home Was over hiring this convicted felon, who was a convicted felon. Let me read you his rap sheet.
Guilty Of Felony For Possession Of Stolen Vehicle, Guilty Of Felony For Knowingly engaging in domestic Battery, Guilty Causing Bodily Harm; Guilty of Fleeing Police, Guilty of elder abuse, Guilty Domestic Battery. In the case of…let me be very specific, Jessie Bell committed his greatest crime after Duckworth hired him is now in the Pinckneyville prison for murder. That shows you the kind of person that he was. We cannot have someone running for the Senate who picks people this questionable taking care of our veterans. This disqualifies Tammy Duckworth from office. By, under orders from Rod Blagojevich for whatever reason she wanted to pick up this multiple convicted felon taking care of veterans in the Anna facility and the whistleblowers were exactly correct in saying that this man should not be taking care of veterans.
Reporter: And you know they already responded he did only work for 24 hours?
Kirk: I would say that putting someone this questionable in charge of, and you know, when you look at the whistleblowers, they really heavily objected to this and they were correct to do that and if a normal, like for me it was very easy for my staff to get his prison pictures online.
Reporter: Are you saying that Duckworth had a direct role in hiring the bad guy?
Kirk: She, uh according to the uh, I talked to the uh, my staff talked to the uh, talked to the plaintiffs. They highlighted the battle with Tammy Duckworth was over Jessie Bell, this convicted murderer…
Reporter: Are you saying that Duckworth had a direct role in hiring that man?
Kirk: According to the — my staff talked to the plaintiffs. They highlighted the battle with Tammy Duckworth over Jessie Bell, this convicted murderer. Who committed this murder after he was involved with the Anna nursing home facility.
Reporter: So you have Duckworth hiring this person, correct?
Kirk: She was insisting that this person could come in and that’s why the whistleblowers — let me point out the whistleblowers were right here and highlight my record on whistleblower protection. In the last VA appropriations bill, I put the Kirk whistleblower protection act in there to make sure that people who may be a convicted murderer should be taken care of veterans so they have protections. We’ve got to protect the protectors here.
Man, is that ever weird. Again, if you need a refresher, click here.
“Mark Kirk has floated plenty of lies, but this one is absurd. Tammy had no role in any unauthorized individuals entering the Anna facility, and virtually nothing he said today is supported by the court record — or reality. This is a new low, even for Kirk, and he should be ashamed of himself.” - Matt McGrath, campaign spokesman
Kirk was accused by the Duckworth campaign yesterday of deceptively pumping up his military service record. Instead of focusing on blowing that out of the water, he talked about Rod Blagojevich. Weird.
It was a normal afternoon at Erik’s Deli in Oak Park – normal in that Gov. Pat Quinn was there eating lunch.
Also normal in that the former governor was engrossed in a conversation with his two lunch mates about, you guessed it, Illinois politics. […]
Asked whether he plans to run against Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner in the next election, Quinn hedged, but he didn’t say no.
“It’s hard to watch right now, just looking at what’s happened to the budget or lack of a budget,” he said. “The help for lots of vulnerable people in Illinois has been shredded by the current governor, and I think there are a lot of people who want to make a change.”
Something else that’s hard to watch? A guy who’s polling at 10 percent in a Democratic gubernatorial primary.
* Related…
* Pat Quinn: Trump’s remarks about Khans can’t be excused
* The Illinois Policy Institute commissioned a pretty darned comprehensive poll of registered Illinois voters by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates on criminal justice reform. Whatever else you may think of that group, it’s done yeoman’s work on this topic.
Press release…
A new poll commissioned by the nonpartisan Illinois Policy Institute found that Illinoisans view the state’s criminal-justice system as unfair and ineffective, and citizens strongly support reforms.
The poll surveyed 500 registered voters in Illinois on a variety of criminal-justice policies, ranging from mandatory minimum sentences to re-entry reform. Democrats, Republicans and Independents in Illinois overwhelmingly support not only changes to the state’s current system but also candidates who support reforms. The data are broken down by opinions, political affiliation, gender, race and age.
“Despite widespread political polarization, Illinois voters are in agreement on at least one thing: the need for bold criminal-justice reform,” said Bryant Jackson-Green, criminal-justice analyst at the Illinois Policy Institute. “This report shows majorities of liberals, moderates and conservatives have voiced support for major reforms such as reducing Illinois’ prison population, ending money bail, and removing barriers keeping former offenders out of work. Policymakers should heed this support and continue down the path toward reform.”
A majority of respondents, 56 percent, feel that the Illinois criminal-justice system is unfair. There is something of a partisan divide here: 65 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of Independents see the system as unfair, while only 42 percent of Republicans feel the same way.
Next, pollsters asked if voters think the Illinois criminal-justice system is at least doing a good job of keeping communities safe. Bipartisan majorities don’t think it is: 58 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents do not believe the Illinois criminal-justice system, as it stands now, is doing a good job at keeping communities safe. […]
• A plurality of poll respondents (39%) think nonviolent crime sentences are too long, though 18% think they’re too short and 23% think they are just right.
• Democrats (+34) and men (+28) polled most strongly for saying sentences are too long.
• A plurality of Republicans (32%) think the sentences are just right.
But that doesn’t mean Republicans are opposed to reform or that politicians can’t be seen as tough on crime while supporting reform. On the contrary, over 80 percent of respondents in all parties think politicians can support criminal-justice reforms “such as community supervision, mandatory drug testing and treatment programs – instead of prison – that reduce the likelihood the offender would commit a new crime.” […]
• Nearly three-quarters of poll respondents believe prisons should primarily be used for violent offenders.
• This sentiment is weakest among Republicans, but they still agree by a 63%-35% margin. […]
More than 4 in 5 respondents support reforming laws to reduce the number of nonviolent offenders in prison. Democrats are most likely to favor this reform at 92 percent, but Republicans are also largely in favor by a 75-22 percent margin. […]
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that “people arrested for drug use should be offered drug treatment instead of being sent to prison.” […]
Eighty-two percent of respondents – including 87 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents – agree and want drug users to be offered treatment instead of being sent to prison. […]
• Poll respondents back increasing the felony theft threshold by a 50-point margin.
Pollsters asked whether respondents agreed with the following statement: “Judges should be able to sentence an offender based on their particular offense, their criminal history and risk for reoffending, instead of having to sentence based on mandatory minimums.”
Respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of this idea [88 percent to 11 percent]. […]
Pollsters asked: Illinois’ Crime Reduction Act created Adult Redeploy, which allows counties to create local treatment programs like drug courts that nonviolent offenders can go to instead of prison. These programs cost about $4,400 a year per participant, compared to $22,000 a year for prison. Do you favor or oppose the proposal to expand the Crime Reduction Act so that all probationable offenses, such as DUIs, are also eligible for these evidence-based treatment programs?
Eighty-six percent of respondents – including 92 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents – support allowing all probationable offenders to participate in ARI-funded programs. […]
• A majority of poll respondents (53%) said a candidate’s support for reforms to lower the number of nonviolent offenders in Illinois’ prisons makes them more likely to vote for that candidate.
• Only 9% of respondents said they would be less likely to support such a candidate, with the remainder saying it would have no impact on their votes. […]
“Illinois has at least 118 business and occupational licenses that by law either must or may be denied to people with criminal records. This includes, for example, occupations such as barber and real estate agent. Once someone has successfully completed their prison sentence and parole, do you think they should be denied these licenses, or should they be granted these licenses if they’re otherwise qualified?”
Most poll respondents think ex-offenders should be eligible for occupational licenses
• There is significant support for the granting of licenses to qualified, former parolees at
76%-15%. […]
Plurality of poll respondents more likely to vote for candidates who support removing barriers to occupational licensing
• A plurality of respondents (46%) said a candidate’s support for granting occupational licenses to those who have completed sentences/parole makes respondents more likely to support that candidate [13 percent less likely, 23 percent no impact or don’t know]. […]
• There is solid support for sealing nonviolent criminal records, with at least 2 in 3 poll respondents from the major groups backing the proposal [70-25]. […]
• Respondents were more likely to back a candidate who supports a law allowing limits on who can view criminal records of nonviolent offenders by a 40%-16% margin, with another 43% saying it would have no impact on their vote or they don’t know whether it would. […]
Pollsters asked respondents whether they would “favor or oppose a … law in Illinois that would protect a company from being sued for hiring employees with criminal records when their offense isn’t directly related to the job they’re hired for.”
• Eighty percent of respondents, including 82 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Independents, would support this reform.
Pollsters also asked whether support for this reform would make the respondents more likely to vote for a candidate, and 46 percent said they would be more likely to vote for someone who supported reforming negligent-hiring liability laws.rt for protecting employers from legal liability if they hire ex-offenders. […]
89 percent of registered voters opposed property seizures without a conviction. This includes 93 percent of Democrats, 86 percent of Re- publicans and 89 percent of Independents.
Additionally, most respondents – 54 percent – would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports reforming these laws. Twenty-eight percent would be “much more” likely to vote for a re- former on this issue. […]
“Currently, Illinois courts use a bail system for the release of an accused defendant from custody be- fore trial. Instead of bail, there is a proposal to have judges use a risk assessment to decide whether to hold the accused before trial. Under such a system, a court would decide whether to hold an al- leged offender before trial based on a defendant’s criminal history, age, the nature of the offense and other risk factors unrelated to their ability to pay for bail. Do you favor or oppose this change from a bail system to a risk-assessment system for deciding whether to release an accused defendant from custody before trial?”
A majority expressed openness to the change.
• Poll respondents supported switching from a bail system to a risk-assessment system by a 63%-28% margin.
• A majority of Republicans support the switch, but their backing is at a much lower margin (+19) than Democrats (+44) or Independents (+41).
Sixty-three percent of voters would favor a risk-assessment rather than money-bail system. Of course, the details of such a reform vary. What this would look like is a critical question that de- serves further debate and research.
The poll has a margin of error for N=500 [registered voters] of +/-4.38 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Interviews were stratified into proportionate geographic units based on the population of registered voters. Sixty-one percent of voters were surveyed via landline. Thirty-nine percent of voters were surveyed via cell phone.
Even before Aki Colovic slipped through the sliding door of the Uber minivan outside his house Friday afternoon he thought something was up.
The 34-year-old just couldn’t quite place where he had seen Jaime, his driver, before.
Then it hit him: The man behind the wheel was his local state representative, Jaime Andrade Jr.
“It’s very surprising. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around it,” Colovic said minutes into the ride.
The two had met when Andrade had knocked on the door of Colovic’s Old Irving Park home while campaigning in early 2014.
Andrade, who represents the state’s 40th District, has been driving Uber under the radar for more than two months.
It’s not a gimmick.
The representative, whose district includes a portion of the Northwest Side, said he needs the cash to support his family as the state budget mess drags out and regular paychecks to legislators have been sporadic at best.
* You may recall that SEIU Local 73’s two top officers, President Christine Boardman and Secretary-Treasurer Matthew Brandon, were removed from office this week by the international union and the local was put into trusteeship. Brandon told Fran Spielman that the move was a “hostile takeover” and intends to file a federal discrimination lawsuit…
“I don’t view this as a trusteeship. I view it as a hostile takeover. What the international failed to address was the fact there was a vote by the membership based on a motion by Christine Boardman that she would retire in June and, per the constitution and bylaws, I would then assume that office with an election of the executive board to follow within 30 days,” he said.
“To rescind a motion requires a two-thirds vote. Christine refused to do that. Said she didn’t have to do that. She said she simply changed her mind. When I went in to chair the July executive board meeting, I informed her that, based upon the vote of the membership and the executive board, she was retired. She adjourned the meeting, stormed out and cancelled the general membership meeting scheduled for the next day. The rules be damned.”
* He claims a high-level official asked him “to deal with a personal issue that was affecting Boardman’s job performance.” But Boardman viewed his follow-up as an attack.
Brandon, who is black, is not taking this sitting down…
“…These people don’t know what can of worms they’ve opened here. The members are absolutely furious.”
Brandon, who is black, charged that SEIU “discriminates against African-American males” and that he would “be able to prove that.”
* FiveThirtyEight has a very long and interesting analysis about the state of the Republican Party. There are tons of choice nuggets in there, so I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here’s one that really stands out…
“You’re not going to do better than 59 percent,” Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s chief strategist, told me not long ago, citing the percent of the white vote that his candidate got in 2012 while winning 24 states. Ronald Reagan, by comparison, got only 56 percent of the white vote in 1980 but won in a 44-state landslide. […]
According to the American National Election Studies, the white percentage of the national vote overall has dropped fairly steadily from around 95 percent during the period from 1948 to 1960 to the low 80s by 1992 to 73 percent in 2012. The Republican party did not keep pace with this change, nor did it do much to win younger voters. 2008 featured a gaping chasm between the over-65 vote and the 18- to 29-year-old vote: There was a 43-point difference between how the two groups voted, with the older crowd going for John McCain by 10 percentage points, even as he lost the overall election by a 7-point margin to Barack Obama, the country’s first black president.
The Trump people believe they can expand the playing field and inspire lots more white males to vote this year. Easier said than done on the dwindling demographics alone. But I don’t think it’s completely impossible if Trump ever learns how to channel that very real populist anger at Hillary Clinton instead of diffusing it over an ever-widening swath of his enemies, both perceived and real. Again, easier said than done.
If Trump lost, [Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson] said — which seems at this point, not an unreasonable possibility — the factions in the party would only become more entrenched. It would not just be the Trump supporters vs. the Never Trumps; instead, Never Trump would be pitted against Never Trump in a civil war of the moral resistance. Lacking a common enemy, they would revert to their differences.
“On the one hand, you have the autopsy folks, right?” she said, referring to those who concur with the findings of a 2012 report that said, among other things, that the GOP should reach out to minority voters. “You have the people that look at Donald Trump and they go, ‘He’s alienating Latino voters, he’s doing damage to the brand, he’s looking backwards, not forwards, he’s the opposite of what we needed.’”
The other Never Trump faction — “the Ted Cruz folks, the conservative purists,” as Soltis Anderson put it — would disagree with the diagnosis of why Trump was bad for the party. “Their main argument with Trump is not that he’s mean to Latinos; their main argument with Trump is that he’s not really a conservative, he’s not really one of us,” she said. “When all is said and done, those two Never Trump forces are going to blame each other for his existence.”
The prospect that the GOP leaders wouldn’t even be able to agree on why Trump — arguably the worst crisis the modern party has experienced — was even a crisis to begin with, seemed to say it all.
“There is no happy ending to this story,” she said.
That battle has been coming for a very long time. The big money is on the side of the post-2012 “autopsy Republicans,” including the DC leadership and people like Gov. Bruce Rauner, who closely followed that roadmap in 2014. But the party’s intensity and its “bodies” are on the Christian conservative side. Even so, both wings are too small to win without the other.
Rauner united the two wings in 2014 because party members, out of power for so long, were starving for victory and loved his attacks on people like Speaker Madigan and so they didn’t seem to mind all that much when he put a more liberal, independent face on the GOP for the general election. One wing is fraying a bit these days with his signature of the “Right of Conscience Act” changes favored by pro-choicers. But his mind-boggling pile of cash and his well-deserved reputation for revenge is expected to keep folks in line. Also, the Cruz-like faction in Illinois missed their chance in 2010 with Bill Brady’s gubernatorial loss despite a huge national GOP landslide.
So, while there may be some significant national repercussions if Trump gets thumped, I don’t yet think it’ll have an immediate impact here. Then again, these are some crazy times, campers.
Now, Illinois’s Independent Maps campaign fights for its very survival in state Supreme Court. Last month, a local court in Chicago struck down the push to force it onto the November ballot, siding with House Speaker Michael Madigan and his Democratic cronies.
And yet, Rauner decides his time is best spent touring districts of at-risk Democrats, spouting off on the perennial GOP fringe talking point — term limits. Not the best use of time or influence, Governor.
No, last week’s stop in Coal Valley wasn’t about empowering voters or loosening the Democratic stranglehold that’s suffocating Illinois. Such a long-view too often appears beyond Illinois’s freshman executive. His goal was to hit the likes of state Rep. Mike Smiddy, D-Hillsdale, where they live. Tie them to Madigan. Accuse them of being part of the problem.
November’s election, not legitimate policy, was Rauner’s goal. It’s a scattershot approach to governance, an all-to-frequent feature of Rauner’s short tenure in office.
One could argue that Rauner’s quest to chip away at bicameral Democratic majorities is a way of affecting change. But, frankly, term limits is an issue best left for the conservative fringe. What’s next, a return to the gold standard? Both have about the same chances of survival.
Rauner has millions, and he’s shown a willingness to spend it against the union-backed Democrats. That’s politics, complete with a whiff of old fish. Yet, that cash could be spent filing brief after brief in support of Independent Maps. It could be ending the election rigging that, for years, has disenfranchised voters and protected those in power.
Ouch.
* Meanwhile, the group opposing the remap proposal filed a brief with the Illinois Supreme Court yesterday. Click here to read it…
The trial court found that the initiative is not “limited to the structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV” as required by the structural and procedural clause because it would impose new duties and qualifications on officers created outside Article IV and change the jurisdiction of the Illinois Courts. The trial court also found the initiative violates Article III’s free and equal clause because it would force voters to accept each of the myriad policy choices proposed by the initiative in a single proposition.
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Support Independent Maps asks this Court to reverse the trial court’s decision. In doing so, Intervenor would have this Court ignore not only the text of the Constitution, but the decisions of this Court that have interpreted these provisions as well. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs respectfully request this Court affirm the trial court.
