*** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
Friday, Nov 8, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Comment on an earlier post…
(The) House should just make clear that anyone appointed with Arroyo’s votes will be subject of an immediate disciplinary proceeding with the intent to expel them as quickly as possible. No individual with the community’s best interest at heart would accept such a tainted appointment. No currently serving GA members should want the individual they forced to resign to have a say in choosing his successor.
* The Question: Should the House expel whoever is appointed to former Rep. Luis Arroyo’s seat as long as Arroyo is part of the process? Please make sure to explain your vote. Thanks.
*** UPDATE *** From House Republican Leader Jim Durkin…
Only in Illinois is there such political corruption that an indicted politician can pick his own replacement. I call on the Democrat Party to fix this insult to our state, and work with us to bring ethics reforms to Illinois. Any appointment made with Arroyo’s participation is improper and should not be recognized by the House of Representatives.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:22 pm:
I think no. Whoever it is will have to explain themselves to the voters soon enough. These are the rules as they exist now. The GA should let the 3rd District have a representative for the short time now before the election, then let the voters decide who to elect.
- Just Me - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:23 pm:
Yes, anyone hired through a corrupt process is inherently corrupt.
- independent - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:24 pm:
No way Arroyo should have any say in this ZERO
- Ginhouse Tommy - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:24 pm:
As long as Arroyo is involved the appointment should be invalid. This sounds like Arroyo wants to control whoever gets appointed. Ain’t gonna happen. Let the people of his district have a say in it.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:26 pm:
===I call on the Democrat Party===
Sigh. No such thing exists. Aim higher Leader Durkin.
- Pierre Delecto - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:26 pm:
No. Rules are rules. If you don’t like them, change them. Don’t hate the player; hate the game.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:27 pm:
===Rules are rules===
And the rules say the House can expel a member. What’s your point?
- Wow - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:28 pm:
Maybe Roland Burris will take it
- dbk - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:30 pm:
I get it, this is the rule, but allowing sb who’s under federal indictment to appoint their successor is a step too far. Rep. Arroyo seems not quite to have grasped the fact that his political power ship has sailed.
If he does somehow manage to appoint someone, then their presence in the GA should be seriously questioned, with the prospect of expulsion, yes.
- Thomas Paine - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:31 pm:
Heaven’s, no.
As my grandpa used to say, “Who died and made you king?”
The people of the 3rd District are entitled to representation.
If you don’t like the process of filling vacancies in public office — and I really, really don’t — then change the law.
But until then, follow it.
And you cannot start expelling members for “Suspicion of Not Having One’s District’s Best Interests at Heart” or you wont have a quorum.
That is exactly what we did with Roland Burris and the Blagojevich appointment. Lawmakers had the opportunity to implement special elections then end chose not to. Roosing chickens.
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:31 pm:
Yes with a caveat. If a consensus candidate emerges and is viewed as acceptable, then no. But if this two-bit hack thinks he can just install any two-bit hack he wants, he’s got another thing comin’.
- OneMan - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:32 pm:
Does he have enough of a weighted vote to decide by himself?
I say No, it could get kind of silly if they toss 4 people in a row or something.
- NIref - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:36 pm:
Can’t the House refuse to accept their credentials?
- estubborn - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:36 pm:
It’s time to hold special elections for GA vacancies.
- Keyrock - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:36 pm:
I agree with Ducky. And the law should be changed to provide for prompt special elections.
Does the Democratic Party have the right to strip Arroyo of his committeeman post (or to suspend him until trial)? If not, that rule/law also needs to be changed.
- Cheryl44 - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:37 pm:
That’s Democratic Party. Durbin is such a word Rich would prefer I not use.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:39 pm:
=== Should the House expel whoever is appointed to former Rep. Luis Arroyo’s seat as long as Arroyo is part of the process?===
Voted No.
“Why?”
While Arroyo has the weighted, apparently he does not have the weighted vote to go alone.
If over 50% of the vote is secured without any votes from Arroyo, that would be enough to make a case that those not on the eye of this probe made the case.
Leader Durkin, an appointee himself, goes all “Democrat Party” makes his own objections… less.
Under the parameters I have, if those are and can be met… then I vote No.
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:42 pm:
No to expelling. Rather let this madness run it course and stand as an example of governing in Illinois.
- City Zen - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:47 pm:
No. It plays well into the trust factor against the fair tax.
- Three Brothers - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 3:47 pm:
Stava-Murray has to be crossing her fingers hoping to shed the title Most Radioactive House Member.
- low level - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:02 pm:
==Democrat Party==
Its the Democratic Party, unless Leader Durkin wants to be head of the Republic Party?
- 47th Ward - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:02 pm:
Point of order: Arroyo may have the largest weighted vote, but a quorum may be denied if he doesn’t have 50.01% of the weighted vote and no other Committeemen appear at the meeting.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:10 pm:
- 47th Ward -
Good catch. So noted.
- low level - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:15 pm:
I vote NO - the law says what it says. If the legislature wants to change the law in the Spring thats up to them, but the person picked now should not be automatically kicked out.
That said, 47th Ward raises a good point and there are several ways to prevent an Arroyo choice from ever taking office.
With regards his son, why would he want to give up his Cook County Board seat? It pays more, the Cty Building is closer to home than the Statehouse and he has a larger staff beholden to him - not the Speaker as would happen were he to become a state Rep.
- Thomas Paine - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:16 pm:
Actually, someone has to call for a quorum, if there is no one else to raise the point, it’s moot.
Abe Lincoln famously dove out the window of the Old State Capitol to avoid a quorum call after raising the question.
I think the bigger procedural problem for arroyo is the lack of a second? Last time I checked, you cannot second your own motion, and nominations require seconds.
It’s a Mike Kasper question.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:18 pm:
===It’s a Mike Kasper question===
Lol.
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:26 pm:
I would say no but this needs to be fixed in the future.
As for whoever takes the job, give them the old Roland Burris freeze out and make their time very lonely.
- pawn - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:37 pm:
Tired of the unnecessary “Democrat” dis. Sigh.
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 4:49 pm:
I vote no as well. It seems when the rules were written they did not forsee this issue, or at least I hope they didn’t. Maybe in the next session they can correct this.
Is it possible within the rules to appoint someone other than his choice? What would happen if before the planned date Arroyo was detained when this was supposed to happen? Detained as in a bonafide legal reason and not as a ploy.
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Nov 8, 19 @ 5:12 pm:
I say embrace the “democrat party” and just call them the publican party.