* Press release….
Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) filed an objection to the appointment for the replacement of disgraced former Rep. Luis Arroyo in the Illinois House’s 3rd District. Please find the objection attached.
Click here to read the challenge. [Fixed link]
*** UPDATE 1 *** From Rep. Eva Dina Delgado…
House Republican Leader Jim Durkin’s petition is misguided and further evidence of the partisan culture in Springfield that lacks solutions. While clouds of indictments and insider deals catch headlines, the real narrative here is that I am the most qualified candidate to represent the 3rd Legislative District and there was not one vote cast against my appointment. My appointment followed the law every step of the way, and I am confident that my qualifications as an attorney, community leader and experience in the public and private sectors will withstand any challenge. While this filing is disappointing, I remain focused on representing the interests of the hard working people of the district I am honored to represent.
* Sun-Times…
“A clean break from the arrested legislator is required to re-establish the General Assembly’s trust with its constituents,” Durkin wrote in his letter challenging Delgado. “Had the votes of Mr. Arroyo not been part of the selection process, this appointment would not be called into question.”
In the letter, Durkin said that the appointment process that resulted in Delgado replacing Arroyo, who was hit with a federal bribery charge, “calls into question the integrity of the process and the House itself.
“The candidates who were vying to replace Rep. Arroyo and who were not chosen, were victims of a corrupt process,” Durkin wrote. […]
“The public’s distrust of its government to illegal actions of its officials hinders the ability of the government to provide the services it is constitutionally tasked with carrying out,” the letter reads. “Everything it does, even if legitimate and legal, will be viewed in a negative light should the individuals who are arrested for illegal activities have a part in the selection process.”
* Tribune…
Despite his public statement before the selection, Madigan had been silent on the subject since. Spokesman Steve Brown said in an email Tuesday that Madigan will review Durkin’s petition “and take the appropriate action required by House rules.”
Delgado, an attorney and former Chicago Police Board member, pushed back against the idea that she was Arroyo’s choice for the position, noting that he circulated nominating petitions for another candidate.
“I wouldn’t have participated in the process if Arroyo had been involved in any way,” she said. “Part of the reason I even stepped up to do this is I didn’t want the district to go a whole year without being represented.”
Delgado said she met briefly with Madigan last week but did not discuss the possible qualifications challenge. “As far as my qualifications go, I think they stand for themselves,” she said.
*** UPDATE 2 *** I told subscribers about this earlier today, but here’s the Daily Line…
[Rep. Anne Stava-Murray, D-Naperville] told The Daily Line that upon reading news last week that Madigan was waiting for someone else to file a qualifications challenge to Delgado, she felt called to take action.
“Literally no one asked me to do this,” Stava-Murray said. “I did it myself and it was because if I’m a member and if I see wrongdoing, then it’s incumbent upon me to follow through and see that it’s investigated. I take ethics extremely seriously and it’s important that people can trust that their government representation is there for them and not because of a conflict of interest.”
Stava-Murray said she would be happy to work with Delgado if an investigation clears her of the cloud surrounding her appointment, and acknowledged serving her last week was “awkward,” as it was the first time the two had ever met.
Stava-Murray, who made headlines even before being sworn in as a legislator last year for vowing to vote “present” instead of voting for Madigan for House Speaker, said she served Delgado Wednesday morning as House members waited for Gov. JB Pritzker to make his State of the State address in front of the chamber.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:31 pm:
They can try.
Roland Burris was seated.
I’ll be interested what the play is besides being on the record they object.
Ok.
- Lord of the Fries - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:31 pm:
It’s taking me to an audio file.
- DIstant watcher - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:33 pm:
We’ll, why not? It’s no skin of his nose and it puts the Dems on record.
- ILPundit - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:36 pm:
Given that the Speaker said publicly he would file the objection himself, it creates a bit of a pickle….
- Capitol Text - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:39 pm:
Is he trying to get her elected? What could be better for a candidate in the democratic primary than being challenged by the republican leader
- I mean - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:49 pm:
Oh wow, I guess Durkin does have a backbone
- Glengarry - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:52 pm:
I like it when Durkin does some flexing. He beat Madigan to the punch on this one. Last time Durkin flexed the Franchise tax was repealed.
- Am I mean for thinking this? - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:53 pm:
I’m imagining a Jeb Bush “please clap” type moment when Durkin announced this to his members during caucus
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:53 pm:
I don’t think Durkin has a case. Arroyo gave Raboyras his proxy votes, so Arroyo didn’t vote for Delgado, Raboyras did.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 6:58 pm:
Strap in!
- West Side the Best Side - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 7:01 pm:
It’s “Democratic”, Jim.
- Fav Human - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 8:42 pm:
This begs the question: Why, having flatly stated that he would challenge the appointment, did the Speaker wait and let Dunkin file this?
She was installed 11/20. So the speaker had lots of time to do so.
But he didn’t. Curious indeed.
- Just Me - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:04 pm:
===there was not one vote cast against my appointment.===
Uh, that was because some of your appointment authorities boycotted your inherently corrupt appointment process.
- Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:37 pm:
It doesn’t matter much to Durkin whether he has a case or not. He just put the Speaker on the spot, on an issue the Speaker committed on and probably would just as soon forget. Now he can either back the challenge or go back on his word. Surprisingly well played.
- RepStavaMurray - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 8:32 am:
Leader Durkin didn’t beat anyone to the punch.
I served Eva-Dina with a qualifications challenge that also noted aberrant donations to many political campaigns by the PAC of the company she worked for last Wed before the Governor’s State of the State address; I filed what I gave her and proof of service with the clerk yesterday before caucus.
Interesting that once most people knew I was filing it and the day Arroyo pled not guilty Durkin was quick to do a PR released version that contained less information to investigate.
Last point: Durkin didn’t seem to have a problem with politicians who had accepted questionable appointments when my predecessor was appointed to COD board in an extremely unethical manner nor when he was subsequently appointed to the role of State Rep following what was widely believed to be the GOPs own takeout of Sandack.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 8:44 am:
Rep. Stava-Murray - Making Few Friends, Influencing Fewer People.
I’d probably worry more about my own race, since she abandoned that US Senate thingy before serving a day in the Illinois House.
Appreciate that clarification, though.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 9:17 am:
“… “Literally no one asked me to do this,” Stava-Murray said. “I did it myself…”
“Literally”…Rep. Stava-Murray’s career in one sentence.
=== Stava-Murray said she would be happy to work with Delgado if an investigation clears her of the cloud surrounding her appointment, and acknowledged serving her last week was “awkward,” as it was the first time the two had ever met.===
LOL, “I think you might be here cause you’re all corrupt in the process and all and we never met, so it’s kinda awkward, but I’ll work with you I guess, sure, but I’ll be the first to turn on you, so watch out.”
=== Stava-Murray, who made headlines even before being sworn in as a legislator…===
The reality is Stava-Murray’s career is defined by all sorts of things she “knew”, “said”, “proclaimed”… all before taking the oath.
I’m still confused why she abandoned that US Senate run…
- Big Green - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 9:30 am:
I thank Rep. Stava-Murray for her work on this matter, proving that this is not a partisan witch hunt. Plus she’s a Dartmouth College graduate like me!
- Levois J - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 11:04 am:
Is this a bad time to talk about how we need special elections for those “unexpected” vacancies in the General Assembly?
- PeoriaDem - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:10 pm:
“Roland Burris was seated”
That’s rather Apples and Oranges. They needed everyone one of those 60 Senators to try to pass the ACA. There doesn’t appear to be a reason for the House to allow this if they don’t want to.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:12 pm:
=== That’s rather Apples and Oranges===
It’s not.
What rationale to deny Burris was ignored.
Take your time, I’ll wait.
- Practical Politics - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:37 pm:
“There doesn’t appear to be a reason for the House to allow this if they don’t want to.”
Other than following the existing law on filling vacancies that is.
Arroyo many eventually be convicted of a crime, but his plea was not guilty and he has not been tried yet. He was a duly elected ward committeeman when the vacancy was filled.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:42 pm:
-It’s not.
What rationale to deny Burris was ignored.
Take your time, I’ll wait.-
The difference was the Democratic Controlled Senate desperately needed every single Senator in the chamber to override a filibuster. The General Assembly doesn’t have that need. In both cases the Chamber is the final arbiter of these claims. Thus as I said, apples and oranges.
I included some information about the Filibuster in case you forgot about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:46 pm:
(Sigh)
=== The difference was===
No. Reading is fundamental…
=== What rationale to deny Burris was ignored===
What rule to seat an appointed Senate member was ignored?
That’s the question, as is the question of all, including Madigan, Durkin, and Stava-Murray?
Thanks, I’ll keep waiting.
- Anonanonsir - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:51 pm:
==why she abandoned that US Senate run==
Probably rolling the dice in case Durbin retired, but he’s sticking around.
And perhaps being treated better than expected by her Democratic colleagues.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:58 pm:
- Anonanonsir -
It was a rhetorical exercise.
She’s a phony type who thinks she’s this new breed, but beat a GOP member asleep at the switch during a wave, and anyone contemplating a Senate run and taking on Durbin…
Daily Herald, January 2nd, 2019
=== Stava-Murray said she’s heard speculation that Durbin, 74, is considering retirement and that the shortlist of candidates seeking to succeed him include “very centrist, sort of corporate” Democrats who in her view don’t represent the future of the party.
“Do I think that it’s problematic that he still thinks that he can do better than giving someone else an opportunity and an ability to build their own leadership and to have other generations as a voice? “Yes, I think that’s damaging and I think that’s something that he should seriously consider,” Stava-Murray, 32, said of Durbin.
She said she’s never met the veteran lawmaker but disagrees with his “turn of becoming more centrist.”
“I think that he sort of writes off the progressive branch of the party, of which I identify myself with, as being unwilling to compromise, and certainly there might be some key players who aren’t giving the progressive cause a good look, but in the most part what I see when I talk to my fellow progressives and Democrats in Springfield and other fellow progressive Democrats is a total willingness to work across the aisle.”===
It should be noted;
Strava-Murray had yet to even *be* a state representative, but was speaking for “colleagues” against the popular Durbin.
She gave up because even her own ridiculousness was seen… by her ego.
- low level - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 1:59 pm:
If you’ll recall, Harry Reid and other Senate Dems we’re reluctant to seat Burris at first. Hearings were held in the legislature. In the end, he was seated as he had done nothinh wrong.
By the same token, Delgado herself has done nothing wrong. And as much as we may find Rep Stava-Murray’s actions to be grandstanding or what not, her objection will help her back home and in her run for re-election.
- PeoriaDem - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:34 pm:
“No. Reading is fundamental…”
When people can’t understand what you are saying, one of things that you learn when you study communication is that maybe you are just being inarticulate. Something to think about going forward maybe.
“What rule to seat an appointed Senate member was ignored?”
Well the fact that the Senate in Burris case or the House in this case is the sole judge of the qualifications of its members means they don’t have “rules” to follow in this case.
Source?
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”
“Thanks, I’ll keep waiting.”
Hope this helps!
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 2:48 pm:
=== What rationale to deny Burris was ignored===
=== “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members”===
The fact of that rule and not finding a rational way to deny is the lede.
Did it help with the 60? Sure.
The idea that when the US Senate and it’s two caucuses, in the Burris case, had no rational way, within that rule to not seat Burris is the shot, the chaser is the 60.
The same question remains here in this instance;
The basis of the inquiry and objection, what will the vote or hearing or both try to push?
I’ll leave this “here” for the discussion.
- PeoriaDem - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:41 pm:
“The fact of that rule and not finding a rational way to deny is the lede.”
Rational is subjective as the last decade of political discourse ought to have proven. With Burris the Senate had a material reason to allow him to be Seated, as we both agree. In this case, there isn’t a tangible material reason.
“The idea that when the US Senate and it’s two caucuses, in the Burris case, had no rational way, within that rule to not seat Burris is the shot, the chaser is the 60.”
We can agree to disagree on the incredibly tortured metaphor of the shot and chaser in this instance.
“The basis of the inquiry and objection, what will the vote or hearing or both try to push?”
The basis of the inquiries appear in the objections. I could draw a pretty straight line between allowing indicted State Representatives to pick their replacement (even by proxy) and bringing the General Assembly into ill repute or undermining the faith Illinoisans have in their political systems.
And those things are made perhaps more attractive by not having to worry a material concern like having a filibuster proof majority.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 5, 20 @ 4:45 pm:
- PeoriaDem -
Like Burris, I would be more shocked if they can decide not to seat.
Legally, the appointment meets muster.
Other factors not discussed, I’ll leave this as I have.