62 Comments - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:41 pm: ==Unlike nearly half of the states== “Nearly half” means a minority. So much for the GOP always screaming about doing what most others do. But hey, what can you expect from a minority party other than bad ideas that aren’t adopted by most others. - The Captain - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:48 pm: It would have been a nice gesture to Pat Quinn to have announced these proposals at a Sunday news conference. - The Dude Abide - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:50 pm: I’m disappointed that they didn’t put something in there about reducing public worker’s pensions. LOL - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:51 pm: === “These constitutional amendments are designed to be a first step toward taking power from the entrenched political class and returning it to the people,” said State Sen. Jason Barickman (R-Bloomington). “The people of Illinois deserve to have a government that is efficient, responsive, accountable, and I believe these three amendments are a part of getting to that point.”=== I’ll answer the question posed, but this statement is wholly dishonest to recent history… as a call for a constitutional convention was defeated, and I don’t recall many asking for that convention to convene. This messaging is pandering, not an honest look at what the people of Illinois have said, specifically to the constitution… via the ballot box. - minnow - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:52 pm: Be careful what you wish for - I lived in WA state for 12 years and citizens could gather petitions and put up referendums on all sorts of issues. As a young, idealistic adult at the time, I thought this was a great exercise in democracy. That point of view changed quickly as frivolous - and sometimes dangerous to civil liberties - referendums were placed on the statewide ballot. Many citizens did not do any research on the referendums and strange items became laws… - the Edge - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:52 pm: I say go for it. What better way to discount the GOP’s extreme viewpoints than to have the majority of Illinois voters not overturn “social” legislation they perceive as being wrong. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:56 pm: To the question, Can someone like Barickman explain what happened to the Fair Tax… Sometimes a high bar and a strong message to either defeat or end is a good way to not clutter a constitution with the “flavor of the month” thinking… and to the structure and substances to changes, here’s that; If you want a restructuring of constitutional language at a greater tilt… call a constitutional convention and do it all at one time. Then, after that new constitution is in place, and changing that new constitution becomes more broad, that might make more sense to process than trying to wedge a Beta video tape in a VHS machine… circa 70’s and 80’s thinking. - notsosure - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:57 pm: Voter initiatives sound good but from what I’ve seen in other states, seldom turn out that way. In Colorado a few years ago, for example, two mutually exclusive referenda passed in the same year. The costs of running a pro or con campaign is outrageous (see California this past year for an example), enriching the usual cast of characters but not necessarily accomplishing much else. - JoanP - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:59 pm: My sister lives in California where they always have a crazy amount of referenda on the ballot. It drives her nuts. There were 13 in 2020. We elect our legislators to make the laws. That’s their job. And it *ought* to be hard to amend the Constitution. - Ashland Adam - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 12:59 pm: Illinois higher Ed and k-12 are too well resourced as it is - these proposition 13 - like referenda will be just the thing to right size Illinois education. Great idea. /s - The Doc - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:00 pm: Seems like a tacit admission that winning elections isn’t in the cards for the GOP. - hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:01 pm: Do not want West Coast style referenda politics here. I get why a lawmaker in permanent auperminority status would favor it though. How about instead of us adopting this Constitutional change the IL GOP just adopts more popular positions? - PublicServant - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:02 pm: === “These constitutional amendments are designed to be a first step toward taking power from the entrenched political class and returning it to the people” === Ask him how he feels about the Electoral College regarding his views on empowering the people. - thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:04 pm: Since the GA can initiate constitutional amendments about any topic at will, the only section that really needs to be open to voter referendum is Article IV. It would be great if amendments to Article IV were allowed for any purpose predominantly focused on the Legislature, rather than just structural AND procedural. The bar for the number of signatures is still pretty high, so I think that would limit too many crazy proposals. - Ares - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:06 pm: Ironic how a party owing its White House presence to the Electoral College suddenly want to short-circuit a popular-vote-elected Legislature. Why aren’t their Hoosier (IN) and Badger (WI) counterparts following suit? - 49th Ward Regular - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:08 pm: I could see why the status quo in Illinois would be against this. According to the polls term limits and pension reform would have a decent chance if put on the ballot . If I was part of a powerful special interest group, I would be against this. - Back to the Future - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:10 pm: Seems like a good issue for the R’s to run on. I suspect most Illinois voters would support these ideas. I strongly suspect this is going nowhere in the current GA. Tempted to say it has to be better than the system we currently have. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:11 pm: === status quo=== Oh boy, lol ===term limits=== See: Amdor, John, “service charts”… then get back to me. ===pension reform=== Explain “tier 2”, ILSC decision on pensions, the contract clause in the US Constitution. I’ll leave you to all that. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:13 pm: I’ve never been a fan of citizen’s initiatives. We elect people to represent us. If we don’t like their decisions then we vote for someone else. People want a direct democracy where they get to vote on everything. That’s not the way our system works. - Todd - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:14 pm: are they insane? Looks what this has done to Cali, you end up with legislation by constitutional amendment — NFW - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:15 pm: The Republican party -big R- seems to have completely blown past their defining characteristic of standing for a republican -small r- form of government. We are watching in real time a political party having a full blown identity crisis. - Chuck Button - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:16 pm: Progressives have been winning on citizen initiatives, all over the country. I hope people in both parties embrace this. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:18 pm: ===Seems like a good issue for the R’s to run on.=== Granted, you’re not wrong. If I learned anything from the Fair Tax Flop, voters continue not do nuance. If it were me? I’d run on a call for a constitutional convention. One stop, covers lots of nuances, allows a truckload of grievances to be packaged “we’ll, if we had a constitutional convention we could address… “ If things are for the purely political and unable to get, might as well go full “convention” Of course, Barickman’s small minded thinking is to starve and almost close higher ed while touting his teaching in Illinois higher ed, so thinking soundly isn’t an attribute to policy and actuality at times. - High Socks - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:20 pm: “Unlike nearly half of the states”…So, a minority then? I have the same argument against referendums as I do with “independent” map committees. The process for making these decisions exists, it’s called an elected legislature and executive. - OneMan - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:21 pm: I guess I am going to be a bit of a contrarian here. It would seem to me that some more flexibility on what could go to the voters to change the constitution and how it could be done via petition would be a good thing. I think it is too hard for the state constitution to be modified outside the ‘legislature puts it on the ballot’ process. For example, you might disagree with term limits, but it seems something like that if it meets the signature and other requirements should be able to be on the ballot. The argument for ‘but we have the option of a constitutional convention every 10 years’ seems like overkill. Would the GA be able to put term limits on the ballot? If so it seems that people should be able to do so under the state’s rather difficult petition requirements. I think you get some flexibility with that, without descending into California (or Arizona) level stuff. - AT Fan - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:23 pm: Looks like the Illinois GOP wants Illinois to become California. Noted. - 49th Ward Regular - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:23 pm: -Oh boy, lol- You don’t seem too confident on voters doing nuance. Heh, I don’t blame you. California has term limits. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:26 pm: === You don’t seem too confident on voters doing nuance=== Voters don’t do nuance. The Fair Tax Flop is the recent example. Did you answer my other questions, I don’t see that. === California has term limits.=== Explain Willie Brown. - Biker - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:26 pm: Referendums are a tool of democracy. Happy to have them. Especially considering 3rd parties are essentially outlawed in Illinois and both parties abhor an open primary. - Dance Band on the Titanic - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:26 pm: Are the Republicans planning to do a presser every time they introduce something that doesn’t have a snowballs chance of passing? - Jocko - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:28 pm: Barickman is all but conceding that since the ILGOP is unelectable, let’s just pull an ‘end around’ the legislative branch. The Illinois constitution should be an owner’s manual for governance, not a Christmas wish list for the shiny new toy that season. - Incandenza - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:30 pm: This is a road to essentially prop. 22 playbook from California, where massive propaganda campaigns can sway voters in favor of a corporate agenda - Tabitha - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:30 pm: Looks like Jim Durkin and Dan McConchie are California dreamin’ on such a winter’s day…shouldn’t they be doing something to rid their party of folks that incite riots before they delve into nuanced policy issues? - 49th Ward Regular - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:33 pm: -Explain Willie Brown- I thought Willie Brown and Kamala Harris were a cute couple. True love is hard to find. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:36 pm: - 49th Ward Regular - Just say “I have no answers” and move on. You don’t have to look ridiculous, that’s a choice. Also, If Durkin needs term limits so badly, he should resign. Durkin is the longest sitting caucus leader, coming up on 8 years. - BC - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:44 pm: == The costs of running a pro or con campaign is outrageous (see California this past year for an example) == Yep. The idea that ballot referenda is a way for the little guy to push back against the entrenched “powers-that-be” is a quaint, Capra-esque view of things. In the real world, the exact opposite is often the case. Another thing Citizens United and “dark money” hath wrought. - Magic Mushrooms - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:44 pm: So you’re tellin’ me there’s a chance. - 49th Ward Regular - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:45 pm: -If Durkin needs term limits so badly, he should resign- I totally agree. I also think no state reps. should get pensions like the old days. I’m sure the voters would love to vote on that one. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:47 pm: === I also think no state reps. should get pensions=== Again, explain John Amdor’s chart on seniority, also list the legislators not taking pensions currently. Thanks. - City Guy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:49 pm: I’m opposed. Public Policy can be complicated and trying to pass laws via popular vote is a recipe for disaster. Just look at Brexit - Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:52 pm: I’m absolutely for it but only if a very high percentage of eligible voters participate. I’m against it if only 51% of the ~60% that usually turn out suddenly have this power. - dbk - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 1:58 pm: I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand I’m a big believer in voters having a say; on the other, I’m not impressed by the results of putting scads of referendums on the ballot (cf. CA Prop 22, Prop 13) - it’s usually the people with the most money that get their referendums passed, with notably few exceptions. Also: you need a very engaged and well-informed electorate to do this at the state level (most voters’ reaction to state politics is not “I just can’t wait to wake up every morning to read CapFax,” alas). - Phil - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:04 pm: I’ll piggy back on Minnow’s comments. I lived in California for over 7 years. While I’m sure the enactment of statutory and constitutional propositions by popular vote was done with the best of intentions, it has created a number of unintended consequences. Look up “Prop. 13″ or “Prop. 65″ and you’ll get an idea of what I’m referring to. - Odysseus - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:08 pm: Given the passage of the lockbox amendment on fuel taxes a few years ago, I’m hardcore against allowing referenda to be more general. People have shown that they can’t use it properly. - Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:17 pm: I’ve never been a big fan of citizens initiatives based upon those I’ve seen in other states. I was rethinking that policy after moving to Missouri (to be close to grandchildren, not out of desire). It has become a joke. When measures the GOP doesn’t support, they play games by having it voted on during the primaries. Should they pass anyway, the GOP then try to repeal immediately or introduce a repealing amendment that, of course, becomes a measure voted upon in the General election. Thus ended Missouri’s brief endeavor with redistricting reform and legislative ethics changes. I like Illinois’ constitution as it is. - Lt Guv - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:19 pm: No. It’s a terrible way to govern. The states with broad initiative & referenda provisions often end up with constitutions that are next to useless as governing tools as conflicting ideas are adopted at the ballot and not reconciled. No. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:21 pm: Sadly I trust the voters even less than the elected officials. This plays to populism and dark money. No thanks. - Chuck Button - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:29 pm: ==…I trust the voters even less…== Depressing, dim view of the public. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:37 pm: =If Durkin needs term limits so badly, he should resign. Durkin is the longest sitting caucus leader, coming up on 8 years.= Well said sir, term limits for the folks we disagree with (or the super majority in this case) but not for my guys. The proposal;s strike me as a statement to the effect of…” we are a super minority but we think we can get our way if the people vote (even though they vote against us all of the time)” It is really about chais and instability which is what these proposals really do. AND add cost. - RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:40 pm: Personally, I would like to see SJRCA 2 / HJRCA 6 passed. It could serve as a check on a lot of those last minute bills that get passed at midnight. Maybe make it a 60% threshold to reject a new law. I’m on the fence on SJRCA 1 / HJRCA 5. If it was strictly limited to the legislative structure and the possibility of term limits AND it required some kind of super-majority like 70% or 75% yes votes to pass, then I would be likely to support it. I see it as the possibility to drive more transparency and accountability while the high threshold would limit 51% mob rule. But I don’t think Illinois needs a wide open voter initiative; that hasn’t always turned out well in other states. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:45 pm: ===I guess I am going to be a bit of a contrarian here. It would seem to me that some more flexibility on what could go to the voters to change the constitution and how it could be done via petition would be a good thing. I tend to agree and my main thing is keeping the process difficult enough every random thought Pat Quinn has (excellent point The Captain) ends up on the ballot. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 2:47 pm: ===Depressing, dim view of the public Sounds like John Adams. - Froganon - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 3:03 pm: I’d like to open the door a little wider for voter referendums providing they require a super majority with low turn out and a simple majority with high turn-out as the current laws require. Things that have been ruled illegal, as in defaulting on pensions, must be off the table. The danger with citizen initiatives is the overpowering influence of corporations and oligarchs (like Ricketts and Uihlein). Dark money campaigns must be fully outed. The money, time and resources to answer the endless supply of dark money and corporate resources is deeply worrying. Slow and careful should be the watchwords of change. - Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 3:07 pm: Hey Illinois GOP, look what your Missouri brethren are doing … https://buff.ly/2LeZTlO - regnaD kciN - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 3:49 pm: I was involved with the Cutback Amendment back in the day and, at the time, thought that citizen initiatives would be of benefit in Illinois. However, as the years have passed, I’ve taken a more pessimistic view since, as others have noted, they are sometimes poorly constructed, financed by those who would benefit directly, and often not well understood (the same could be said of legislation introduced in the General Assembly but I digress). I would be okay with opening it for some limited issues but in my opinion, this should be addressed at a constitutional convention. - Lakeview - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 3:50 pm: Lots of unease in these comments. That’s what happens when the folks who are ruining the State with unfunded pensions and passing barely considered, extremely progressive legislation consider the prospect of voters weighing in. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 3:52 pm: ===That’s what happens when the folks who are ruining the State with unfunded pensions and passing barely considered, extremely progressive legislation consider the prospect of voters weighing in.=== Narrator: The General Assembly has elections every two years. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 4:06 pm: Opposed. Just look at the mess we are in because of narrow focused citizens that become one-issue voters. California is a great example of the problems this approach can bring. - KSDinCU - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 6:06 pm: I hope they can edit the description on Spotify: “”In Session” is a podcast hosted by Illinois Senate Democrats. The goal is to hear *conservations* moderated with and by state senators on the issues of the day, challenges the state faces, and their stories along the way.” At first glance I thought it was about hearing “conservative moderates”, very confusing. - KSDinCU - Wednesday, Feb 3, 21 @ 6:07 pm: Darn it, my comment was supposed to be on the podcast post. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Feb 4, 21 @ 12:36 am: ===I also think no state reps. should get pensions like the old days. I’m sure the voters would love to vote on that one. So make it that those who run for state office have other ways they make enough money for retirement whether it be the Burke way or through lobbying after they quit the Lege. What could go wrong? - ArchPundit - Thursday, Feb 4, 21 @ 12:38 am: ===. According to the polls term limits and pension reform would have a decent chance if put on the ballot . If I was part of a powerful special interest group, I would be against this. Special interests love term limits. All the lege members line up for good money as lobbyists after they quit the Lege. Special interests also love being able to run public campaigns for legislation. Finally, have you heard of Tier 2? If not, why are you talking about pensions? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.