House to temporarily allow remote voting
Tuesday, Jun 15, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As I told subscribers this morning, the House was having real trouble with its attendance for tomorrow’s session. That meant it couldn’t fix the budget errors it had made because accepting the governor’s AV requires a three-fifths super-majority. So, as I also told subscribers earlier, the chamber will change its rules tomorrow to allow for remote voting. The news has made its way to Twitter, so I figured I’d post the press release here.
From Speaker Welch’s spokesperson Jaclyn Driscoll…
Allowing for remote participation is a temporary change. By no means is this option encouraged nor preferred, but it was a decision the Speaker’s Office came to after consulting staff and members. Some members have flagged urgent family or medical emergencies and cannot leave their loved ones or put them at risk, particularly since we cannot assure all members of the House have been vaccinated. While we are in Phase 5 of our state’s reopening plan, we are still very much in a pandemic that requires precaution. This is a sound option for a one-day session and we look forward to getting these final-action items across the finish line quickly, efficiently, and safely.
- NIU Grad - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:50 pm:
One year too late…
At least they didn’t lie and make up a “pilot project” to justify only doing it for this one vote.
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:56 pm:
I did not know the Speaker had the power to switch to remote voting. Sounds like something that should be subject to a vote.
Probably another article in the next lawsuit.
- Citizen Kane - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 2:59 pm:
Can’t score a touch down, move the goal line.
- Just Me 2 - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:03 pm:
Remote voting was supposed to be used as a way to operate during a pandemic. What is the excuse now? If they didn’t do it when the State was in Phase 1 why do it now for Phase 5?
- levivotedforjudy - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:03 pm:
In 10 years (maybe less), people will look at the hand-wringing over remote voting like it was something out of the Flintstones. I hope there will be a committee to figure out how to do this securely and just make it part of the normal operations.
- Morningstar - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:05 pm:
@Just Me2 - because we are still in a pandemic. The rationale in the statement - i.e., putting family members at risk and not all House members are vaccinated - should make that clear.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:12 pm:
=== The rationale in the statement ===
lol
It’s to fix the budget so we don’t wind up in junk bond territory.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:14 pm:
When you have the votes to make or change the rules…
===It’s to fix the budget so we don’t wind up in junk bond territory.===
You’d think all the folks harping on the bond status of Illinois would be grateful there’s a fix possible… but…
- Bruce( no not him) - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:17 pm:
Why make it temporary?
If they couldn’t do it in phase 1 why now in Phase 5?
Just make it a permanent change and be done.
- Just Me 2 - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:25 pm:
=== The rationale in the statement ===
Then why wasn’t this same rationale used over a year ago? Face it, the House Democrats screwed up, and they would rather twist themselves into pretzels. You’re attempt to explain there is behavior is pretty pitiful.
Although in your defense it isn’t as pitiful as saying a “fair map” is one in which only Democrats can win seats.
- liandro - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:26 pm:
“Remote voting was supposed to be used as a way to operate during a pandemic. What is the excuse now?”
It really exposes the whole situation for anyone who still thought it was only about safety, and not also about dodging tough decisions and responsibility (and perhaps Madigan’s challenges) during the pandemic.
It’s the right move, though it needs to be entered into statute and a solid system put into place permanently.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:29 pm:
===Face it, the House Democrats screwed up===
Who said they didn’t?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 3:33 pm:
As an aside…
===Although in your defense it isn’t as pitiful as saying a “fair map” is one in which only Democrats can win seats.===
There ain’t 60 “fair” districts in Illinois that will elect 60 Chris Millers… but the Trumpkin primaries can produce enough Chris Millers that show maps don’t stop the silly.
So there’s that, lol
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 4:14 pm:
With respect to the security of the vote, because the vote is public, any member can immediately see if their vote was recorded properly and speak up if it was not correct.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 4:19 pm:
== In 10 years (maybe less), people will look at the hand-wringing over remote voting like it was something out of the Flintstones. ==
Seriously. There are so many antiquated rules that seem to create more problems than they proclaim to solve.
- watchdog - Tuesday, Jun 15, 21 @ 6:20 pm:
Last Bull Moose is correct. Under current House rules, there is no remote voting. So, to adopt a remote voting rule, House must vote for the new rule in person. Then after new rule is adopted, they can vote remotely. That’s not to say the Speaker won’t by fiat change the rule, that’s just not the way it is supposed to work!