Question of the day
Wednesday, Jun 16, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Press release…
In response to House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch’s announcement temporarily permitting remote voting, State Rep. Steve Reick (R-Woodstock) has issued the following statement:
“Intraparty strife among Democrats has resulted in their inability to come to terms on an energy bill that they’ve been negotiating amongst themselves for months, having never taken Republican and downstate members’ concerns into account. Yet we’ve still been called back to Springfield under the pretense of voting on a so-called ‘climate bill’.
But we have another reason for being in Springfield today. The 3,088-page, $42.3 billion dollar budget that the supermajority Democrats shoved down the throats of hardworking Illinoisans minutes before the midnight deadline on May 31 was so full of drafting errors that the state cannot legally spend the money it appropriates until almost a year from now. Consequently, Gov. Pritzker issued an amendatory veto of the budget yesterday and sent it back to us for approval.
The problem is that there won’t be enough Democrats on hand in the House today to approve his veto and fix the mistakes they themselves made.
But fear not, the Speaker is temporarily amending the House rules to permit remote ‘participation’ in today’s House session. Remote legislating was not permitted in the House chamber throughout the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet now that the state is fully reopened, the Speaker is allowing its use to cover for rank incompetence.
I’m sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are unable to join us in Springfield today have valid reasons for their absence. After all, this session was scheduled with only one week’s notice. But if you can’t be here, you shouldn’t be able to cast a vote. Any lawmaker not physically under the dome today who chooses to vote remotely is not only committing a dereliction of his or her elected duty but is perpetuating the Speaker’s affront to the legislative process.”
One member is attending to his dying father. Another has a family medical issue. The Senate has allowed remote voting since last year, but a quorum has to be present.
* The Question: Do you favor or oppose allowing remote floor voting as long as a quorum is physically present in the chamber? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
survey software
…Adding… The remote voting rule change is here.
- NIU Grad - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:06 pm:
“Any lawmaker not physically under the dome today who chooses to vote remotely is not only committing a dereliction of his or her elected duty”
Does this include a state senator voting via helicopter on the way to a campaign event, or would this apply only to the House chamber?
- Homebody - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:09 pm:
Mandating in person voting is an unnecessary anachronism, whether in an election or for legislating.
- Fav Human - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:12 pm:
I am ok with remote voting if done via video call, so you see who is voting.
But then I also favor voting in person be done by the actual rep, not his next seat buddy.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:15 pm:
That’s Republicans for you, always trying to make it harder to vote.
Support it. A vote is a vote, in or out of the chamber. As a voter I want my elected representatives to have options to express my will. If for some reason a special session is called and they can’t be physically present, it’s not productive to not allow remote participation, especially for something as important as the budget.
- JB13 - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:17 pm:
All in favor of allowing remote voting by legislators.
Much less in favor of votes on huge bills, that will spend billions or impact everyone’s lives, at 3 a.m., after they were only introduced 90 minutes earlier.
But that’s just process. And no serious person in Illinois cares about process.
- Just Me 2 - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:21 pm:
If it was done only during the pandemic, sure. But not for regular business. Remote voting also shouldn’t be relied on to pass a bill with the minimum number of votes.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:25 pm:
I am for it.
Tantrum noted Rep Reick.
- AD - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:26 pm:
Entirely in favor of remote voting to get the budget passed.
That being said, if Speaker Madigan was unable to unilaterally decide last Spring to have remote session during the uncertainty of the pandemic, I’m befuddled on how we are able to now.
I’m not against doing this at all, but I think there are some serious legal concerns on the validity of the vote and wonder if allowing this could cause even more problems down the line.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:33 pm:
Voted “favor”…
Why? Clinically.
If the rules *can* allow it, then it’s within bounds.
The rest is partisan jockeying (both for and against) and a hint of “process” worry too.
Voted… “favor”
I have my thoughts to Reick’s thoughts, but voting “favor” negates the angst I’d like to say, lol
- Groucho - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:34 pm:
I fully expect the person that represents me in government to fully participate in the legislative process and not just hit a button on a computer while lounging around in their living room. I know that being required to be in Springfield does not guarantee that a rep will do more than just hit a button on the chamber floor, but at least having to be there may make a representative have more skin in the game.
- Give Us Barabbas - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:36 pm:
I can’t count how many times I saw from the gallery, reps and senators pushing voting buttons for their absent seat neighbors over the years. One of them even used a pointer stick with a rubber top, so he could do it without getting out of his chair.
Is remote voting, with some kind of confirmation, really any worse?
- Shield - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:43 pm:
Reick implies that he would have supported remote voting during the height of the pandemic, but that is false. He has opposed remote voting throughOUT the COVID-19 pandemic (which we are still in). And, when he made the statement linked below opposing remote voting, nearly 100,000 had died in the span of a month in the US from COVID-19.
https://www.thevedette.com/public-participation-limited-as-illinois-legislature-continues-covid-19-protocols/
- Nadigam - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:45 pm:
I voted in favor. There is no problem modernizing the process as long as there are rules. What Rep Reick is saying does have some merit with a little partisan attack. The Dems screwed up and are changing the game to fix their issue. If there is going to be remote voting then make the rules and hold people to them. Having a member vote remote from a helicopter or a car or a bar should not be acceptable. Letting someone stay home and not attend session in Springfield post pandemic because they don’t want to travel to the Capitol robs the electorate of the ability to engage with their elected officials.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:52 pm:
===He (Reick) has opposed remote voting throughOUT the COVID-19 pandemic (which we are still in). And, when he made the statement linked below opposing remote voting===
The disingenuous way to be opposed makes some arguments less.
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:53 pm:
I voted yes. But there should be some restrictions on it. Like, you should only get so many remote voting days. Come up with a number… 5… 10… or a percentage of session days, like 10% or so. The allowance vote remotely should not be carte blanche.
- Dance Band on the Titanic - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:56 pm:
Somewhere in a 110° backyard in Arizona, Allen Skillicorn is probably shaking his head right now.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:58 pm:
===Somewhere in a 110° backyard in Arizona, Allen Skillicorn is probably shaking his head right now.===
… while texting Grant Wehrli so Wehrli can tweet about it.
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:58 pm:
Favor, even without the requirement for a physical quorum to be present.
When it comes to the Open Meetings Act, a quorum can be determined to exist legally in the eyes of the AG office using remote electronic communication. There’s no reason for a physical presence to vote, if the technology allows for it to be done remotely.
As to the details of how remote voting should be conducted, that can and should be taken up by the ethics committee in both chambers to establish rules and practices for remote voting that can be agreed on and adhered to by all the members.
As for this;
— shoved down the throats of hardworking Illinoisans —
Did I miss the police going door to door forcing every single resident to read the budget. No I did not. Nobody is being forced to do anything, however if this specific legislator is getting angry about having to read something to perform his duties then I will note his tantrum and file it accordingly.
Act like an adult, Steve.
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 2:58 pm:
Intraparty strife among Democrats?
- Anon1 - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:10 pm:
I voted No. During the peak of COVID I was in favor of it, yet the House refused to adopt rules. They also did not require testing of members, but made staff and lobbyists test to access the building. The Senate required testing, but allowed remote voting, which made sense at the time. Now that vaccines are widely available and COVID numbers are down, the House decides to allow for remote voting - for one day. As Covid thankfully is slowly getting under control, I favor lifting the remote voting provisions in both chambers. Legislating is done best in person.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:13 pm:
Legislators are elected to represent the people of their district. Limiting the ability for them to represent their constituents when there are other technological options that allow the member to be fully engaged and express their will is pretty silly.
The Republicans have produced no alternatives. They have consistently failed to make any attempts at leadership or crafting bills which would win a majority of the votes and expect Democrats to legislate and Democrats to govern while they do nothing but complain.
Republicans don’t like the budget? Okay. Let’s see their alternatives, until then their complaints should be treated as seriously as a child who complains about not being able to have cake and ice cream for every meal — the difference, though, is at least the child is willing to put on paper what the alternative should be.
The GOP has decided to be against everything and because that they are for nothing and have produced nothing of merit or note as an alternative.
- Frank talks - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:13 pm:
His Senator was always remote this session. Does it qualify to him as well?
- Back to the Future - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:26 pm:
Opposed.
Just because I am old fashioned and still see merit in being on the floor with your colleagues to discuss the issues that are up for votes.
- Louis G Atsaves - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:29 pm:
With the state fully reopened suddenly remote voting is allowed in the House just this one time? Not permanently?
I get the need to fix what they screwed up during the sudden rush to pass a budget few had time to read, and resulting the financial catastrophe to the State and towards the many people serviced by many programs that would result if it isn’t immediately fixed, but this reads like an Onion headline.
And not in a flattering way.
- illinifan - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:37 pm:
As long as the vote is recorded for the proper legislator placing the vote, I don’t care how the vote is done. At least it is a vote and better than voting “present”
- Craig - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:42 pm:
Its possible to agree with the statement about rank incompetence but believe that remote voting is ok.
- levivotedforjudy - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:46 pm:
The last IL Constitution was adopted in 1970. It’s 2021. Let’s try to adopt some of those new fangled concepts created in the last 1/2 century that might make operations more efficient.
- The Dude Abides - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:50 pm:
It’s 2021. I’m perfectly fine with remote voting as long as it’s verified that it was the Representative that actually voted.
Representative Reick doesn’t sound like a happy person.
- Actual Red - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 3:57 pm:
Seems pretty easy to verify so I don’t believe fraud is an issue. Physical presence in the chamber just seems like a symbolic curtesy - maybe a good thing to aspire to but not something that needs to be mandatory.
- SAP - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 4:09 pm:
Voted oppose because it makes it too easy for legislators to avoid contact with constituents…OK…lobbyists. I understood it for COVID, but we are kinda-sorta past that. The non-health, limited duration of the change feels like the rules version of special legislation. At least for final action, legislators should face the music. With respect to the supporters.
- Just Me 2 - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 4:20 pm:
If they have to change the rules to get a majority vote, then how do they get a majority vote to change the rules?
- Banish Misfortune - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 4:21 pm:
Vote yes. I note that a lot of people say well we didn’t do during the pandemic. But didn’t voting for a change in leadership mean a change in the way of doing things?
- Liandro - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 4:27 pm:
Support…
…but as others mentioned, it needs specific rules to encourage discussion and input. For example require a quorum or even a super-majority to be physically present; have a list of qualifying reasons; limit the total number of days authorized; etc.
There is lot of value in being present during negotiations and decision-making. Much of that is negated by the way the GA already does business (partisan, top-down, or rushed, etc). That doesn’t mean the more ideal methods shouldn’t be encouraged.
That said, there needs to be allowances on the books, especially during personal or state-wide emergencies. They already put it on the books for local governments, and it got used by many that truly needed it.
- Flat Bed Ford - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 4:33 pm:
Oppose. Legislators get paid a lot of money and know full well the job requires travel to/from the Capitol. I’m also assuming that if they vote remotely the do not get their per diem?
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 5:15 pm:
Support, with some of the limitations mentioned above. Limit the number of days a legislator can use the remote option during regularly scheduled session days, quorum on the floor, some option for verification.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 5:57 pm:
=The GOP has decided to be against everything and because that they are for nothing and have produced nothing of merit or note as an alternative.=
Walk-off dinger right there.
@Louis Atsaves-
=I get the need to fix what they screwed up =
Lol, they have spent sever
- Hack in the Back - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 6:51 pm:
As a matter of necessity, yes. As a matter of convenience, no.
- Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Jun 16, 21 @ 7:00 pm:
I’d favor it for excused absences like illness, funerals, family emergencies, etc. and for issues like COVID where they can’t gather. Not for campaigning, laziness, etc. As they keep reminding state employees, Springfield is the seat of government. Find your seat.