* Nice try. Seriously, nice try…
A Christian County Republican thinks Illinois House Democrats may have experienced a change of heart and be willing to abandon an ethics-reform bill passed in May in favor of working to hammer out “true ethics reform” legislation.
Senate Bill 539 passed the House and Senate by overwhelming, bipartisan margins on May 31. At the time, lawmakers from both parties touted their ability to agree on a bill, even one criticized as weak, after years of scandals that resulted in several former lawmakers being charged with crimes or facing federal investigations.
But shortly before 10 p.m. Tuesday in the House, Democrats who hold 73 seats in the 118-seat chamber failed to muster the 71 votes — the three-fifths majority required — to accept Gov. JB Pritzker’s amendatory veto and immediately enact the bill into law.
“I take that as a sign of optimism,” said state Rep. Avery Bourne, R-Morrisonville.
* Yeah, no…
The bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Kelly Burke, D-Evergreen Park, said she wasn’t expecting Republicans to pull support for the bill.
“It was a longer than anticipated day, and I think people on both sides of the aisle had some commitments that they needed to get home for,” Burke said of the Tuesday session. “The motion had passed handily in the in the Senate. And, you know, it was a bill that had passed 113-5 in the spring. So, you know, it was surprising that the Republicans decided to not vote for it.” […]
Burke said she’s ready to pass SB 539 and continue to work on further changes to ethics laws.
“This is a standing committee, the ethics committee,” she said. “So you know, we’re going to have more bills and ideas that people put forward. We’ve been clear about that since the beginning. … I think this bill is an excellent bill. And it’s a good start. But it’s not the end of the conversation. So let’s get this done and then continue working.”
* I front-paged this comment late in the day on Wednesday, so you might have missed it…
== - King Louis XVI - Wednesday, Sep 1, 21 @ 12:15 pm:
Madigan would not have made such a mistake. He could count. ==
How was it a mistake? Several targeted GOP members voted against prohibiting elected officials from lobbying. I’d say the new Speaker knew exactly what he was doing when they took a roll call vote knowing full well more than a dozen of their members had already left.
Thoughts?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:11 pm:
“Never take a vote unless it has the desired outcome”
Something told to me a “while back”
Sometimes you want things to win the day, sometimes you want things to fail (Century Club?), sometimes… “Clerk, take the record”…
- Asteroid of Caution - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:11 pm:
The HGOP really don’t like that prohibition on pre-session fundraisers in Springfield.
- Nagidam - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:18 pm:
===Sometimes you want things to win the day…===
And sometimes things surprise you that turn out better than you thought they would. Some people call it dumb luck.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:25 pm:
=== And sometimes things surprise you that turn out better than you thought they would. Some people call it dumb luck.===
It’s better to be lucky than good.
There’s a real reason folks complain and stand up and argue that an ethics bill doesn’t go far enough… yet folks vote “Green”
Same with “tough on crime” bills… seemingly not tough enough… but “Green” votes all the same.
We’ll see how campaign literature sees it.
- Guaranteed Rater - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:40 pm:
Are voters able to wade through the “who was for what” here? They’re going to read “Ethics still an issue” headlines and move along. And team ECW knows this because they’re planning to recall the motion because too many dems missed the vote for them to effectively use it.
It’s all sugar high inside baseball.
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:40 pm:
“I take that as a sign of optimism,”
Optimism? You vote for it, then vote against it, and then when it comes up for a vote again in a week when the Democrats can pass it on their own, what do you do? It doesn’t look like optimism, it looks like obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It makes you look foolish and petty.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 1:55 pm:
=== Are voters able to wade through the “who was for what” here?===
That’s not how campaign mailers work.
Voters don’t do nuance, and recorded votes ain’t nuance.
- Frank talks - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 2:09 pm:
This is a Madigan move.
Senate voted 58-0 all GOP on.
House GOP all voted against.
Good campaign material for sure. Unless House is going to throw the whole Senate GOP under the bus? Including Darren Bailey who’s endorsed by most of Southern Illinois GOP.
- CuriousReader - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 2:59 pm:
I miss the days when the state capital’s newspaper had reporters who understood state government.
- Cluster - Friday, Sep 3, 21 @ 3:15 pm:
=== I’d say the new Speaker knew exactly what he was doing when they took a roll call vote knowing full well more than a dozen of their members had already left. ===
And hopefully those dozen or so Dem legislators that left early are in safe seats…