Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » Question of the day
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Question of the day

Tuesday, Sep 21, 2021

* My annual medical checkup is this afternoon and then I have some errands I need to run that can only be taken care of during a weekday. So, y’all are on your own for awhile. Hopefully, nothing big happens while I’m away, but I’ll take my laptop just in case.

* Anyway, on to the setup…

Today, Representative Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield), Senator Jason Barickman (R-Bloomington), and the Illinois Opportunity Project announced their statewide grassroots campaign to place an Advisory Question of Public Policy on the November 2022 ballot asking voters if they want the power to recall their elected officials.

“Voters should have the ability to hire and fire their elected officials,” said Rep. Batinick. “Illinois’ culture of corruption has gone on for far too long, and the people of Illinois have lost faith in their government. That begins to change today.”

Illinois Democrats have ignored calls to increase accountability and empower voters. Last year, Sen. Barickman and Rep. Batinick introduced legislation to give voters the right to recall elected officials who have broken the public’s trust.

The General Assembly has refused to discuss their legislation; even while a Democratic member of the State Senate is currently under indictment for crimes related to his office. This advisory referendum movement will educate voters on the culture of corruption and the solutions. It will also build political pressure to encourage the General Assembly to end this culture of corruption and give voters the right to recall certain elected officials.

“Single party rule has concentrated power with the political elite and taken away Illinois citizens’ voices in their state government,” said Sen. Barickman. “Giving voters the ability to recall a failing elected official will empower the people and help restore faith and trust in their government.”

The proposed Advisory Question asks, “Shall Illinois voters be given the power to recall their elected officials?” Petitions for advisory questions of public policy require signatures equivalent to eight percent of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election, or roughly 363,000 signatures to be placed on the ballot. These signatures must be submitted six months prior to the election.

“Today, the political establishment, special-interests, and lobbyists have too much power,” explained Mark Cavers, President of the Illinois Opportunity Project. “We are all feeling the consequences. There is a statewide movement of people who want to improve the quality of life in Illinois by returning power to the people. We have faith in average Illinoisans and that if we empower them with the right accountability tools, they will reform their government and save our state.”

“Illinois should be the land of opportunity and prosperity where families can pursue the American dream. To make that a reality, we must have an honest and efficient government that is responsive to the people’s will.”

Corruption costs Illinois taxpayers $556 million per year. This referendum will empower voters with the opportunity to hold politicians accountable before their next election. The petition can be viewed and downloaded at

* The Question: Do you support the advisory ballot question? Make sure to explain your answer in comments, please.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Question - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:27 pm:

    Can the Illinois Opportunity Project openly/legally do that as a 501c4? At what point is nonprofit status completely meaningless?

  2. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:33 pm:

    No, I do not support it. We already have a mechanism to hire and fire people and its called an election. And, we already have a mechanism to remove someone from office for wrongdoing and its called impeachment. Recall elections are nothing more than people looking for election do-overs.

  3. - Blue Dog - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:34 pm:

    No. No. No.

  4. - Annonin' - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:35 pm:

    Sadly the combo of Batty, Jumpin’ Jason and the IPI front group does seem like the brewmiesters we want to sip from….NO,
    BTW recalls and initiatives provide enormous $$$ for consultants like the IPI crew

  5. - DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:36 pm:

    No I do not support it at all. I used to think recall was a good idea but not in these times. We have elections recall them then. Same with term limits vote them out if you can Normal election cycles occur often enough we don’t need to make them perpetual Only election limit I might support is age limit. You hit 65 go retire and not retire in office

  6. - PublicServant - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:36 pm:

    Another attempt at minority rule by the superminority.

  7. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:37 pm:

    No. What a joke and a waste. Didn’t these people learn from the California recall? Perhaps it has no ends other than constantly ginning up a shrinking GOP base and fundraising, given the right wing nature of the IOP and IPI and strong rejection of right wing policies in Illinois.

  8. - Flat Bed Ford - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:38 pm:

    YES. Right now many are unhappy with our Governor and his months of Executive Orders. Voters should have the ability to hold him, or any statewide office holder, accountable. Clearly the legislative branch has no desire to do so.

  9. - Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:41 pm:

    No, we have elections every two years, this has the danger of creating a constant cycle of elections or recalls.

  10. - Now I’m down in it. - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:42 pm:

    This is dumb and completely ineffective. We have recalls. They’re called elections and they’re a perfect opportunity to fire our elected officials. Hell, you can even take that job yourself if you’re lucky enough to win a very expensive popularity contest. That said, who cares? It’s advisory, not binding. Let them put whatever they want on the ballot.

  11. - G'Kar - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:43 pm:

    My initial reaction is no, that’s why we have elections. The recent recall in California shows just how partisan and expensive recalls can become.

    That being said, I have also witnessed at a local level, people being elected to boards, both school and community colleges, whose only purpose is to cause disruption leading to chaos. Currently there is no legal means to remove such a person.

    So, I guess I’m wishy-washy.

  12. - Rachel - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:43 pm:

    Nope. Just more Republican mischief. As they become increasingly marginalized they spend most of their waking hours trying to find ways to screw things up. $300 million wasted dollars in California because of their stunts.

  13. - hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:45 pm:

    No thank you. Do not want to adopt California’s system.

    Also there is zero reason to think a recall process reduces the power of lobbyists and special interests who could then threaten legislators with recall campaigns for going against them.

    We do not need a longer campaign season.

  14. - someonehastosayit - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:47 pm:

    Illinois actually has used a form of a recall process when it was shown to be necessary. The Democrat led legislature removed a clearly corrupt Democrat governor when they removed Blago back 2009. This proposal is simply another attempt to muck up the workings of government and foster a sense of distrust in governance among the voters.

  15. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:47 pm:

    If you can’t already recall local officials, someone should tell Buffalo Grove. They passed a recall ordinance and local voters recalled a board member a decade ago.

  16. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:48 pm:

    NO. If you cannot win a normal election, you don’t get a do-over. This is not kindergarten.

  17. - Confusion - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:48 pm:

    No. We have a great recall system in place. It’s called elections. Same goes for term limits. I don’t want elected officials devoting their time to staving off recall attempts while in office.

    I also fail to see how a recall provision will stop any of the “political establishment, special-interests, and lobbyists” considering those same groups could just organize annual recall efforts to apply more pressure to elected officials.

  18. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:48 pm:

    Let’s be quite clear what is at play here;

    Let’s say they wanted to recall Pritzker, Stratton would be governor.

    Well, the 2-step in California is to recall and elect a new governor. By doing so, Republicans have a greater chance to win statewide in California, because, “if you’ve done the reading before class”, the Republican Party in California is almost as lost and rudderless as Illinois’ GOP.

    Is this, very-very specifically, merely to gin up “Old, Angry, White, Rural” voters, if it were to get on the ballot, in a year where Texas abortion fears are going to drive up voter turnout not helpful for GOP candidates?

    I know, I’m being cynical… but… when you look at the “Bs”, Barickman and Batinick, the need for the caucuses all the help they can gin up, considering the GOP will be painted as “anti-woman” when abortion is continually brought up. They *need* this.

    The reason I’m a “no”…

    It’s again the angry, monolithic, minority not doing much of anything… and unless they go “Full California”… it’s not much of a thing to have

  19. - JMJ - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:49 pm:

    I will give you my answer now, NO, we have a recall mechanism it is called an election. If you have the better idea run for office.

  20. - Roadrager - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:50 pm:

    Oh, they want to talk about unnecessary costs to state taxpayers? Please tell me how much last week’s California recall election cost in taxpayer funds.

    Again, they can’t win elections, so it’s time to find a new avenue to power that relies less on this pesky “democracy.”

  21. - Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:55 pm:

    No. Advisory referendums are political stunts that members of the General Assembly want the taxpayers to fund. The question of recalls is also a no. All we’d see are that they would become another tool for political games. These also would have a ridiculous cost for taxpayers.

  22. - Sir Reel - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:55 pm:


    Waste of time and money.

    But I guess for Republicans, these types of shenanigans sure beats working.

  23. - Manchester - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:56 pm:

    No we have the opportunity to recall our elected officials every election day and Lord knows it always seems to be election time in Illinois.

  24. - train111 - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:57 pm:

    No - because it is subject to abuse due to all the money flowing in politics.
    California this month and Wisconsin back in 2012 (when just about every Republican State Senator and Assemblyman was recalled).
    Recall is not meant for holding another election just because someone you politically disagree with is in office.

  25. - Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 12:58 pm:

    ==But I guess for Republicans, these types of shenanigans sure beats working.==

    The grift pays better too

  26. - Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:04 pm:

    No. Enough already of trying to steal elections. Bring a message that people embrace if you want to win.

  27. - Linus - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:07 pm:

    No. This is what regular elections are for: So that people can choose their elected leaders. We don’t need to add extra layers to spend even more public money and to gum up the wheels of government.

  28. - Jimmy Jazz - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:09 pm:

    No. Illinois makes adequate provision for recall in the form of regular elections.

    Government that is too responsive to the people’s will be the death of democracy.

  29. - Simply Sayin' - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:11 pm:

    No. Recall elections by citizens are a waste of time and money and are almost entirely used for partisan purposes (by both Dems and Republicans, depending on the state). Vote them out if you don’t like their policies or they can be impeached if they have done something warranting that.

  30. - JoanP - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:12 pm:

    No. As others have said, we have these things called “elections”.

  31. - Groucho - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:19 pm:

    NO. I would favor lengthening the terms of elected officials before I would put them in a situation of always being in constant election mode.

  32. - Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:22 pm:

    No, we have elections every two years and every four years for offices.

    Illinois govt isn’t the IHSA where the winners get punished and have to play up when they are too successful.

  33. - Lurker - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:23 pm:

    No. It costs money. Am I only the fiscal conservative left in Illinois?

  34. - slow down - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:26 pm:

    No. We have elections for a reason, and in the extreme circumstance where someone genuinely needs to be removed, there is the impeachment option.

  35. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:29 pm:

    No. We get to recall most elected officials every two or four years. Adding extra elections…why, why, why?

  36. - John Lopez - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:31 pm:

    As Shaw Media’s Scott T. Holland’s op-ed pointed out over the weekend, Illinoisians already have a means to Recall a governor, under the Gubernatorial Recall Amendment voters approved in 2010.

    Controls were put in place to make a Recall necessary ONLY for most egregious circumstance when the Illinois House fails to impeach a governor.

    Yes, on the surface, Barickman and Batinik want to expand Recall to all offices, including local governments, but the process MUST have very stringent controls, and in this day-and-age of paid petition circulation, a VERY high signature threshold must be in place.

    If proponents can get the advisory referendum on the ballot, great, but right now, I’d vote “No” and simply wait until the next election to remove a bad officeholder, like how voters dealt with McHenry County Board Chairman Jack Franks voting him out of office.

  37. - WillRez - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:34 pm:

    No. Voters already possess the right to recall an official. It’s called a general election.

  38. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:35 pm:

    I do want to comment to this “straight up” as well, and in brief.

    ===The proposed Advisory Question asks, “Shall Illinois voters be given the power to recall their elected officials?”===

    No. We have elections. No.

  39. - anon2 - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:36 pm:

    I vote yes because it’s harmless. It’s only advisory, not a proposed amendment, so I don’t see where the cost would come from. Besides,the results are no more binding than were the results of Madigan’s advisory referendum on a millionaire surtax.

  40. - SAP - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:38 pm:

    No. We already have elections, impeachment, and expulsion. Heck we even have recall for the Governor (admittedly with a near impossible hurdle, but it exists.

  41. - M - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:47 pm:

    I vote No - recalls are for poor losers. The people who don’t like the election results waste a lot of energy, time and money on a recall like the one in CA.

  42. - Steve Rogers - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:53 pm:


    “Voters should have the ability to hire and fire their elected officials,” said Rep. Batinick.

    We already do. It’s called elections. We have a primary and general, and I hope that Rep. Batinick already knows this.

  43. - A-Man - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:54 pm:

    No, just another partisan grab at talking points for an election cycle. As we’ve seen by the California fiasco, recalls are wildly expensive and usually worthless.

  44. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:58 pm:

    I would vote NO, but I’m fine with the question going on the ballot because at least it’s not frivolous Madigan millionaire’s question.

    Also, while I’d vote no, recalls aren’t always bad for Democrats. Had Rahm not interfered with the Wisconsin governor’s recall the Democrats would have very likely recalled Scott Walker (instead they had an expensive, wasteful primary even though nobody had significant issues with the candidate who looked to win before the mayor of Milwaukee, with Rahm’s help, got in the race, sapped energy from the general recall vote, and lost by a hair).

  45. - RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 1:59 pm:

    No … because it is useless and just being used to gin up election turnout by tapping into voter’s frustration with the Legislature.

  46. - Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 2:04 pm:

    yes, one more tool that allows individual Illinois citizens to be heard. The current recall process has impossible hurdles - it also only applies to the Gov.

    “requires that at least 20 state representatives and 10 state senators, equally balanced from each party in each chamber, sign a notice of intent to recall the governor before a petition can begin to be circulated”

  47. - Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 2:11 pm:


    This is one of the few areas where I agree with George Will. This will also just shift even more power to donors with deep pockets who can fund recall efforts.

  48. - City Guy - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 2:11 pm:

    No. We have elections set at reasonable intervals. This is a Republican power play to use dark money to fund recall elections to weaken and distract Democratic elected officials.

  49. - Hot Taeks - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 2:16 pm:

    No. I’m in complete agreement with majority of prior commenters and they’ve said what I think as well.

  50. - TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 2:19 pm:

    Ah yes, Batinick.

    The guy complaining about corruption, when within the last 9 months his campaign treasurer has been federally indicted for wire fraud and embezzlement, and his legislative director was/is under FBI scrutiny for her participation in the Jan 6th insurrection.

    Those aren’t even elected positions, and he had no problem keeping them on his staff.

    What exactly is his criteria to remove someone from office. I’m going to guess it’s what party they belong to, and nothing else.

  51. - Al - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 2:35 pm:

    Caption; Two minority party members struggle for relevance.

  52. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 2:39 pm:

    ===Voters should have the ability to hold him, or any statewide office holder, accountable. Clearly the legislative branch has no desire to do so.===

    November, 2022.

    Vote early.

  53. - Nick Name - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 3:39 pm:

    No, and jeez what a cheap sleazy load of gaslighting that statement is.

  54. - Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 4:03 pm:

    I say, “yes.” Just imagine the state of the state if we could have gotten rid of Bruce Rauner 30 months earlier than we did.

  55. - SubRosa - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 4:04 pm:

    Sore loser laws make my skin crawl.

  56. - Annon3 - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 4:07 pm:

    I am pretty sure that was the whole point of switching our constitutional officers off the national cycle, and it work for a long time.

  57. - Hamlet - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 4:08 pm:

    Vote No.

    Clearly just a scam to collect names and addresses.

    Pritzker should counter with referendum to merge Sparsely populated downstate counties with the slogan “Don’t recall politicians, Eliminate them.”

    “You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way! And that’s how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I’m offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?”

    Happy to run that effort Quentin and Anna, just give me a call.

  58. - Enviro - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 4:08 pm:

    Do I want more elections…more political ads on TV…constant phone calls and political drama?

    No thank you!

  59. - PublicServant - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 4:29 pm:

    === My annual medical checkup is this afternoon ===

    Turn your head and cough. You’re fine. That’ll be $350.

  60. - Retired SURS Emolyee - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 4:34 pm:

    No. My son and daughter-in-law just went through the California recall and they don’t want to see another recall vote for at least ten years. Elections provide the ultimate recall.

  61. - Tony DeKalb - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 5:22 pm:

    I oppose this measure for the reason I oppose most term limits. We have elections for this. Recalls are unnecessary.

  62. - Proud Papa Bear - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 5:29 pm:

    As much as I couldn’t stand Rauner, I didn’t support recall even when he was destroying our state.
    I certainly don’t support it while Pritzker is rebuilding it.

  63. - Union Thug Gramma - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 5:32 pm:

    NO. It’s a waste of money on the side of losers. Now, if the loser of the “recall” had to spend their money funding a recall instead of the state…also, even Ruiner was stymied due to having a strong Democratic General Assembly. The CA recall law is prolly the worst, because you don’t have to show mismanagement/corruption, just, I don’t like his looks.

  64. - The Ford Lawyer - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 5:35 pm:

    No. One more excuse for these yahoos to avoid trying to become a normal, electable political party in this state.

  65. - Pundent - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 6:05 pm:

    Oppose. This notion that it provides more accountability is nothing more than fodder for those that want instant gratification and/or to upend government.

  66. - Tired Teacher - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 8:26 pm:

    Of course the GOP was silent when Rauner was around. No interim good governance; just partisanship. Ugh

  67. - Lt Guv - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 8:33 pm:

    No. This is truly stealing and nullifying my vote.

  68. - NorthsideNoMore - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 8:38 pm:

    No Seems like a waste of money, look what happened in Cali put in term limits if you want to limit the power.

  69. - Corn Country - Tuesday, Sep 21, 21 @ 9:10 pm:


    But I could support Cumulative Term Limits of 16 years. You can serve in one or multiple elected positions for a total of 16 years.

    There are good folks who win reelection - but 16 years total is long enough.

  70. - Afam H - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:12 pm:

    Barickman would be the first one I’d recall.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* "I’m in it to win it. Not for a show"
* AG Raoul task force raid finds more than $1 million in stolen goods
* The trend is definitely not our friend
* Downstate vs. Chicagoland
* Question of the day
* Itasca probed by feds over NIMBY vote
* Local pension fiefdoms still fighting for survival
* Meanwhile, in Crazytown
* Open thread
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...








Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller