Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Friday, Mar 24, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller

* From a Feb. 1st Illinois Freedom Caucus press release…

Illinois Freedom Caucus member Adam Niemerg negotiated some [House] rule changes […]

Niemerg also negotiated the end of the consent calendar that allowed large number of bills to be voted on with one roll call. Consent Calendar bills often included ceremonial legislation such as measures to change the name of roads to honor members of the community, but the list also included substantive legislation.

Substantive bills deserve individual roll calls so that members are completely aware of the full implication of their votes, and thanks to Freedom Caucus member Adam Niemerg we secured an important victory for the people of Illinois.

The House adjourned last night somewhere around midnight after debating and then passing 142 substantive bills. By Isabel’s count, 92 of those (65 percent) passed after debate without a single vote in opposition.

Today is Third Reading passage deadline day. As I write this (2:30 in the afternoon), the House is now on page 5 of the calendar, with 18 pages left to go. The Senate, on the other hand, is putting together a large consent calendar that it will vote on next week.

* The Question: Should the House abandon this rule change? Explain.

21 Comments

- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:34 pm:
And take away Adam Niemerg’s lone legislative victory? Never.

- Give Me A Break - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:43 pm:
No, let Rep. Niemerg sit there on a Friday afternoon and bask in the glory of his work. Let him sit there for hours.

- Demoralized - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:44 pm:
Absolutely. If there is a consensus on something then there is no reason to waste time going through those one by one. This wasn’t a “victory.” It was a waste of time.

- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:48 pm:
Rep. Neimerg on a late Friday evening, after spending hours on the floor, when the motion is made to re-establish the consent calendar so the House can go home:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T575Pbo4eWM

- Blooms of Spring - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:50 pm:
No. The rule should be maliciously applied until the freedum caucus negotiates it away with the promise of a press release acknowledging their change in position.

- CornAl DoGooder - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:52 pm:
With the time it is taking the House, it seems likely it will be reversed eventually. Not only are members spending such a long time on the floor, but it is having downstream effects on the process, with the committee schedule becoming incredibly condensed yesterday because they needed the floor time.

The silver lining is that members have moments to celebrate the victories on smaller bills that might otherwise not get a moment in the spotlight. Maybe we can hope that more attention on these bills could show voters that we do still all have a lot everyone can agree on, and do a tiny bit to heal some of the partisan divide. But that may be overly optimistic.

- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:55 pm:
No.

Keep it until Neimerg starts complaining about late night sessions. Or until he or his caucus tries to use a late night session, that he caused, and claim it somehow means something nefarious is going on “in the dead of night”.

–so that members are completely aware of the full implication of their votes–

I still don’t see how a roll-call vote was causing this supposed problem. Were there a lot of members in the freedom caucus who claimed they didn’t know what they were voting on, that this rule change has now solved for them? I’m dubious of such an outcome, mostly because you can’t legislate an attention span.

- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:56 pm:
===silver lining is that members have moments to celebrate the victories on smaller bills that might otherwise not get a moment in the spotlight===

That is the best reason to support keeping the status quo.

Meanwhile, the House just moved to a two-minute timer on debate.

- Near West Side - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 2:56 pm:
Brilliant work by the Freedom Caucus, they are so effective.

- Chicago Republican - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:00 pm:
Abandon that. Go check out the number of house resolutions that are hanging out in the rules committee. Are we really going to bring in witnesses in order to congratulate the Wild Turkey Federation?

- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:04 pm:
===house resolutions that are hanging out in the rules committee===

You really need to read the post before commenting.

- Candy Dogood - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:07 pm:
=== Niemerg sit there on a Friday afternoon and bask in the glory of his work. ===

I agree with the premise of Niemerg’s idea. It’s not a bad premise. But — it’s one of this things where in application it might have been helpful for him to understand why the practice existed in the first place.

- Zack - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:13 pm:
Not a comment, but a story from the old days. Saw a bill on Senate consent calendar fail in the early 80s. Then, don’t know about now, if a member wanted to cast a No vote on any particular bill on the Consent Calendar they could do so by so notifying the Secretary of the Senate when the roll call was taken the Senate President announced that all of the bill had passed except SB xyz which failed to receive the required vote and is declared lost. The sponsor was a Dem who was not very popular with his fellow members or staff so no one gave him a heads up. The sponsor had the right to remove their own bill from the list prior to the vote. Which he didn’t do.

- Norseman - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:14 pm:
Yes. Reason to repeal the rule, see Isabel’s research - 92 of those (65 percent) passed after debate without a single vote in opposition.

I love posters idea of sticking it to Niemerg, but there are others more important who are suffering the delay - the staff. Dem suffering doesn’t bother me since they were dumb enough to agree to the rule change.

- JS Mill - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:15 pm:
Keep it. Let Niemerg be punished by his own hand.

- Chicago Republican - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:17 pm:
Rich, I am not intelligent enough to understand your comment.

- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:25 pm:
Not sure how the old rule worked, but consent agendas usually include the opportunity to pull items for separate consideration. If that option was not available, it should have been.

- Arsenal - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 3:29 pm:
Yes. Routine stuff should be handled routinely.

Also, dragging out debate is literally in the CIA textbook for disrupting organizations.

- Walker - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 4:06 pm:
Yes

- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 4:44 pm:
===Yes. Reason to repeal the rule, see Isabel’s research - 92 of those (65 percent) passed after debate without a single vote in opposition.

I love posters idea of sticking it to Niemerg, but there are others more important who are suffering the delay - the staff. Dem suffering doesn’t bother me since they were dumb enough to agree to the rule change.===

Concur on all points.

I’d only add being collegial to collegial things allows process to expedite because of trust.

I’ll just leave that to sit.

- Inverted Pyramid - Friday, Mar 24, 23 @ 8:29 pm:
Yes.

File under: “be careful what you wish for”.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.