Question of the day
Friday, Jun 20, 2025 - Posted by Isabel Miller
* Chicago Mag…
[Mike Madigan] spent 50 years in the House, 36 of them as speaker, which gave him plenty of time to amass the power necessary to perform the grifts that landed him in the clink, such as arranging for no-show jobs for his friends at ComEd in exchange for passing legislation that allowed the utility to jack up rates. No bill passed the House without Madigan’s imprimatur. As head of the Illinois Democratic Party, statewide officials came begging for his endorsement. […]
But suppose Madigan hadn’t been allowed to spend most of his life in the state House. Suppose he’d been limited to 12 years in office. He would have been forced to retire in 1983, the same year he became speaker. Madigan would have gone back to his lucrative law practice, and today be a forgotten figure in state politics.
“I seriously doubt” Madigan would be going to jail if he’d been term-limited, says Representative Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva. Ugaste favors term limits of “no shorter than 12 years” for state legislators. “We can take that away from Speaker Madigan’s years and the fact that he ended up convicted in federal prison.” […]
So why haven’t term limits happened? Well, the voters have tried, but they’ve been thwarted by the Illinois Supreme Court. In 1994, a group calling itself Eight Is Enough collected enough signatures for a ballot measure limiting legislators to eight years in office. The Illinois Bar Association argued that the state constitution only allows amendments that concern the structure and procedure of the legislature. Term limits would have concerned the qualifications and eligibility for office, which must be resolved by legislators themselves. The court bought it. In 2014, candidate for governor Bruce Rauner bankrolled another term limits initiative, but that too was struck down by the courts.
* National Conference of State Legislators…
In one of his first moves as the new speaker, Emanuel “Chris” Welch (D) led a successful push to amend the House rules to create term limits for the positions of speaker and minority leader. The Illinois Senate made a corresponding rule change to place term limits on the president and minority leader. As a result, legislators may only hold these leadership positions for a maximum of five two-year terms.
But this is just a rule, and the legislature could revise it.
* The Question: Do you think it’s enough to have term limits just for legislative leaders, or should all lawmakers be term-limited? Or are you against term limits altogether?
- Merica - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:31 am:
I think all lawmakers at every level should have term limits. Now it doesn’t need to be 4 years, it could be 10. But I think it’s helpful to have new perspectives, new competitive races, new opportunities for new voices.
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:33 am:
I get the appeal of term limits, but take a look at the Missouri legislature if you want to see the negative effects they have. It’s like a non-stop, mad dash of self interest there as lawmakers try to line up their next jobs.
Remember the cut back amendment. Sounded good. Turns out to have been a horrible idea like most bureaucratic solutions to dissatisfaction with democracy.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:34 am:
I’m not a fan of term limits - I think it fosters an under-the-radar government where longtime staff and special interest groups become more powerful and institutional knowledge by the actual legislators is lost. Deal with gerrymandering and fairer campaign finance laws.
- Irreverent - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:35 am:
I think it’s absolutely absurd for anyone to decide their own fitness. Let alone people whose work impacts our nearly 13m residents.
- James - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:40 am:
Term limits - along with miniscule legislative salaries, Citizens United and the elimination of earmarks - do more to concentrate power in the hands of corporate interests than anything you’ve seen in the Madigan trial.
Let’s use the eight years as an example. Say that a certain political party finds a midlevel management type that they want to do its bidding for those eight years (let’s give him a generic name like Scott Walker) and promises him a cushy sinecure on the other side of those eight years in exchange for signing anything that they, or ALEC, or the Federalist Society cook up and shove in front of him.
At that point the voters aren’t deciding who they put in office, the party is - just like when they took away earmarks, the legislators didn’t have any reason to cooperate or negotiate with the opposition party, only fear of getting primaried by an unhappy donor base.
- Juice - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:43 am:
I think term limits on leaders is enough. (Though not even sure I am 100% supportive, its really up to the members as to whether they want to impose that on their caucuses or not.)
I am strongly opposed to term limits more broadly. The voters should have the opportunity to vote for who they want. I think we can talk about redistricting reform and campaign finance reform to make elections fairer. But I don’t think the correct response is to prohibit someone from being on the ballot simply because they have been in that office for a specified period of time.
- Garfield Ridge Guy - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:43 am:
Term limits are sort of like making a law that forces everyone to eat more spinach. Such a law, and term limits, would undoubtedly make things better, but they aren’t compatible with American and constitutional norms of allowing people to make bad choices if they’d like to.
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:51 am:
- It’s like a non-stop, mad dash of self interest there as lawmakers try to line up their next jobs. -
Agreed, if you run for office for financial gain term limits only speed up the process. That said I’m ambivalent about term limits overall, I think there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
- JoanP - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:51 am:
We already have term limits. They’re called “elections”.
- Suburban Dad - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:56 am:
Has Chicago Mag not heard of the State of Ohio? They have had term limits in their legislative bodies for several years and a former Speaker of the House was sentenced to a long prison sentence for a $60 million bribe scandal. Why didn’t term limits solve that problem?
- Anyone Remember - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 10:58 am:
In addition to Missouri’s problems noted above, term limits are generally proposed by people to take out the “best player” on the other side.
A proposed / actual target of term limits was Mike Madigan / Willie Brown. With a GOP map that made the Illinois Senate GOP for 10 straight years, Mike Madigan beat the GOP 4 out of 5 elections, losing only in the 1994 Newtwave. Willie Brown was in a 39-41 minority (after the Newtwave) and still got elected Speaker.
Term limits are like saying Michael Jordan should have been forced to retire after 5 seasons (the first NBA title was his 6th season).
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:02 am:
===So why haven’t term limits happened?===
Because it was always about Madigan here.
===Has Chicago Mag not heard of the State of Ohio? ===
Now, now, don’t let mere facts and logic interfere with their clear brilliance.
To the question: I lean toward term-limiting the four tops.
- Telly - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:04 am:
== Has Chicago Mag not heard of the State of Ohio? They have term limits… ==
Amen. And the case that led to the conviction of the Ohio speaker of the house in 2023 is incredibly similar to the Madigan case. It even involved an electric power generator.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:05 am:
Haven’t seen a reference to the cut back amendment in many years.
To the question: I’m against all term limits. If local people want Joe Schmoe representing them, then he should stay until they change their minds.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:18 am:
Oppose term limits; moreso based on the experiences in states that have them. I don’t see that it solves anything and it comes with its own problems. Term limits for the four tops is worth exploring as a rule rather than a law to see its effects.
- Old IL Dude - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:19 am:
Term limits? No.
Age limits? Oh, heck yeah.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:21 am:
Did you know in Florida, freshman legislators elect someone to be the Speaker when they’re in their fourth and final term? The very first year they are in office.
I’m opposed to term limits generally. I could be persuaded towards imposing them on leaders, but no further
- @misterjayem - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:24 am:
Any problems that might be solved with term limits could be better solved using other means.
– MrJM
- Telly - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:26 am:
Ask anyone who monitors state legislatures around the country and they will tell you that in each of the states that have adopted term limits since it became popular in the 1990’s, the most consequential outcome has not been “cleaner” government. It’s been the empowerment of lobbyists and staffers. They end up being the only folks in the State House with institutional knowledge because of the legislators’ lack of experience. Michigan just extend the length of term limits by referendum in recognition of this.
Limits on leadership terms makes a little more sense, but I’d rather see a ban on outside income for leaders. By far, the sleaziest stuff Madigan did was cozy-up to Ald. Solis in an effort to win legal business. Make Speaker/Senate Prez a full time job (it already is) and pay them the same salary as the governor.
- low level - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:30 am:
==them, then he should stay until they change their mind==
agree there’s no way I should be legally disabled from voting for my representative for as long as I want as long as I’m satisfied with his service. As soon as I am dissatisfied, I can vote for his replacement.
- Oldtimer - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:34 am:
Looking at the state’s recent political convictions, nearly all were experienced legislators with lengthy service. They had enough time in to have accumulated some clout or had developed sufficient knowledge to try to game the system.
Term limits might actually save some of these folks from themselves, forcing them to get out before they become too important or too criminally minded.
- JS Mill - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:36 am:
=We already have term limits. They’re called “elections”.=
This.
Term limits for legislative leadership positions is probably fine. I don’t have a strong opinion there.
If anyone thinks that term limits, better pay, free ice cream or any other incentive is going to stop someone from criminal activity, they haven’t paid any attention to human history.
What we have, and it is getting worse, is a dearth of meaningful oversight. Inspector general with real authority as just one example. Investments there may provide some help.
- Give Us Barabbas - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:53 am:
Was also going to say that term limits are called elections, also agree that term limiting leadership roles is a good idea, creating some turnover without disrupting which party the people put in charge. Rauner’s effort was a blatant attempt to get around a person he couldn’t beat in a fair election.
- Annon'in - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 11:53 am:
Pundit Capt Fax”To the question: I lean toward term-limiting the four tops.”
And that would result in????
The never ending question here is results —smarter kids, smoother roads, cleaner air/water, heck even lower property taxes.
Pretty sure there is no showing any of this happens to any degree in states with term limits. But it is a fun discussion for a summer day where the weather mostly sux.
- Banish Misfortune - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 12:01 pm:
Term limits come about because the other party does not like who you are electing. In general I am opposed. Republicans didn’t like Roosevelt so term limits for president were adopted. Everyone seemed to agree (aren’t you glad now?) and were easily adopted. But for a legislator? Who is one of many? If he or she is corrupt, or mentally incompetent go after that. I don’t think you can legislate good government. You basically need a good informed electorate to get good government.
- City Zen - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 12:17 pm:
All lawmakers should have term limits because there are enough offices available to fill a career’s worth of service should they wish.
You could limit state rep/senator terms to 10 years total each and that same person could serve their district for 20 years. Plenty of time to get whatever they want done.
- Leatherneck - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 12:24 pm:
Instead of term limits, how about apply the Rule of 85 to lawmakers. But instead, treat that as mandatory retirement if their age plus years of service equals 85.
And apply the same rules to all levels of government. State and local.
Also a limit on how many times someone can unsuccesfully run for office without winning. (I’m talking to you, Pat Quinn).
- Paul Powell - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 12:25 pm:
Michael Madigan had a 36 year reign as Speaker of the House and 23 years as Head of the Illinois Democratic Party
Hard to take the No Kings rally in Illinois seriously
- Just Me 2 - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 12:40 pm:
I’ve always been against term limits for rank and file legislators. If a district wants to keep sending the same person each time that is their decision, not the state’s or anyone else’s.
The underlying problem is we don’t have fair maps and real campaigns.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 12:53 pm:
===Hard to take the No Kings rally in Illinois seriously ===
A majority of those protesters probably don’t even know who he is.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 1:08 pm:
No term limits. The system can solve itself. Rauner was overwhelmingly voted out. Democrats stepped up and forced Madigan out. Blagojevich was impeached.
While Madigan looks forward to jail, Republicans have their 34-count felon in the WH and fully support him. What a joke, any reform calls from the right. What is that called, when only the president is above the law?
- Mason County - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 1:15 pm:
Interesting t5hat there has benn no ‘grass roots support” for a CA bnallot on this issue. If anyone is expecting the political leaders to propose one then they beleive in Santa Claus
- Mason County - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 1:15 pm:
Interesting t5hat there has benn no ‘grass roots support” for a CA bnallot on this issue. If anyone is expecting the political leaders to propose one then they beleive in Santa Claus
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 1:29 pm:
No term limits. If the leaders want to limit their terms as leaders, I can live with that, but I think as a voter, I should be able to vote for the person I think is best for the job, regardless of how long they have served.
- RNUG - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 1:33 pm:
I would support terms for the House and Senate, but something along the lines of a total of 20 years total for those 2 positions. That way you can maintain institutional knowledge but limit any dynasty building.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 1:37 pm:
“A majority of those protesters probably don’t even know who he is.”
Isn’t just them,Rich.
In my part of Forgottonia a majority overall don’t even know who their city council rep is,much less anyone on a state level.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 1:40 pm:
Term limits I have gone from an absolute no on to a semi-conditional yes.
Yes on term limits forleadership positions and yes on an age limit for office.
- Lurker - Friday, Jun 20, 25 @ 2:22 pm:
I’m for term limits and age limits (both a minimum and a maximum)