* Proponents of allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain limited drivers licenses thought Monday night that they were short of passage by a vote or two. Others thought it wasn’t even that close. So, why did the bill get 66 House votes yesterday? Well, some support came from unlikely quarters. And some folks were turned off by the debate. A sample…
Other opponents, including several South Side Democrats, pointed out the unfairness in depriving someone in the U.S. legally of driving privileges for not paying child support but allowing those here illegally a pathway to a drivers license.
“I believe that all of these provisions in the state of Illinois denying an Illinois citizen from a drivers license should darn well be considered, whose background we know, before we give a drivers license to those we don’t know,” said Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), who voted against the bill.
Three South Siders voted against the bill. Rep. Bill Cunningham stuck with the cops, who opposed it. Reps. Monique Davis and Mary Flowers voted “No” as well. Both ended up losing bids for leadership.
Debate in the House lasted nearly 90 minutes, with critics arguing the new immigrant drivers licenses put the state on record as condoning illegal entry into the country, set up a system that can be exploited by fraud and ignore the fact immigration policy is a federal responsibility, not a state one.
“There will be fraud, abuse. All I have to say is people have called me a hater, a racist,” said Rep. Randy Ramey (R-Carol Stream), who voted against the plan. “All I’m doing is standing by what the Constitution of the United States of America says. If the fed government wants to change the rules, I’d stand by that.”
But, if it’s supposedly “in the Constitution,” then how can the feds “change the rules”?
As I noted yesterday on the live blog, Ramey also made a fruitless attempt to stall the bill by asking for some pretty ridiculous impact notes. That likely didn’t go over well, either.
A dormant gambling expansion bill that would bring a casino to Chicago moved to Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk Tuesday after the state Senate’s top Democrat quietly lifted a parliamentary paperweight that he’d placed on the plan nearly two years ago.
The likelihood that the governor would affix his signature to the package seemed remote since Quinn once belittled the effort as “top heavy” and “excessive,” and the top state gambling regulator whom the governor appointed called it a “pile of garbage.”
Before the close of the lame-duck legislative session Tuesday, Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) removed a parliamentary hold he’d put on the bill immediately after it passed the Senate in May 2011.
By releasing the hold, Cullerton now puts Quinn in a position where he could, should he choose to, use the legislation as a bargaining chip in his stalled pursuit of cuts to state pension benefits. The Senate president has been an active supporter of gambling expansion, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pushed hard for a city casino.
The state Constitution gives Quinn 60 calendar days to act on the gambling bill - two months into the spring legislative session when presumably finding a way to solve the state’s $95 billion pension crisis will remain on the frontburner after lawmakers whiffed at efforts to pass a pension bill this week.
I don’t see how the governor has any leverage, though; with Democratic supermajorities in the new legislature, he’s not really at the table anymore. Why would legislative leaders and/or Rahm - who really, really, really, really wants a casino - give up anything to Quinn to get pension reform in exchange for getting a gambling bill signed when they can now pass a veto-proof gambling bill on their own?
Quinn is now about as relevant as Squeezy.
I suppose it could be used as a chip, but it would be pretty darned irresponsible to do that and I don’t see Cullerton making that sort of move. I hope I’m right.
* More…
* Feds say expanding Medicaid in Illinois could bring in billions, but lawmakers are wary
* Editorial: Don’t trim at-risk kids out of state budgets
* Oswego Willy displayed his Golden Horseshoe Award chops in comments today…
Quinn becomes more and more the “deer in headlights” because the levers of the Executive are too complicated to wield, and not because Madigan and Cullerton want to be so difficult, but because Quinn puts the Two true Leaders in position to HAVE to take on more of a role than the 1/3 that the Constitution describes.
This is the absolute heart of the problem. We have a basically well-intentioned governor who simply cannot govern.
There are plenty of other aspects, of course. Madigan has yet to truly get behind a pension fix, for example. But Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan all found ways to work with Madigan to get big things done and move this state forward. Pat Quinn has shown over and over and over again that he just can’t. And, as a citizen, I’m really getting tired of it.
* Senate President Pro Tempore Don Harmon withdrew his motion to reconsider last night, meaning that the so-called “management bill” is heading to the governor’s desk. Harmon released a statement yesterday about his decision and what preceded it, calling the years-long process “one of the most difficult and frustrating negotiations of my career.” An excerpt…
The bill itself is not the draconian “Scott-Walker-esque” horror show that some opponents describe. If the bill were signed into law, it would not affect “thousands” of union employees, though it may affect hundreds of state employees who probably never should have been unionized in the first place. Still, no one will lose a job—they will just be removed from the collective bargaining unit.
Immediately after the Senate approved the bill, I filed a motion to reconsider the vote. This was a procedural means to keep the bill in the Senate’s control while we tried one last time to negotiate a fair rebalancing of the State’s workforce, giving the Governor the tools he needs to govern, and protecting the right of rank-and-file workers to organize and bargain collectively.
While we were not able to negotiate a comprehensive solution before my motion expired, I did secure several key promises from the Governor. Most importantly, the Governor committed to the following four points:
1. He will negotiate with the unions a fair and equitable process for implementing the bill, which will permit, whenever possible, employees to transfer into union positions rather than be removed from the union;
2. He will not sign the bill before the deadline so that negotiations of the implementation process and clarifying legislation can unfold;
3. He will not use the full measure of authority granted to him, and will designate fewer employees than allowed by law for exclusion from collective bargaining; and
4. He will not reduce the salary of any employee whose position is excluded from collective bargaining.
The anti-climatic end to the 97th General Assembly had even the powerful leader of the House, Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-Chicago), at a loss for words as he contemplated starting the whole process of pension reform from scratch this spring.
“You know, it’s kinda hard to have thoughts, isn’t it?” Madigan said as he left the Capitol.
Cullerton, meanwhile, defended the governor’s work on pensions, though in a backhanded fashion.
“I think the guy’s done a good job. Now, it’s not his strength passing legislation in the General Assembly. You know that. So, he’s never really been in the General Assembly,” Cullerton said. “But the four leaders have been here. We know how to pass bills.”
One ally of Quinn’s allies said he “put everything out there on the field today” with his press secretary refusing to take the bait on any suggestion the governor played a role in the inaction.
After their stunning failure, legislative leaders said all the right things about getting back to work. The two main pension bills will be refiled immediately, one by Rep. Elaine Nekritz and Sen. Daniel Biss and another by Sen. President John Cullerton. This time around, notably, Cullerton’s bill will cover four pension systems rather than just two.
Cullerton believes only his approach is allowed under the state Constitution, which protects benefits from being diminished, and we believe his argument has merit.
He proposes passing both bills and letting the Illinois Supreme Court decide which is constitutional. Nekritz said she is open to the idea, so long as it’s cleared by constitutional lawyers. That’s a big if, but at this point it’s hard to see another path forward. More input from the state’s unions also would be helpful.
The only good news is that the hard work is mostly done. The broad contours of a painful but desperately needed pension overhaul are at hand.
All that’s missing is courage.
I think what Cullerton said was that he’d let the Nekritz/Cross plan have a shot at the courts first before his plan could be enacted.
But the hard work is definitely not “mostly done.” The Senate passed its bill, but the House’s bill is way short of clearing that chamber right now. And neither bill has majority support in the other chamber at the moment. What’s required here is leadership, and there’s precious little of that in these parts.
* Speaking of leadership, or the lack thereof, I couldn’t agree more with Mark Brown’s assessment of Gov. Pat Quinn’s last minute gambit to create a commission that could force pension changes into law…
I imagine Quinn’s idea sounds good to some people, taking the power away from the Legislature, and maybe it will sound better to me after a few more months or years of inaction. But springing it at the last minute just looked desperate and weak.
So the dead-duck session has ended, and the next General Assembly will be sworn into service at noon Wednesday. There is, at this writing, absolutely no reason to think the next Legislature will be more committed than the last to solving this problem.
That’s not really true. As I’ve pointed out before, many of the newly elected legislators are bringing a fresh approach to pension reform, which was an issue in every one of their races. Also, a significant credit ratings downgrade could panic people into taking action. And then there’s the impact this is having on the budget.
Rep. David Leitch, a Peoria Republican and former banker, said it was a “gross mistake” to end the session without calling the Nekritz plan for a House vote and added that it might be more difficult to advance the measure in the new General Assembly.
Leitch said the lame-duck session would have been the “ideal time” to move the bill because lawmakers who had one foot out the door could have been persuaded to take difficult votes because they won’t have to face voters again.
“Typically, that’s when you do tough things,” Leitch said. “This is a tough thing. Unfortunately, we didn’t do it.”
Lame duck Democrats are free to vote like Democrats. That’s what happened with the income tax hike, civil unions and death penalty repeal two years ago. This time around, we’re talking about getting lame duck Democrats to vote more like Republicans. Not easy at all, particularly when some retirees are counting on their pensions, and others don’t want to vote for something that could hurt them in any future careers as lobbyists. This was always a super tall order, to say the least.
* Let’s all hope that the new General Assembly can accomplish what the old General Assembly could not. Blackberry users click here, everybody else can just watch right here…
The Commission shall determine the changes to law necessary to ensure that the State Employee Retirement System, the General Assembly Retirement System, the State University Retirement System, and the Teacher’s Retirement System will reach 100% actuarial funding for all then-existing liabilities not later than December 31, 2045, calculated and defined in full accordance with the applicable standards and guidelines of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. […]
General Assembly Disapproval of the Report. The General Assembly may disapprove the report of the Commission in whole within thirty legislative days after the report is filed by adoption of a joint resolution by a record vote of the majority of the members elected in each house. If the General Assembly does not adopt a joint resolution disapproving of the report, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate shall certify the bill and it shall be presented to the Governor in accordance with Article 4, Section 9(a) of the Illinois Constitution. The Governor shall sign the bill and it shall become law. The bill shall not be certified if the General Assembly adopts a joint resolution disapproving of the report.
This looks like the federal base-closing commission.
The General Assembly shall enact laws only by bill. Bills may originate in either house, but may be amended or rejected by the other.
No bill shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each house. Final passage of a bill shall be by record vote. In the Senate at the request of two members, and in the House at the request of five members, a record vote may be taken on any other occasion. A record vote is a vote by yeas and nays entered on the journal.
…Adding More… This looks a bit like the old and now defunct pay raise commission. Back then, legislators in both chambers had to vote to reject the commission’s pay raise recommendations or they’d take effect.
Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
HB 5440 calls for a new tax increase on the 1.3 million Illinois families and businesses who subscribe to satellite TV. A recent statewide poll conducted by We Ask America confirms there is universal opposition to the cable industry’s push to place this NEW 5% tax on satellite TV service. The poll was conducted on November 14, 2012 yielding 1,288 responses with a margin of error of +/- 3%.
Key findings:
* 84% of all respondents oppose a new satellite tax
* 81% of cable subscribers even oppose this concept
* Opposition is strong among both Democrats & Republicans – 83% (D) and 87% (R)
* Regional Opposition
o Chicago 81%
o Suburban Cook 77%
o Collar Counties 84%
o Downstate 89%
Cable pays rent in the form of franchise fees. Satellite companies don’t pay franchise fees for one simple reason: our technology orbits the earth. Why should satellite customers pay for a service they do not utilize?
Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced she has filed a petition for rehearing before the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in lawsuits challenging the Illinois laws that prevent the carrying of ready-to-use firearms in public.
The Attorney General’s petition for a rehearing “en banc” is a request for all of the judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case after a December decision by a three-judge panel of the court held that the state laws barring carrying ready-to-use firearms in public are unconstitutional.
Madigan’s petition was filed in lawsuits brought against the State of Illinois by Michael Moore, Mary E. Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, which allege that Illinois’ restrictions on the carrying of ready-to-use weapons in public violates their Second Amendment rights. The laws had previously been upheld by two separate federal district courts in Illinois.
In its December decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set a 180-day deadline for the Illinois legislature to draft and enact new laws relating to carrying ready-to-use firearms in public. Today’s petition for rehearing by the Attorney General does not affect that deadline.
Madigan issued the following statement regarding her decision to seek a rehearing:
“In ruling that Illinois must allow individuals to carry ready-to-use firearms in public, the 7th Circuit Court’s decision goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held and conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts. Based on those decisions, it is appropriate to ask the full 7th Circuit to review this case and consider adopting an approach that is consistent with the other appellate courts that have addressed these issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.”
* Seventeen Democrats and five Republicans filed to run for former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s seat yesterday. Sun-Times…
Longtime political analyst Don Rose said not only will money be important in the race to replace Jackson but how a candidate spends it will be critical.
“There’s no question that fund-raising is important,” he said. “Nobody has a district-wide reputation so they simply [have] to get their message out. Money is a substantial part of the ballgame.”
Rose qualified that, however, pointing out that U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley was far outspent when he ran in a special election in 2009, and he won with about 22 percent of the vote.
Rose said Halvorson is the only candidate to have a district-wide name, having run in the primary and agreed she probably didn’t need to fund raise as much as other candidates.
On the Republican side, Beverly Reid of Chicago joined the previously announced Lenny McAllister of Maywood. Paul McKinley of Bronzeville, Freedom’s Journal Magazine publisher Eric Wallace of Flossmoor and James Taylor Sr. of downstate Bradley also entered the contest Monday.
* Meanwhile, Robin Kelly has a new campaign Internet promo video. Rate it…
The Illinois Board of Elections holds a lottery on Tuesday to determine ballot positions for the Feb. 26 primaries to fill the seat left vacant with the resignation of former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.)
Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
At a time when Illinois is facing another budget crisis, our state continues to fall behind in modernizing its revenue laws to adapt to the current marketplace. For example, cable and other video providers are paying industry standard state and local taxes and fees, while satellite providers – who represent a third of the market and make hundreds of millions in revenue – exploit a corporate loophole to minimize taxes and fees.
The reality is there is a price of doing business in a market where you use a public good, like our roads and infrastructure. House Bill 5440 closes the satellite TV corporate tax loophole and raises up to $75 million for education.
HB 5440 is being championed by individuals and groups statewide who recognize this crisis and want it addressed.
Close the satellite loophole and support our students. Vote YES on HB 5440! To learn more and make your voice heard, visit www.YesOn5440.com.
* Here’s the hard, simple truth about pension reform, or anything for that matter: Nothing difficult ever gets done unless House Speaker Michael J. Madigan pushes his members to vote for it. Period. End of story. And, so far, MJM is not working his members.
Many in the House did not want to take up a controversial issue when the Senate isn’t even around to consider it. Some Democrats refused to commit to voting for the plan when they didn’t know how many Republicans also were willing to stick out their necks.
Others stood against any pension changes. Some who were willing to entertain a new approach criticized the proposal as too harsh on public employees and retirees. Still others contended the proposal violates a state constitutional prohibition on diminishing or impairing public employee pensions, as union officials have maintained. […]
And then there are the outgoing lame-duck lawmakers. While those who lost in November or are retiring are politically insulated from facing the voters again, they aren’t eager to use their last minutes in public office to vote for a proposal that would reduce their own retirement benefits.
But the easiest blame was cast upon absent state senators and their leader, Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago.
“There are a number of people who are talking about the Senate,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, a sponsor of the pension measure, which advanced earlier Monday from a House committee on a 6-3 vote. “But those are some of the people who, if not the Senate, also would have found another excuse.”
* And I’m not sure that this interpretation is correct…
If lawmakers don’t meet their deadline Wednesday, the General Assembly can start again. About three dozen new lawmakers will be sworn in Wednesday for the new session.
“I don’t think we need to start over from scratch,” Nekritz said. “This is a piece of legislation that has had the most bipartisan support and the most momentum behind it.”
The Senate has actually passed a pension reform bill - twice. However, it has little support in the House, so far.
We have said the Nekritz bill is constitutionally suspect, though its sponsors can muster some compelling arguments. Despite that, it gets our backing because it is the only comprehensive bill in play. Cullerton’s bill, which passed the Senate in May, only covers two of the five state pension systems, generating only about one-third of the needed savings. Though a better bet constitutionally speaking, any bill is a gamble given protections in the state Constitution.
But the Senate Democrats contend that a bill as unconstitutional as the Nekrtiz/Cross proposal would upset ratings agencies even more. Check the bottom of Page 1 of this document, for example.
