* I’ll close the week with a message to the governor’s press staff: If you’re gonna have a Statehouse press briefing on the budget, please invite all the Statehouse bureaus, not just some. How difficult could that possibly be? Thanks for listening.
* And now, Johnny Winter plays some Bob…
I got forty red, white and blue shoe strings
And a thousand telephones that don’t ring
* As I told subscribers yesterday, the circular firing squad had another fine day…
The Illinois Republican Party has retained a prominent law firm and is warning state lawmakers of both parties it will fight any proposed changes to how Republicans choose their top governing body.
State GOP Chairman Andy McKenna today issued the warning after an Illinois Senate panel backed a measure to require that the 19-member Republican State Central Committee be elected by voters at the primary election every four years. Currently, the representatives from each of the state’s congressional districts are chosen by Republican township and county committeemen.
The change long has been pushed by a group of insurgent conservatives looking for a toe-hold in running a political organization beset by strife and hobbled by the scandals surrounding imprisoned former Gov. George Ryan.
The legislation to make the governing change, backed by state Sen. Chris Lauzen of Aurora, got out of an Illinois Senate panel earlier this week on a 5-4 vote. Only one Republican voted for it along with four Democrats. In a video posted on his Web site, Lauzen has blasted the state’s GOP leadership as “domineering parasites” and “self-serving, officious, lying, arrogant thugs” for not supporting his bill.
Saying he was “deeply troubled” by the “misguided and unconstitutional” proposal, McKenna said “the Illinois Republican Party will vigorously defend its rights under the United States Constitution.” […]
“Political parties in Illinois have a right to freedom of association - in other words they have a right to be free from exactly this sort of meddling,” McKenna said. “The Illinois Republican Party takes its First Amendment rights seriously and will not cede those rights to any governmental entity nor to any opposing political party.”
But Lauzen must rely on Democratic support to pass his plan since Republicans only hold 22 of the 59 state Senate seats. Lauzen said he will keep working toward passage.
“How can it be unconstitutional to restore what was there in the beginning?” Lauzen asked. Before 1988, Republican primary voters elected the party’s central committee. Democratic primary voters already elect their central committee.
Lauzen has a point about the constitutionality. The state currently gives state parties two organizational options. Lauzen’s proposal essentially deletes one of those options. The party strongly feels otherwise, however.
…Adding… From the state GOP’s lawyer Bill McGinley of Patton Boggs…
The State’s intrusion is no less unconstitutional now because the Party did not challenge previous statutory regulation: in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986) the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a statute that had been in effect for decades before the Republican Party finally challenged it.
In that case, the law requiring parties to hold closed primaries had been on the books since 1955 and the state parties had not protested. In 1984, the Republicans adopted a new rule to permit independents to participate in their primary . . . after the old law had been enforced against them for THIRTY YEARS. The Party won this challenge and the Supreme Court held that the state could no longer enforce the statute against them.
The Court later reaffirmed this principle, concluding that “[w]e have never held that a political party’s consent will cure a statue that otherwise violates the First Amendment.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 226 (1989).
In short, a state party does not “waive” or “give up” its constitutional rights simply because it did not protest prior regulation. Freedom of association entitles Parties to determine their current internal governance in accordance with the desires of current members; this is the entire point of protecting their right to define their own organization, its membership, and its message in response to changing times. State regulation that infringes that internal control is unconstitutional, regardless of whether past Party members objected to similar encroachment in prior legislation.
