Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Editorial boards are not pleased with Congressman Tim Johnson’s retirement announcement. SJ-R…

JEERS to U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, for waiting until after his overwhelming victory in the March 20 GOP primary to decide he’s not going to seek a seventh term in Congress. We can’t begrudge anyone’s decision to step away from public life to spend more time with his grandchildren, as Johnson said he wants to do at a news conference on Thursday. And with 41 years in public life — Johnson started his political career on the Urbana City Council in 1971 — Johnson certainly has earned some uninterrupted family time. But the time for this decision should have been last year, when the new congressional district map was issued, not after earning a decisive victory in the Republican primary for the new 13th District. Deciding to retire before the primary would have given Republicans in the district, which includes most of Springfield and Decatur and stretches southwest to the Mississippi River, the chance to choose their candidate for the general election. Now a political scramble is almost sure to follow as GOP county chairmen in the district select a candidate.

* Pantagraph…

However, his legacy of service will be diminished by the fact he denied voters in the 13th District a chance to choose a candidate against the backdrop of a spirited primary race.

* Jacksonville Journal-Courier…

The situation likely has Democrats rubbing their hands with glee. Now, instead of facing an entrenched incumbent with a formidable war chest, Gill, who has lost to Johnson in 15th District races on three occasions, will be pitted against someone who has to build a campaign organization and raise money on short notice. Unless the new GOP nominee already has held a fairly high-profile office, name recognition among voters also will be a problem.

* Some other developments…

* Replacing Rep. Johnson could take weeks: Although a formal timeline for the appointment process is still in the works, the Urbana Republican cannot formally withdraw his name from the ballot until April 17, which is when state election regulators certify the results of the March 20 primary election. The delay will give potential candidates time to begin campaigning for the ballot spot, which is coming open because Johnson is not seeking a seventh term in Congress. Under state law, the GOP chairmen in the 14 counties that comprise the newly configured 13th Congressional District will choose a new candidate based on a weighted vote. There’s also a wrinkle with the county chairman situation. They are not formally elected by a vote of the GOP precinct committeemen until April 18. In some counties, it remains unclear who will be the county chairman when it comes time to select Johnson’s replacement.

* Schoenburg: Quite a few could throw hat in 13th ring

* Ex-chief of staff Clarke may have early lead to replace Johnson

* Clarke will try for Johnson seat

* 1 potential front-runner says he wants to replace Johnson, while another not interested: State Rep. Chapin Rose of Mahomet, meanwhile, says he isn’t interested. Another potential candidate, state Rep. Adam Brown of Decatur says he’d like to be considered.

* Bill Brady won’t try to replace Johnson

* Barickman: Wouldn’t have sought House seat

* Jim Bob Morris throws hat in ring for Congress

* The Question: Should Illinois law be changed to mandate another primary when a nominee drops out of a campaign? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 1:50 pm

Comments

The answer to this sort of issue is to make primaries closer to generals, but I’m not sure that these cases require a new law. I would want to see data from the past 20 years of primaries and see how many nominees dropped out in order to be replaced. My guess is there are a few high profile cases like this, but otherwise it’s a rare occurrence.

Comment by Tom B. Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:02 pm
While I don’t think anotherprimary is warranted, perhaps in the case of contested primaries the slot should go to the contender with the highest vote total.

Comment by kerfuffle Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:03 pm
We can’t afford it.

Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:15 pm
It’s a punk move when done regardless of party. I voted yes, but not sure if that is the answer. If nothing else it should go to the elected committeemen with a weighted vote like you get for county party chair and require a secret ballot.

Comment by OneMan Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:17 pm
Cheryl44 got it right.

Comment by Bigtwitch Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:25 pm
I voted no we waste enough money on our politicans.The voters voted for a mope like Smith,they get what they diserve.Johnson’s move was pure C.S.
Looks like there is no shortage of mopes in either party.

Comment by mokenavince Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:25 pm
I voted yes. This sort of thing goes on all the time in both parties, but that doesn’t make it right at all. Appointment politics is not good for people.

Another option would be that if a primary winner resigns from the ballot within 60 days after winning a primary, the second place canidate should automatically get the nomination.

Comment by siriusly Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:28 pm
I voted yes, but not sure if another primary is the best option either. Our election law leads to unelected rule, party control over popular control, and virtual plutocracy (see: Emil III).

But at the same time, elections are already too expensive and we need LESS money in politics, not more. A special primary would only require more donations, more fundraisers, and more adherence to donors once elected.

Maybe a party should be disqualified from fielding a candidate in the general if their winner resigns after the primary. Maybe that would keep this from happening.

Comment by Senator Clay Davis Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:28 pm
Yes, for the simple reason that shenanigans like this will become far, far less common.

The Tribune editorial board had a nice piece recently about the General Assembly’s makeup.

Spoiler Alert: It focused exclusively on Democratic appointees.

That said, far too many members of the Chicago City
Council and the General Assembly got their foot in the door not by facing the voters, but through appointment either to an “open seat” or an “open” primary slot.

A better, more far reaching solution than the one posited by CapFax would be to prohibit appointments to fill ALL primary vacancies, except where the party nominee is forced to withdraw by Death. That’ll add new meaning to the term “taking one for the team.”

Where a seated official resigns, I’d have the vacancy filled by weighted vote of committeemen from BOTH parties, not just the vacating party, unless or until a special election is held. That would bring the game of musical chairs to a screeching halt.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:28 pm
Johnson keeps the $464,000 in campaign funds, right?
And the aggressive fundraising of the previous quarter will be forgiven, right? I don’t believe for a second this wasn’t planned when the new district maps came out. Disgusting…

Comment by Chefjeff Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:29 pm
Again, unless the candidate dies, I say leave the nomination blank.

If Jerry Clarke wants the job so bad, let him run as a write-in.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:30 pm
Yes, but I fear the price tag that would come with it.

Comment by Dirty Red Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:33 pm
NO vote.
Johnson is self serving and did the Republican party a no favor, with his untimely decision.

Comment by Louie Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:37 pm
Yes. This happens too often. Such a law would prevent many of these late decisions. To save money and retain some fairness, the replacement primary could be conducted by mail and should include only those who had drawn a ballot in the original primary.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:38 pm
No.

If the candidate drops out for reasons other than death or illness or a pet eating critical paper work, make the dopout’s party forfeit the election.

All states can change to a single open election with Instant Run Off.

If private groups want to select their candidate, let card-carrying club party members with the correct password meet at venues accessible only to them, like a bank arena in a luscious mid-sized city near our piedmont.

Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 2:39 pm
“we can’t afford it”. Then our officials should spend their money better. Vote on.

Comment by Shore Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:04 pm
Sure, if you think we can get to be more broke than we are now.

Comment by Homer J. Simpson Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:07 pm
So are the people who want the spot vacated wanting the Derrick Smith spot vacated too?

Comment by Primary Me Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:16 pm
No.

Voters have the chance to punish a party’s bad choice as nominee in the general election and devoted partisans can oppose the county chairmen by getting more involved in the party or opposing/pressuring their precinct committeeman based on what a county chairman did in the next primary election.

As the Scott Lee Cohen fiasco showed, primary voters should not be deemed automatically better at choosing candidates for public office than party officials are at determining nominees.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:17 pm
Voted “Yes”, but I’d hope for something less cumbersome than another primary. BTW, didn’t Lipinski (elder) do the same thing so his son could be “selected” to run? Just askin’.

Comment by JustaJoe Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:29 pm
As for the conduct of Johnson himself in retiring after the primary, I saw his tearful press conference talking about wanting to see his grandkids and while I’m sure that’s part of it, I just don’t buy that was the only reason he retired.

Has anyone had a chance to ask Johnson if his retirement is a way to get back at Eric Cantor/House GOP leadership and his Central Illinois Republican colleagues for what they did to Don Manzullo? (Where it’s come out that Schock and Cantor did even more to help Manzullo than previously known by funneling funds to help Kinzinger through an anti-incumbent superPAC)
http://www.rollcall.com/news/Eric_Cantor_Gave_Money_to_Super_PAC_to_Aid_Adam_Kinzinger-213651-1.html

Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:30 pm
If one takes hisgirlfriday’s thoughts to their logical conclusion, it would seem that we should do away with primaries entirely and go to a caucus system to select nominees. It’s cheaper and many townships already do this to select their slates of officials.

Comment by muon Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:38 pm
@muon

That’s what you get for assuming my thoughts have a logical conclusion.

But I do not support doing away with primaries entirely and moving to a caucus system. I just don’t think the occasional Phil Hare/Tim Johnson situation is worth burdening local taxpayers and county clerks with the expense and inconvenience of administering multiple primary elections for a single race, when the county party chairmen caucus arrangement appears to me as a perfectly acceptable back-up plan for choosing a nominee when the preferred option of the primary doesn’t work out.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:44 pm
Oh and my post at 3:40 obviously should be “HURT” and not “help” Manzullo.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 3:46 pm
No, unless the party of the dropout picks up election costs.

Comment by Wensicia Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 4:08 pm
Voted no. I don’t like the current system and agree that there needs to be a better way to replace candidates that for whatever reason leave after the primary, I don’t think an expensive and (probably) very low turnout primary is the solution.

I like YDD’s idea of both R and D committeemen agreeing on the replacement. That jives with my belief that elected officials represent the whole community, not just the club that has the right letter after its name. Throw in non-partisan districting and we’re well on our way to making me feel better about breaking down the unnecessarily partisan process of governing. Heck, bring in public financing and shorter elections and I’d be in hog heaven.

Not that any of those things will happen, or if they did, that they would have any effect on the outcome. But I’d certainly feel good for a few months before the new flaws came to light.

Comment by Colossus Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 4:25 pm
No. It’s not honest or fair, I agree. But primaries are the business of the parties not the government. I am in favor of privately run primaries by party members only, with some minimal state regulation to ensure fair processes. Have a convention. Have a de minimis membership fee (fee

Comment by Southern Peggy R Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 4:29 pm
A second primary comes with a financial burden local governments can not afford. A more practical solution would be for the the runner-up to automatically fill the slot.

Comment by jimmyd Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 4:30 pm
No, for several reasons. 1. timing 2. An uncontested primary would lead to an advantage against the opposing party. Free publicity, news coverage etc. 3. Cost

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 4:39 pm
Yes. I didn’t like this when Lipinski did it (in fact I loathed Dan until the day I got redistricted out of the 3rd for this specific reason). At least in Stroger’s case it was a health emergency and not something like retirement that was planned (though I didn’t like the hiding there, either).

Open seats should be intra-party food fights and the best individual win; not handoffs. And punishing the party by voting for the opposition isn’t reasonable as 1. gerrymandering makes it unlikely a vote counts for anything and 2. some of us would rather cut our right hand off than use it to select a member of the opposition party.

I vote for hold another primary but with the requirement that the withdrawing candidate has to pay for the primary unless it’s a matter of a sudden health emergency or death.

Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 6:04 pm
I don’t know much about this guy, but the “I want to spend more time with my wife/kids/grandkids” excuse is almost always baloney sausage. The timing in this case stinks.

However, another primary is not the answer. It’s too costly to hold a separate election for one office. Appointments are a lousy option but it’s all we have.

Comment by DuPage Dave Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 6:15 pm
He quit. It’s his right. Things change & maybe it really was his time to bow out for good & legitamate reasons. Noone was coronated here including those some may have speculated about for years. County chairs will pick a candidate from whomever wishes to be considered. It’s the process. A “NO” vote here…too costly. It’s a primary, party election…not a general election. Who ever does take it on will have their work cut out for them.

Comment by perplexed by it all Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 6:38 pm
Unworkable and too expensive.

Comment by mark walker Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 10:01 pm
Per US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 2, § 4, Congressional vacancies can only be filled via special election.

As to filling a declared vacancy on ballot, it’s hard to get worked up over committeemen making a selection when the parties have structured a duopoly over access onto the ballot in the first place.

Changing the primary election day will not modify either primary or general election behaviors (CA has a June primary, NY is September). First and foremost, insiders will always have a level of information assymetry over both their electorates as well as their competition that is (generally) most effectively countered by the use of resources (usually money) to increase name recognition of alternate options.

Now, a quicker way of forcing this issue is having TV, radio, and newspapers give away (or sell at well-below market rates) advertising. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the Tribune Editorial Page selling THAT soup sandwich.

Comment by Abu Iskandr Monday, Apr 9, 12 @ 10:54 pm
I voted “no”.

Can we please stop spending money? A primary “do-over” for one office would cost a fortune and voter turnout would be low, apathy high.

Comment by Knome Sane Tuesday, Apr 10, 12 @ 8:49 am
I suppose one way to shut down a Lipinski type “fix-is-in” scenario would be to pass a law that prohibits an appointee to the ballot from seeking re-election in the next cycle.

Comment by Knome Sane Tuesday, Apr 10, 12 @ 9:05 am
No.
Our process works. It’s a little frustrating that these conversations spark every time there is some malfeasance in the electoral process. For whatever reason the media and the government watchdog groups and then the legislature take up all these proposals that make our policymakers look totally reactionary, and, the sad part of it all, is that the public could care less.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 10, 12 @ 9:07 am
@Anon-

I’m sorry, but how do you argue our process “works” and allows “malfeasance” at the same time?

The lack of public demonstrations is hardly a reason to allow malfeasance to continue. In fact, its more of a measure that both political parties are comfortable with the status quo.

That’s how we got 60 years of skipped pension payments.

Governance by crisis is not responsible management. We should not wait until problems rise to the level of crisis and public outrage to take action.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 10, 12 @ 9:35 am
YDD, just to be clear… you are not making the claim that we would not have 60 years of skipped pension payments if only we had more special elections every time someone resigned between the primary and the general election?

Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Apr 10, 12 @ 9:54 am
I voted no. I think a potential way to solve this problem would be making the parties pay for and run primaries. Let them shoulder the cost of choosing their own candidates, and let them hold accountable a candidate who drops out after securing the nomination.

Comment by Infidel Tuesday, Apr 10, 12 @ 9:57 am