Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Metra not invited to first Metra committee meeting?
Next Post: Morning shorts
Posted in:
Posted by Barton Lorimor (@bartonlorimor)
Rauner contended Tuesday that backers of the new initiative had learned from that experience, and hence joined the term-limit proposal with the other proposed reforms. While cutting the size of the Senate from 59 members to 41, it would expand the House to 123 from 118 members, which Rauner argued would make races more competitive.
Rauner also proposes changing the number of votes needed to override a governor’s veto to two-thirds from three-fifths. He said that would give the governor a stronger role and bring Illinois in line with Congress’ checks on the presidency.
Reaction to the proposal was almost immediate. The Tribune editorial board, for example, fell in love with the proposal within hours after it was announced…
Voters are disgusted with entrenched politics here. The Paul Simon poll found 79 percent favored term limits, a number consistent with previous polls.
Asked what they believed would be the best way to curb corruption in state government, voters responding to a Tribune poll in 2010 put term limits at the top of the list.
They do want to take back their state. First step: Find a petition. Second step: Sign it.
Scott Reeder and the Illinois Review piled on.
Illinois already has one of the more powerful chief executives thanks primarily to the amendatory veto. Critics have suggested this would make the Governor even more powerful. They may easily be right. Also…
University of Illinois Professor Chris Mooney says Bruce Rauner’s petition drive to limit lawmakers to eight years in office is savvy in its three-pronged approach. The Winnetka venture capitalist’s proposal would not only limit the length of terms but also cut the size of the Senate and make it harder to override a governor’s veto.
I’ll let you discuss in comments whether that is the correct way to go or not.
Regardless, it would appear as if Bruce Rauner is all in on this one…
Last month, Rauner launched the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits, a ballot initiative PAC that operates differently from a campaign committee in that it has no limit on contributions. Rauner has not yet put any of his own money into the endeavor, but already secured more than $200,000 from investors — including $100,000 from Howard Rich and another $100,000 from former Tribune Co. CEO Sam Zell. Rauner said the initiative would operate completely independently from his campaign with its own staff. Asked whether he would appear in commercials promoting it: “We’ve never even discussed that,” he said, adding that he believes there’s so much public support that ads may not even be needed.
And that just might put opponents Bill Brady, Dan Rutherford, and Kirk Dillard in a tough spot given their tenures in the Legislature exceed the 8-year limit in Rauner’s proposal.It also makes the situation interesting for Gov. Quinn…
Brady says he would support 10-year term limits and has proposed term limits previously. He suggests that Madigan might be more inclined to support the measure now given that the 71-year-old Madigan won’t likely serve more than 10 more years.
Brady has been serving in the legislature for 20 years, the last 11 in the Senate.
Candidate Bruce Rauner’s political action committee plans to ask voters to impose term limits in a November 2014 referendum. Governor Quinn pushed for term limits when he was state treasurer, until the Illinois Supreme Court stopped a ballot initiative.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 12:43 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Metra not invited to first Metra committee meeting?
Next Post: Morning shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
To clarify, I meant just term limits for legislative leaders
Comment by Almost the Weekend Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Barton, the head refers to new AV rules. This changes the vote for veto overrides. Unless I missed something, this would affect total vetoes as well as amendatory vetoes.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:04 pm
==Asked what they believed would be the best way to curb corruption in state government, voters responding to a Tribune poll in 2010 put term limits at the top of the list.==
Attention voters. We already have term limits. They are called elections. That is all.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:10 pm
So if I understand this correctly, there would be three reps for each senator? Would the rep districts be nested within a senate district? Could we add a provision that no more than 2 of the 3 reps be from the same party?
He should call this Operation Reverse Cut-Back.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:16 pm
What winds up happening in states with legislative term limits is that the staff and lobbyists acquire even MORE power since they are the only ones with any institutional knowledge.
Whether you agree or disagree with past proposals and policy positions, inevitably the affected legislators must rely even more on unelected people. We don’t vote for staff or lobbyists - we vote for someone to represent us. And you simply can’t get an effective one without experience.
Good case studies abound and there is a plethora of research on the topic since term limits were first enacted on the state level 20+ years ago.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:17 pm
I would love to see the Tribune voter instruction booklet. The “oh face” on the Trib Editorial board cannot be pretty.
Comment by Obama's Puppy Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:22 pm
One positive to term limits is the reduction in pension for these “rascals”. If they don’t serve over 10 years, then there isn’t much in the way of pensions. And the argument that staffs and lobbyist get stronger isn’t based on facts just opinions. Most of the long-timer serving members are told how to vote anyway by party leaders, who have tremendous clout and power.
Comment by Downstater Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:22 pm
Obtaining a copy of this book would be useful for anyone interested in the subject. I won’t respond to the “facts” comment. See what Professors who have studied the subject in several states (MI and CA especially)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/052154873X
Comment by low level Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:26 pm
I support term limits strongly. I think the length of term is very important though and needs to take into account how our redistricting works. I’d be in favor of 12 years and even in favor of giving State Reps 4 year terms (staggered) to inspire more action than only the first year of each new 2 year GA.
Comment by A guy... Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:33 pm
I reluctantly have bought into the term limits concept. The deck is just too stacked for real elections, so we effectively have no term limits. Look at Derek Smith, for the love of good government. I’m also with Downstater about this “too much power in the hands of staff/lobbyists” argument. With the lack of campaign finance regulations we have, lobbyists and PACS are already running the show. Plus, it’s not like there are a bunch of independent voices in the GA. Instead, we have a bunch of mushrooms.
All that being said, I find the proposal to restructure the GA to be bizarre. Downstate senate districts are often geographically enormous. I think this part of the Rauner proposal is a mistake.
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:35 pm
a different way to go is changing how we draw the district maps. this effort to get a referendum on the ballot next fall is time better spent, IMHO.
yesindependentmaps.org/faqs
Comment by Susiejones Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:55 pm
**Look at Derek Smith, for the love of good government.**
This example makes absolutely no sense. If Rep. Smith is convicted, he’ll be kicked out of the House, long before any term limit would have impacted him. Derrick Smith is absolutely not a reason for term limits.
Comment by dave Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 1:57 pm
I think, and hear from downstate folks a lot in the last couple of weeks, that all his talk just shoots Rauner’s self narrative all to pieces. He claims to be an “outsider”, yet has created a couple (or at this point perhaps more) issue committees to exploit loopholes in the contribution limits of a rather esoteric and arcane election code. Now he puts himself out there by using the platform they provide. The perception of him as just another rich Chicago guy who is tired of buying elections for other people and wants to buy one for himself seems to grow, particualrly downstate, every time he gets his name in the papar.
Comment by McLean Farmboy Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 2:24 pm
–This example makes absolutely no sense. If Rep. Smith is convicted, he’ll be kicked out of the House, long before any term limit would have impacted him. Derrick Smith is absolutely not a reason for term limits
So in spite of FBI tapes, disavowal by key leaders, disgraceful headlines, you are not troubled by the fact that our districts are so non-competitive that someone of Smith’s ilk manages to handily win re-election?
I think it speaks volumes about the problems in IL government.
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 2:50 pm
The senate actually need to be restructured to be more like the US Senate, which gives equal representation to geographic areas. I would suggest 2 adjacent counties per senate district, with the rep districts based on population as they are now. This would give downstate equal power in at least one house in the GA, which is why Chicago dems will never vote for it.
Comment by Boog Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 2:53 pm
Term limits
I will support the concept when people start going to a heart surgeon and asking for the newsest guy with the fewest years as a doctor.
I suppose Rauner would support limitng bankers/investors to no more then 8 years in the job. Those guys broke the economy! if ever we needed to limit time in a position its the inevestment/banking industry!
Same for lawyers, plumber etc.
After all, if inexperience is a good plan for running govt, isnt a good idea for everything? Who wants a CEO of Goldman Sachs who has been arouind more then 8 years? look at the power these CEO’s have!
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 2:56 pm
@47th Ward
Operation Reverse Cut Back? I’m not so sure about that . . .
Removing 18 IL Senate seats and adding 5 House seats reduce the overall size of the General Assembly by 13 and cut downs the IL Senate by 30%
The choice of 41 state senators rather than 42 state senators is interesting. With 41, 14 of 41 would be enough to block a veto over-ride while 15 would be needed if there were 42 state senators.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:04 pm
Having worked in a state with 8/8 limits, I can tell you first hand that in that state, power has shifted to staff and lobbyists because they’re the only ones with the institutional knowledge. Think it takes politics out of is somewhat? Nothin could be further from the truth. When freshman come in, they’re already jockeying for who’s going to be the next Speaker/Majority Leader and they disregard policy in favor of their own ambitions. See Marco Rubio as example A. If you think he controlled the Florida House when he was Speaker, then I’ll tell you that you weren’t there, because he didn’t.
All that said, I’m more than surprised I haven’t seen anything about whether three rep districts would be nested in the senate districts or if they would be three-member districts with proportional representation. Hard to believe no enterprising reporter has even bothered to ask.
And…there’s a kernel of truth to what Dillard has to say vis a vis Senate districts downstate. They’re geographically huge already and under Rauner’s plan, the districts would grow by nearly 50% in population.
Take Forby as an example, he has 11 counties. Forby would have to pick up roughly half of Luechtefeld’s district or half of Righter’s. If he picked up the Bost half of Luechtefeld’s, he’d total about 15 counties and from Indiana over to Missouri. If he picked up the Reis half of Righter’s, he’d end up with about 18-20 counties and extend from Cairo all the way up to Effingham, about a 2.5 hour drive which is all interstate - 162 miles…more than three-quarters of the distance from Chicago to Springfield. That’s ridiculous. But it would probably eliminate a few downstate Dem Senators.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:06 pm
**He claims to be an “outsider”, yet has created a couple (or at this point perhaps more) issue committees to exploit loopholes in the contribution limits of a rather esoteric and arcane election code. **
And exactly how many downstaters, or voters at all, will know anything about this?
**So in spite of FBI tapes, disavowal by key leaders, disgraceful headlines, you are not troubled by the fact that our districts are so non-competitive that someone of Smith’s ilk manages to handily win re-election?
I think it speaks volumes about the problems in IL government.**
And how, exactly, does this have anything to do with term limits? And how, exactly, would term limits address this problem?
And, FWIW, I don’t have much of a problem with the voters electing someone. And any kind of “fair” mapping process wouldn’t have made a shred of difference in that race either.
Comment by dave Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:12 pm
Boog - love your idea of “equal” representation. Under your plan, your counties would get 12 votes for my one vote, and that’s assuming you live in Madison or St. clair, which you probably don’t. That seems pretty fair. Just as it seems pretty fair that Wyoming has the same influence in the Senate as Illinois despite having, oh, about 12 million less people, and that people in DC have no voting member representation in Congress at all. That seems about right for a “representative” democracy, doesn’t it?
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:13 pm
“Illinois already has one of the more powerful chief executives” - Ha wow! I bet Mike Madigan must love reading articles like this. “Yes, the answer is to weaken the Governor.” What about the Puppeter?
Comment by Nick from Downstate Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:31 pm
Lobbyists and Staff?
Rauner’s plan seems designed to put more power in the hands of Bruce Rauner, even after he loses.
Big Money is the big winner in this one.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:39 pm
Like I said Joe, Chicago would never go for it because it would mean giving up power. I don’t really get where your 12 to 1 number is coming from, but please tell me why 1 city should overwhelmingly dominate both houses of the GA ?
Comment by Boog Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:40 pm
- Boog -,
“Why one city …”
Cause that’s where the people are.
Counties don’t vote, voters vote.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:43 pm
Ghost! Well said! I always say that the only place where training and experience is a liabiity is politics!
Comment by sideline watcher Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 3:51 pm
**please tell me why 1 city should overwhelmingly dominate both houses of the GA ?**
Yea — I don’t understand either why the region with the largest percentage of voters has the largest percentage of influence in state government. Who would have thought?
Comment by dave Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 4:05 pm
Having worked in states with term limits and states without I can tell you first hand that they do NOT work as intended. The bureaucracy becomes the legislature and the legislators become bit players who are bought off by the powers that be. All you have to do is look at the states who have term limits!
A bit of advice for cousin Brucey……for every complex and difficult problem there is a simple solution……and it’s generally wrong!
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 4:14 pm
Boog - here’s where my 12:1 number comes from. Cook has about 5.3 million people. DuPage has a little over 1 million for a total of - ding ding ding! - 6.3 million. My example - Madison and St. Clair, two of the larger pairings of counties outside of Chicagoland, total about 540,000. It’s rough math, I’ll admit, but 6.3 million to 540,000 is about 12:1 (technically 11.66:1), therefore your vote for Senate would be worth approximately 12 times what my vote for Senate would be worth - all because you live in a less populated area of the state. I’m not sure if you realize this, but the US Supreme Court has a number of cases finding against disproportional representation you might want to look up.
If you want to live in a place where fewer people with more land have more power, I suggest you find yourself a nice monarchy to live under - Saudi Arabia probably has the best example of one today. As for me, that was one of the very reasons my ancestors chose to fight the British.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 4:27 pm
Don’t see just why Rauner thinks this will change the structural bias that benefits the 1%…oh, wait…he is the 1%…
Comment by D P Gumby Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 4:28 pm
@LincolnLounger:
The people in Smith’s district voted for him. Term limits won’t fix problems like that.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 4:49 pm
Joe - actually the people with more land were us. Our smaller population fought against the tyranny of a larger population. Why? Because they had no clue how things were somewhere most had never been. Same thing applies here - do most Chicago voters know what the needs are in Cairo? Geography plays a huge role in life. Why shouldn’t it count for something (if it were legal)?
Speaking to the proposal, I think we need to increase, not decrease, the counts of both chambers and use sortition to choose the members of the House.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 5:01 pm
Proportional representation is a bad idea, counties don’t vote and I don’t agree with anybody who does the whole “Quinn only won 3 counties” argument. However there is no doubt that the city of Chicago specifically has a disproportionate control of state government. Looking at the top 10 leaders (constitutional officers plus the 4 GA leaders) 50% are from Chicago, 30% from the suburbs, and 20% from downstate. According to the 2010 Census Chicago only had 21% of the state’s population (2.7 million out of12.8 million). Therefore I would argue the Chicagoland area should have a large amount of the control and influence, but not necessarily specifically the city itself. Of course if people want to change that, don’t complain, just elect more Republicans.
Comment by MyTwoCents Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 5:07 pm
In New Hampshire, each member of the lower house represents about 3,000 people. From Wikipedia:
>> The [New Hampshire] House of Representatives consists of 400 members coming from 204 districts across the state created from divisions of the state’s counties, each making up about 3,000 residents for every one legislator.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 5:29 pm
@Joe - So the US Senate is a monarchy?
Comment by Reader Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 5:29 pm
In New Hampshire, 1 state representative per 3,000 people means big money media buys are probably worthless since voters can just go find the candidates at the local grocery store.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 5:33 pm
I love hearing folks from downstate argue that Chicagoans just don’t know beans about Cairo. As if folks from the Delta really understand what life is like in Chicago.
Face it folks, life is different everwhere. And even in Alexander County, there are highs and lows, and as many different stories and perspectives as there are people.
One person, one vote, and I really don’t think I should be denied the chance to vote for the woman or man of my choice just because i voted for them a few times before.
The irony of course is that you will find plenty of elected officials in those rock-ribbed conservative districts who have held office for 10 or 20 years or more. Think there are no fiefdoms on the city councils, village boards or county boards across downstate Illinois? open your eyes and ears.
While the weakening of the legislature benefits Big Money, the weakening of state government benefits these little fiefdoms across the state. Power abhors a vacuum, but atleast the media can keep an eye on the Dome.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 5:56 pm
One city so much influence… Uh, it has more population than several states.
If you want even MORE power concentrated in the hands of unelected people like lobbyists, vote for term
Limits. Heck in many of those states the termed out politicians become lobbyists. Funny, I thought lobbyists were part of the problem - you want more of them?
But, seriously, if you want to elect a person to represent you, who can think for themselves and can say no when he or she needs to unelected actors, dont support term limits. They are a false hope.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 6:11 pm
Or put it like this : does Bruce really think pensions would not be an issue now if Illinois had term limits over the past 10 years or so? Or any other issue? Campaign finance reform? Are you kidding? Even MORE money is spent on campaigns in term limited states because there are more open seat opportunities!
Comment by low level Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 6:19 pm
=== As if folks from the Delta really understand what life is like in Chicago.===
Exactly why one chamber should be population based and one chamber geography based. That way neither perspective is lost.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 6:33 pm
=== Heck in many of those states the termed out politicians become lobbyists. ===
Heck the politicians in this state quit to become lobbyists and then install their children to their old post.
[Not meant as an endorsement of anything proposed by Rauner.]
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 6:34 pm
Those of you who are advocating a “geographically” based legislative chamber need to look up Reynolds v. Sims. Brief summary-the Supreme Court ruled that purely geographically-based districts for state legislative apportionment were unconstitutional. Something about “equal protection” and “one person, one vote”
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 9:35 pm
Term limits: I hate when some one else thinks making a law limiting my rights is a good idea. Let me decide who gets my vote.
Comment by Makandadawg Wednesday, Sep 4, 13 @ 9:57 pm
Norseman- So true!
Now imagine that occurring every 6 years (CA Assembly term limit) or 8 years or whatever the proposal is.
One of the fallacies of term limit advocates is that people will go into govt service for a while then go back home - the citizen legislator ideal. Sounds nice, but never works out that way. They run for other offices, a spouse or child takes their place, they become lobbyists, go for a job with the Governor (so 6 months or so before they are due to leave they vote for whatever the Gov wants), etc.
That is what occurs in states that have imposed term limits on legislators.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 5, 13 @ 6:44 am
thechampaignlife
Illinois had the 1 chamber based on population and 1 chamber based on geography set-up between 1955 and 1964. Guess what–the courts threw it out. The Illinois case was Germano vs Kerner. What makes you think that we can go down this road again without the courts giving it the old tosseroo like before?
Comment by train111 Thursday, Sep 5, 13 @ 7:38 am
So why is the US Senate still allowed to exist ? After all, Shotgun Joe abhors the fact that Wyoming gets the same representation as Illinois.
Comment by Boog Thursday, Sep 5, 13 @ 8:44 am
I’m not even going to address whether the US Senate is a monarchy, that’s an inane statement.
And Boog, yes, I do abhor the fact that Wyoming gets the same representation as Illinois in the Senate. If we’re going to pretend this is a democracy, let’s act like it and base representation on people, not land.
The US Senate was Constitutionally-created under the presumption that each state was sovereign and deserved equal representation. Maybe that was an appropriate consideration in 1787, maybe it’s a decent check in place today. But, according to James Madison, one of the architects, it was created specifically to protect landed interests (ie, wealthy landowners). Pardon me, but that’s not anything close to democracy, more like protection for the 1% according to Madison’s own words.
It would be a monumental task to change the Constitution for proportional representation in the Senate, and it would be unwieldy because that would create a body as large as the House. Unlike other Constitutional amendments, it would require every state to consent, per the Constitution, which would never happen.
The vestige of the Senate as a wealthy landowner protectorate, however, is in the electoral college, which draws off of the House-Senate structure to create its body. As I’m sure you know, your vote for president is part of a beauty contest and the real election is the electoral college. Hence, we have outcomes like 2000 where Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush won the electoral college and became president (that’s happened four times).
Wyoming, for instance, will get 3 electoral votes in the 2016 election, or one for about every 192,000 people. Illinois will get 20 electoral votes, or one for every 644,000 people. So, an electoral vote in Wyoming is worth roughly 3.35 times what an Illinois electoral vote it worth.
Further, states are free to apportion electors as they wish. Most do so winner take all, so say, if you’re a Republican in California, your vote for President will never matter. The option of proportional electors is available - say, if the popular vote is split 60-40 in Illinois, the winning candidate would get 12 and the loser 8. Or, states could elect to apportion electors by Congressional district, which has a serious potential to skew the election even further with pervasive gerrymandering. For instance, Obama won Pennsylvania’s popular vote and thus its 20 electors. If the state chose to apportion electors by Congressional district, Obama probably would’ve lost the state, picking up maybe 7 of the 20 electors.
There are those who say Democrats would benefit from a national popular vote - that may be true. Others would point out that D’s won the majority of the 13 smallest states in every election from ‘92 to ‘08 and that minority influence is enhanced, thus a popular vote would benefit R’s.
In a popular vote scenario, Republicans would likely focus on places where they could run up big numbers; Democrats would do the same. It would reduce the emphasis on battleground states and make it more of a national election.
That, in a nutshell, is the real problem that I have with the US Senate beyond the fact that it’s principally composed of the 1% itself and that it’s virtually impossible to crack the club unless you’re independently wealthy. I have no illusion that the way we elect Presidents will ever change - too many Republicans think it hurts them (as giving DC a real voice would too), and there are enough Democrats who think it would hurt them that they’d block it as well. But we, as a society, shouldn’t hold back the regions where the most people live, where the most economic drivers exist, where the vast majority of our intellectual talent lies, solely because we need to protect the interests of a few people who live in more sparsely populated areas.
I grew up on a farm in an exceptionally rural area in one of the least populated areas in the country, and I think it’s truly preposterous to suggest that the 4,000 people in my home county should have equal representation to the 5 million in Cook (your state Senate proposal) or that those same 8,000 should have a disproportionate effect on who we elect as our national leader.
And…can you possibly imagine the outcry on the right had Obama won the electoral but not the popular? Some already want revolution, what do you think that would’ve done?
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Sep 5, 13 @ 9:35 am