Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: They’re dropping like flies
Next Post: This is why they can’t have a seat
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s journalist in residence…
In the 1990s, Quinn pushed for a constitutional amendment to create term limits for legislators. But the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the proposal before it could go to the voters.
This past week, however, Quinn came out against a new plan to create term limits for lawmakers, a plan being pushed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner.
That’s artfully worded, but Quinn still favors term limits. The governor simply questioned whether there was a need for the rest of Rauner’s proposal…
Rauner is circulating petitions to get the issues on the 2014 ballot. That includes making it harder to override a governor’s veto by changing the number of votes needed from three-fifths to two-thirds. He also wants to limit legislators to eight years in office, cut the size of the Senate from 59 members to 41 and expand the House from 118 to 123.
Quinn told reporters Wednesday there’s no need to change the three-fifths vote. […]
Quinn says it’s unnecessary to increase the number of House members.
* Quinn is right about that. Nobody cares about those two issues. In reality, the two proposals were simply a way to get term limits onto the ballot. Eric Zorn doesn’t think it’ll work…
The power of citizens to initiate amendments to the state constitution via petition drive was limited by the framers only “to structural and procedural subjects contained” in Article IV, the one that deals with the legislature [the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 1994]. […]
So would term limits change the structure of the legislature?
No, the majority ruled in 1994. Even with term limits, “The General Assembly would remain a bicameral legislature consisting of a House and Senate with a total of 177 members, and would maintain the same organization.”
Would it change the procedures of the legislature?
Again, no. “The process by which the General Assembly adopts a law would remain unchanged” with the addition of term limits, said the majority opinion. […]
If, earlier this week when Rauner’s proposal was formally unveiled, you wondered why it included this pair of off-the-radar-screen ideas, now you know: It’s an effort to create a plausible reason for the Supreme Court to give the OK.
“These are three interrelated reforms,” said Mike Schrimpf, a spokesman for Rauner and the term-limits effort. “Taken all together, they make the legislature more responsive to the citizens and they make elections more competitive.”
But, so far anyway, Rauner is the only person offering up an actual plan. So being against a couple of smallish aspects of that plan means it can be spun by the pro-Rauner types (and the Illinois Policy Institute’s honchos are with Rauner) as being “against term limits.” So, advantage Rauner.
* Sen. Kirk Dillard took his opposition a step further…
When asked if term limits is a big issue in Illinois, Dillard said Rauner is “pulling a Pat Quinn.” He says Rauner is pandering to the public on a popular issue.
As for himself, Dillard supports term limits for legislative leaders. He voted for a recall, which he believes sends a better message than term limits. That way, if people want to get rid of an official like Rod Blagojevich, they can get rid of him right away, rather than having to impeach or wait until the next election.
Dillard said the legislative leaders are the problem.
* OK, but this constitutional amendment is already being sold as a way to get rid of Madigan and break the stranglehold of Chicago’s influence….
Rauner’s got a video out to promote his term-limits issue.
It blasts “career politicians” who stay too long in office. And whose pictures roll by on the screen when this discussion is taking place? Senate President John Cullerton, ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich and House Speaker Michael Madigan, all Chicago Democrats.
The video…
Dillard is on the “wrong” side of this issue, as far as the public is concerned, so he’s gotta revert to name calling. Politically, anyway, this is, again, advantage Rauner.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: They’re dropping like flies
Next Post: This is why they can’t have a seat
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s all a waste of time. After Bruce Rauner loses next year his sudden interest in “better government” will all be forgotten and he’ll go back to getting richer on the enormous fees he collects from Illinois pension funds.
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:30 am
We should probably listen to Dillard on this one. If ever there was an expert on pandering it’s Kirk Dillard.
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:32 am
Changing the number of legislators and districts is rather ridiculous and meaningless.
However, terms limits are still a good idea. I know all the arguments against term limits but they do not impress me. Twelve years (3 Senate terms, 6 House terms)is enough. Politicians should have a career before they seek government office, hold it for awhile, and then relinquish to others.
And no lobbying for ten years after completion of office.
Comment by Federalist Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:40 am
If you want to understand the relationship between IPI and rauner just follow the money.
Comment by William j Kelly Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:41 am
If you pop a bad wig on Rauner does he look like Bill Cellini?
Comment by DanL60 Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:42 am
So, going way out into wacky-land, how about a proposal that the votes of any legislators who have served over 8 years won’t count (for at least certain matters)?
That would certainly “change the procedures of the legislature”, and thus get past the threshold.
And any district that re-elects a rep who can’t vote will certainly be getting the representation it deserves.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:48 am
==If, earlier this week when Rauner’s proposal was formally unveiled, you wondered why it included this pair of off-the-radar-screen ideas, now you know: It’s an effort to create a plausible reason for the Supreme Court to give the OK.==
I think term limits are a silly idea, and had just written these other changes off as more silliness. After reading this, I’m gratified to see that someone running for Governor actually pays attention to the law of this State, and the details of getting things accomplished, rather than just winging it.
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:48 am
Rauner’s shameless. He made his fortune on career politicians. That’s why he dropped millions of pay-to-play cash on them over the years.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:49 am
One of the other candidates should create a plan to do with the real problem the GA has: a broken redistributing process where the pols choose their voters instead of the other way around.
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:59 am
Maybe LIS or LRU can run the figures, but I wonder how many Illinois legislators have served more than 12 years since 1970, out of the total there have been since 1970?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:04 am
Debating whether or not this gets to the ballot is not necessarily the point. Does the Rauner video resonate with repub primary voters is what counts.
Comment by downstate hack Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:16 am
I would like to see a statewide ballot referendum calling on the state to cap the amount of management fees firms like Rauner’s can receive from the pension funds.
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:28 am
I am unclear how making the house smaller & expanding the senate would do anything Rauner says. How would either body be more competitive ? What would increasing the size of one chamber & decreasing the other do to increase accountability to the citizens of Illinois.
“Taken all together, they make the legislature more responsive to the citizens and they make elections more competitive.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:32 am
Rauner’s proposal doesn’t take effect until 2023. Can he really say it will get rid of Speaker Madigan? If the actuarial tables can be believed, mother nature will intervene before term limits will.
Comment by Elo Kiddies Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:35 am
===If the actuarial tables can be believed===
The Speaker’s mother was 92 when she passed. He appears to have her genes.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:39 am
They all bash MJM and Culerton that is what you do if you are running for Guv in the Repub party. This term limit GA proposal distracts from the real issues and is a mistake, to which I say keep explaining it Bruce.
Comment by Obama's Puppy Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:46 am
Here’s an interesting link to a study done by Chris Mooney at UIS on term limits:
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/Study%20on%20State%20Legislative%20Term%20Limits%20in%20Illinois.pdf
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:21 pm
The IPI is employing “Spin”. That’s a shocker. It’s what they do. Why they exist. They’re part of the “Truthiness” machine of the right wing.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:24 pm
The only advantage to Rauner is in hypocrisy - he wants term limits yet gave a small fortune to the likes of Daley, Schakowksky, Rendell et al (all Democrats by the way). Not to mention term limits was Pat Quinn’s idea first - not Rauners. Rauner is the panderer.
Comment by Veritas Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:51 pm
The “procedures of the legislature” includes more than how laws are adopted. The selection of leadership (i.e. speaker and senate prez) and committee chairs and membership are procedural.
Furthermore, each chamber is empowered to establish its own rules and procedures.
So, if Rauner really wanted to make procedural changes involving term limits, he should have considered including changes to those things in his bill. It certainly would garner more popular support and effect more significant change.
Comment by Brendan Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:22 pm
“Taken all together, they make the legislature more responsive to the citizens…” - Schrimpf
Hey Mike - so if I like my state Rep/state Senator, and feel he/she:
1)has been doing a good job representing me in Springfield…
2) and I want to vote for them for another term…
-> how the heck does legally taking away their ability to continue to serve me
and
my right to vote for them for another term
“make the legislature more responsive to the citizens” as you have stated???
Forgive me, I really do not understand that.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:46 pm
What is the actual improvement in government in reducing the number of seats in the Senate from 59 to 41? I can’t think of a reason that having less voices in government would improve government, except the republicans think that the rest of downstate might overwhelm the blue pockets downstate.
I like how Rauner hasn’t come out in favor of term limits for Governor. You know, that position he wants?
Comment by MEP Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:07 pm
The public likes term limits. Most politicians don’t like term limits. Major reason to support term limits.
Term limits are good and they should be put in place.
Comment by Downstater Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:14 pm
Rauner sounds like a breath of fresh air. He will give any opponent a run for their money.
I would assume he would limit the term of Governor.
Comment by Mokenavince Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:35 pm
Mokenavince I do really like Republicans who support Mr. Rauner. I wish there were more getting on board the Rauner train, its the Governor’s best chance - really thanks.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:58 pm
Just curious, does he support term limits for mayors?
Comment by Obamas Puppy Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:42 pm
Anonymous, the Chicago Tonight link article was an interesting read. I liked this line, ” “The final two years they’re looking for a job.”9 Thus, the
fewer terms legislators are permitted, the greater the proportion of their careers is spent simply gearing up and winding down.”
May be true, but term limits would keep folks like Madigan (doesn’t matter to me whether it’s a Rep or Dem) from staying in power for too long.
Comment by Concerned Voter Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 9:34 pm