Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Special elections bill filed

Posted in:

Illinois

* Subscribers were told about this earlier today…

Legislation is being considered that would establish a 2016 special election to replace late Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka.

The bill was filed Tuesday would apply to statewide vacancies of 28 months or more. It’s expected to be considered during Thursday’s special session in Springfield.

* From one of the pertinent sections …

In accordance with Section 7 of Article V of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, if the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller, or Treasurer fails to qualify, or if his or her office becomes vacant, the Governor shall fill the office by appointment. If there are 28 months or less remaining in the term at the time of the vacancy or failure to qualify, the appointed officer shall serve for the remainder of the term.

If there are more than 28 months remaining in the term at the time of the vacancy or failure to qualify, the office shall be filled by a special election to be held at the next general election. In the case of a special election pursuant to this Section, the appointed officer shall serve until the election results are certified and the person elected at the special election is qualified.

The legislation also covers deaths near election days.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:26 pm

Comments

Interesting but not surprising. This figures to get pushed through and signed by Quinn before he leaves office. If Munger wants to be Comptroller for 4 years she will have to win an election in the fall of 2016. This is how it should be. If the people of Illinois are impressed with her 2 year audition she might have a decent chance of winning.

Comment by The Dude Abides Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:37 pm
“House - Gavel in, Gavel out” now at 33%….

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:39 pm
This is IMHO the way it should have been all along. What I wonder is will we have the amendment to consolidate Comp and Treasure on the ballot at the same time the last Comptroller gets elected.

Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:43 pm
I think JBT would agree. http://www.chicagonow.com/kelly-truth-squad/2015/01/bruce-rauner-hypocrisy-term-limits-special-election-for-illinois-comptroller/

Comment by William j Kelly Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:44 pm
Well they are at least making it for all of the relevant offices…

That’s good.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:51 pm
Court battle to follow.

Comment by Apocalypse Now Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:56 pm
A Guy, better get reading!

Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:56 pm
I’m OK with that as it applies going forward and isn’t just a one-shot deal.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 3:57 pm
===Court battle to follow.===

Perhaps, but it’ll be brief. They clearly have the authority to do this.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:00 pm
Since Munger and Rauner seem to be of a mindset to end the Controllers office anyway, there does not seem there is a need for this anyway.

Another faux controversy by the political class

Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:00 pm
Like OneMan, I appreciate the applicability to all the appropriate offices.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:02 pm
Advantage Madigan to hold this off for a couple of months.

Better for the MJM-Rauner operating relationship to get this off the table now, rather than fighting about it at budget crunch time. Remember who still has the votes in the GA.

Thus, better for the state, and for Rauner, to get this settled now — unless Rauner feels the need to blow up everything for other purposes.

From that perspective, if Madigan calls this for a vote now, it would be a gift to Rauner, (strange as that might seem).

Comment by walker Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:20 pm
I find it more than a bit ironic that both sides have an entirely different view on how long the appointed Comptroller should hold an office that they (supposedly) want to abolish. IF in fact the office was going away (which I highly doubt) who cares if Leslie Munger holds the position for 2 or 4 years? Wouldn’t the real issue be how quickly can we pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the office?

Comment by pundent Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:29 pm
===”Since Rauner and Unger seem to be of the mindset to end the Controller’s office anyway, there does not seem to be a need for this anyway.”===

“seem” is the operative word.

At least one state office candidate has called for consolidation of these two offices in every election campaign of the last twenty years. Multiple GA sessions have brought this bill to one floor or the other. My own bill to do this actually passed the House and took a brick in the Senate.

Please excuse us for being skeptical about campaign promises, including in this cycle.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:34 pm
There will not be consolidation. Nor should there be.

Comment by low level Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:44 pm
This is necessary legislation regardless of whether these two offices are consolidated.

Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 4:51 pm
Wouldn’t this be changing the IL Constitution and have to be done through a constitutional amendment? If so it means it could potentially be voted on in 2016. If approved, the next opportunity for special election might not be until 2018.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 5:15 pm
The special election and the consolidation are two separate issues. The pubs are basically saying republican votes on the special election bill are contingent on linkage to elimination of the controller’s office. I’m not opposed to that, but I do feel that because of potential legal challenges if the special election bill were passed post appointment, I think, in spite of the political leverage Gained by forcing a Rauner veto, from a legal challenge perspective, it may be cleaner to pass this pre-plutocrat.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 5:23 pm
@PublicServant

I agree with you.

Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 5:41 pm
It’s dumb to fight for a four-year appointment to a constitutional office when there’s a statewide election in two. There’s no good or real argument for shutting out the voters. Why waste any energy on it?

For Rauner, play time is just about over, and the real job is about to begin.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 6:00 pm
Word, no one ever accused the pubs of being smart. Their entire message is based on conning the voters with BS. Rauner is planning on saying I have to do what has to be done to “bring back Illinois” because of 100 years of mismanagement. Can’t wait to see him explain kicking the pension can down the road and raising regressive taxes on the middle class, starving the lower class and all to protect his fellow plutocrats. This is gonna be good to watch the spin on this unravel.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 6:59 pm
Does anyone actually believe that this would have even been contemplated if Quinn would have won?

Comment by N'ville Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 7:41 pm
Quinn picked Jerry Stermer, a financial and governmental budget professional as his appt to the position. If Rauner hadn’t appointed a non-financially oriented failed Republican hack, I believe we wouldn’t be contemplating this now.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 7:59 pm
==there does not seem there is a need for this anyway== and ==If Rauner hadn’t appointed a non-financially oriented failed Republican hack, I believe we wouldn’t be contemplating this now.==

I disagree. This clearly exposed a problem that the constitution had relied on the GA to address.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 8:41 pm
It did expose a problem that might never have needed addressing if Rauner had sought to seek the appointee via bipartisan consensus. He didn’t, thus the need for a special election to let the voters decide for them.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:01 pm
I forgot to mention that we have an election to fill a state senate seat if it becomes vacant with more than 28 months remaining in the term. It makes sense to do it that way here.

Comment by WWMJMD Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 9:15 pm
==It makes sense to do it that way here.==

I do not know of any vacancy in elected office (from school board to state senator to the federal offices) in Illinois that would not require a special election if it were going to last more than two years. (The highest offices are the only exceptions.) Appointments are allowed, but only until the next election.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 6, 15 @ 10:40 pm
PublicServant - Provide me with one example where any elected official sought to fill a position of this type through “bipartisan consensus”. You are holding Rauner to a standard that no other politician would be held to. Comments like this make you seem to be a bit like a “failed Democratic hack”.

Comment by pundent Wednesday, Jan 7, 15 @ 8:27 am
@pundent - Well this is kind of unique isn’t it pundent? A four year appointment…taking the place of an elected official who died post-election but prior to being sworn in to a statewide office. I’m holding Rauner to his word. That being that he’d work across the aisle. He didn’t. You forget that this is the people’s choice and that Madigan and Cullerton have been given large democratic majorities in the house and senate. I think it would have been prudent to get their input. It would have been a concrete example of the bipartisanship that Rauner stated that he wanted.

I stand by what I said.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Jan 7, 15 @ 8:35 am
@PublicServant: There is no way that anyone other than a vicious Democratic partisan would call Leslie Munger a “hack”. An MBA with a strong and successful financial and corporate background is a “hack”. Jerry Stermer, Quinn’s lapdog and the man who had to resign due to ethics violations, comes much closer to that label than Leslie Munger.

For the record, I don’t know her from Adam, but you are way over the top. As for this “bipartisan” approach, maybe he should have tried to sell the office like Rod.

Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Jan 7, 15 @ 8:55 am
@LincolnLounger I’ll quote “D” from yesterday’s post on her selection:

“Everyone appears to be over looking a few facts concerning Leslie Munger. She has been out of the business world for 15 years and she comes from Vernon Township in Lake County where is has been active and is well known to the guys from the Dold/Kirk campaigns who are running the Rauner operation and advised our new Governor on the choice. Thus her current business/financial experience is zero, with Nancy remaining as Chief of Staff in the office, it is a safe pick, not bad for someone who got her BS in Interior Design.”

Out of Business for 15 years…
4 year degree in Interior Design…
MBA from Northwestern is impressive, but that maybe meant 1 maybe 2 accounting classes…
No CPA…
She was in Marketing, and doubt she had more than a passing interest in debits and credits…but that was 15 YEARS AGO.

Again, I stand by what I said.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Jan 7, 15 @ 9:16 am
Let’s not go overboard in either direction. To say she is simply a “political hack” is wrong and unfair. To say she has a “strong financial background” is equally false. She’ll be okay in the role.

She has some solid credentials from her business career, but they’re not especially applicable to this job.

She is an attractive candidate for future political office, to add to the Republican bench.

Rauner tried to have it both ways.

I wish Rauner had gone for someone entirely without political ties, who was an expert in consolidation of business operations. God knows Rauner knows dozens of such people from his own business experience.

He should have asked his business associates or the Civvies for some candidates, not his campaign staff. That would have been a serious “shake-up” to the normal Springfield process.

This was the last of Rauner’s choices which were entirely his own to make, and required no tradeoffs.

He chose the half-measure. Like with Sanguinetti, he checked off some boxes, but he could have done better.

As to timing of a vote on the election, PublicServant has it right.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Jan 7, 15 @ 9:47 am
Gee, a first-time candidate for state representative in the north shore area became noticed by the Dold/Kirk operation. Astonishing!

Yes, we should have trusted the appointment to Quinn. He and Stermer have decades of private business experience. Such successful records of creating jobs and keeping a hawkeve on the budget’s bottom line. Clearly, they would have been much more capable of appointing someone better, and I’m positive Quinn would have reached out to Durkin and Radogno.

The fact of the matter is that if you think that a leader of Helene Curtis North America didn’t have to watch the debits and credits, then you have been at the government trough for a long time, too.

As for partisan hacks, look down the hall for Treasurer-Elect Frerichs before casting your stones. And before you claim I am a partisan, I would be delighted to see a Treasurer-Elect Daniel Biss in that office. Now that is someone eminently qualified.

Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Jan 7, 15 @ 10:03 am
@lincolnlounger - Frerichs was elected…Munger appointed. I’ve been in both the public and private sectors (As an auditor in the private sector). I know who watches the debits and credits at large corporations, and it’s not marketing people, no matter their level. She’s also been out of the business world FOR 15 YEARS…

You seem to keep wanting to compare Rauner to Quinn, and yet Rauner was supposed to be different. Bipartisan. Above politics. His campaign and picks disprove that.

@Walker - You’re a good man. I might get a little over-zealous at times, but it’s a reaction to partisan quacks on the other side of the isle. I should know better. Thanks for the reminder.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Jan 7, 15 @ 10:33 am