Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Radogno responds *** Mission not accomplished
Next Post: City Council Black Caucus issues “7-Point Plan of Action”
Posted in:
* Keep in mind that the two sponsors of HB 4356, Reps. LaShawn Ford and Mary Flowers, are Chicagoans who currently have Democratic primary opposition…
Establishes a procedure for an election to recall the Mayor of Chicago. Effective immediately.
Oof.
That’ll get some TV play (by design).
* As we discussed earlier today, Chicagoans are mad as heck right now. Tax hikes, crime spikes, police shooting videos, coverups, lies, you name it, they are mad about it.
And several state legislators are now at the mercy of those very same angry city voters.
So, under the bus goes Rahm, although not literally because I doubt this thing ever sees the light of day. It’ll be interesting to watch whether any more jump on as co-sponsors, however. The days of cowering before the mighty mayor appear to be over for now. He’s got no campaign money in the bank, no troops, and the voters hate him.
Nothing personal. Just business.
…Adding… I’m not even sure this bill would be legal since Emanuel was elected under the current rules (which do not provide for recall). Perhaps our legal type commenters can clue us in.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:22 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Radogno responds *** Mission not accomplished
Next Post: City Council Black Caucus issues “7-Point Plan of Action”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Big hat tip to a commenter, by the way.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:22 pm
If I were with the Mayor and they told me about it beforehand I would have understood, but asked that the bill apply statewide.
And then I would remember the people who had the audacity to file this bill for another day.
Comment by Not it Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:29 pm
Ken Dunkin for Mayor
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:38 pm
Anyone else think an order for 2 fish was just placed? lol
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:39 pm
I can’t see Democrats taking the bait. Other hopefuls for the job would not like to be recalled.The Dems may not be to bright but no one would that stupid to vote that in.
Comment by mokenavince Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:44 pm
If we call this a kind of term limit, can it be part of the Turnaround Agenda?
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:45 pm
Effective immediately?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:50 pm
We’re taking on water. Man the life boats.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:54 pm
Rich’s backlash commentary is getting more smart than ever. my many north suburban pals are not happy watching what is happening. and not in a supportive to the demonstrators way.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:56 pm
LOL, Amalia.
You know this one is a city post, right? I don’t think you can get paid for it.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:02 pm
crazybleedingheart, perhaps YOU are being paid. I am not, nor am I a part of any campaign.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:06 pm
skipping over rhetoric and citations, legally they could not spring this on a currently elected official. it would be limited to the next elected mayor elected under its provisions to survive constitutional muster.
side note, one of the fears of our fledgling government was making laws to take out opponents…. like passing a law saying bob cant rum for office and his farms are now only useable as free playgrounds. we had a lot of fear of our govt passing laws to target individuals. its good to see those fears are in the past and we dont use districting or modern processes to pass laws targeting individuals.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:06 pm
Thanks Ghost!
Good post!
Comment by Rufus Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:12 pm
Why skip the cites, Ghost?
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:21 pm
Maybe Rahm can go back to the northern suburbs from whence he came. They don’t vote in the City anyway. Nor are they stuck with the $500 million bill for police misconduct.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:23 pm
For many, many years Pat Quinn pushed for recall at every level of government, and he either got eye rolls and/or generally mocked from the powers-that-be. A scaled-down proposal did pass the G.A., but recall always seems to make elected officials nervous. Hopefully, though, this has a chance…because giving people a greater voice in their government is always a good thing.
Comment by Bea Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:36 pm
I watched the protesters walk by again today. They are currently between me and home, but I have a new to me Stephen King and will remember to take a potty break before hitting the CTA.
I don’t think this bill is the way to do it, but Rahm does need to resign.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:39 pm
Wait for the CTU strike authorization. It’ll just get more goofy.
Comment by Georg Sande Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:40 pm
To give Pat Quinn his due, he signed the FOIA reforms which helped ensure that the Laquan video ended up being ordered to be released to the public. As far as I can tell, that’s the only legal reform that has ever made any difference.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:42 pm
== The days of cowering before the mighty mayor appear to be over for now. ==
I don’t think there was ever much cowering in the General Assembly…the City Council? Yes. But not so much in Springfield.
Rahm’s influence in Springfield has been consistently overrated by the media and it has been the product of wishful thinking by Republicans who think he will broker a deal with Rauner. But it’s not 1965 or 1995 anymore. Gone are the days when several Chicago-based reps and senators worked city jobs. There are only a few left now. And most city-based GA members used to be handpicked by their committeeman/alderman, which gave the mayor another angle to exert influence. That practice has mostly disappeared too.
Rahm did have the ability to act as a good-faith negotiator or bridge between Rauner and Madigan/Cullerton, but those who thought he could deliver a block of votes in Springfield even before the McDonald scandal were fooling themselves.
Comment by The the Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:46 pm
I think the reaction on the street and the polling data strongly suggest that Emanuel was wise to keep the shooting video hidden until after the election. Contrary to the views of many newspaper pundits he would not be mayor now.
Comment by Joe Biden Was Here Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:53 pm
Ghost, I think you might be incorrect. I see nothing in he State constitution that preludes the bill from taking immediate effect. I could be wrong, please point to the section you have in mind.
Comment by ottawa otter Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:28 pm
One of the most unhelpful comments that I read on the crisis today came from Alderman Emma Mitts (37th) who made it out as if the CPD was targeting African American males for arrest. Her comments were all over the board. I don’t think that the police are specifically targeting the South and West sides for the fun of it. They were responding to crimes in progress.
I do not want the police officer who shot Laquan McDonald to ever wear a badge again. He used excessive force and lied about his actions. Nevertheless, no one ought to make it out that McDonald was not breaking into vehicles and brandishing a knife on the last day of his life.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:37 pm
I have no knowledge of whether the proposed legislation can withstand legal challenges. I generally support recall mechanisms so voters csn “undo it” if they have made an elective mistake. That type of mechanism in the process tends to motivate the elected to perform the work they mrepresented they would to voters. It makes “bait and switch” tactics very risky for them, they might be more genuine from the onset.
Comment by internal angel Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:37 pm
“I’m not even sure this bill would be legal since Emanuel was elected under the current rules (which do not provide for recall).”
Good call . sounds like ex post facto legislation to me which is prohibited by the US Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. Such laws are also prohibited by SECTION 16 of the Illinois Constitution. If this bill was passed and a recall election was proposed , I would expect litigation to block the city council from implementing it.
Comment by ejhickey Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 7:13 pm
Will Ken Dunkin be the deciding vote?
Comment by Rollo Tamasi Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 8:16 pm
ejhickey, expost facto is in section 9, not 10.It applies to criminalizing a deed after the deed has been done. It does not apply to civil procedures and certainly does not apply to recall. The bill is perfectly legit under the U.S. Constitution. I see nothing in the State constitution and asked “Ghost” to cite, but he/she has not. Leads me to believe it is constitutional at the State level also.
Comment by ottawa otter Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 9:06 pm
Hickey missed your citation, once again, ex post facto, even in section 16 applies to criminal acts. Recall is not a criminal procedure. Recall is not a punishment, it is a public political prerogative. The State legislature has a perfect right to establish recall anytime it chooses. The time is ripe, what politician would stand in the way of public prerogative at this point in time? Primary elections will soon be upon us, good way to lose the primary is to vote against recall.
Comment by ottawa otter Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 9:15 pm
How long is it going to be before someone sponsors legislation to repeal the police officer’s bill of rights (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=736&ChapterID=11)?
It’s a cruddy law that needs to be repealed, and there’s going to traction to do it before long.
Comment by The Teflon Rahm Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 11:11 pm
Annon come live on the westside be black have a nice car,then reconsider your post. Emma Mitts does have a valid point.
Comment by austinman Thursday, Dec 10, 15 @ 9:20 am
- ottawa otter- There are two reference to ex post facto laws in the US Constitution. the one I cited refers to restrictions on the States passing ex post facto laws . Your cites the restriction on Congress passing ex post facto laws.
as for Illinois, I will just quote Section 16 of the Illinois Constitution
”
SECTION 16. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND IMPAIRING CONTRACTS
No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.”
Nothing there about limiting the application to criminal matters and the inclusion of the term contracts implies this provision would govern non criminal matters. I think but am not sure , this clause was invoked in the cases involving the proposed reduction of public pension benefits. However I stress I am not sure about this latter point.
Comment by ejhickey Thursday, Dec 10, 15 @ 10:59 am