Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

In tomorrow’s election, a convicted felon is running for state representative in the metro east. Republican Bob Romanik, a former Washington Park police chief, was convicted in 1997 for lying to a grand jury 150 times and in 1999 for bank fraud.

Illinois State Election Board General Counsel Ken Menzel says Illinois is the one state that allows felons to run for office, with just a few exceptions, “Probably the most notable example of that,” he says, “is the Illinois municipal code prohibition on felons holding city or village office in Illinois.”

So, you can run for Governor but not dog catcher. […]

In Missouri, felons are banned from holding statewide office. Federal laws allow felons to run for congress and President.

* The Question: Should Illinois ban convicted felons from running for and holding state elected office? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

panel management

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 11:52 am

Comments

No. If you have a felony on your record and can explain it in such a way as to make it a positive for you with the voters, you ought to be able to serve.

Unless you’re a felon with a last name that rhymes with Blagojevich.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 11:57 am
I voted yes. Unfortunately, Illinois seems to have it backward. We elect the individual BEFORE they become a felon. /s

Comment by Grimm Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 11:58 am
===a last name that rhymes with Blagojevich===

He was officially removed from office making him ineligible for life to run for a state or local government slot.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 11:58 am
No this sends a message your debt to society is never paid, let’s stop felons from voting too?

Comment by Rabid Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 11:58 am
No, voters should decide what disqualifies someone from holding an office. If we do not trust the voters, maybe we have this whole democracy thing wrong…

Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:01 pm
===ineligible for life===

Lol, I know, I just wanted to be clear that, in his case, I support the ban (even though it stemmed from impeachment and not a separate court action or statute). In other cases, I don’t support a blanket ban on allowing felons to run and/or serve in office.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:01 pm
No, as long as they served their time, they should be allowed to run. I wish would could get future felons to stop running.

Comment by Wumpus Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:03 pm
YES. We have enough problems with the “noncriminals” we have now! Put an actual crook in? What is this, Washington DC? /s

Comment by Big Muddy Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:06 pm
Voted no. I’m wary of sweeping generalizations that could be better addressed by the electorate than the powers that be.

Comment by AlfondoGonz Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:07 pm
The law is on the books, and yet Chicago Alderman Walter Burnett (27th Ward) was allowed to run in 1995 despite being a convicted felon (served a two year jail term for armed robbery when he was 17).

Selective enforcement.

Comment by MacombMike Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:09 pm
No. There could be some crimes that would disqualify a person, but not felonies in general. Maybe someone convicted of an abuse of his or her public office, which would keep Blago out even without the impeachment and would keep Ryan out.

Comment by Whatever Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:09 pm
Depends to me on what the Felony conviction is for. Certain felonys may be prove the candidate is experienced for some offices tho.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:11 pm
AGree with Grimm…..sad to say we elect them before they become criminals…or before they get caught.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:15 pm
===Selective enforcement===

Wrong. Burnett got a pardon. Try again.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:17 pm
I wouldn’t be able to support a blanket prohibition against all felons. I’d support a ban on felons who were convicted of official corruption, but not beyond that. It’s possible, even likely, that some felons have a perspective that’s desperately needed in state government.

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:23 pm
=== It’s possible, even likely, that some felons have a perspective===

Ergo a “citizen legislature.” I agree. Not encouraging it, mind you, but I do agree.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:24 pm
I voted no. We should have plenty of non-felon candidates.

Our Federal system was built on not fully trusting the voters. Look at all the safeguards put in to prevent waves of emotion from driving results.

Direct democracy gives you Brexit and Trump.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:24 pm
Frankly, this is nothing new in Illinois. I think the most recent former felon to serve in the Illinois House was former Rep. Coy Pugh, who served both federal and state terms of imprisonment before becoming a legislator. As a member of the House, while it took some time, he did become respected and known as thoughtful and hare-working. So, there is some level of hope for those who have made mistakes.

Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:26 pm
No, you do your time, then the idea is to re-enter society.

If you can sell it to the voters, so be it.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:30 pm
Felons should not be banned from running for any office. It is the voters, not the the legislature, that should determine who should represent them.

Comment by Just Observing Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:30 pm
I voted no. If the voters want to elect you then that is their business.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:32 pm
I voted no. Convicted felons can Vote. Convicted felons can run. Whatever happened to us being a country of second chances?

Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:34 pm
voted no, it might not be bad to have someone pre-qualified

Comment by Oneman Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:34 pm
The state has recently passed a number of laws designed to permit felons to regain jobs in health care, parks, and other licensed activities that were off limits. It would seem backwards to rescind the ability to run for office while extending the ability to have more work opportunities.

Comment by muon Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:41 pm
Voted no. Possession of any amount of any drug except a small amount of marijuana is a felony in Illinois. Do you really think a person should be disqualified from serving in elective office because of drug possession conviction that occurred years or even decades beforehand, notwithstanding anything he or she might have done in the meantime? Even if the voters want that person representing them?

Comment by charles in charge Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:45 pm
No. I might prefer to vote for someone who had a 30-year old felony but got their life turned around. Give me the choice.

Comment by Bleugrass Boy Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:47 pm
I voted yes only because there wasn’t any option for “it depends”. If the felony was a crime against a child or a sex crime, then there is no forgiveness, no forgetting and no holding public office.

Comment by Huh? Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:52 pm
Voted no for reasons many have stated. I might make an exception if limited to convicted murderers.

Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:55 pm
Nope - except for a very limited number of circumstances (e.g. where there’s a high level of recidivism combined with personal harm), I don’t believe that conviction should automatically disqualify one from seeking and holding office. I don’t get the insistence on applying a scarlet letter - if they’ve done their time, let them run and let the voters decide if the conviction impacts their ability to e a good public servant. One could argue that someone’s who’s been convicted of any crime is a better representative of many of our fellow citizens than someone who hasn’t been convicted. I’m reminded of how Dan Rostenkowski realized how overwhelming it can be even for someone with financial resources to defend themselves against the government. It was a little late in life, but I was glad to see that message being sent to his former peers about the balance with which they needed to view the criminal justice system.

Comment by Johnny Tractor Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:58 pm
Voted “yes” seems like there enough talented people out there why let felons back in? But what if you are a felon who have been pardoned? But after the pardon turn into a tax deadbeat? So many questions.

Comment by Annonin' Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:58 pm
Voted Yes. Running for office states they could be elected to office. The comment line regarding well let the voters decide could be used if there were not races where theirs was only one name on the ballot. They are asked to be placed in a position of trust and there are just too many what if possibilities.

Comment by Visual Manager Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 12:59 pm
Depends on the felony, if its involving dishonesty yes, if its you got busted with pot when you were a kid, no. So, I voted no.

Comment by burbanite Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:05 pm
There are countless convicted felons who would never run the kind of disgraceful campaign Romanik has run. And I don’t doubt he was capable of it, whether or not he’d been convicted of bank fraud and lying to a grand jury. That’s a specious enough relationship that it shouldn’t form the basis for a law. I do not think felons should be barred from running for municipal offices either.

Comment by Commander Norton Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:06 pm
Voted ‘no’. Let the voters decide whether they think the felony disqualifies them from office.

Comment by ChicagoVinny Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:09 pm
I voted no. Could a felon do worse?

Comment by Bruce (no not him) Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:12 pm
Just a technicality in IL…

Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:15 pm
Huh @12:52

If somebody can run with that hanging around in his record, and win, then I’m taking the first moving truck out of the state and never looking back.

I say let the voters decide which felonies are unforgivable even after time served.

Comment by iwillquoteyouonthis Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:26 pm
I voted ‘no.’ People can take the information into consideration as they wish when they cast their vote.

Comment by Earnest Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:27 pm
Yes. You’re capable of doing everything you’ve ever done. Repeat felons are often that, because people target them. There are many ways to redeem yourself besides running for public office. Getting a felon into office is something that attracts even more cynicism than what exists now.

Comment by A guy Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:31 pm
Only if you’re not a Christian or a member of another religion that believes in the possibility of redemption. They’ve paid their debt

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 1:46 pm
Amazed at the number of folks here who are saying felons should be allowed to run and hold office. I say no.

If you want to run for office and you’re a felon, then turn your life around, apply for clemency and, if it’s granted, then run for office. A fair number of folks receive clemency in this state for all sorts of reasons, and if you’re able to turn yourself around to the extent that clemency is granted, I could even see that becoming a plus during campaign season–”I know what it’s like to be there, because I’ve been there, but you don’t have to stay there, and together we can…” The stump speech almost writes itself. I’d vote for someone who did that, someone who became a success after hitting rock bottom, ahead of most of the jokers who hold office now.

But to let felons run and hold office automatically without them having to take any affirmative steps? No. That’s ridiculous.

Comment by Go Figure Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 2:07 pm
Voted “No”

Couple caveats…

Crimes that include preying on minors, crimes that have specfic violent nature.

There’s a reason there are different types of felonies.

“No” a felony should not exclude, but the type of felony absolutely should be considered in this, along with an appeal process for those felons in those felonious categories.

So by that, I voted “No”

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 2:28 pm
Being a convicted felon isn’t even in the Top 150 of reasons Bob Romanik shouldn’t be allowed within a stone’s throw of elected office.

I voted no for the reasons stated by other above.

Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 2:40 pm
No, what ever happened to doing the time for the crime instead of being branded for life? How many of those that voted Yes have done something when young that they wouldn’t do now? I know there are things I’ve done in my younger days that I wouldn’t do now. Same with people who have been incarcerrated. OTOH, I’ve known people who’ve been charged with a felony and didn’t do it…but since they didn’t have the money for a private attorney…

Comment by Union Thug Gramma Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 4:33 pm
I don’t see a reason to bar a felon from running for office. Voters should be able to choose from anyone willing to run (within reason of keeping a ballot from having a hundred people for one office.

I do have one exception and that is if one is convicted of a felony election violation.

Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 4:35 pm
A ban is bad…
* If you believe in second chances and redemption. (All Christians so believe.)
* If you trust voters to make the decision instead of preventing them from doing so.
* If you believe that once someone has paid his debt to society, he or she should not face a lifetime of continued punishment.

Comment by anon Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 5:22 pm
One name: Lt. John Burge. Chicago PD. We will never know how many people he tortured into confessing to crimes that they never committed. Some, after many years have been released because of DNA evidence. If there was no DNA, those people will continue to do the time for a crime they did not commit. They don’t get a pardon in most cases. The innocence project has many more examples of wrongly convicted. Even those that really are guilty should not be subjected to life long punishment once released. Many bad choices are made in our life times. The voters should be the only people who decide on a candidate that they want representing them.

Comment by Lady law Monday, Nov 7, 16 @ 7:18 pm
====Wrong. Burnett got a pardon. Try again.====

AFTER he was elected. What don’t YOU try again.

Comment by MacombMike Wednesday, Nov 9, 16 @ 9:52 am
What=Why

Comment by MacombMike Wednesday, Nov 9, 16 @ 9:52 am