Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Sens. Lightford, Steans and Manar have formed a new leadership PAC…

Expect a fundraiser soon to support Lightford’s candidacy for Senate President.

* The Question: Should Sens. Martin Sandoval and Tom Cullerton be allowed to vote for Senate President? Make sure to explain your answer, please.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:27 pm

Comments

I think the bigger question is what will this PAC do if Sandoval and Tom Cullerton donate to it.

heh heh

Comment by Just Me 2 Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:29 pm
I would think they could exclude them from the caucus vote but I would guess they have right to vote when the whole chamber votes. If I was the caucus I would ask them to sit it out.

Comment by Been There Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:36 pm
I always fall back on presumed innocent so since they are both elected members I vote yes. If one becomes the deciding vote? Maybe a future question if the day

Comment by Regular democrat Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:36 pm
Yes.. Both are sitting members of the Illinois Senate, sent there by constituents/voters. Until that changes, they are entitled to carry out their duties.

Comment by NotRich Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:37 pm
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. They won election and are there.

Comment by Another Regular Dem Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:38 pm
I vote “yes”. They are still in office and therefore their constituents have the right to be heard through their elected senators.

Comment by Bourbon Street Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:39 pm
They should be able to vote so long as they are in the Senate, unless there is a rule against them voting. I do not support either one of them but we should follow the rules even if ultimately they are convicted of a crime.

It does not look good for either of them, but others have been acquitted.

I would rather see just about anyone elected as the senate president other than Lightford. Her work on SB 7 was really bad and we ended up with a paper tiger.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:41 pm
It takes 30 votes to be elected Senate President. Any coalition that gets 30, wins. Hypothetically, someone could win with the Republicans and some Dems, while the majority of the Dems vote for a losing candidate. If the losing Bloc includes Sandoval, then what do you do?

If it’s close, getting Sandoval support will be an issue. If it’s not close, no one will care except the IRP.

Comment by DIstant watcher Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:42 pm
The process set by President Cullerton allows both members to be able to participate in the workings of the Chamber.

Each chamber goes about its business differently, with the House handling indictment(s) in one way, and that is their way and privilege. Comparing the two chambers is terribly unfair, but when different rules are being applied to similar circumstances, it can’t be helped that not only comparisons occur, but comparing what can be seen as deficiencies in those differences happen.

I’m voting “yes”, but I’m hoping that both members will choose to refrain from participating, but that is a hope and nothing more.

As members elected, they, according to President Cullerton’s view, are still, allegedly, entitled to those votes by the parameters put forth.

So… a reluctant yes.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:44 pm
Should they be ALLOWED to vote? Yes, they are members of the caucus still.
Should they VOTE? No. There is a possibility this will be a closely contested election, and the possibility of either of them potentially being a deciding vote would erode public trust in the newly elected President right from the start.

Comment by nuanced take Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:44 pm
They have not been convicted, so yes, they should be able to choose the President of their choice. That said, it would be ethically correct for both of them to abstain from voting until there is a disposition of their legal problems.

Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:45 pm
I vote yes let them vote. Innocent/guilt not really a factor in Senate pres vote. They are part of the Dem caucus and until leadership can persuade them to quit you take the good with the bad.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:46 pm
They shouldn’t. But I don’t see any legal impediment to prevent them. They should either voluntarily bow out or provide one vote for Kim and one for Manar.

What an awful legacy if either of these 2 person’s votes make a difference.

Comment by A guy Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:52 pm
Yes, because they are still Senators and caucus members. If either care at all about their party, they’d call in sick that day.

Comment by NIU Grad Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:53 pm
Does this mean there is a truce between Lightfoot, Steans, and Manar?

Comment by mcdouble Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:53 pm
Always an option for those who would be Senate President to announce that they will not accept the vote of those under such clouds (and, would add Link to that list). In fact, contenders could declare right now that they reject their votes.

Comment by Moe Berg Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 2:57 pm
If this goes off the rails and the Republicans get involved, I’d rather have the vote of Cullerton and Sandoval over the vote of any Republican senator.

I doubt will see that scenario, but under the rules, it’s possible the GOP could play a role in this. Would the winner look better if she wins with GOP votes, or if it requires her to accept the support of two Senators under investigation?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 3:09 pm
Depends on who they plan on voting for. Just kidding.

I have to go with let them vote. As mentioned, they are elected officials until convicted or expelled.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 3:16 pm
I still say the Dem caucus can make up their own minds on this the same as they did when Cullerton got elected. They can decide that it will be a majority of their own caucus to decide and the other members would fall in line after that. So the repubs were not part of the plan. They could do the same except say its a majority of the 38 out of their 40 that would decide (majority of 37 if you leave out Link also).

Comment by Been There Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 3:20 pm
Yes, I think you have to let them vote if they are still in the caucus. I expect part of the ground rules to include that the vote for the new President will be a caucus position anyway. Tangentially, could John Cullerton step down from the Presidency, vote for his replacement, then retire his Senate seat?

Comment by SAP Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 3:21 pm
Yes. If they can travel to Springfield, they should be allowed to vote.

Comment by Spectre Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 3:37 pm
Should they be allowed? Not sure how they cannot be allowed.

Should they? This one is harder for me but since they are allowed, I guess it is really up to them … and they will.

Comment by R A T Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 3:39 pm
Honestly, I think the answer is different for Cullerton than it is for Sandoval. Cullerton has been indicted on several counts.

Sandoval has not even been indicted of a crime.

At the end of the day, the Feds need to do better about expediting these cases when they decide to do very public raids such as they did here. But they wont. I think they are content with the chaos that ensued as a result of their “investigative” activities.

Comment by Powdered Whig Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 4:01 pm
=== Should they be allowed? Not sure how they cannot be allowed.====
As noted above I think they definitely have a right to vote when it actually is taken up on the floor. But the Sen Dems can make that perfunctory if they decide in their caucus (and behind closed doors) that a majority of just the Dems will come to an agreement and then the rest of them will accept that decision and agree to vote for that person on the floor.

Comment by Been There Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 4:51 pm
Of course not…and the new Senate Presdient should immediately move to expel the schmucks from the body.

Comment by Token Conservative Tuesday, Nov 19, 19 @ 8:17 pm
They have not been convicted. They have due process rights. They should be allowed to vote. The bigger question is that in this environment is it wise to create a PAC basically for the sole purpose of picking the next Senate Prez? Wouldn’t want to be the Treasurer of the one. Regardless of how squeaky clean it might be questions will be asked.

Comment by Eire17 Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 4:09 am