Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

This is a bigger change than some are claiming

Posted in:

Illinois

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

While the House Republicans made some decent points last week when arguing against the chamber’s new rules, they all but dismissed some pretty darned historic changes.

For years, decades even, the House Republicans have argued for leadership term limits. House Speaker Michael Madigan rebuffed them at every single turn. Heck, Madigan retaliated against members of his own party who dared broach the subject.

Remember in 2018 when labor union leaders loyal to Madigan revolted against then-Senate President John Cullerton when he aired TV ads for four suburban candidates who argued for leader term limits, including limits on the House Speaker? Cullerton was threatened so strongly with financial retribution that he had to pull down the ads and agree not to ever do that again.

The Senate Democrats have been all but completely shut out of the significant postage discount provided by Madigan’s Democratic Party of Illinois the last couple of election cycles because their mailers often referenced their candidates’ support for leader term limits (without even mentioning Madigan). That DPI rebuke has cost the SDems a small fortune.

The new rule for leader term limits is, therefore, big. And, yes, a chamber’s rules can be fairly easily changed, but it’s a start and a constitutional change couldn’t take effect until 2023 at the earliest anyway.

The new rules also mean House committees will be allowed to meet virtually as long as the House isn’t in session. That’s a good step during the pandemic, but I’m not sure it’s something they should be doing after this nightmare is finally over.

The Republicans have demanded a rule requiring up or down committee votes on all bills. Rep. Avery Bourne (R-Morrisonville) made a hypothetical argument during debate that a bill could be co-sponsored by every member of a committee and still not get a vote. But such a thing is unheard of in the real world. And if a bill did reach even close to such a milestone and didn’t get a hearing, it would likely be because the co-sponsors only signed on for a press pop and had no intention of ever moving it.

The demand is also a clear and open invitation to parliamentary mischief. Republicans could easily flood the zone with bills and bog down every single committee in perpetuity. They did it many years ago and paralyzed the House with hundreds of floor amendments, before those rules were tightened up.

Not to mention the national upheaval’s impact on the state. Two weeks ago, Rep. Brad Halbrook (R-Shelbyville) called the governor’s pandemic-related executive orders and emergency rules “COVID fascism,” according to WCIA-TV’s Mark Maxwell. Last month, the FBI warned that “Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols,” so Gov. Pritzker, like many others, called in the National Guard. Last week, Rep. Dan Caulkins (R-Decatur) called the governor’s response “a political agenda.”

Most Republican legislators here are not that far “out there,” but empowering folks who say things like that just ain’t going to be very high on the Democrats’ agenda. Those characters could be ignored or even laughed at before the violent Jan. 6 insurrection. No longer.

All that being said, the Republicans made decent points about the use of shelled-out bills as vehicles for last-minute legislation, or for requiring more time to review important legislation before it can be passed. But Majority Leader Greg Harris was unapologetic, saying if using these parliamentary maneuvers helped pass bills that he and his caucus strongly supports, then so be it.

But Leader Harris did say that the working group in charge of rule changes would continue to meet at the request of Republicans. The vote, he said, was only a first step. He said items like notice for consideration of legislation, selection of committee chairs, debate times and other items would be up for consideration. We’ll see if that ever happens.

After the debate, Harris gave me a copy of my Capitol Fax newsletter from 20 years ago which was published the day after a similarly contentious floor debate on the House rules. The biggest difference between then and now, though, is that some rank-and file House Democrats, including some anti-Madigan folks like Rep. Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz (D-Glenview), were allowed input on the new rules and spoke in favor of the resolution’s passage. That would’ve been completely out of the question in 2001.

So, while the Republicans, reform advocates, newspaper editorial boards and even I aren’t totally pleased, there was progress. And that’s not the norm. Keep at it.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 2:15 am

Comments

When the Republicans are ready to constructively participate in solving the myriad of issues facing Illinois, and propose ideas that move this state forward, those ideas will be heard. Now, they’re simply proposing changes to enhance their ability to obstruct. Until they dump the extremists instead of empowering them by looking the other way, they cannot be trusted to constructively participate as the loyal opposition. Republicans need to have their war, and get back to us, when sanity has prevailed within their ranks.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 6:28 am
Maxwell Scott, Editor Shinbone Star (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, paraphrased for Illinois): “This is about Mike Madigan, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 9:51 am
Well done AR.

It continues to be impossible for me to take the IL GOP seriously as they continue their attack on COVID mitigation efforts and fully embrace trumpism.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 10:13 am
==The new rule for leader term limits is, therefore, big.==

Only in Illinois does this constitute as “big”. What a kleptocracy.

Comment by SumGai1986 Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 10:33 am
=== Only in Illinois does this constitute as “big”===

How many other states have term limits for their legislative leaders?

Thanks.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 10:37 am
@OW -

Good question.

According to Wikipedia, no other state specifically term limits leadership. Of course, if a state limits legislative terms generally, that would de facto result in leadership term limits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#State_legislatures_with_term_limits

Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 11:09 am
- JoanP -

Right now, according to NCSL, 15 states have term limits, 6 others repealed term limits.

But, it’s “no big deal” what the rules of the Illinois House say.

Nope.

Ugh.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 11:14 am
Kinda hard for a morally bankrupt and bigoted sedition-loving political party to effectively engage in relative nit picking.

Comment by VerySmallRocks Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 11:31 am
===The Republicans have demanded a rule requiring up or down committee votes on all bills==

I could see giving each legislator the ability to call 1 bill per year for a vote. That would help prevent bricks from stopping good legislation, but also prevent a flood of bills from overwhelming the system. It will not make their never-gonna-happen-bill pass, but at least they got to try.

Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 12:22 pm
From @chicagobars (https://twitter.com/chicagobars/status/1361717124704722946?s=20):

===
“…Harris gave me a copy of my Capitol Fax newsletter from 20 years ago…”

Uh, exactly how far back does your @CapitolFax archive go @repgregharris and how did you keep that old-timey thermal fax paper from fading?
===

I think we found our next SoS. Rep. Harris already has the state archivist role down.

Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 12:29 pm
== the ability to call 1 bill per year … ==

The idea is good, but it should be more than one. Maybe cap it at 5 or less … and you have to be a sponsor or co-sponsor of the bill bring called.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 12:50 pm
==The Republicans have demanded a rule requiring up or down committee votes on all bills==

The real reason for Term Limits comes into view. It allows the Avery Bournes of today’s GOP to honestly say “Pate who?”

Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 1:09 pm
Peter Hancock said it best to Jim Durkin in a recent Capitol News Illinois interview: if you want more influence you need to win more elections.

Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 1:49 pm
A nice bit of inside baseball.

Comment by Anonanonsir Tuesday, Feb 16, 21 @ 2:09 pm