Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Rauner’s $20 million “tip of the iceberg”
Posted in:
* AP…
A spokeswoman for Illinois’ Senate President says legislation is being prepared to establish a 2016 special election to replace late state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka.
Democratic Senate President John Cullerton’s spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon says he and Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan’s office have had “very productive conversations in drafting this bill.”
Phelon says the legislation could be considered during a legislative special session Jan. 8.
* Finke is a wee bit skeptical…
House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, initially indicated that he didn’t want to get involved in the whole debate about whether or not to hold an election in 2016. Now there’s word he’s working on a bill with the Senate to hold an election. Maybe he did the political calculus and decided it wasn’t such a bad idea.
Then again, you can never tell what Madigan’s really thinking. He could “work” on an election bill and then decide not to push it very hard, which could end up dooming it.
Regardless, the special session next week will be Quinn’s last hurrah with the legislature. We’ll see if lawmakers finally do something Quinn wants.
* Erickson looks at the history…
If Madigan sticks by his call for an executive-level agreement — and one doesn’t happen — Illinoisans could be in for a rerun of a Madigan-Blagojevich showdown from 10 years ago.
In June 2004, after Blagojevich scheduled a special session on the state’s budget problems, Madigan convened the House and then adjourned 23 minutes later.
Lawmakers that day listened to an opening prayer, recited the Pledge of Allegiance, heard a few scheduling-related remarks and then were done for the day.
In later years, similar special session showdowns between the duo mirrored that template. In 2007, Blagojevich even went to court hoping to force Madigan to conduct business when the governor dictated.
The alliances from those days also seem eerily similar. In 2004, Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, backed Blagojevich. This time around, Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is in Quinn’s corner when it comes to scheduling a special election.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 8:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Rauner’s $20 million “tip of the iceberg”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===In June 2004, after Blagojevich scheduled a special session on the state’s budget problems, Madigan convened the House and then adjourned 23 minutes later.===
Right now, I am in the “Gavel in, Gavel out” camp for the Speaker.
MJM may be helping “craft” the language, but a great point is made that unless the Speaker is pushing it, it may die on the vine.
I’m not shocked that Cullerton’s Press Shop is speaking to this while the Speaker’s Office is passively silent. That’s why I won’t be shocked if it’s a “Gavel in, Gavel out” House special session day.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 8:45 am
Happily for all of us, this “show down” will at least have the virtue of being brief. In a week, Quinn is history.
Comment by Skirmisher Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 8:48 am
With Andrewjeski’s name being floated in some quarters, let’s not dilly-dally on setting up a special election…
Comment by PublicServant Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 8:53 am
Is there substantive objection as to why a Special Election would be a bad thing?
I keep hearing arguments that boil down to “It is mean for Democrats to do this now” but I haven’t heard why they think it is a bad idea for reasons beyond the obvious political considerations, i.e. a special will likely mean the GOP losing the office in 2016.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:10 am
Prayer, Pledge, Pound…of gavel. Pat gets his own transportation home. This is silly.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:12 am
What’s the goo-goo reason for an appointed four-year term? Or is it just a few government jobs for GOP partisans?
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:20 am
Perhaps we could see something resembling a well thought out policy with input and research from all quarters i.e. how have other states confronted this, since it hasn’t happened here before.
Throwing together some one sided hastily put together bill for a one day session, to be signed into law by a defeated Governor after being passed by a session with a lot of lame ducks??? Yeah, what possibly could be flawed about that? Oy.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:25 am
It seems to me — and maybe this is the way the Speaker is thinking — that the Dems have more to gain from passing this Special Election bill after Rauner is sworn in. If he vetoes it, they can portray him as a power-hungry overlord who wants to deny the voters the chance to choose a statewide office holder. If he signs the bill, then the Dems likely pick-up an office during the more favorable presidential year election cycle.
Comment by T.H. Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:33 am
==Throwing together some one sided hastily put together bill for a one day session, to be signed into law by a defeated Governor after being passed by a session with a lot of lame ducks??? ==
Bitter much? Not in favor of a special election? Because we certainly wouldn’t want the voters to have a say would we.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:34 am
Executive committee has been scheduled for 10:30 Thursday AM in the House so that might give a little sneak preview into the Speakers plans. Senate Exec meets at 10, so that at least gives the appearance the two chambers are working together as Cullerton suggests. I guess we’ll find out on Thursday. It will also be interesting to see if they use an existing bill or start one from scratch. An existing bill could mean a one day session (if they agree on a special election) but might open up another legal challenge. A new bill will take 5 days meaning the final vote would have to take place on Monday. Fun stuff.
Comment by Jaded Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:38 am
Adam Andrewjeski has Zero chance of being appointed. He filed suit against JBT office a few years back so he is a non starter. Also he got waxed in his state wide attempt a few years back he would lose the office for sure.
Comment by Robin Ventura Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:41 am
I’m also hearing that there are supposed to be “a lot” (whatever that means) of absences on Thursday. That could also doom any bill in the House.
Comment by AlabamaShake Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:48 am
===a session with a lot of lame ducks===
The vast majority of the lame ducks are House Republicans, who won’t be voting for it anyway.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:50 am
Still…That’s when they’re most pliable, no?
Comment by A guy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:51 am
This is a BLUE state. Even if you can’t find another one for a thousand miles, Illinois is ran by the Democrats. So there’s no good reason for a four year appointment, or for a special election - its all about electing another Democrat in our BLUE state.
Rauner isn’t going to change that.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 9:55 am
A Guy,
Is there some complexity to the issue that is not readily apparent?
Either you think a vacancy for an elected office should be filled by an appointment for two years (followed by a special election) or four.
What is the nuance that I’m missing? What is there that would require additional analysis or study?
By the way, this probably is not good for moderate Republicans. Once again, they are standing in the way of the voters. Before this, they were opposed to things like same day registration. Now they don’t want voters to select a person to fill an elected position.
This has the potential to become part of a fact based narrative that the GOP has a core that is opposed to democracy. They want to impose limits on voters. That may not be a sound electoral strategy.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:01 am
==This has the potential to become part of a fact based narrative that the GOP has a core that is opposed to democracy.==
That’s a good point and something I have noted before. You can hammer away at Republicans who oppose a special election by doing exactly what you say - paint them as being opposed to the democratic process. They should tread lightly here.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:04 am
No doubt Cullerton is telling the truth, but Madigan retains his options.
Works better to do it in the early Spring.
Madigan’s still got the same number of votes either way. This is not the kind of issue where being a “lame duck” would have any impact on a legislator, because it would be generally popular to support an election over an appointment.
The only difference would be who fights it and possibly vetoes it. Not a winning position for Rauner. Neither would dragging it to court play especially well.
Also quite an item to trade for other issues, if it comes to that.
The only reason to do it now, would be to get it off the table, and avoid a big confrontation between the parties, and between the GA and Governor early in the session. If MJM gets it done now, and avoids a Spring confrontation, that can be read as a deliberate move toward better overall relations with Governor Rauner.
Comment by walker Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:06 am
But - VanillaMan -, Bruve Rauner is “light blue”….
Remember? lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:07 am
Gooner, use your imagination and pretend (without considering any current people) that this position vacated was Attorney General rather than Comptroller. Few Illinoisans even have a feint idea of what a Comptroller does. They miss Judy (I sure do!) but they don’t really understand the position.
What we’re doing here is setting a policy for all of the Constitutional offices. Do you really think that’s the work for a Lame Duck Governor and Lame Duck Legislature? I don’t. I’m not against a special election in these kinds of cases, but for 140 years this wasn’t thought out in the least. Now a vacancy has occurred. I think it’s worth looking at from every angle and not letting the immediate political considerations guide policy. A new duly sworn legislature may come to the same conclusion you have.
Are you arguing that a One Day Special Session of Lame Ducks is the way to go? Wow.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:10 am
For those suggesting that the Speaker may have a political reason for delay, or those in the GOP suggesting that we just hold off a bit –
I’m not convinced that a Special that is passed after an appointment would be constitutional. At that time, there would be no vacancy to fill. The legislature would be cutting the term of a person holding office.
I’m not sure how a court would decide, but once an appointment is made, it is far from clear cut that a valid special election can be set.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:12 am
Maybe that will work.
We have to hope so, don’t we?
We can’t keep falling further behind the other states and keep comforting ourselves that we are still number - whatever, 5? - overall. That isn’t Illinois.
We are a BLUE state. We’re going to have to figure out how to make this work because even during the Thompson, Edgar and Ryan years Illinois was still not a Texas, or an Indiana, a Georgia or even a Florida. If we don’t figure out who to make our BLUE state economy work, we’re going to end up more like a Michigan or a Pennsylvania - and that isn’t good.
Illinois will never go Kentuckian in government. We didn’t after Blagojevich during the worse of an economic decline - so I don’t believe we’ll ever see Illinois turning to a Rick Perry type government, no matter how much it seems to be booming down in Austin.
Light blue? If Rauner was really red - he wouldn’t be getting swore in later this month.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:34 am
==A new duly sworn legislature==
We have a duly sworn legislature now last I checked.
==What we’re doing here is setting a policy for all of the Constitutional offices==
Ok, so what’s the problem. I’m not understanding why you think this is so complicated. It seems pretty straight forward in my simple mind.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:36 am
Gooner: You make a fine point 10:12 above, and probably trumped all my masterful arguments.
My New Year’s resolution was to think more before I commented — and I broke down right out of the gate.
BTW thanks so much to Amalia, Arsenal, and you for making me a Gunners fan. That certainly helped my patience and serenity!
Comment by walker Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:45 am
Why do we need a special election for an office that many people consider superfluous and should be eliminated ?
Comment by ejhickey Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:45 am
Having Adam writing all the checks for the state while examining them for “waste, fraud, and abuse” would make for a very exciting political dynamic. His “political” hires would likely be BGA folks. His making daily reports on bad spending practices while many in the GA are crying they’ve “cut to the bone” would be very entertaining. It certainly would get the spitlight off Rauner a bit.
Appointing him would certainly be a bold move from a Rauner reform standpoint, and he has the power to do it. The question is whether he’ll find in more politically expedient to through the job to some unqualified GOP hack to “play ball”.
Comment by Arizona Bob Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:48 am
- Arizona Bob -.
If Rauner doesn’t pick Adam A, it doesn’t mean anyone else is a Hack.
But, thanks for playing.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 10:58 am
Yeah, this is real complicated, Guy. A four-year appointment or a special election in two years during the regular statewide. Real brainteaser.
Gee, all those dumb voters who don’t understand, according to you, what a comptroller does just can’t be trusted with such a momentous decision.
And it’s “faint,” not “feint,” when you’re trying to call people stupid.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:01 am
=== Wordslinger - Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:01 am:
Yeah, this is real complicated, Guy. A four-year appointment or a special election in two years during the regular statewide. Real brainteaser.
Gee, all those dumb voters who don’t understand, according to you, what a comptroller does just can’t be trusted with such a momentous decision.
And it’s “faint,” not “feint,” when you’re trying to call people stupid.====
Actually this whole post is beneath you Sling. I’ve never called anyone in this circumstance dumb or stupid. It’s not my nature to do so. But it sure is yours. There’s a lack of understanding about what these offices are responsible for, and it goes well beyond people who are naive or disinterested in the political process.
It’s not at all complicated to do “what you think” Sling, if you think that’s the only consideration. Process is important. Bad policy (in my humble and uninformed opinion) almost always comes from bad process. At my core, I’d like to think I’m a good government person regardless of which party decides to practice it.
Since Judy passed, this has been a tug o war of political operatives. No policy was in place with the exception of a paragraph or two and some notes from a Con Con that allowed for multiple interpretations.
We can fix it. Let’s do it in a regular session when legislation of any importance should be considered and passed. I’m not positive, but my hunch is that even the Speaker agrees with my point of view.
People can be purposely apathetic without being dumb or stupid. What’s sad is what’s driven them to be purposely apathetic. I’m working on that. What are you doing besides trying to be my grammar professor. Poor form this morning Sling. Nudge yourself back up.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:14 am
Walker,
Thanks for the kind words.
Yesterday was a good day to be an Arsenal fan. This side may be like Chelsea a few years ago, doing nothing in the BPL but doing well elsewhere (FA Cup and hopefully in the Champions League).
That being said, I’m disappointed that we let Podolski leave. He may have been a bit of a defensive liability, but if we need people like him to play defense we are out of luck anyway. He sure could finish.
Hopefully January will bring us another defender and a midfielder or two. We could use the help.
And now back to the discussion in which rabid Republicans try to convince us that elections are bad things.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:22 am
Seems silly to call a special session to order a special election for the Controller’s seat.
The makeup of the legislature remains solidly in the hands of Madigan and Cullerton. The new legislature can simply pass the special election bill in normal session. BR would not win if he tries to obstruct the special election and likely would look undemocratic doing it.
If the Republicans are likely to lose the office in ‘16 anyway, what is there to lose by appointing someone like Adam Andrewjeski? He might be able to uncover and publicize some bad spending practices. If not who cares?
Being too timid in the appointment for a non-policy making position forfeits an opportunity to ’shake things up” I hope for the appointment to be someone other than the usual suspects.
Comment by plutocrat03 Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:36 am
@Arizona Bob:
I’ll give you an education on the budget sometime. Then maybe you can talk intelligently about it instead of your platitudes and hyperbole about how much waste, fraud and abuse is in it. That’s a nice slogan for the woefully ignorant.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:38 am
@A guy:
I still wish I understood what you think is so complicated about this. I’m being serious. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to conclude that in circumstances such as these we should have a special election. We write a law that says so. That’s that. What exactly are the complicated considerations you fear are being glossed over? I really am being serious with that question.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:43 am
For those talking about AA — why in the world would Rauner choose somebody who is 1) Proven unable to get votes even among Republicans; and 2) Something of a loose cannon?
Rauner is going to chose the exact opposite of somebody like Adam. He’s either going with an accounting professional who is willing to run the office for two years (or four) in a competent manner, following orders or Rauner will go with a proven vote getter who can be put in a position to hold the office.
This is simply no way that Adam will be chosen.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:48 am
=== Seems silly to call a special session to order a special election for the Controller’s seat. ===
There’s a school of thought that legally you reduce the likelihood of a court challenge if you pass the special election legislation beforehand.
Also, to be fair to both Rauner and whomever he is considering, they ought to know that it is only a two-year gig.
And while it is true that Democrats will have majorities, and could and most likely will override a veto threat, why make it personal? If you wait until he appoints Adam or Jill Tracy or Nancy Kimme or whomever, it will seem like it is about them.
And really, it isn’t.
It is about whether the governor should have the authority to appoint a constitutional officer for a full four years whose sole purpose is to be a watchdog over his own spending.
The state’s first chief fiscal officer under the 1818 constitution was appointed — appointed by a joint resolution of the general assembly, without approval of the governor, when every the Secretary of state was appointed by the governor. Even two hundred years ago folks could see the folly of having the governor appoint his own fiscal watchdog.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 12:21 pm
=== Demoralized - Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 11:43 am:
@A guy:
I still wish I understood what you think is so complicated about this. I’m being serious. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to conclude that in circumstances such as these we should have a special election. We write a law that says so. That’s that. What exactly are the complicated considerations you fear are being glossed over? I really am being serious with that question.====
OK Demo, since you asked. This seat was vacated at a precarious time by a very unfortunate death. There are other times, other ways to vacate office, and other Constitutional offices to consider. This case may seem a little easier to provide a solution for than others that may arise in the future. I just think it should be looked at more universally than 2 years or 4 years out depending on who wants what.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 1:30 pm
@A Guy:
I believe you sincerely believe it’s complicated. I don’t see it but that’s ok. My kids tell me all the time I don’t understand things. If I were writing the bill the solution would be simple. If an office is vacated due to death or any other reason, the appointment would be made per the Constitution and a special election would be held the next time we elect members of the House of Representatives.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 1:41 pm
Demo, I think you mean General Assembly? They coincide, but it would seem a State Election would need to be tied to a state election, not a federal one. Same difference on timing.
Comment by A guy Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 2:50 pm
Any thoughts that changing the way offices are “appointed” could have anything to do with the race for US Senate? If Lisa Madigan were to run and say step down right at petition time that would mean a special election for AG as opposed to BR appointing for the remainder of her term should she run and win against Kirk?
Comment by DuPage Bard Monday, Jan 5, 15 @ 4:05 pm