Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session Coverage
Next Post: 30-day pause in Lucas lawsuit
Posted in:
* Petrella…
Also scheduled for a hearing Tuesday [in the Senate] is the House’s lieutenant governor amendment. Despite voting against the previous version, Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, is sponsoring the House version.
Brady said he plans to propose changing the line of succession the amendment would establish, having a vacancy in the governor’s office filled by the highest-ranking official of the same party rather than by the attorney general, who might be of the opposite party.
That would address a major concern for Republicans who voted against the Senate version, he said, but it would mean the amendment won’t make it to the November ballot.
* The Tribune editorial board is not happy with this Brady development and addressed a missive to the Senate sponsor…
Your amendment changes the succession order to the next highest-ranking official of the governor’s political party: attorney general, secretary of state, comptroller, treasurer, and then majority or minority leader in the Senate and House — someone who is of the same political stripe as the outgoing governor. That is, your amendment would keep the office of governor in the same political party.
But if you demand those changes, voters won’t have the chance to weigh in on this proposed constitutional amendment. They have been waiting decades. Literally. Various proposals to eliminate the office of lieutenant governor have swirled around Springfield since the 1970s. […]
Senator, you co-sponsored the exact same bill in 2013 that would give the attorney general line-of-succession powers should the governor be unable to serve.
Now, all of a sudden, that’s a problem for you.
Don’t block the one chance voters have in November to eliminate an unnecessary state office. None of us has forgotten that you ran as the Republican gubernatorial nominee in 2010 promising to shrink government.
A whole lot of ink has been used up by editorial boards on this mainly symbolic constitutional amendment. Most are upset that Rauner and the Senate Republicans have flip-flopped. And I suppose they believe that if legislators can’t even eliminate this office then shrinking other governments would be out of the question. Maybe, but I doubt it.
But with all the real carnage out there, I find it kinda ridiculous that so much “outrage” is expressed on something that doesn’t really matter either way. I mean, the Tribune did not ever express one bit of concern when the governor submitted grossly unbalanced budgets two years in a row, but they’re somehow all fired up about a million or two bucks a year?
Weird.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session Coverage
Next Post: 30-day pause in Lucas lawsuit
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Obvious point is that they don’t want Lisa Byrnes to ascend unelected to the governor’s chair. But I agree that having a Lt. Gov. is the least of the state’s problems.
Comment by jack28 Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:25 am
Rearranging the deck chairs again. There are more important things they need to concentrate on right now.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:36 am
I hate to say it but I do think the line of succession should stay with the same political party. If that means that the amendment doesn’t make the fall ballot so be it.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:37 am
So the line of succession in Illinois must go down a list of members of the same political party. If the United States government can operate with a line of succession that could put the presidency in the hands of a member of the opposite political party (i.e. the Speaker of the House or the President Pro Temp of the Senate) then I think Illinois can handle it. It’s absurd to want to restrict line of succession to a single political party. This is partisan politics at its worst.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:44 am
Don’t often agree with Brady, and the “party” business doesn’t mean much to me, but in this case, he has a point, and, agreeing with the Captain, I don’t believe that it is so important that it has to be on THIS November’s ballot…
Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:46 am
Cannoli for Sen. Brady, extra liability insurance on Slip and Sue. That’s all this move did for me.
===I mean, the Tribune did not ever express one bit of concern when the governor submitted grossly unbalanced budgets two years in a row, but they’re somehow all fired up about a million or two bucks a year?===
Explains the Tribune Editorial Board… perfectly.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:50 am
A Careerfella move.
Comment by Austin Blvd Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:52 am
- Austin Blvd -,
Ah! I see what you did there… Lots of loose ends tied there, lots!
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:54 am
“- Demoralized - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 10:44 am:”
Federally, we have a vice-president of the same party.
If the Vice-President position was abolished, I am sure the same convened would be brought up.
I agree that it should stay in the same party. As for Illinois, we get bluer every day and Brucey might be our last Republican governor.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:09 am
Concern not convened
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:10 am
===As for Illinois, we get bluer every day and Brucey might be our last Republican governor.===
1) Rauner is a Raunerite, not a Republican. See: Dunkin, Ken.
2) Off-Year Gubernatorial elections allow a greater chance for a Republican governor. Odds are, a Republican can/could be elected long after George Ryan.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:12 am
Make the SOS the Govs successor and run jointly for election.
Comment by anon. Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:22 am
When Bill Brady can take the time to tuck in his shirt, wear a suit jacket, button the top button of his shirt, and tighten his tie, I’ll perhaps consider being more open to the drivel that pours out of his mouth.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:30 am
A million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money…..
Comment by Saluki Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:38 am
Sheer nonsense. The Constitution is about the structure and maintenance of government, not about the maintenance of a political party.
Comment by walker Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:21 pm
I’m to the point that even when the Tribune might have a good point I go the other way. They are so out of touch with reality that I find myself refusing to agree on any subject with that Editorial Board . That being said good for you Sen Brady
Comment by 19th Warder Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:30 pm
“Walker May 3, 16 @ 12:21 pm:”
The people have a right to amend the Constitution to what they want. The amendment makes sence to me.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:42 pm
This clearly demonstrates that they only have a problem with Lisa being the next in line. Even though the Lt Gov happens to be of the same party now does not guarantee it to always be that case. You could easily under current practice have an elected Gov as a Republican and an elected Lt Gov be of the opposing party. Nobody has complained about this being an issue in the past?
Comment by Radar Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:42 pm
Radar: Only in 1968.
Comment by Put the Fun in unfunded Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:00 pm