Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - New ads released *** Poll: 80 percent support proposed “lockbox” amendment
Next Post: I kinda doubt these questions will be addressed tomorrow
Posted in:
* From the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute’s latest poll…
· While term limits for legislators aren’t on the November ballot, they are on the hearts of voters. There are over 80 percent who favor a constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms a state representative or state senator can serve. There are 17 percent opposed. Gov. Bruce Rauner is pressing lawmakers to act.
· Recently, the state Supreme Court ruled that an amendment establishing an independent commission to draw legislative district lines was unconstitutional. However, 72 percent of likely voters support that idea, while 18 percent are opposed.
The Simon Institute has been polling on this question since 2010 and the support for redistricting reform this year is at a record high.
“The massive support for these… measures is evidence of just how upset Illinois voters are with the way things are done in Springfield,” said David Yepsen, the director of the Institute.
* Historical trendlines…
* The actual questions…
* A proposal to limit state legislators to a total of eight years of service, whether in the House of Representatives, the State Senate, or a combination of the two. Would you favor or oppose this proposal? [In 2010, 2011, 2012 the question was this “limit state representatives to five consecutive two-year terms and state senators to three consecutive four-year terms.” In year after it was worded the same - “a proposal to limit state legislators to a total of eight years of service, whether in the House of Representatives, the State Senate, or a combination of the two.”]
* Other people have proposed a constitutional amendment that would have legislative district maps created and recommended by a commission that is independent of the elected representatives. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - New ads released *** Poll: 80 percent support proposed “lockbox” amendment
Next Post: I kinda doubt these questions will be addressed tomorrow
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Myself- oppose term limits. Corrections can be made to encourage more people to get involved in government if it is easier to get on the ballot (signatures- see Gill) and there is redistricting reform. However, HOW redistricting is done will be the kicker. But, if done well and equitably, term limits will take care of themselves. Supporting an ideal is one thing, implementing it is whole ‘nuther ballgame. Polls capture the ideal, in these cases, not the implementation.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:45 am
The fact that we lose an entire spring legislative session with no significant reforms, revenue increases or budget passed because there is an election in November is an indicator of why term limits and redistricting are essential for the legislature to regain the trust of Illinois voters.
Hard to argue that legislators primary concern is getting reelected and not solving Illinois many problems.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:46 am
I’m against term limits as undemocratic and largely indifferent to remap reform. I don’t think either are a cure for much of anything.
Having said that, the GOP is going to clobber the Dems forever until the GA puts them to a vote of the people.
At some point, (an off-presidential, I’d guess) the Dems will pay a high price for obstructing measures with such popular appeal. And rightly so.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:48 am
===The fact that we lose an entire spring legislative session with no significant reforms, revenue increases or budget passed because there is an election in November is an indicator of why term limits and redistricting are essential===
So, you think term-limited Democrats would vote to severely whack unions and trial lawyers? Why? Aren’t they still Democrats?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:53 am
Rauners re-election campaign writes himself if the democrats do not get in front of these issues.
Comment by Very fed up Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:54 am
Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan draw districts in similar manners as Illinois. If it’s good for them, it’s good for Illinois.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:57 am
We have term limits now. They are called elections. They occur every two years.
Comment by CapnCrunch Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:07 am
You are making my point Rich. Politicians who need to worry about raising the necessary campaign funds to get reelected don’t cross the people who contribute to their campaign.
No reforms their benefactors oppose will make it out the rules committee.
Democrats who have to balance their budgets like Rahm and Claypool are trying to whack CTU right now. IS there any other way to balance the budget?
Well run blue states like Massachusetts have already implemented these reforms and their strong economy is proof positive they work.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:15 am
===Politicians who need to worry about raising the necessary campaign funds to get reelected don’t cross the people who contribute to their campaign.===
Lots of Dem politicians come from unions or were elected with union support. A term limited House would not cave to the Turnaround Agenda.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:18 am
…In other words, simple solutions are usually neither.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:19 am
How to influence the significance of lobbyists and campaign cash?
Remove seniority and incumbency from play.
How to limit the influence of lobbyists and campaign cash?
Publicly finance elections.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:30 am
The public sees term limits as a panacea for our political ills, yet States that have term limits have not demonstated any marked improvement in governance as a result. Nevertheless, in a democratic republic, it may be better to give the public what it wants.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:42 am
Don’t forget Professor Yepsen will be ’splainin’ these polls at the City Club in the near future.
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:43 am
Wordslinger - you miss the bigger point. Whether you dislike term limits or redistricting (or are indifferent), you have a situation where overwhelming and consistent supermajorities of the citizens want these things AND CAN’T EVEN GET A VOTE ON THEM. That’s the very definition of un-democratic. In theory we have a democracy, but in practice it takes extra-extra-extraordinary efforts for the people to get their wishes enacted. It’s not that one party might make political hey of it (in other states these reforms) would favor Democrats over Republicans), it’s whether you believe in a functioning democracy.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:48 am
Would term-limited democrats whack unions? I’m not sure - I think back to that Eddleman video boasting how they got Madigan to put the supermajority requirement on Chicago teacher strikes. Does union influence go up or down when you have a larger pool of lame duck Dems?
That said, I don’t think the experience of other states tells us there’d be a big change. But most states don’t have a Madigan.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:54 am
–Wordslinger - you miss the bigger point. Whether you dislike term limits or redistricting (or are indifferent), you have a situation where overwhelming and consistent supermajorities of the citizens want these things AND CAN’T EVEN GET A VOTE ON THEM.–
LCD, read harder.
Not only did I not “miss the bigger point,” but it is precisely the point I made.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:11 am
Dr. Yepsen was on the 21st today.
http://will.illinois.edu/21stshow/
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:29 am
Lake county democrat- voters want citizens united overturned and can’t get a vote on it, either. The measures being pushed by, Rauner would certainly enhance the ability of the Governor and his billionaire cronies to effect the outcome. Wouldn’t necessarily improve the policy outcomes. Reducing the influence of large contributors would do much more
Comment by Truthteller Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:37 am
Wordslinger:
No, the sickness remains regardless of whether the Democrats pay a political price. It’s structural (unless you agree that the GOP Supreme Court justices are correct on the law and the Dem Justices were playing politics - in which case it’s a 50-50 split).
I’m also a little dubious you believe the Dems “should” pay a political price - you’re not voting against any of the Dems who have participated in this, are you? Are you encouraging others to “vote accordingly?” Heck, I doubt if even *I* am doing that - too much at stake.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:11 pm
Truthteller -
Point taken, but an extreme example: the US Constitution is supposed to protect certain sacrosant things against the majority, and speech is one of them (I think the decision was terrible, but I still would prefer a politically insulated Supreme Court to make those calls).
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:14 pm
LCD, I wrote in English. If I try Esperanto next time, maybe you won’t have so many questions on what I thought was a clear point regarding political obstruction of popular proposals.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:22 pm
Opposing this in this manner continues to be an utterly silly unforced error. It’s gotten to the point where it works for the Speaker’s opponents either way. Odd.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:58 pm
Going the other direction…. anyone think we try giving the Governor a 2 year deal and an optional 2 year extension if he’s not a complete train wreck??
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 2:08 pm
Wonder what the public would say to a 2 plus 2 term for Governors? After the 2nd year the public could oust the Gov if he’s failed miserably…….
Comment by Richard Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 2:15 pm
Headlines:
“Paying Zero Taxes support at record high.”
“Free Government Services support at record high.”
Public support is important, but not sufficient. You still have to make an argument that Term Limits and Remapping Reform are good public policies overall, and for the long term. A good politician/public servant has the responsibility to make the hard, better choices, and take any heat that produces. It’s called representative government.
IMO Term Limits would do more harm than good, while Remapping Reform will be a net plus. That also seems to be the experience in other states.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 3:00 pm
Answering a poll is not a political act. Voting is a political act.
As long as proponents fail to get these questions on the ballot and allow citizens to vote on them, all the poll results in the world mean nothing. Yes, voters may tell pollsters that they favor term limits or redistricting reform. That doesn’t mean they’re going to vote Republican. If Rainer and Co. think that they’re helping themselves by just keeping the issue alive and not on the ballot, they’ll be disappointed (again).
Comment by Snucka Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 3:12 pm