Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rep. Bellock to retire
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rauner puts password on his school funding site, but it’s cached online
Posted in:
* From ICPR…
State legislators who simultaneously serve as state party chairs are exceedingly rare. Among the 100 current Republican and Democratic State Party chairs in the nation, only nine also currently serve as state legislators. Of the nine, only two also serve in their party’s legislative leadership. This includes Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D), who has served as the Illinois Democratic Party’s Chair since 1998, totaling 19 years in the position.
Michael John Gray (D), outgoing Minority Leader for the Arkansas House of Representatives, also served as Chair of the Arkansas Democratic Party for about two months while completing his term as Minority Leader earlier this year. After the close of the state legislative session in May, the Arkansas House Democratic Caucus elected a new minority leader because of Rep. Gray’s March election as party chair.
Speaker Madigan is the only state party chair that also currently serves as the Speaker or President of his or her chamber. Illinois Republican Party Chairman Tim Schneider also serves as a Cook County Commissioner in the 15th District. It is not common for state party chairs to also maintain an active role as a public elected official, although it is not unheard of, with at least 13 other state party chairs currently holding public elected office in the U.S.
State party chairs serve as the representative of their party in that state, and are generally responsible for setting the party’s message and strategy, engaging with the media on behalf of the party, and organizing the party’s rank and file members. State Senate Presidents and House Speakers are responsible for representing and governing their respective legislative chamber. They may be tasked with keeping order, setting the agenda, moving bills along, and acting as spokesman for their chamber.
While a party chair is able to keep their focus on party interests, a legislative leader must also serve another role that transcends politics. ICPR Executive Director Sarah Brune explained, “It’s an age-old issue of separating politics and governance. A legislative leader is still a public servant, and has to keep the well-being of all Illinois residents in mind. Trying to manage politics and governance in this partisan environment is no easy task, and can present challenges if one person has to represent both interests.”
Outside of Illinois, it is very uncommon for an official to serve as both the party chair and the top chamber leader - and possibly with good reason. It may be difficult for officials to juggle what could be seen as conflicting responsibilities. In the case of Arkansas’ recent leadership changes, House Democrats were quick to put new leadership in place after Michael John Gray’s election as chair of the state party.
* The Question: Should legislators be barred from serving as state party chairs? Click here to take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rep. Bellock to retire
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rauner puts password on his school funding site, but it’s cached online
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
No, as the people actually putting their names on ballots, they can have useful insights.
But I would argue that Madigan ought to step down as DPI chair, as he tilts the organization far too much toward solely House races.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:25 pm
No. I really hate the way the Chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party prioritizes state house races over all others, sometime to the detriment of the others but that’s up to the party to decide and the party could decide to go in a different direction any time it wants.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:27 pm
===Trying to manage politics and governance in this partisan environment is no easy task, and can present challenges if one person has to represent both interests.”===
I’m a political hack so this statement doesn’t bother me. But from a political standpoint I think the committee should have a more active role. Especially on where and how money is spent. While the speaker probably has the best political mind in the state his stewardship of the party has…lets just say, tended to be a bit skewed toward just electing House members.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:28 pm
No. The Governor is the defacto head of the GOP and each of the GOP legislative caucuses so why should a legislator not be able to do it.
Comment by Spliff Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:28 pm
No, because in the end it’s those in leadership (legislator or Governor) who will end up calling the shots, formally or not.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:30 pm
I am not sure who is being suggested to do the barring.
I don’t want a state law on this.
But the members of the state Democratic Party should force Madigan out as party chair. He has not given us a statewide vibrant party with a coherent message and agenda to fight back against Republicans but merely marshals state party resources to help keep his House majority.
To the extent Dem grassroots have successes and to the extent Dems Downstate are having successes right now, it is in spite of their party chair, not because they have been empowered by him to succeed.
As a current resident of Illinois’s Dem legislative challenger desert, I want a new Dem state party chair committed to electing Dems at every level in all 102 counties and not just on the map that gets madigan to 60.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:30 pm
No, because it’s silly to think that it would stop politicians from playing politics. Separating power may be a good idea, but it might also just weaken parties for no real gain that I can see. Also, since there are two in the country, it seems like a non issue, not worth the time.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:30 pm
No.
But he needs to step it up and work for all races, not just the House. and create more activity. it’s like there are a few Il. Dem party chairs, and one has to work with them to succeed for multiple kinds of offices. Durbin and the county party chairs, Schakowsky for Congressional and increasingly local. And the elected Committeemen and Women must EACH operate Congressional organizations which promote the work. We can’t all just read the Tenth Dem email in wonder as we wish our State Comm folks were actually doing something in between elections to create success.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:39 pm
Yes, they should be separate. While the politics is never gone when a politician serves the focus on governance should take priority. I think Illinois has become the poster child for what happens when politics rules the statehouse. We have a state that is underwater and failing. As to the Gov being the defacto head, that certainly wasn’t the case under Quinn. It was Madigan and only Madigan. I think this is an easy law to formulate but I don’t see any politician in Illinois voting for it, Rep or Dem.
Comment by NeverPoliticallyCorrect Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:44 pm
Yes, but so should constitutional/executive office holders. Democrats biggest complaint is Rauner is controlling the finances of the party. He did not tip the scale, he just balanced it. Madigan can not only decide who in his party/caucus gets money and how much, he can decide which of the opposing party don’t have funded challengers.
Let’s see how many of the republicans that voted with Madigan on the Budget get general election challenges from party funded candidates. Me think not many.
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:44 pm
why would you bar good talent from seeking the position? Makes no sense. Just because a do-gooder sees evil behind every door?
Comment by Tom Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:47 pm
Rauner owns the Republican Party and both caucuses lock-stock-and-barrel. Because he does not have the formal title of party chair, but instead has a surrogate in that role, implies that ICPR views this as a meaningful distinction? Further, I don’t really grasp the separation of the party’s considerations from the partisan considerations of an elected official that Brune is trying to make. Good policy is good politics and both parties have different ideas of what is good policy. That’s democracy. There’s no church/state separation.
What the Speaker understands, but many seem not to, is that the Democratic Party, by nature, history and the state’s geography, is an entity that lends itself to decentralization. Let the many and various power centers do what they will.
And, there is nothing to stop enterprising people from getting things going locally for Democrats. There’s not some magic mana from on high and lots of extra resources the party is hoarding. If you can’t “live off the land” and support yourselves locally, some top-down structure is not going to be able to sustain you? Parties in general just don’t have that level of resources, and especially not Democrats. Look at what 10th District Dems, Quad City Dems, Will Co. Dems, etc. have going for themselves without depending on a central party apparatus to get it done for them. Cullerton’s majority exceeds Madigan’s despite the claims that all the $ just go the House candidates.
Comment by Moe Berg Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 1:58 pm
I think Madigan has amassed too much personal power to the detriment of Illinois and the Democratic process.
That said, no.
Political parties are private organizations and should be free to choose their own membership.
If you were to ask the inverse question, “Should party chars be barred from running for elected office?” I would say maybe. Ballot qualifications are a more appropriate way to address the conflict.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:00 pm
Political parties should govern themselves as they see fit, so I voted no.
That being said, I do wish that Speaker Madigan would step down as State Party Chair. I don’t think he’s a very good public face for the state party.
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:01 pm
Unfortunately, the question presented is a poor one due to its simplicity. Should legislators be barred from being party chairs? Easily no. Laws shouldn’t dictate to legislators what they can do outside of their official duties. That is what voters are for.
Now if the question was “should legislators abstain from serving as party leaders, or should political parties forbid legislators from heading them,” that begs a moral question that I find much more enticing and worth debate.
Comment by The Southerner Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:05 pm
Illinois stands out in this regard…So the answer must be Yes.
When so strong a conflict between politics and policy exists, this wouldn’t be a bad rule at all.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:12 pm
I am going to say no based on a personal experience. My state rep & senator were not responding to emails. In fact, one had a full email box for some time. I reported it to the state Dem. party. I would like to think it was Madigan who got it resolved right away. Someone put the fear of God in my state rep. He called 5X within 20 minutes. I deeply appreciated it.
Comment by Emily Booth Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:18 pm
I’m paraphrazing.
Should there appear to be a conflict of interest, it is always best to side with the ethical thing to do. Its always best that there are no appearance of impropriety.
Comment by Generic Drone Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:25 pm
Yes because for Madigan it has always been a political calculus. Always. I assume it would be for anyone who could hold both positions.
Comment by Julian's Melange Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:34 pm
No. Remember, “there doesn’t have to be a law for everything.”
Comment by perry noya Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:42 pm
No:
1. People have the constitutional right to organize political parties, and I believe it would be an infringement (not necessarily an unconstitutional infringement, but an infringement nonetheless) on a legislator’s right to associate with and be as active as they want with their respective party.
2. The citizenry could punish, electorally speaking, their elected officials for supporting a legislator/chairperson. The citizenry of Illinois does not care enough that Madigan is Speaker and Chairman, or they would vote out their Dem legislators, which isn’t happening.
3. As others have pointed out, a legislator (e.g. Madigan) could simply control the party anyways by installing a puppet as chair.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 2:44 pm
No.
Political parties should be free to make their own rules.
Comment by Mike Royko Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 3:04 pm
This is a bylaws issue. Probably a good idea, but not a legislative good idea. Voted no.
Comment by Springfieldish Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 3:07 pm
No. As well said by a poster above, “there doesn’t need to be a law for everything.”
Comment by Arthur Amdersen Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 3:53 pm
No. Having the party’s chief on the legislative floor as the leader is probably a more efficient way of keeping party members in line. Saves phone calls and water boys to carry the party message and maintains vigilance over those who would have the temerity to act on behalf of all the people instead of narrow party interests.
And even if the two functions were separated, the money to keep legislators in line would find its way to the willing.
The power to force rational, effective governance on behalf of all the people remains firmly with the voters. That most have abdicated their responsibility will not be fixed by rules prohibiting a legislator from also acting as a chamber and party leader.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 4:06 pm
Having strong talented party chairs in addition to strong leaders in government, would be a plus. Unfortunately, power congeals. The GOPers have essentially the same structure as the Dems, in Illinois.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 4:06 pm
I say no. One person rule is working well for Illinois — why change?
Comment by OldIllini Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 4:34 pm
No. It isn’t a public office. It’s up to the party itself to choose its leadership.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 4:53 pm
Yes. I have to admit, I want to stick it to Madigan.
Comment by Mr.B Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 7:21 pm
Voted no. Neither voters or lobbyists care.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Aug 1, 17 @ 7:41 pm