1. - Crimefighter - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 4:52 pm:

   I don’t see an issue with being able to recall judges…especially with the recent trend of judges giving light sentences to pedophiles and having no means to oust them.




2. - Speaking At Will - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 4:57 pm:

   I wonder if we will have another round of “Bad Hair Do” and “Hilary Delegate” talk in this Senate Executive meeting. Should be interesting.




3. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:03 pm:

   So the game plan is, by the time everyone hits the campaign trails, a majority in both houses will be able to say they voted for recall, but nothing will have passed.




4. - Anon - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:10 pm:

   the Quinn thingy is awesome! Will he still support it? It is still in the best interest of the people, right Pat?




5. - LathamPlace - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:13 pm:

   I bet Quinn is sweating bullets!!!




6. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:14 pm:

   I bet Pat will support it.




7. - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:17 pm:

   The Quinn thing is government at it’s worst. I have never supported Pat Quinn, bu this provision is just the Governor getting even for Quinn supporting recall. Will this governor also propose that if he ends up getting indicted and going to the slammer that Quinn should go with him as well.




8. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:22 pm:

   At the last recall hearing, Quinn was asked and said if that was what was decided, he’d still support being tied to Blago.




9. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:34 pm:

   Hey, if they are going to create a political pinnata let’s throw in emil and mike as well. And the spin sisters for seasoning.




10. - Levois - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:35 pm:

    I was going to come in and state that the Lt. Gov going down with the governor is almost backwards. Or it might make sense because Quinn hasn’t taken an active role and stayed with this governor in 2006. That being said the Lt. Gov shouldn’t be included. If nothing else he should follow the governor instead of we select another governor.




11. - T-Rex - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:38 pm:

    Please spare us the Hilary Delegate, with bad hair’s, Ambition Tour. Although, I wouldn’t mind seeing Hendon and Martinez in action again….




12. - problem - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:39 pm:

    They can get it passed if the House is willing to come in over the weekend.




13. - GoBearsss - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:41 pm:

    Rich - do you think this would even pass the Senate?

    I thought the income tax bill today would get at least 25 votes, and was surprised.




14. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 5:49 pm:

    If they indeed sack guv and quinn the line of succession then falls to G.Ryan who would then be released as rehabilited and returned to office thus saving ill.




15. - Steve Brown - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:01 pm:

    Rich:
    The Speaker will ask House members to be in session to consider an amendment passed by te Senate.




16. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:16 pm:

    Interesting fun fact… Sen. Silverstein’s amendment would require 20 percent of voters statewide in the last gov. Election to impeach a circuit judge… Ie it can’t happen. I do like that he used my idea of requiring the Art. VI discipline process before a judicial recall could be filed.




17. - GoBearsss - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:26 pm:

    Steve Brown:
    The ironies are countless.




18. - Captain America - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:39 pm:

    Emil Jones strikes again! When are Senate Dems going to wise up and boot him?

    Actually, I think it’s an excellent idea in principle to include local elected officals in the recall amendment. But I wouldn’t put it in the amendment if it effectively sabotages the likelihood of legislative passage.

    It’s not logical to include the Lt. Governor in the recall bill since these offices were decoupled way back when, Nonetheless, it is hilarious.I amy get recalled, but you’ll never be Governor, Cassius Brutus Quinn.

    To all the State reps- I think it’s worth a lost weekend in Springfield if it means tht the recall amendemnt can be passed.

    I would defintely enjoy circulating recall petitions. It would be a “far far better thing than I have ever done before” - a real opportunity to have an impact on the ills of the Illinois body politic.It would give me something to look forward to after the November Presidential election.




19. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:42 pm:

    - GoBearsss -
    It is nice to see the Speaker attending to State business in a timely fashion as usual. Too bad emil can’t keep his word on agreements and the guv fails to lead … or maybe is just “late” showing up for work? 5 1/2 years late!




20. - Bud Man - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:42 pm:

    So how would the recall of the Gov/Lt Gov work? Would there be a special recall election, and then if it succeeds, a special gubernatorial election? How far apart would these elections be? Are there party primaries or is it a free for all?

    It sounds like the process would be so long that it would never hapen. Way too many costs with no benefit.




21. - GoBearsss - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:46 pm:

    It’s quite odd that Madigan wouldn’t force them to stay the weekend on matters like Mass Transit, Pension Reform, Guns, healthcare, and small things like passing a state budget.

    You know… the things people actually care about.




22. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:51 pm:

    - Bud Man -
    “… Way too many costs with no benefit…”
    Still a lot cheaper than keeping the current guv and his “I am the king” self image and manner of guvrng. Just get rid of the poser and replace him in a timely manner - the sooner the better and the more cost we will avoid.




23. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 6:58 pm:

    - GoBearsss -
    Yeah, gosh. Guess we need a special session to really get things done. It would be nice if guv suggested some legislation or whatever for them to consider though. Won’t happen, guv is an empty suit . . . soon to be indicted just like the proverbial ham sandwich.




24. - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 7:20 pm:

    Any information on the bill’s proposed percentage to recall local officials? This might be too far reaching. If you can recall any of the thousands of local elected officials and judges in the state, the state and county election authorities could be overwhelmed during an angry voter year. I really think that recalls should be limited to executives … limited info, though, so maybe it does limit recall to executives. This will be an interesting development.




25. - soccermom - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 7:24 pm:

    Quinn will support it.




26. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 7:46 pm:

    Here are the details…

    For executive branch, you need 12% signatures of the last race for the office.

    All others require 20% (judges, legislators, **salaried** local government). So, those local elected leaders who serve without pay (i.e. school board) are not recallable.

    To recall a judge, you need to do the judicial discipline process first (Art. VI spells it out). You can still recall after that, but it provides a buffer to prevent recalls for correct but unpopular judicial decisions (I’m guessing they basically used my idea because I didn’t hear anyone else mention it 2 weeks ago). Now, you can still recall if the discipline process comes back with “innocent” or they just chuck the complaint, but a judge can simple say “no fire here” during such a campaign.

    For judges, they take 20% of the votes in that district for the governor’s race (because counting # of votes for judicial elections is kind of odd because of the different system they are in).

    A recall petition does not need to specify a reason (something it probably should).

    There is the same no recall until 6 months into the term rule. You then have 160 days to get the signatures (can take less time if you need), the Board of Elections has up to 105 days to certify the recall for the ballot (and up to 45 days for objections), after certification there must be an election between 60-100 days out, with nominees to replace having 40 days to get their petitions in.

    So, 180 days (6 months) + 160 days + 105 days + 100 days = 545 days to recall assuming filing first possible day and maximum delays thereafter.

    In short, won’t ever really effect the House members who vote on this (or any other 2-year term offices).




27. - problem - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 7:47 pm:

    I can guarantee there will be 2 targets of any recall each election - the Senate President and House Speaker.

    Why bother with any members - put your full resources to put the leadership against the wall each election.




28. - keepin up with jones - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 8:24 pm:

    Let recall everybody.




29. - dc - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 8:31 pm:

    If neither the Governor nor the Lt. Governor are able to fulfill their constitutional offices, guess who becomes the Governor? The Attorney General :-) That is one of the key reasons Bob Kustra did not resign from office in 1994, because Edgar was having heart surgery and Roland Burris could have become Governor of the state if Kustra resigned (assuming of course that Edgar would not have been able to uphold his oath –something Blagojevich could reasonably be accused of doing himself).

    I love the “call” of the cards by the Speaker. Classic move. Brilliant strategy, as usual. The hedgehog will always - always- outmaneuver a fox.




30. - Speaking at Will - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 9:00 pm:

    I have been an outspoken supporter of recall, however this amendment is poor. It’s impressive that Madigan called the Senates hand on this, however this is a poor amendment that should not pass the house. The amendment as I understand it is too far reaching.

    State Reps, and State Senators have power, but the governor can be a one man wrecking crew. Recall for executives only, as much as I want recall passed, this could have unseen consequences in the future.




31. - Prairie Sage - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 9:08 pm:

    Not quite, dc. It would actually set up an election between Blagojevich and his new Lt. Gov candidate and whoever else files petitions for the “successor election” between the certification of a successful recall petition and the actual recall election. My reading of the timeline as outlined by the Senate version is as follows:

    November — amend approved
    January 09 — recall petition filed
    Mid-Feb 09 (40 days later) — filing deadline for successors, and the incumbent can run
    Mid-April (100 days later) special joint recall and successor election. Which, by the way, is not limited to two candidates, so we could have a massive multi-candidate, multi-party race.

    Resulting in the following chum:

    “Vote Blago twice”
    “Punch NO Rod, Punch Paul”

    And I predict the following results:

    Recall: 63% Yes, 37% No

    Blagojevich: 37%
    P. Vallas, 20%
    D. Brady, 36%
    J. Oberweis, 7%

    Blagojevich gets re-elected with roughly 1 in 3 special election voters.

    My own view is that a recall would make things worse, not better, with all Governors in the future.




32. - More Courage - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 9:21 pm:

    Let me get this right. One of Madigan’s primary reasons for not having hearings last week on the House Republican proposal is that he didn’t want to bring members in during a week that they were off. But now, it’s ok to bring them in this weekend? Can it pass the House in time without being in this weekend?




33. - Loop Lady - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 9:21 pm:

    to the Senate Dems: Get rid if Emil Jones, and the gridlock will go away…today’s legislative “actions” are beyond are a misnomer and a waste of the taxpayers monies and legislators time and imtellect…Quinn is a mensch cause he’ll just run for whatever office he wants the next election cycle if he’s recalled with his Goobernatorness….I despise Milorad and his gutless underlings…




34. - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 9:57 pm:

    No, earliest Senate could pass is Thursday. Friday, Saturday, Sunday in the House for their three readings. Unless somehow House can do first reading on Thursday also, even then, they have to be there Saturday.

    What the Senate is trying to do is make it look like the House is obstructionist here. The stakes are a little too high for anyone to want to be caught holding the hot potato when/if this dies. Hence the game.




35. - Fox Mulder - Tuesday, Apr 29, 08 @ 10:42 pm:

    GoBearsss, you never let facts get in the way of a cheap shot. Are you Harris?

    I can remember the dustup last year when the Speaker had weekend hearings on pensions and the SERS guy was ordered by his Board chair not to attend, so the full House sat there looking at an empty chair. Next best thing to POA showing up.

    You were probably in Chicago anyway.

    BTW, freshened the resume yet?




36. - Idea Man - Wednesday, Apr 30, 08 @ 7:40 am:

    Didn’t Shakespeare opine that in order to create chaos the first thing you do is “recall all the City Clerks?”




37. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 30, 08 @ 8:17 am:

    CaptainAmerica - you’ve got it backwards. The Gov and Lt Gov were decoupled under the 1870 constitution - that’s why we had Republican Governor Ogilvie and Democratic Governor Paul Simon. The 1970 Constitution coupled them - they are elected as a team. (They DO run independently in the primary, but in the general, they are a team.)




38. - Wild Bill - Wednesday, Apr 30, 08 @ 8:20 am:

    It is funny to watch the SpinSisters and their BoyToys look for way to blame Madigan for all their problems.If they spent that much time on solutions the state’s troubles might be reduced.

    GoBearss wants to toss in CTA, pensions etc….he forgets the standing veto threat from Blagoof and the most erratic act —- free rides for seniors — as impediments to progress.




39. - dc - Wednesday, Apr 30, 08 @ 8:30 am:

    Prairie Sage — in typical fashion the Senate language (and by virtue of your analysis) would appear to contradict the State Constitution. My earlier comment was not intended as a Harvard Business Review of the substantive language, but rather -and most importantly - the outcome of having both a sitting Governor and Lt. Governor not qualified to hold office. Those who have even moderately followed this administration’s flailing disdain for the Constitution would easily recognize their tactics have once again been rebuffed. Oh, by the way, I didn’t “D.Brady” was planning to run for Governor… That’s Dan Brady, by the way, unrelated to Bill Brady who should not be underestimated in any stretch of the imagination, even in a head to head match up with Paul Vallas. You really think Public Official A would survive a recall? Send me your kool aid…




40. Pingback Partisan Discourse » Five random thoughts - Wednesday, Apr 30, 08 @ 10:20 am:

    […] Rich Miller reports the Senate is considering a recall provision, SJRCA 70, which links the LG to the Gov in any recall effort. Who would run the state if a recall was successful? I guess recalls would be like the California recall where there is a Y/N on recall and then a list of successors. This resolution must pass today, or we’re past the constitutional deadline to get it on the ballot. […]

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.