The Capitol Fax Blog » Noland defends recall vote, broaches impeachment

Noland defends recall vote, broaches impeachment

Tuesday, Jun 17, 2008

* Freshman Sen. Michael Noland (D-Elgin) has a letter to the editor in today’s Daily Herald…

As state senator for Illinois’ 22nd District, there has not been a single vote I’ve taken without believing I had the support of the people of my district. The “recall” vote, however, is probably the first exception to this general rule and so I now answer for it.

Noland voted against recall, and he lists his reason for doing so. He doesn’t think judges should be recalled, and he believes local political battles in his area are so divisive that recall would be abused.

What he doesn’t mention is that the Senate refused to vote on a recall proposal which didn’t include judges and local officials.

* And then we get to the crux of the matter…

Finally, I understand and even share your frustration regarding the governor. However, this, while in part his own doing, is something hard sought by those who want not so much his head as his job. Again, this is what elections are for.

Emphasis added for obvious reasons. Noland apparently believes that this impeachment stuff is all about Lisa. As if the majority of Illinoisans who favor the beginning of impeachment proceedings just want AG Lisa Madigan to be their governor. Weak.

* Last bit…

If and when he is charged with misconduct we can, under our constitution, impeach him.

I’m not sure what he means about the governor being “charged with misconduct.” Is that via the US Attorney or via a House impeachment proceeding?

Anyway, defend the letter and/or pick it apart.

- posted by Rich Miller

11 Comments

- Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 10:15 am:
I’m impressed with Senator Noland. He’s taken some gutsy votes and pushes hard for fundamental reforms as a freshman. I think it’s a refreshing move to have legislators fully explain their votes on closely-fought and closely-watched issues like the recall amendment.

- Pat collins - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 10:18 am:
Well, Noland is likely aware that he lacks considerably when compared with his predecessor.

1) The house can impeach without any indictments at all. They can impeach for “not being a good governor” if they want to.

2) He likely is doing this since his boss (Sen. Jones) has asked/told his freshmen that “if you want me in Nov., you need to help me now”.

One can hope this will backfire badly on him.

- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 10:40 am:
He should read the constitution before he comments on it.

If impeachment were all about Lisa, the speaker wouldn’t push it. Why give Quinn an up? The smart thing would be to let Blago finish his term and continue to twist slowly in the wind as the feds close in, while building up Lisa’s goo-goo and management credentials.

- Dirt Guy - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 10:50 am:
Freshman Sen. Michael Noland learns quick. Take an issue/problem and twist it around until it is completely distorted. I would think it would be easier for Lisa to take out Blago in the election than someone who has been behaving and competent for two years in office.

I guess this means that Freshman Senator Michael Noland thinks Rod has done a good job managing the state. If I were to use one word to sum up Blagojevich’s tenure in office I would use “disaster”. That is the main reason I want him gone.

- Squideshi - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 11:15 am:
Sounds like he is suggesting that external legal charges must be brought BEFORE proceeding with impeachment. I don’t agree with that assessment. While impeachment does require the brining of “legal” charges, that does not refer to the bringing of criminal charges by a law enforcement agency. An example of “legal charges” that could be brought against someone in a nonprofit organization are that they violated a provision of the bylaws. There are both cause and “legal charges”, but by violating a bylaws provision, that person need not have broken the public law.

- frustrated GOP - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 11:30 am:
I wonder who wrote the letter. Noland owes his entire career to the Senate President. He does exactly what he’s told.

- DeepFriedOnAStick - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 11:47 am:
Note to Noland:

Read the Constitution before you opine on it.

Note to Noland’s constituents:

No misconduct charge against the governor is necessary. The House may impeach him now - just because members feel he ought to be impeached. The House could impeach him now just because members don’t like his hair. The House could impeach him now because members don’t like his politics. The House could impeach him for ANY REASON AT ALL.

The House has the discretion to decide what an impeachable offense is.

All in the same breath, Noland acknowledges that he voted against the interest of his own constituents, and he obscures the reality of his vote by neglecting to mention that his own Democratic leaders wouldn’t allow a vote on the bill that he supposedly would support, and he misrepresents the terms of the Constitution.

Classic.

- Disgruntled Dan - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 12:30 pm:
It drives me crazy!!!!! Does everyone in the state agree with impeachment except Madigan? He is such a burden on the state, it is hard to say but I think he is worse than Rod. Do something Mike, you daughter won’t be gov no matter what you do.

- GA Watcher - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 1:06 pm:
Disgruntled Dan:
My advice to you is to take whatever it is you like to take and chill out.

Having worked in and about Springfield for nearly 20 years, I can tell you that Michael Madigan is the only sensible Democratic leader down there. We should thank him every day that he puts a stop to the folly coming out of the Senate and the Governor’s office.

There is no question that the Speaker is a shrewd politician. I’d lay odds that if he believed it were politically practical he would have started impeachment proceedings earlier this spring as revelations regarding the Governor emerged from the Rezko trial.

However, Madigan knows that if and when the House takes up an impeachment resolution it has to be air tight. If it’s not, Senate President Jones will do everything he can in his power to kill it during the trial the Senate will conduct.

Speaker Madigan does not want to give President Jones that option. He will make sure that the case for impeachment is so strong, Jones will have no other choice but to let the Senate trial take an inevitable course to impeachment. Between the US Attorney’s onging investigation of the Governor, the likely flip Tony Rezko will do, and the upcoming trial of Chris Kelly, Speaker Madigan will have the solid evidence needed for an unequivocal impeachment resolution. All in due time, Disgruntled Dan, all in due time.

- Reformer - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 3:16 pm:
Noland evaded a simple question, namely, would he support the House version of recall that did not apply to judges or local officials? I suspect he wouldn’t like that version either, but he should tell his constituents.

Since Pat Quinn — not Lisa Madigan — would become Governor if Rod were impeached and convicted, does Noland insinuate the Quinn is the one manipulating the impeachment talk? I don’t think Pat has that kind of influence.

- Squideshi - Tuesday, Jun 17, 08 @ 3:54 pm:
GA Watcher wrote, “Speaker Madigan does not want to give President Jones that option. He will make sure that the case for impeachment is so strong, Jones will have no other choice but to let the Senate trial take an inevitable course to impeachment.”

Why exactly do you think that Jones would be successfully pressured, even if an airtight case for impeachment were presented? I mean, do you think that he’s really all that concerned about the public perception here? What will happen–will he suffer a defeat in the next election?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.