Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
Amid heated debate and personal invective, the proposed recall amendment stalled in the state senate yesterday. Rep. Jack Franks, the House Democrat who drafted the bill, said that it was aimed at Blagojevich. "I wouldn't have drafted it if I thought things were going well," Franks said. Along with Franks, Lt. Governor Pat Quinn, who supports recall, urged senators to pass the bill before May 4, the deadline to get the amendment before voters on the November ballot. "This Senate has to have the fortitude not to duck the issue," Quinn said. Jones said it was unfair to give the senate so little time to consider such a bill. "You waited all that time to force us at that deadline," Jones said. "We have an obligation over here as well."
Senator Donne Trotter claims that he's not stalling, however. He's the sponsor of the bill in the senate, which means that he gets to say how it advances. Trotter, an ally of Emil Jones (who is a Blagojevich ally), delayed a vote on the measure, saying it needs improvement. Senate Democrats say that if the amendment included provisions to recall all elected officials and judges, it might gain some traction in the Senate. Others argue that voters already have the means to remove officials they are unhappy with: elections. "Too often we bend because of perception," said Trotter, who also said that he expects to call a revised version of the measure to a vote on Thursday.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Impeachment is a fair enough solution to get rid of elected officials.
These types of recalls devolve into politically motivated witch hunts.
The people of Illinois, if given a chance to vote on this, will vote for it because "they hate Blago".
I say, stall, stall, stall.
Franks always has been, and remains, one of the biggest self-interested blowhards in Springfield. I give him credit for holding onto this seat in McHenry County, but, then again, he's more or less a Republican. And he, like so many others, lack the stones and support to impeach the governor, which would take care of the recall.
Jones and trotter are Blagos allies so this bill is going nowhere, I cant stand blago and our state goverment is a joke but recalls are a bad idea that waste tons of tax money and will just lead to even less being accomplished by the idiots the lemming voters send to springfield.
Not saying I'm in favor or recall, but impeachment is a pretty high bar to reach. Typically, the grounds for impeachment of a state judge or executive officer include gross misconduct, gross immorality, high crimes, malfeasance, or misfeasance. Even is you could get a charge through the house, you still need 2/3 of the senate to convict. Someone like Blago, who the recall bill is obviously aimed at, likely wouldn't fit within the typical charges used (even though that will change if he gets indicted). Blago is such a f**k up that I can see why some people would want to go to these lengths to get rid of him.
Ad: Do you think impeaching Blago (just for argument's sake) would be more difficult than passing the recall proposal?
My bias: I want elected officials to do their jobs, not pass that job along to voters. I think impeachment is a great tool for that. But I am willing to have my mind changed.
Yes, I think impeaching Blago would be a lot harder than passing the recall proposal in the senate. Unless he is indicted on a substantial charge in the near future, what do you even charge Blago with? Sure, he is inept and very very likely corrupt; but is there really enough evidence out there on something to substantiate impeachment proceedings? I have never heard of a governor being impeached simply because he was unpopular and inept in some peoples' eyes. In fact, does anyone even know that last time a person was even impeached in Illinois (and more importantly what the grounds were)? Recall is easier in the sense that you "might" be able to get a majority in the senate to pass a bill allowing it, which I'm sure is part of Quinn's and other supporters' perspective. IMHO, there is no way you could get 2/3 of the senate to convict on impeachment right now.
"Too often we bend because of perception,"
Yes, Senator, we really do change our minds based on the evidence presented to us!
Why are they delaying it? Simple... read the text of the bill: "...that there shall be submitted to the electors of the State for adoption or rejection at the general election next occurring at least 6 months after the adoption of this resolution..."
They can have it both ways... they can stall, then let it go to a vote less than 6 months before the November election, thereby stalling the general vote until 2009.
I don't like the recall because:
- It's going to drain heaps of money from the coffers so we can kick out Blago in 2009 only to have another election kick into gear in 2010.
- Entrenched, organized interests can use this as a tool to recall judges who are insufficiently ideological. It's not illegal to pay people to collect petition signatures or to fund such collection from out of state.
- It allows attempts to recall every 6 months if the initial one fails.
Ad: Thanks.
I really have no idea what to charge him with, but perhaps one can start with his attempts to expand healthcare coverage contrary to the wishes of lawmakers and probably the state constitution (a court this week slapped Blago a good one). I am sure there are a half-dozen little things that could help make the case for impeachment that rise beyond mere unpopularity (though impeachment is, at its core, a political tool, I would argue).
I agree: It's is probably hopeless to get enough votes to impeach/remove in this state for various reasons, not the least of which is the way the leadership is set up and how much power the four legislative leaders have.
Matilda, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on these boards regarding how impeachment has been traditionally used in this country. While our state's impeachment clause is broader than the U.S. Constituion's, traditionally impeachment has only been used to remove public officials from office for indictbale (i.e. criminal) offenses or gross moral misconduct (i.e. judges who make racist, sexist, or continually impartial comments). Impeachment, to my knowledege, has never been used to remove an executive for simple mismanagement. I'm not sure that impeachment has ever been used in Illinois period for anyone besides a judge. That is why 18 states have adopted recall--and why California recalled Davis rather than trying to impeach him. While Blago has probably comitted several indictable offenses, nothing concrete has come to light yet (besides the public official a stuff, which I doubt there is enough to move forward on). Impeachment really is like a criminal trial in many ways. Again, I'm not an advocate for recall by any means; but I think the majority of reasons that have been put forward to remove Blago from office (largely mismanagement based) are more appropriately handled through a recall-style system rather than through impeachment by the legislature.
Ad: Good points. I am not trying to ahead of myself, but I bet someone could make a case against Blago that goes beyond what you call "simple mismanagement," and I think the healthcare expansion might qualify. Or the recent decision to deny the release of details related to pardons, an action that would seem to violate the state's FOIA. Perhaps one could hang impeachment on such relatively small hooks (this is just a guess, of course).
I also have this bias: I fear recall. Not because I have any pity for elected officials (read past comments to confirm this) but because I fear the chaos that could come from it, especially in such a crappy, corrupt state as Illinois. I'd rather elected officials do their jobs. But I think you make great points that nudge me much closer to seeing the value of recall--especially as most elected officials in this state can't be counted on to do their jobs. Perhaps recall would fill officials with a bit more fear of citizen rage. Who knows?
As an example of why I dislike this bill... matilda is elected Circuit Court judge. Citizens for Spookiness, a anti-matilda organization funded by east coast types with heaps of money pays worker bees to collect signatures.
Now, the election of matilda wasn't a big one, held on an off year. The total number of votes was 200,000. The Spookers need to collect 40,000 signatures which they do by accusing her of acquitting taggers. It may be that it was the opposite, that matilda locked up taggers for years on end, but 40,000 elderly probably aren't following the issue all that closely and just don't see the graffiti for its true artistry. Also, they tell people, she wiped out the Ojibwa, shot a cougar, and bakes punkrock cupcakes.
They time the recall so that it's not tied to a general election and, with the lower turnout, stir up enough votes to recall her and who's on the ballot to replace her... why, a fellow named Spook, son. The out-of-staters paying for the petition worker bees aren't subject to Illinois election law, so the Citizens for Spookiness becomes a de facto campaign organization with few restrictions on its operations.
matilda has to campaign for her job against the recall, but is forbidden from running on the replacement ballot (for obvious reasons), so she's excluded from campaign forums and has to rely on the crack journalists of Chicagoist to expose the recall for what it is. Even if the recall fails, in six months, they can have another go at collecting signatures.
matilda's capacity to dispense impartial justice from the bench is now crippled since she's fighting for her job.
Decent points above. Judges should never be elected officials, IMO, but this works with basically anyone elected to office.
Yok: Funny. And interesting.
Not to play devil's advocate, TourismBoard, but it can cut both ways. There have been judges in cook county that the bar associations, trib, and sun times coellectively have been trying to get off the bench for years. Two inparticular are notorious for horrible decisions and a lack of civility towards other members of the bar--to the point where it is completely undisputed in most circles that they should not be on the bench. Because literally a hundred judges are listed together on the general ballet, however, they get lost in the shuffle every year and end up being retained. In fact, a judge hasn't lost a retention vote since the 1980s in cook county. Now, if recall were an option, you could possibly get the voter signatures required to get the judges listed on a special recall vote where they stand out more.
Don't get me wrong, I think recall is a horrible option in the end. Its costs more than it is worth. My opinion is that the amount of damage any single politican can cause during an elected term is relatively small enough that voters should be required to just live with their decisions and then not re-elect the person. Even in Illinois, not all of the blame rests solely on Blago's shoulders. We can survive 2 more years of his ineptitiude.
Citizens for Spookiness officially slates
YoknapatawphaTourismBoard as the Official Chicagoist Griot.
As long as her/his stories stay cyber.
Because if I ever have to compete with said stories, say in a bar, then its time for a recall!
Not to play devil's advocate, TourismBoard, but
Bah! Good discussion is good discussion. Advocate away, satanic mouthpiece.
There have been judges in cook county that the bar associations, trib, and sun times coellectively have been trying to get off the bench for years. Two inparticular are notorious for horrible decisions and a lack of civility towards other members of the bar--to the point where it is completely undisputed in most circles that they should not be on the bench.
I know, I always get a sample ballot and mark it up with the various recommendations, etc. There was the one judge on whom the Reader did a write up a couple of years ago who was particularly atrocious.
But isn't a recall in this case (going for a smaller turnout that will be more informed by the recall effort) gaming the system? That makes me feel terribly squeamish... I'm trying to keep turnout low so that my issue is voted on by those whom I inform, not by the general electorate in a larger context.
If the recall is attached to a general election ballot, I would guess that the recall probably still wouldn't go through since it's just a retention question rephrased.
First, your right that it is gaming the system to a certain degree. My only argument back is that having judges stand for retention, rather than a general election, at the end of their terms is already gaming the system to a large degree. The system in place now has basically created de facto lifetime appointments for judges in this county. If they had to run against an actual candidate each election cycle, I think many of these judges would not have lasted as long as they have. I'm sure the retention system was initially created for a valid reasons, but it is damaging the quality of the state judicial system today. So screw recall, lets just get rid of retention-based voting.
With regard to recall simply being a retention question rephrased, I would argue the whole recall process would increase awarness and coverage among the general public as to why the judge should be removed. The recall question would certainly generate more press (at least the first time) than the simple op-eds that get published before a judicial election now.
having judges stand for retention, rather than a general election, at the end of their terms is already gaming the system to a large degree
I'd never thought of it that way and you're absolutely right.