By Jamey Dunn
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office is warning Illinois residents to avoid scams related to the state’s new driver’s licenses for undocumented residents.
Secretary of State Jesse White’s office began setting up appointments today for residents who are in the country illegally and interested in obtaining Temporary Visitor Driver’s Licenses. Currently, the only way to apply is by appointment. Applicants must be able to prove they have lived in the state for a year and that they are ineligible for a Social Security number. They will also have to pass the standard vision and driving test. The licenses will look different from standard license and cannot be used for identification for things like buying a gun or boarding a plane. They will cost $30 and expire after three years. Licenses are void if drivers do not carry liability insurance as required by law.
Applicants who make appointments this month and meet the requirements will begin receiving their licenses in December.
Madigan said her office has already started to receive complaints from consumers who say that driving schools are asking for $1,000 for a universal driver’s license that they say is valid in most states. She said her office is also getting reports of a scam that claims to expedite the application process for a fee. “The only legitimate place you can apply for a temporary driver’s license is with the secretary of state’s office,” Madigan said in a written statement. “Other people who claim they can help get you a license or get it faster are only trying to scam you out of your money.” She warned residents not to pay any upfront fees to make an appointment to apply for a license and not to purchase a so-called universal license that claims to be valid in multiple states because there is “no such thing.”
A news release from Madigan’s office also warns: “Beware of anyone promising to ‘clear your record’ and obtain a TVDL for you immediately. If you have previously had a driver’s license under a false Social Security number or had a DUI conviction in the past, you may still be eligible. ... However, you may need to comply with additional requirements before applying.” The release also notes that a “notario or notary public” is not qualified to issue the license; it can only be obtained from a secretary of state facility.
Applicants can set up an appointment by calling (855) 236-1155 or going to this website. According to the secretary of state’s office, qualified applicants will receive their licenses in the mail 15 to 20 days after their appointments.
Showing posts with label Lisa Madigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lisa Madigan. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Attorney general sues company that she says broke into homes
By Jamey Dunn
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is suing a company that she says has been locking people out of their homes when they had a legal right to stay.
Foreclosure filings in the Chicago area have dropped to the lowest level since the housing market crashed in 2008. But the fallout from the housing market collapse will likely be felt in Illinois for many years to come as older foreclosures work their way through the system. A lawsuit filed by Madigan this week alleges that one company is violating the rights of people who have fallen behind on their house payments.
Lenders and companies that service loans by collecting borrowers’ payments hire other entities to assist them with taking care of properties after a foreclosure. Safeguard Properties LLC is the largest privately held company that provides those services, which include determining if a property is vacant and boarding up windows on vacant properties. Madigan is suing the Ohio-based company because she says Safeguard has been entering homes that have not yet been foreclosed upon and evicting residents who still have the legal right to occupy their homes. In Illinois, residents are legally allowed to remain in a property until the foreclosure process has been completed. “This case shows the lengths that banks and their service providers will go to abuse and intimidate borrowers in foreclosure,” Madigan said in a prepared statement. “This company was illegally breaking into people’s homes, removing all their possessions and locking them out. It is a homeowner’s worst nightmare.”
According to the complaint from Madigan, Safeguard often hired contractors to do the actual leg-work of finding out if properties were vacant, removing items left behind by former occupants, changing the locks and winterizing them by turning off the water. But Madigan’s complaint says that those contractors were taking such steps while residents were clearly still occupying properties with the legal right to be there.
The complaint describes several incidents. In once case, Safeguard allegedly broke into the home of Mark Fencke, a reserve member of the U.S. Armed Services, who was away at mandatory military training. Fencke had fallen behind on his house payments and was working with his bank to sell the house. Madigan says Safeguard representatives broke into Fencke’s house, damaged his property, had his utility services shut off and changed the locks on the doors. In another case described in the suit, Safeguard broke into the home of a woman who had fallen behind on her house payments. She had not gone into default on her loan, and the home was not even in the foreclosure process. The company changed her locks and shut off her water service. Madigan’s office is seeking an injunction that would bar Safeguard from doing business in the state. She is also seeking a $50,000 for each violation of the Consumer Fraud Act and an additional $10,000 for each violation involving residents who are 65 or older.
The complaint says that Safeguard’s policies are a big part of the problem. The company uses contractors in the state that are paid a fee per service. Safeguard stresses that occupancy checks should be done quickly but does not have a set policy for determining if a property is occupied. The company allegedly will not accept an “unknown” status on a property and will not pay contractors if they don’t make a determination. The filing says Safeguard pushes contractors to deem a property vacant after only one visit and without trying to contact possible residents. The document says that “in many cases Safeguard or its subcontractors inaccurately deem a property vacant when the property is, in fact, legally occupied.” The suit says Safeguard representatives leave behind misleading notices that imply that occupants must leave before they are legally required to go. A call and email to Safeguard requesting comment were not returned.
“We have come across a whole range of servicer issues,” said Spencer Cowan, vice president of research at the Chicago-based Woodstock Institute. “We know, for example, that there are servicers who have been very aggressive in trying to get tenants out of the building, and sometimes they have stepped over the line.” The institute focuses primarily on the other end of the spectrum; blight caused when banks do not keep up proper maintenance on foreclosed vacant properties. These buildings can drag down property values and even become dangerous to nearby residents. However, Cowan said he was not at all surprised by the allegations in Madigan’s complaint. “Problems seem to exist at both ends of the spectrum,” he said.
Cowan said a recent court ruling could make it more difficult for Chicago to push back against blight. The decision exempts the Federal Housing Finance Agency from the city’s Vacant Buildings Ordinance. That means that buildings owned by lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold more than half of all foreclosed properties, do not have to live up to the maintenance standards in the law. It also means that Chicago and the state have no ability to enforce any maintenance standards on either entity. A news release from the FHFA said of the law: “The ordinance would create risks and liabilities for the [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] at a time when they are already supported by taxpayers, including those in the city of Chicago. Additionally, the ordinance would subject the [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] to the regulation and supervision of the Chicago Department of Buildings instead of FHFA, as Congress intended.”
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is suing a company that she says has been locking people out of their homes when they had a legal right to stay.
Foreclosure filings in the Chicago area have dropped to the lowest level since the housing market crashed in 2008. But the fallout from the housing market collapse will likely be felt in Illinois for many years to come as older foreclosures work their way through the system. A lawsuit filed by Madigan this week alleges that one company is violating the rights of people who have fallen behind on their house payments.
Lenders and companies that service loans by collecting borrowers’ payments hire other entities to assist them with taking care of properties after a foreclosure. Safeguard Properties LLC is the largest privately held company that provides those services, which include determining if a property is vacant and boarding up windows on vacant properties. Madigan is suing the Ohio-based company because she says Safeguard has been entering homes that have not yet been foreclosed upon and evicting residents who still have the legal right to occupy their homes. In Illinois, residents are legally allowed to remain in a property until the foreclosure process has been completed. “This case shows the lengths that banks and their service providers will go to abuse and intimidate borrowers in foreclosure,” Madigan said in a prepared statement. “This company was illegally breaking into people’s homes, removing all their possessions and locking them out. It is a homeowner’s worst nightmare.”
According to the complaint from Madigan, Safeguard often hired contractors to do the actual leg-work of finding out if properties were vacant, removing items left behind by former occupants, changing the locks and winterizing them by turning off the water. But Madigan’s complaint says that those contractors were taking such steps while residents were clearly still occupying properties with the legal right to be there.
The complaint describes several incidents. In once case, Safeguard allegedly broke into the home of Mark Fencke, a reserve member of the U.S. Armed Services, who was away at mandatory military training. Fencke had fallen behind on his house payments and was working with his bank to sell the house. Madigan says Safeguard representatives broke into Fencke’s house, damaged his property, had his utility services shut off and changed the locks on the doors. In another case described in the suit, Safeguard broke into the home of a woman who had fallen behind on her house payments. She had not gone into default on her loan, and the home was not even in the foreclosure process. The company changed her locks and shut off her water service. Madigan’s office is seeking an injunction that would bar Safeguard from doing business in the state. She is also seeking a $50,000 for each violation of the Consumer Fraud Act and an additional $10,000 for each violation involving residents who are 65 or older.
The complaint says that Safeguard’s policies are a big part of the problem. The company uses contractors in the state that are paid a fee per service. Safeguard stresses that occupancy checks should be done quickly but does not have a set policy for determining if a property is occupied. The company allegedly will not accept an “unknown” status on a property and will not pay contractors if they don’t make a determination. The filing says Safeguard pushes contractors to deem a property vacant after only one visit and without trying to contact possible residents. The document says that “in many cases Safeguard or its subcontractors inaccurately deem a property vacant when the property is, in fact, legally occupied.” The suit says Safeguard representatives leave behind misleading notices that imply that occupants must leave before they are legally required to go. A call and email to Safeguard requesting comment were not returned.
“We have come across a whole range of servicer issues,” said Spencer Cowan, vice president of research at the Chicago-based Woodstock Institute. “We know, for example, that there are servicers who have been very aggressive in trying to get tenants out of the building, and sometimes they have stepped over the line.” The institute focuses primarily on the other end of the spectrum; blight caused when banks do not keep up proper maintenance on foreclosed vacant properties. These buildings can drag down property values and even become dangerous to nearby residents. However, Cowan said he was not at all surprised by the allegations in Madigan’s complaint. “Problems seem to exist at both ends of the spectrum,” he said.
Cowan said a recent court ruling could make it more difficult for Chicago to push back against blight. The decision exempts the Federal Housing Finance Agency from the city’s Vacant Buildings Ordinance. That means that buildings owned by lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold more than half of all foreclosed properties, do not have to live up to the maintenance standards in the law. It also means that Chicago and the state have no ability to enforce any maintenance standards on either entity. A news release from the FHFA said of the law: “The ordinance would create risks and liabilities for the [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] at a time when they are already supported by taxpayers, including those in the city of Chicago. Additionally, the ordinance would subject the [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] to the regulation and supervision of the Chicago Department of Buildings instead of FHFA, as Congress intended.”
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Madigan's announcement ripples the political pond
By Jamey Dunn
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s decision to seek reelection instead of running for governor will have a ripple effect on the state’s political landscape.
Of course, Madigan decision not to run will affect the governor’s race. The popular attorney general has done well in the polls and was expected to be the front runner if she jumped into the governor’s race. Madigan announced yesterday that she would run again for her current office. In her written statement she cited her father Michael Madigan’s position as House speaker as one of the reasons for her decisions.
“For the last several months, I have considered the best way to continue serving the people of Illinois. Deciding whether to seek reelection or to run for governor has not been easy. I love my job as attorney general and continue to be excited about the important work we are doing and what we can do for people and families in the years ahead. I considered running for governor because of the need for effective management from that office and the frustration so many of us feel about the current lack of progress on critical issues facing Illinois,” Madigan said. “Ultimately, however, there has always been another consideration that impacts my decision. I feel strongly that the state would not be well-served by having a governor and speaker of the House from the same family and have never planned to run for governor if that would be the case. With Speaker Madigan planning to continue in office, I will not run for governor.”
Gov. Pat Quinn has said in the past that a Madigan in the governor’s office and a Madigan as speaker would be a conflict of interest. He did not reiterate that opinion today when asked about Lisa Madigan’s decision. Instead, he praised her service as attorney general, the job she has held since 2003. “I think it was well-said,” Quinn said in Chicago today of Madigan’s statement.
With Madigan out of the way, Quinn’s only challenger is former White House chief of staff Bill Daley. Daley served as chief of staff under President Barack Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton. Despite his connections to national politics, most Illinois probably know him best from his family ties. He is the brother of former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, the longest serving Chicago mayor to date, and son of former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, the second-longest serving mayor.
Quinn's comments today indicate that he may try to present Daley, who has also worked as a lawyer and a banker, as a rich insider while paying up his own populist credentials. “I think I’m quite a bit different than Bill Daley. He has a better tailor than I do.” Quinn said of himself: “I’m a people person. I think that anybody who has ever worked with me in public life knows that I interact with everyday people. I’m not going to be a champion of millionaires — everybody knows that. I fight hard for folks who don’t have lobbyists, who don’t have political action committees, who aren’t in high places, but they’re the heart and soul of Illinois.”
But when it comes to campaign funds, so far Quinn is Mr. Moneybags. According to campaign filings due yesterday, he raised $1 million between April 1 and June 30 and has $2.3 million to spend. Daley has raised more than $796,000. “I think that they understand we’re doing a good job,” Quinn said of his donors. “I think we ran a campaign in 2010 in a pretty tough environment and I won the primary won the general election. That’s what’s going to happen next year, too.”
Meanwhile, Daley has painted Quinn as an ineffective leader. “General Madigan's decision not to run now gives voters a clear choice between a proven leader who gets things done and a governor who can't seem to get anything done,” Pete Giangreco, spokesman for the Daley campaign, said in a written statement in reaction to Madigan’s announcement Monday.
Both candidates were likely happy to learn that Madigan is opting out of the race. Both face their own unique challenges in the Democratic primary: Quinn his unpopularity and Daley his unfamiliarity among voters outside of the Chicago area. “Daley has to go out and make public opinion, and Quinn has to change it,” said Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield.
At face value, Madigan’s decision seems to most benefit Daley, who can now paint himself as the only alternative to a governor many in the state dislike. However, he is an as of yet unproven candidate. If Daley was to fall in his face, all Quinn would have to do is step over him to secure the Democratic nomination now that Madigan is out of the picture. “It may be a huge plus for Quinn if Daley crashes and burns,” Redfield said.
For the Republicans, Redfield says Madigan’s decision may give all the four candidates a slight morale boost. “This may add a little bit of energy on the Republican side in general for the governor’s race because everybody sees a clearer path to being governor,” he said. But he cautioned, “If the Republicans eat each other alive and beat each other to death, so that it’s the last man standing, it may not make that much difference.”
Some members of the legislature may now be planning to stay put. “Where we thought we were going to open up a bunch of musical chairs here, open up a bunch of seats, it really kind of freezes everybody,” Redfield said. House Minority Leader Tom Cross had said he was weighing a run for the attorney general’s office if it were open. Now that it is not, he may need to work to soothe a caucus after many members have been vying behind the scenes to replace him. But since no clear successor exists, it appears likely he will hang onto his leadership position. “I think Cross probably maintains his leadership role, but again, that’s dependent on nobody becoming a viable alterative that can really bring everybody together,” Redfield said.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul was also considering a bid for Madigan’s office if she left. Raoul has been at the center of the two premier legislative debates of the spring session, concealed carry of firearms and finding a solution to the public employee pension crisis. He is chair of the conference committee that is working to draft pension legislation that the group hopes can pass in both chambers. Raoul publicly sparred with Quinn in recent weeks over Quinn’s attempted rewrite of concealed-carry legislation and the governor’s move to suspend lawmakers' pay until pension changes are passed. While the two agree on many policy points, Raoul has taken issue with Quinn’s leadership style. The populist moves that Quinn is playing up for the governor’s race are the decisions that are putting him at odds with lawmakers. Raoul called Quinn’s veto of lawmakers pay unconstitutional grandstanding. “Listen, I like the governor. I like the governor, but I just don’t like the communication I have experienced over the last few weeks,” he said after a recent conference committee hearing.
With Madigan out of the governor’s race, the Illinois political rumor mill is churning at full speed and spitting out names of potential Democratic candidates, Raoul among them. He says he weighing his options. But a gubernatorial bid from Raoul might risk his status as a rising star in the Senate for a long-shot bid at higher office. “He’s for sure going to be in the majority and for sure going to be an important player in the Senate,” Redfield said. He said that Madigan’s decision not to run could open the door for another Democrat to join the race, but he can’t think of an obvious candidate. “I’m hard-pressed to think who that would be. Is there an opportunity for someone who is not a white male from Chicago? Sure. But I don’t know who that is,” he said. “A state legislator is at a huge financial deficit in terms of being able to put together a campaign — not having name recognition, not having any kind of statewide network, not having any kind of statewide fundraising in place.”
Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon was also reportedly mulling a run for the attorney general’s office. Several Chicago media outlets have reported today that she will instead announce a bid for state comptroller in the near future. She will be challenging incumbent Judy Baar Topinka, which could be an uphill climb, especially considering that Simon’s fundraising totals have been lackluster so far. “She needs to have a clear field [in the primary] and the support of the Democratic Party,” Redfield said about Simon. “Once you get into the general [election], then obviously the party is going to help you.”
Madigan’s bombshell announcement Monday will no doubt have a lasting impact on Illinois politics — for one thing it indicates her powerful father isn’t going anywhere — and the outcomes of the 2014 general election. But the results are nearly impossible to see as campaigns are just beginning to kick off. Perhaps Quinn said it best when asked today if he was taken aback by Madigan’s announcement. “I’m not surprised about anything in Illinois politics.”
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s decision to seek reelection instead of running for governor will have a ripple effect on the state’s political landscape.
Of course, Madigan decision not to run will affect the governor’s race. The popular attorney general has done well in the polls and was expected to be the front runner if she jumped into the governor’s race. Madigan announced yesterday that she would run again for her current office. In her written statement she cited her father Michael Madigan’s position as House speaker as one of the reasons for her decisions.
“For the last several months, I have considered the best way to continue serving the people of Illinois. Deciding whether to seek reelection or to run for governor has not been easy. I love my job as attorney general and continue to be excited about the important work we are doing and what we can do for people and families in the years ahead. I considered running for governor because of the need for effective management from that office and the frustration so many of us feel about the current lack of progress on critical issues facing Illinois,” Madigan said. “Ultimately, however, there has always been another consideration that impacts my decision. I feel strongly that the state would not be well-served by having a governor and speaker of the House from the same family and have never planned to run for governor if that would be the case. With Speaker Madigan planning to continue in office, I will not run for governor.”
Gov. Pat Quinn has said in the past that a Madigan in the governor’s office and a Madigan as speaker would be a conflict of interest. He did not reiterate that opinion today when asked about Lisa Madigan’s decision. Instead, he praised her service as attorney general, the job she has held since 2003. “I think it was well-said,” Quinn said in Chicago today of Madigan’s statement.
With Madigan out of the way, Quinn’s only challenger is former White House chief of staff Bill Daley. Daley served as chief of staff under President Barack Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton. Despite his connections to national politics, most Illinois probably know him best from his family ties. He is the brother of former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, the longest serving Chicago mayor to date, and son of former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, the second-longest serving mayor.
Quinn's comments today indicate that he may try to present Daley, who has also worked as a lawyer and a banker, as a rich insider while paying up his own populist credentials. “I think I’m quite a bit different than Bill Daley. He has a better tailor than I do.” Quinn said of himself: “I’m a people person. I think that anybody who has ever worked with me in public life knows that I interact with everyday people. I’m not going to be a champion of millionaires — everybody knows that. I fight hard for folks who don’t have lobbyists, who don’t have political action committees, who aren’t in high places, but they’re the heart and soul of Illinois.”
But when it comes to campaign funds, so far Quinn is Mr. Moneybags. According to campaign filings due yesterday, he raised $1 million between April 1 and June 30 and has $2.3 million to spend. Daley has raised more than $796,000. “I think that they understand we’re doing a good job,” Quinn said of his donors. “I think we ran a campaign in 2010 in a pretty tough environment and I won the primary won the general election. That’s what’s going to happen next year, too.”
Meanwhile, Daley has painted Quinn as an ineffective leader. “General Madigan's decision not to run now gives voters a clear choice between a proven leader who gets things done and a governor who can't seem to get anything done,” Pete Giangreco, spokesman for the Daley campaign, said in a written statement in reaction to Madigan’s announcement Monday.
Both candidates were likely happy to learn that Madigan is opting out of the race. Both face their own unique challenges in the Democratic primary: Quinn his unpopularity and Daley his unfamiliarity among voters outside of the Chicago area. “Daley has to go out and make public opinion, and Quinn has to change it,” said Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield.
At face value, Madigan’s decision seems to most benefit Daley, who can now paint himself as the only alternative to a governor many in the state dislike. However, he is an as of yet unproven candidate. If Daley was to fall in his face, all Quinn would have to do is step over him to secure the Democratic nomination now that Madigan is out of the picture. “It may be a huge plus for Quinn if Daley crashes and burns,” Redfield said.
For the Republicans, Redfield says Madigan’s decision may give all the four candidates a slight morale boost. “This may add a little bit of energy on the Republican side in general for the governor’s race because everybody sees a clearer path to being governor,” he said. But he cautioned, “If the Republicans eat each other alive and beat each other to death, so that it’s the last man standing, it may not make that much difference.”
Some members of the legislature may now be planning to stay put. “Where we thought we were going to open up a bunch of musical chairs here, open up a bunch of seats, it really kind of freezes everybody,” Redfield said. House Minority Leader Tom Cross had said he was weighing a run for the attorney general’s office if it were open. Now that it is not, he may need to work to soothe a caucus after many members have been vying behind the scenes to replace him. But since no clear successor exists, it appears likely he will hang onto his leadership position. “I think Cross probably maintains his leadership role, but again, that’s dependent on nobody becoming a viable alterative that can really bring everybody together,” Redfield said.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul was also considering a bid for Madigan’s office if she left. Raoul has been at the center of the two premier legislative debates of the spring session, concealed carry of firearms and finding a solution to the public employee pension crisis. He is chair of the conference committee that is working to draft pension legislation that the group hopes can pass in both chambers. Raoul publicly sparred with Quinn in recent weeks over Quinn’s attempted rewrite of concealed-carry legislation and the governor’s move to suspend lawmakers' pay until pension changes are passed. While the two agree on many policy points, Raoul has taken issue with Quinn’s leadership style. The populist moves that Quinn is playing up for the governor’s race are the decisions that are putting him at odds with lawmakers. Raoul called Quinn’s veto of lawmakers pay unconstitutional grandstanding. “Listen, I like the governor. I like the governor, but I just don’t like the communication I have experienced over the last few weeks,” he said after a recent conference committee hearing.
With Madigan out of the governor’s race, the Illinois political rumor mill is churning at full speed and spitting out names of potential Democratic candidates, Raoul among them. He says he weighing his options. But a gubernatorial bid from Raoul might risk his status as a rising star in the Senate for a long-shot bid at higher office. “He’s for sure going to be in the majority and for sure going to be an important player in the Senate,” Redfield said. He said that Madigan’s decision not to run could open the door for another Democrat to join the race, but he can’t think of an obvious candidate. “I’m hard-pressed to think who that would be. Is there an opportunity for someone who is not a white male from Chicago? Sure. But I don’t know who that is,” he said. “A state legislator is at a huge financial deficit in terms of being able to put together a campaign — not having name recognition, not having any kind of statewide network, not having any kind of statewide fundraising in place.”
Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon was also reportedly mulling a run for the attorney general’s office. Several Chicago media outlets have reported today that she will instead announce a bid for state comptroller in the near future. She will be challenging incumbent Judy Baar Topinka, which could be an uphill climb, especially considering that Simon’s fundraising totals have been lackluster so far. “She needs to have a clear field [in the primary] and the support of the Democratic Party,” Redfield said about Simon. “Once you get into the general [election], then obviously the party is going to help you.”
Madigan’s bombshell announcement Monday will no doubt have a lasting impact on Illinois politics — for one thing it indicates her powerful father isn’t going anywhere — and the outcomes of the 2014 general election. But the results are nearly impossible to see as campaigns are just beginning to kick off. Perhaps Quinn said it best when asked today if he was taken aback by Madigan’s announcement. “I’m not surprised about anything in Illinois politics.”
Monday, July 15, 2013
Lisa Madigan will not run for governor
By Jamey Dunn
Attorney General Lisa Madigan has made her much awaited choice for the 2014 election. She will run again for her current office, in part because her father, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, plans to keep his current position.
As it did in 2010, speculation was running rampant that she would make a bid for the governor's race. For months, she has not made a public appearance without the topic popping up, and other Illinois politicians have been holding their breath waiting to see what Madigan would do. Several state lawmakers' names have been floated as potential candidates for attorney general if she were to leave the office to run for governor.
But Madigan said today in a statement released by her campaign that she plans to stay put. “For the last several months, I have considered the best way to continue serving the people of Illinois. Deciding whether to seek reelection or to run for governor has not been easy. I love my job as attorney general and continue to be excited about the important work we are doing and what we can do for people and families in the years ahead. I considered running for governor because of the need for effective management from that office and the frustration so many of us feel about the current lack of progress on critical issues facing Illinois,” Madigan, who has served as attorney general since 2003, said in a prepared statement. “Ultimately, however, there has always been another consideration that impacts my decision. I feel strongly that the state would not be well-served by having a governor and speaker of the House from the same family and have never planned to run for governor if that would be the case. With Speaker Madigan planning to continue in office, I will not run for governor."
At this point, her move leaves Gov. Pat Quinn facing Bill Daley in a Democratic primary and a four-way race on the Republican side of things.
“General Madigan's decision not to run now gives voters a clear choice between a proven leader who gets things done and a governor who can't seem to get anything done,” said a statement from Pete Giangreco, spokesman for the Daley campaign. “Bill Daley looks forward to laying out a clear agenda to improve the lives of people across the state.”
Attorney General Lisa Madigan has made her much awaited choice for the 2014 election. She will run again for her current office, in part because her father, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, plans to keep his current position.
As it did in 2010, speculation was running rampant that she would make a bid for the governor's race. For months, she has not made a public appearance without the topic popping up, and other Illinois politicians have been holding their breath waiting to see what Madigan would do. Several state lawmakers' names have been floated as potential candidates for attorney general if she were to leave the office to run for governor.
But Madigan said today in a statement released by her campaign that she plans to stay put. “For the last several months, I have considered the best way to continue serving the people of Illinois. Deciding whether to seek reelection or to run for governor has not been easy. I love my job as attorney general and continue to be excited about the important work we are doing and what we can do for people and families in the years ahead. I considered running for governor because of the need for effective management from that office and the frustration so many of us feel about the current lack of progress on critical issues facing Illinois,” Madigan, who has served as attorney general since 2003, said in a prepared statement. “Ultimately, however, there has always been another consideration that impacts my decision. I feel strongly that the state would not be well-served by having a governor and speaker of the House from the same family and have never planned to run for governor if that would be the case. With Speaker Madigan planning to continue in office, I will not run for governor."
At this point, her move leaves Gov. Pat Quinn facing Bill Daley in a Democratic primary and a four-way race on the Republican side of things.
“General Madigan's decision not to run now gives voters a clear choice between a proven leader who gets things done and a governor who can't seem to get anything done,” said a statement from Pete Giangreco, spokesman for the Daley campaign. “Bill Daley looks forward to laying out a clear agenda to improve the lives of people across the state.”
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Lawmakers to take up Quinn's concealed carry veto on day of court deadline
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn had harsh words for lawmakers today as he revealed his proposed changes to a compromise concealed-carry bill lawmakers approved in May.
“I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said today at a Chicago news conference. “Fortunately our Constitution — adopted by the people in a referendum — gives the governor an opportunity to propose important changes that protect the public safety.”
A federal court overturned the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave lawmakers until early June to pass a bill regulating carry in the state. Both legislative chambers approved House Bill 183 on the last day of the spring session. Attorney General Lisa Madigan sought an extension of the deadline to give Quinn time to review the bill. Illinois now has until July 9 to put a carry law in place.
House sponsor of the bill Rep. Brandon Phelps has moved to override Quinn’s changes, and the House plans to begin session at 11 a.m. on July 9 to consider the veto. “He just put one more hurdle in there before the July 9 deadline that we’re going to have to overcome,” Phelps said. Supporters of the original House Bill 183 will need the support of three-fifths of the members of both chambers to reject Quinn’s changes. If all those who voted in favor of the bill the first time around also vote to reject the veto, then HB 183 will become law without Quinn's changes.
“There are serious flaws in this bill that jeopardize public safety of the people of Illinois.” Quinn said today after he used his amendatory veto power to make multiple changes to HB 183. Quinn's administration also launched a website that describes his tweaks to the bill. He proposed removing a provision that would bar home rule governments from setting future restrictions on guns, such as assault weapons bans. “Home rule is a very important part of life in Illinois. It allows local communities to adopt laws and ordinances that benefit their community, and that principle ought to be upheld.” Quinn said the provision is unrelated to concealed carry. “This provision was inspired by the National Rifle Association; it has nothing to do with concealed carry. It’s part of their agenda, no doubt about it, but we don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in the state of Illinois and our local communities.”
Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said the prohibition on future ordinances is meant to keep local laws from springing up after carry goes into effect. He said that if that occurs, gun owners would likely not know what each locality had passed and might inadvertently break laws as the travel in Illinois. “We do not believe in a patchwork of laws when you are traveling from town to town in the state. The average, law-abiding gun owner is not going to know when driving through those towns what’s expected of him or her.”
Home rule units that do not have bans on assault weapons would have 10 days after the bill becomes law to enact such a ban. “Those home rule municipalities have had forever to pass some form of assault weapons ban,” Phelps said. He took issue with the governor characterizing the bill as a product of the policy desires of the NRA. Phelps has worked closely with the NRA on previous versions of concealed carry, even sponsoring legislation drafted by the organization in the past. But he says HB 183 is a compromise bill that was worked out by lawmakers without interest groups at the table. “The NRA was never in the meeting. They don’t necessarily like the bill. There’s some things they like in there, and there’s some things they don’t like. There’s some things the city of Chicago likes and some things they don’t like. That’s how you get a compromise.” The NRA was neutral on the legislation and avoided making public comments. However gun control advocates noted that the group is rarely mum on any legislation concerning firearms, let alone one of the most important gun-related measures in recent history.
Quinn’s changes would limit those with a carry license to carrying one gun and one ammunition clip that holds no more than 10 rounds. The bill as written would allow licensees to carry as many guns and rounds as they wanted. Under HB 183, business owners who do not wish to allow guns on their property would be required to post a sign. Quinn wants the law to be the other way around. “The presumption ought to be that no guns are allowed in these places, and if the [property] owner wants to have guns, then they should have to have a sign that says, ‘Guns are welcome here.’ It shouldn’t be a burden on private property owners to put a sign otherwise.” Quinn was critical of wording in the bill that allows for carrying guns that are “mostly” concealed. “This isn’t concealed at all,” he said. He proposed changing the wording to clarify that weapons must be fully hidden from view.
The governor also wants to strike a provision that would allow gun owners to keep their firearms locked in their cars if their employers do not allow guns on site. Quinn said that employers should be allowed to ban guns anywhere on their property to reduce the potential for workplace violence. Quinn’s rewrite would also ban the carry of guns in any establishment that serves alcohol. HB 183 only bans weapons in establishments where alcohol makes up half of the gross sales. “Guns and alcohol don’t mix, and I think it’s very important that the legislature understand that message from the people of Illinois,” he said.
Both of the last two issues were provisions that gun control advocates vocally opposed in HB 183. They applauded Quinn’s move today. Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her organization accepted the court ruling and tried to work with lawmakers to get “comprehensive” carry regulation. But she said that the process did not result in a satisfactory bill. “A flawed bill was passed. Thankfully, our state’s top elected official, Gov. Quinn has our back.” She said that SB 183 “goes too far,” but Quinn’s proposed changes would alleviate most of her group’s concerns with the bill.
Phelps has already filed the paperwork to override Quinn’s veto, which he dismissed as a political move. “This is 100 percent political pandering to one area of this state, Cook County and Chicago. That’s all he’s doing. He’s totally disregarding the General Assembly.” He said the governor has refused to take his calls since the bill passed. “That just shows you how much he thinks of the General Assembly,” Phelps said. “I thought maybe out of respect of each of the bill’s sponsors [he would] to try to work something out.” Phelps said Quinn should have signed the bill and then presented his own legislation with any changes he thinks are needed.
Both Phelps, and Sen. Gary Forby, the Senate sponsor of the bill, are confident that lawmakers will vote to override Quinn’s veto next week. Quinn has also threatened to call lawmakers back for a special session to take up pension reform, so there may be more than one session day next week. “This doesn’t come as a shock to anyone. We knew this governor was going to make this political. If he had concerns about the bill, maybe he should have been more involved when lawmakers spent months working on it. Instead, he makes major changes to the bill after it passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Just doesn’t seem very democratic to me,” said Forby, a Benton Democrat.
Quinn today reiterated his opposition to allowing concealed carry in the state at all. “I felt that [court] ruling was wrong then; I still feel it’s wrong. It’s not been appealed.”
Attorney General Lisa Madigan still has the option to appeal the ruling, but a statement from her office today said that she plans to wait to see what lawmakers do with the veto. “That's the last step in the legislative process after the governor amendatorily vetoes a bill. Our office will continue to monitor the progress on the legislative front before making a final decision about the state’s legal options.”
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on the negotiations surrounding concealed carry, said he supports many of the changes that Quinn proposed. However he said they were not politically possible. Raoul in particular supported a ban on guns in all places where alcohol is served, but during negotiations, he acknowledged that he might not be able to get all the components he wanted passed. “I wanted the provision that the governor is suggesting to add through amendatory veto, but it was a deal breaker with regards to negotiations.” He said he has not yet decided how he will vote if the veto override is called in the Senate. He voted "present" on HB 183.
“The governor has within his powers the ability to weigh in. I share some of the sentiment of the governor with regards to some of these public safety issues,” Raoul said. But he said that the end product approved by the legislature had some strong protections, especially when coupled with other gun safety legislation sponsored by Raoul. When lawmakers passed the carry bill, they also approved legislation that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons and gun sellers to confirm that purchasers in private sales can legally own firearms. “I don’t fault him, but we have to realize the reality of the circumstance of what a legislature is and how you negotiate within it,” Raoul said.
Quinn said today in response to critics who have accused him of swooping in with demands at the 11th hour after lawmakers spent months negotiating the bill: “I don’t believe in compromising public safety. I don’t believe in negotiating public safety.”
Gov. Pat Quinn had harsh words for lawmakers today as he revealed his proposed changes to a compromise concealed-carry bill lawmakers approved in May.
“I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said today at a Chicago news conference. “Fortunately our Constitution — adopted by the people in a referendum — gives the governor an opportunity to propose important changes that protect the public safety.”
A federal court overturned the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave lawmakers until early June to pass a bill regulating carry in the state. Both legislative chambers approved House Bill 183 on the last day of the spring session. Attorney General Lisa Madigan sought an extension of the deadline to give Quinn time to review the bill. Illinois now has until July 9 to put a carry law in place.
House sponsor of the bill Rep. Brandon Phelps has moved to override Quinn’s changes, and the House plans to begin session at 11 a.m. on July 9 to consider the veto. “He just put one more hurdle in there before the July 9 deadline that we’re going to have to overcome,” Phelps said. Supporters of the original House Bill 183 will need the support of three-fifths of the members of both chambers to reject Quinn’s changes. If all those who voted in favor of the bill the first time around also vote to reject the veto, then HB 183 will become law without Quinn's changes.
“There are serious flaws in this bill that jeopardize public safety of the people of Illinois.” Quinn said today after he used his amendatory veto power to make multiple changes to HB 183. Quinn's administration also launched a website that describes his tweaks to the bill. He proposed removing a provision that would bar home rule governments from setting future restrictions on guns, such as assault weapons bans. “Home rule is a very important part of life in Illinois. It allows local communities to adopt laws and ordinances that benefit their community, and that principle ought to be upheld.” Quinn said the provision is unrelated to concealed carry. “This provision was inspired by the National Rifle Association; it has nothing to do with concealed carry. It’s part of their agenda, no doubt about it, but we don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in the state of Illinois and our local communities.”
Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said the prohibition on future ordinances is meant to keep local laws from springing up after carry goes into effect. He said that if that occurs, gun owners would likely not know what each locality had passed and might inadvertently break laws as the travel in Illinois. “We do not believe in a patchwork of laws when you are traveling from town to town in the state. The average, law-abiding gun owner is not going to know when driving through those towns what’s expected of him or her.”
Home rule units that do not have bans on assault weapons would have 10 days after the bill becomes law to enact such a ban. “Those home rule municipalities have had forever to pass some form of assault weapons ban,” Phelps said. He took issue with the governor characterizing the bill as a product of the policy desires of the NRA. Phelps has worked closely with the NRA on previous versions of concealed carry, even sponsoring legislation drafted by the organization in the past. But he says HB 183 is a compromise bill that was worked out by lawmakers without interest groups at the table. “The NRA was never in the meeting. They don’t necessarily like the bill. There’s some things they like in there, and there’s some things they don’t like. There’s some things the city of Chicago likes and some things they don’t like. That’s how you get a compromise.” The NRA was neutral on the legislation and avoided making public comments. However gun control advocates noted that the group is rarely mum on any legislation concerning firearms, let alone one of the most important gun-related measures in recent history.
Quinn’s changes would limit those with a carry license to carrying one gun and one ammunition clip that holds no more than 10 rounds. The bill as written would allow licensees to carry as many guns and rounds as they wanted. Under HB 183, business owners who do not wish to allow guns on their property would be required to post a sign. Quinn wants the law to be the other way around. “The presumption ought to be that no guns are allowed in these places, and if the [property] owner wants to have guns, then they should have to have a sign that says, ‘Guns are welcome here.’ It shouldn’t be a burden on private property owners to put a sign otherwise.” Quinn was critical of wording in the bill that allows for carrying guns that are “mostly” concealed. “This isn’t concealed at all,” he said. He proposed changing the wording to clarify that weapons must be fully hidden from view.
The governor also wants to strike a provision that would allow gun owners to keep their firearms locked in their cars if their employers do not allow guns on site. Quinn said that employers should be allowed to ban guns anywhere on their property to reduce the potential for workplace violence. Quinn’s rewrite would also ban the carry of guns in any establishment that serves alcohol. HB 183 only bans weapons in establishments where alcohol makes up half of the gross sales. “Guns and alcohol don’t mix, and I think it’s very important that the legislature understand that message from the people of Illinois,” he said.
Both of the last two issues were provisions that gun control advocates vocally opposed in HB 183. They applauded Quinn’s move today. Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her organization accepted the court ruling and tried to work with lawmakers to get “comprehensive” carry regulation. But she said that the process did not result in a satisfactory bill. “A flawed bill was passed. Thankfully, our state’s top elected official, Gov. Quinn has our back.” She said that SB 183 “goes too far,” but Quinn’s proposed changes would alleviate most of her group’s concerns with the bill.
Phelps has already filed the paperwork to override Quinn’s veto, which he dismissed as a political move. “This is 100 percent political pandering to one area of this state, Cook County and Chicago. That’s all he’s doing. He’s totally disregarding the General Assembly.” He said the governor has refused to take his calls since the bill passed. “That just shows you how much he thinks of the General Assembly,” Phelps said. “I thought maybe out of respect of each of the bill’s sponsors [he would] to try to work something out.” Phelps said Quinn should have signed the bill and then presented his own legislation with any changes he thinks are needed.
Both Phelps, and Sen. Gary Forby, the Senate sponsor of the bill, are confident that lawmakers will vote to override Quinn’s veto next week. Quinn has also threatened to call lawmakers back for a special session to take up pension reform, so there may be more than one session day next week. “This doesn’t come as a shock to anyone. We knew this governor was going to make this political. If he had concerns about the bill, maybe he should have been more involved when lawmakers spent months working on it. Instead, he makes major changes to the bill after it passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Just doesn’t seem very democratic to me,” said Forby, a Benton Democrat.
Quinn today reiterated his opposition to allowing concealed carry in the state at all. “I felt that [court] ruling was wrong then; I still feel it’s wrong. It’s not been appealed.”
Attorney General Lisa Madigan still has the option to appeal the ruling, but a statement from her office today said that she plans to wait to see what lawmakers do with the veto. “That's the last step in the legislative process after the governor amendatorily vetoes a bill. Our office will continue to monitor the progress on the legislative front before making a final decision about the state’s legal options.”
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on the negotiations surrounding concealed carry, said he supports many of the changes that Quinn proposed. However he said they were not politically possible. Raoul in particular supported a ban on guns in all places where alcohol is served, but during negotiations, he acknowledged that he might not be able to get all the components he wanted passed. “I wanted the provision that the governor is suggesting to add through amendatory veto, but it was a deal breaker with regards to negotiations.” He said he has not yet decided how he will vote if the veto override is called in the Senate. He voted "present" on HB 183.
“The governor has within his powers the ability to weigh in. I share some of the sentiment of the governor with regards to some of these public safety issues,” Raoul said. But he said that the end product approved by the legislature had some strong protections, especially when coupled with other gun safety legislation sponsored by Raoul. When lawmakers passed the carry bill, they also approved legislation that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons and gun sellers to confirm that purchasers in private sales can legally own firearms. “I don’t fault him, but we have to realize the reality of the circumstance of what a legislature is and how you negotiate within it,” Raoul said.
Quinn said today in response to critics who have accused him of swooping in with demands at the 11th hour after lawmakers spent months negotiating the bill: “I don’t believe in compromising public safety. I don’t believe in negotiating public safety.”
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Concealed carry appeal deadline extended
CORRECTION: Madigan's request does not change the deadline for concealed carry to go into effect. It only gives her more time for an appeal. A previous version of this article said the deadline had been extended.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request to extend the deadline for her to appeal a court ruling that requires the Illinois to allow carry. The court moved it to July 22. Madigan is still considering appealing the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that would require the state to enact a concealed carry law by July 9. Before the ruling, Illinois was that last state in the nation that did not allow some form of concealed carry. Gov. Pat Quinn has yet to act on a concealed carry bill approved by lawmakers on the last day of spring session.
As state officials hash out the issue, state’s attorneys in at least five of Illinois' 102 counties — Madison, Peoria, Randolph, Tazewell and White — have said they will not prosecute people for carrying weapons as long as they are legal gun owners and not breaking any other laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request to extend the deadline for her to appeal a court ruling that requires the Illinois to allow carry. The court moved it to July 22. Madigan is still considering appealing the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that would require the state to enact a concealed carry law by July 9. Before the ruling, Illinois was that last state in the nation that did not allow some form of concealed carry. Gov. Pat Quinn has yet to act on a concealed carry bill approved by lawmakers on the last day of spring session.
As state officials hash out the issue, state’s attorneys in at least five of Illinois' 102 counties — Madison, Peoria, Randolph, Tazewell and White — have said they will not prosecute people for carrying weapons as long as they are legal gun owners and not breaking any other laws.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Quinn vetoes smart grid bill
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn today followed though on his vow to veto a bill that he says asks too much of energy consumers in the name of progress.
Quinn shot down Senate Bill 1652, legislation that would allow the state’s two largest utility companies, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren, to increase customers’ rates by up to 2.5 percent annually as part of a plan to upgrade the state’s electric grid. The companies would be required to invest $3.2 billion in the grid over 10 years by making basic upgrades, as well as adding so-called smart technologies that would allow consumers to track their energy usage and possibly save money. The measure would also require ComEd to create 2,000 new jobs through the plan and Ameren to create 450 jobs.
Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, consumer advocates AARP and others have vocally opposed the legislation since its inception. “This bill would have been devastating for Illinois consumers,” Madigan said at a Chicago news conference today. “It’s hardly something that we should have shoved down our throats and taken out of our wallets here in the state of Illinois.”
They say the bill would allow companies to defer all the risk of new investments to consumers by ensuring that utilities see all-but-guaranteed profit increases. Madigan said the bill would “gut” the state regulatory system that requires utilities to make their cases for rate increases to the Illinois Commerce Commission. Doug Scott, director if the ICC, said the legislation allows utilities to charge customers for much more than grid upgrades, including lawyers' fees and charitable contributions. “This isn’t just about smart grid, and it isn’t just about infrastructure,” Scott said.
Sen. Mike Jacobs, a sponsor of the bill, said Madigan and others are grandstanding and blocking a bill that would bring economic growth and new jobs to the state, as well as improved service for utility customers. “When you move away from the politics, where everybody wants to make their two cents on their press releases, and look at the bill, it’s an upgrade,” said Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat.
Supporters and opponents of the legislation both point to summer storms that led to mass blackouts in the northern Chicago suburbs as a way to make their case.
“In particular, this bill grants unprecedented advantages to Illinois utilities that have a less than stellar record for providing reliable service. Recent storms in the Chicago area exposed significant service shortcomings, and more than 1.5 million people suffered through lengthy and widespread outages. Local businesses and consumers who depend on regular, predictable electricity suffered enormously. These interruptions impose a profound hardship on the state’s economy and are simply unacceptable,” Quinn wrote in the message that accompanied his veto. “More troubling is that while customers suffer service interruptions and higher rates, these same utilities have been in Springfield advocating for a bill that erodes meaningful consumer protections. These utilities have been trying to dramatically change the rules to guarantee annual rate increases, while eliminating accountability for, literally, leaving people in the dark.’
But Jacobs said that smart-grid technologies could have prevented some of the blackouts and helped to turn the lights back on more quickly for those who lost power.“You can’t buy champagne on a beer budget. … The fact is that Illinois is a leader in energy, and it’s time for the governor to lead,” Jacobs said. He said it is “disingenuous” of Quinn to support energy conservation and earth-friendly policy but oppose SB 1652, which could allow for more power generated by renewable sources.
Some environmental advocates did jump on in support of the plan after a rewrite emerged at the end of the spring legislative session. Jack Darin, director of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club, said the bill that legislators passed would allow more companies, such as big box stores, to generate their own power through wind, solar and other means. “We could see every large rooftop in the state potentially being a clean renewable energy power plant, whether it’s a big box store, parking garage or office space,” Darin said. He said his organization backs the bill strictly on its environmental merits, but he said lawmakers should also recognize the concerns of consumer advocates.
Quinn is pushing his own piece of legislation that he says would help to improve the grid while protecting consumers. However, Jacobs and the House sponsor, Orland Park Democrat Rep. Kevin McCarthy, said they are confident that they will be able to find the votes needed to override Quinn’s veto.
Quinn said that business owners came to plead with him to veto the bill and that the majority of Illinoisans do not support the plan. “We’ll, I think, show them… that the people of Illinois are mightier than Commonwealth Edison.”
Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang said ComEd needs to step up its customer service efforts if the company wants lawmakers who did not support the bill last time to change their votes. He said his constituents who lost power over the summer were less upset about the lapse in service and more worked up about the way the company treated them when they called to report that their power was out. “The people that called my office irate did not call here just because they had a power outage,” Lang said.
For more on what defines smart grid technology and its potential public policy implications for the state, see Illinois Issues July/August 2011.
Gov. Pat Quinn today followed though on his vow to veto a bill that he says asks too much of energy consumers in the name of progress.
Quinn shot down Senate Bill 1652, legislation that would allow the state’s two largest utility companies, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren, to increase customers’ rates by up to 2.5 percent annually as part of a plan to upgrade the state’s electric grid. The companies would be required to invest $3.2 billion in the grid over 10 years by making basic upgrades, as well as adding so-called smart technologies that would allow consumers to track their energy usage and possibly save money. The measure would also require ComEd to create 2,000 new jobs through the plan and Ameren to create 450 jobs.
Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, consumer advocates AARP and others have vocally opposed the legislation since its inception. “This bill would have been devastating for Illinois consumers,” Madigan said at a Chicago news conference today. “It’s hardly something that we should have shoved down our throats and taken out of our wallets here in the state of Illinois.”
They say the bill would allow companies to defer all the risk of new investments to consumers by ensuring that utilities see all-but-guaranteed profit increases. Madigan said the bill would “gut” the state regulatory system that requires utilities to make their cases for rate increases to the Illinois Commerce Commission. Doug Scott, director if the ICC, said the legislation allows utilities to charge customers for much more than grid upgrades, including lawyers' fees and charitable contributions. “This isn’t just about smart grid, and it isn’t just about infrastructure,” Scott said.
Sen. Mike Jacobs, a sponsor of the bill, said Madigan and others are grandstanding and blocking a bill that would bring economic growth and new jobs to the state, as well as improved service for utility customers. “When you move away from the politics, where everybody wants to make their two cents on their press releases, and look at the bill, it’s an upgrade,” said Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat.
Supporters and opponents of the legislation both point to summer storms that led to mass blackouts in the northern Chicago suburbs as a way to make their case.
“In particular, this bill grants unprecedented advantages to Illinois utilities that have a less than stellar record for providing reliable service. Recent storms in the Chicago area exposed significant service shortcomings, and more than 1.5 million people suffered through lengthy and widespread outages. Local businesses and consumers who depend on regular, predictable electricity suffered enormously. These interruptions impose a profound hardship on the state’s economy and are simply unacceptable,” Quinn wrote in the message that accompanied his veto. “More troubling is that while customers suffer service interruptions and higher rates, these same utilities have been in Springfield advocating for a bill that erodes meaningful consumer protections. These utilities have been trying to dramatically change the rules to guarantee annual rate increases, while eliminating accountability for, literally, leaving people in the dark.’
But Jacobs said that smart-grid technologies could have prevented some of the blackouts and helped to turn the lights back on more quickly for those who lost power.“You can’t buy champagne on a beer budget. … The fact is that Illinois is a leader in energy, and it’s time for the governor to lead,” Jacobs said. He said it is “disingenuous” of Quinn to support energy conservation and earth-friendly policy but oppose SB 1652, which could allow for more power generated by renewable sources.
Some environmental advocates did jump on in support of the plan after a rewrite emerged at the end of the spring legislative session. Jack Darin, director of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club, said the bill that legislators passed would allow more companies, such as big box stores, to generate their own power through wind, solar and other means. “We could see every large rooftop in the state potentially being a clean renewable energy power plant, whether it’s a big box store, parking garage or office space,” Darin said. He said his organization backs the bill strictly on its environmental merits, but he said lawmakers should also recognize the concerns of consumer advocates.
Quinn is pushing his own piece of legislation that he says would help to improve the grid while protecting consumers. However, Jacobs and the House sponsor, Orland Park Democrat Rep. Kevin McCarthy, said they are confident that they will be able to find the votes needed to override Quinn’s veto.
Quinn said that business owners came to plead with him to veto the bill and that the majority of Illinoisans do not support the plan. “We’ll, I think, show them… that the people of Illinois are mightier than Commonwealth Edison.”
Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang said ComEd needs to step up its customer service efforts if the company wants lawmakers who did not support the bill last time to change their votes. He said his constituents who lost power over the summer were less upset about the lapse in service and more worked up about the way the company treated them when they called to report that their power was out. “The people that called my office irate did not call here just because they had a power outage,” Lang said.
For more on what defines smart grid technology and its potential public policy implications for the state, see Illinois Issues July/August 2011.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Attorney general says Thomson sale would be legal
Attorney General Lisa Madigan gave Gov. Pat Quinn the green light today to sell Thomson prison to the federal government without a vote from the General Assembly.
President Barack Obama’s administration plans to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Thomson as part of the president’s plan to close the controversial prison that houses terror suspects in Cuba.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross had challenged the legality of Quinn making the deal without legislative approval and requested a legal opinion from Madigan.
“Rep. Cross still strongly believes that a transaction of this magnitude needs to go through the General Assembly,” Cross spokeswoman Sarah Wojcicki said. “We need to have a full discussion.”
President Barack Obama’s administration plans to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Thomson as part of the president’s plan to close the controversial prison that houses terror suspects in Cuba.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross had challenged the legality of Quinn making the deal without legislative approval and requested a legal opinion from Madigan.
“Rep. Cross still strongly believes that a transaction of this magnitude needs to go through the General Assembly,” Cross spokeswoman Sarah Wojcicki said. “We need to have a full discussion.”
Friday, July 10, 2009
Burris: No longer in the running
By Bethany Jaeger
No Lisa Madigan. No Roland Burris. The race to be the next U.S. senator from Illinois just narrowed to a more classic competition. The seat has gained national attention for its previous occupant, President Barack Obama.
Madigan, the Illinois attorney general, announced yesterday and Burris announced today that they opted not run in 2010.
“It’s an open seat, and the focus is more going to be more on national issues than would have been the case if Burris were running or if Lisa Madigan essentially would have cleared the field,” said Kent Redfield, political scientist at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
If Madigan would have run, Redfield said she would have been the Democrats’ strongest candidate. “Her not running is a minus for the Democrats, but Burris not running is certainly a plus. There’s no question about that.”
Burris never shed the cloud that hovered over his appointment by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The then-governor had just been arrested on federal corruption charges, accused of trying to personally profit from his powers to appoint the state’s next senator. Early polling of 644 likely voters showed that just 5.3 percent of respondents supported Burris as a candidate for a full term. Numerous Illinois officials, including U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and then-Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, urged Burris step down. Burris wouldn’t budge. His ambitious style came through in, "Always in the running," our profile of him in Illinois Issues magazine.
Burris said today during a Chicago news conference that fundraising had a lot to do with his decision not to run in 2010. Here’s an excerpt of his announcement:
The chronicles of Burris’ statements about whether he spoke to Blagojevich, Blagojevich’s brother or Blagojevich’s inner circle was the never-ending story. First he testified to an Illinois House committee that was investigating cause for the governor's impeachment. He said he only spoke with Lon Monk, Blagojevich’s former chief of staff. Then Burris revealed in a follow-up affidavit that he also spoke with the governor’s brother, as well as three insiders: Doug Scofield, John Wyma and former Deputy Gov. John Harris, who just pleaded guilty to wire fraud in the ongoing Blagojevich corruption case.
Burris most recently avoided perjury charges in Sangamon County, where State’s Attorney John Schmidt said Burris’s statements might have been vague, but there’s no proof that he intentionally mislead the Illinois House committee. Burris still faces a probe by the U.S. Senate.
His bow out of the 2010 election eliminated an easy target for the GOP, Redfield said. “It kind of takes Burris and Blagojevich out of the Senate race.”
Now, likely candidates are taking shape. On the Democratic side, they include state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. Redfield says he has the advantage of being the only candidate so far who has run a statewide race before. He also has a significant campaign kitty, with reportedly more than $1 million raised for his potential Senate bid. Two candidates with less name recognition include Cheryle Jackson, chief executive officer of the Chicago Urban League, and Chris Kennedy, head of Chicago’s Merchandise Mart and son of the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Redfield said Jackson also could have a slight disadvantage by being tied to Blagojevich. She was his communications director during his first term.
On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk of Hinsdale has been reported as set to run for the Senate seat. Redfield said he brings his national experience to the table, but as a moderate Republican, he would have to work to gain the moderate and independent vote. Andy McKenna, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party and businessman, also has reportedly discussed the idea. He lost his 2006 bid.
No Lisa Madigan. No Roland Burris. The race to be the next U.S. senator from Illinois just narrowed to a more classic competition. The seat has gained national attention for its previous occupant, President Barack Obama.
Madigan, the Illinois attorney general, announced yesterday and Burris announced today that they opted not run in 2010.
“It’s an open seat, and the focus is more going to be more on national issues than would have been the case if Burris were running or if Lisa Madigan essentially would have cleared the field,” said Kent Redfield, political scientist at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
If Madigan would have run, Redfield said she would have been the Democrats’ strongest candidate. “Her not running is a minus for the Democrats, but Burris not running is certainly a plus. There’s no question about that.”
Burris never shed the cloud that hovered over his appointment by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The then-governor had just been arrested on federal corruption charges, accused of trying to personally profit from his powers to appoint the state’s next senator. Early polling of 644 likely voters showed that just 5.3 percent of respondents supported Burris as a candidate for a full term. Numerous Illinois officials, including U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and then-Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, urged Burris step down. Burris wouldn’t budge. His ambitious style came through in, "Always in the running," our profile of him in Illinois Issues magazine.
Burris said today during a Chicago news conference that fundraising had a lot to do with his decision not to run in 2010. Here’s an excerpt of his announcement:
Life is about choices. Make no mistake, I love serving in the United States Senate. I love serving the people of Illinois, make no mistake.
I’m the only African-American serving in the Senate, and I believe that diversity and representation of all segments of our society is essential to who we are as a nation.
The reality of being a U.S. senator today [is that it] requires not only a significant time commitment to performing the job, but an almost equal commitment to raising funds to run competitively for the office.
Political races have become far too expensive in this country.
I was called to choose between spending my time raising funds or spending my time raising issues for my state. The people … should always come first.
The chronicles of Burris’ statements about whether he spoke to Blagojevich, Blagojevich’s brother or Blagojevich’s inner circle was the never-ending story. First he testified to an Illinois House committee that was investigating cause for the governor's impeachment. He said he only spoke with Lon Monk, Blagojevich’s former chief of staff. Then Burris revealed in a follow-up affidavit that he also spoke with the governor’s brother, as well as three insiders: Doug Scofield, John Wyma and former Deputy Gov. John Harris, who just pleaded guilty to wire fraud in the ongoing Blagojevich corruption case.
Burris most recently avoided perjury charges in Sangamon County, where State’s Attorney John Schmidt said Burris’s statements might have been vague, but there’s no proof that he intentionally mislead the Illinois House committee. Burris still faces a probe by the U.S. Senate.
His bow out of the 2010 election eliminated an easy target for the GOP, Redfield said. “It kind of takes Burris and Blagojevich out of the Senate race.”
Now, likely candidates are taking shape. On the Democratic side, they include state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. Redfield says he has the advantage of being the only candidate so far who has run a statewide race before. He also has a significant campaign kitty, with reportedly more than $1 million raised for his potential Senate bid. Two candidates with less name recognition include Cheryle Jackson, chief executive officer of the Chicago Urban League, and Chris Kennedy, head of Chicago’s Merchandise Mart and son of the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Redfield said Jackson also could have a slight disadvantage by being tied to Blagojevich. She was his communications director during his first term.
On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk of Hinsdale has been reported as set to run for the Senate seat. Redfield said he brings his national experience to the table, but as a moderate Republican, he would have to work to gain the moderate and independent vote. Andy McKenna, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party and businessman, also has reportedly discussed the idea. He lost his 2006 bid.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Word of the day: Neither
By Bethany Jaeger
Political hopefuls and Statehouse insiders waited for the day when Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan would decide whether she would run for governor or for the state’s second U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Today she surprised most of them by saying, “Neither.”
Citing her family and her feeling that there is still “plenty to do” in her current position, she said she decided to seek a third term as attorney general, setting off a chain reaction of political decisions leading up to the election season.
“I know that for now, the best way for me to continue serving the people of Illinois is to continue doing the job that I love,” Madigan said in her announcement. She cited her work targeting predatory lending practices, lifetime supervision of sex offenders, utility rates, hospital bills for uninsured patients and public access to information.
Her decision to seek another term ripples throughout state and national politics, particularly because it comes shortly after a trip to Washington, D.C. She met with President Barack Obama and reportedly discussed a potential bid for his former U.S. Senate seat. Madigan was seen as a strong candidate to ensure that it remained in Democratic hands, given that U.S. Sen. Roland Burris’ abbreviated term has been clouded by his controversial appointment by embattled former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Attorney general
As an incumbent candidate for statewide office, Madigan faces a repeat opponent, DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett. He lost to Madigan in 2002. He ran for governor in 2006 but soon became Judy Baar Topinka’s running mate as lieutenant governor on the GOP ticket. They lost to Blagojevich and then-Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. On his campaign Web site, Birkett said, “I want to remain a prosecutor.” He said he would bring to the forefront ideas to partner with state’s attorneys in every county, work with the General Assembly to reform laws, root out public corruption and protect communities against gang violence.
His fundraising, as reported to the Illinois State Board of Elections, however, has been outpaced by Madigan. She most recently reported having nearly $3.5 million available at the end of 2008, compared with Birkett’s $44,676 for the same period.
State Rep. Julie Hamos, an Evanston Democrat, was considering a bid for attorney general. Her campaign released a statement today saying she would revisit with community leaders and supporters. “I look forward to hearing their ideas and input as I discuss my next steps with my family."
U.S. Senate
Now that Madigan is out of the race for the Hill, chips are starting to fall for likely Democratic and Republican candidates to challenge Burris, if he indeed runs. Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk has not officially announced but has reportedly reached out to supporters today. Statehouse insiders also have mentioned Kirk as a possible GOP candidate for governor.
On the Democratic side, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias of Chicago has formed an exploratory committee for the Senate. CORRECTION: Raja Krishnamoorthi, former deputy treasurer, is exploring a run for state comptroller, not treasurer. If Giannoulias vacates his position as treasurer, his chief of staff, Robin Kelly, wants it. Another Democrat exploring the U.S. Senate race is Chris Kennedy, who heads Chicago’s Merchandise Mart and is the son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Democratic U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky decided June 8 against a Senate bid and instead will run for reelection in her House seat.
Governor
Madigan’s decision to seek reelection also causes a ripple effect at the state level. Not seeking the governor’s office avoids the politically awkward situation of serving while her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, controlled one of the legislative chambers. It also avoids a primary run against sitting Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.
Considering she was also widely seen as one of the strongest candidates for the chief executive’s job, several potential opponents waited for her decision. Comptroller Dan Hynes is considering; however, he has not officially announced which office he might seek. His campaign issued a statement that said he would discuss his options with his family and “make a decision within the next few weeks.” Krishnamoorthi is considering a bid for comptroller if Hynes decides to move on. My apologies for an error published in the original post.
The GOP primary race for governor, meanwhile, is increasingly crowded, particularly with suburban Chicagoans. State Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale, who served in the administrations of former Govs. Jim Edgar and Jim Thompson, officially announced his bid with a statewide tour today. “I’ve always said I didn’t care whether Lisa Madigan was my opponent. I intended to run otherwise. But, obviously, she and her father would have been very difficult opponents.”
He was quoted this morning as saying he looks forward to Lisa Madigan being attorney general when he’s governor. Dillard said this afternoon, however, that he was not endorsing her. “Joe Birkett and [GOP Rep.] Jim Durkin are close friends and would be great attorney generals. And it would be worth the price of admission to see a rematch between Joe Birkett and Ms. Madigan, especially since State’s Attorney Birkett came so close last time to beating her.”
In the race for governor, Dillard joins GOP candidates Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, a repeat gubernatorial hopeful; Sen. Matt Murphy of Palatine, who announced last month and has become his chamber’s budget point person; DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom; Dan Proft, political commentator for WLS-AM 890 Chicago radio, a political consultant and a writer for conservative publications; and Adam Andrzejewski, a self-made businessman and self-funded candidate based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook.
We’ll have more about the suburban Chicago hotspot for political aspirations in the future.
Political hopefuls and Statehouse insiders waited for the day when Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan would decide whether she would run for governor or for the state’s second U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Today she surprised most of them by saying, “Neither.”
Citing her family and her feeling that there is still “plenty to do” in her current position, she said she decided to seek a third term as attorney general, setting off a chain reaction of political decisions leading up to the election season.
“I know that for now, the best way for me to continue serving the people of Illinois is to continue doing the job that I love,” Madigan said in her announcement. She cited her work targeting predatory lending practices, lifetime supervision of sex offenders, utility rates, hospital bills for uninsured patients and public access to information.
Her decision to seek another term ripples throughout state and national politics, particularly because it comes shortly after a trip to Washington, D.C. She met with President Barack Obama and reportedly discussed a potential bid for his former U.S. Senate seat. Madigan was seen as a strong candidate to ensure that it remained in Democratic hands, given that U.S. Sen. Roland Burris’ abbreviated term has been clouded by his controversial appointment by embattled former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Attorney general
As an incumbent candidate for statewide office, Madigan faces a repeat opponent, DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett. He lost to Madigan in 2002. He ran for governor in 2006 but soon became Judy Baar Topinka’s running mate as lieutenant governor on the GOP ticket. They lost to Blagojevich and then-Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. On his campaign Web site, Birkett said, “I want to remain a prosecutor.” He said he would bring to the forefront ideas to partner with state’s attorneys in every county, work with the General Assembly to reform laws, root out public corruption and protect communities against gang violence.
His fundraising, as reported to the Illinois State Board of Elections, however, has been outpaced by Madigan. She most recently reported having nearly $3.5 million available at the end of 2008, compared with Birkett’s $44,676 for the same period.
State Rep. Julie Hamos, an Evanston Democrat, was considering a bid for attorney general. Her campaign released a statement today saying she would revisit with community leaders and supporters. “I look forward to hearing their ideas and input as I discuss my next steps with my family."
U.S. Senate
Now that Madigan is out of the race for the Hill, chips are starting to fall for likely Democratic and Republican candidates to challenge Burris, if he indeed runs. Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk has not officially announced but has reportedly reached out to supporters today. Statehouse insiders also have mentioned Kirk as a possible GOP candidate for governor.
On the Democratic side, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias of Chicago has formed an exploratory committee for the Senate. CORRECTION: Raja Krishnamoorthi, former deputy treasurer, is exploring a run for state comptroller, not treasurer. If Giannoulias vacates his position as treasurer, his chief of staff, Robin Kelly, wants it. Another Democrat exploring the U.S. Senate race is Chris Kennedy, who heads Chicago’s Merchandise Mart and is the son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Democratic U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky decided June 8 against a Senate bid and instead will run for reelection in her House seat.
Governor
Madigan’s decision to seek reelection also causes a ripple effect at the state level. Not seeking the governor’s office avoids the politically awkward situation of serving while her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, controlled one of the legislative chambers. It also avoids a primary run against sitting Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.
Considering she was also widely seen as one of the strongest candidates for the chief executive’s job, several potential opponents waited for her decision. Comptroller Dan Hynes is considering; however, he has not officially announced which office he might seek. His campaign issued a statement that said he would discuss his options with his family and “make a decision within the next few weeks.” Krishnamoorthi is considering a bid for comptroller if Hynes decides to move on. My apologies for an error published in the original post.
The GOP primary race for governor, meanwhile, is increasingly crowded, particularly with suburban Chicagoans. State Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale, who served in the administrations of former Govs. Jim Edgar and Jim Thompson, officially announced his bid with a statewide tour today. “I’ve always said I didn’t care whether Lisa Madigan was my opponent. I intended to run otherwise. But, obviously, she and her father would have been very difficult opponents.”
He was quoted this morning as saying he looks forward to Lisa Madigan being attorney general when he’s governor. Dillard said this afternoon, however, that he was not endorsing her. “Joe Birkett and [GOP Rep.] Jim Durkin are close friends and would be great attorney generals. And it would be worth the price of admission to see a rematch between Joe Birkett and Ms. Madigan, especially since State’s Attorney Birkett came so close last time to beating her.”
In the race for governor, Dillard joins GOP candidates Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, a repeat gubernatorial hopeful; Sen. Matt Murphy of Palatine, who announced last month and has become his chamber’s budget point person; DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom; Dan Proft, political commentator for WLS-AM 890 Chicago radio, a political consultant and a writer for conservative publications; and Adam Andrzejewski, a self-made businessman and self-funded candidate based in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook.
We’ll have more about the suburban Chicago hotspot for political aspirations in the future.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
AG: Burris' appointment "temporary"
By Bethany Jaeger
Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued a legal opinion late last night that confirms the Illinois Republicans’ interpretation of the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: An appointment to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat is considered temporary, and the state legislature can set up an election to fill the seat currently held by U.S. Sen. Roland Burris.
According to her reading of the 17th Amendment, “although a state legislature may permit the state executive to fill a vacancy by appointment, that appointment is only ‘temporary.’” She said the General Assembly could reduce the U.S. Senate term without violating the senator’s right to due process of removal based on “cause.”
“A temporary appointee to the U.S. Senate has no right that prevents the General Assembly from passing legislation to enable the people to elect their U.S. senator.” In short, the opinion says nothing in the state or federal Constitution prohibits the General Assembly from changing the date of an election to choose a new U.S. senator.
Illinois House and Senate Republicans took that as a cue to call for another special election. “We do, in fact, have an opportunity legally and legitimately to have a special election and let people fill the Senate seat and stop the embarrassment that is the Roland Burris appointment,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican sponsoring a measure, SB 285, to move the primary election date to April 7 and the general election to May 26.
Senate Democrats also are sponsoring their own version of a special election bill, SB 1271, which is scheduled to be heard in a committee this afternoon.
If the Republican version were approved, the election to replace now U.S. Sen. Roland Burris would be on the same dates as local elections and, therefore, save money, Murphy said. Democrats also cited those two dates in December, when the party initially supported the idea of holding a special election to fill the seat vacated by President Barack Obama.
Murphy said Democrats, which have estimated the cost of a special election at more than $40 million, are motivated by politics, not financial concerns. “I think it’s a little ironic that the people who spent us into a $9 billion hole are now going to get a little worried about $15 [million] to $25 million on an issue as important as this.”
He said the state budget still allots more than $15 million for member initiatives this fiscal year. If the General Assembly zeroed out those lines, he said the money could be used to help local governments with the cost of holding a special election. “So sure, it’s a concern but one that we can address if our priorities are right.”
Rep. Bill Black, a Danville Republican, also said the price tag of a special election doesn’t cost as much as public cynicism. “What’s been the cost of the loss of confidence in this state? What’s the cost of people saying, ‘Why bother to vote? It doesn’t make any difference.’ Haven’t we learned anything from the last two or three years?”
The timing, however, would condense the process of finding candidates, circulating petitions and educating voters. Murphy said he’s less concerned about the timing than he is about Burris remaining in office until 2011. “Every time we think we can’t possibly get embarrassed one more time, we do.”
Today’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that Burris’ son received a job with the Blagojevich Administration in September, the month before the governor’s brother called Roland Burris for fundraising help, according to Burris’ February affidavit to the special House committee that recommended Blagojevich’s impeachment.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued a legal opinion late last night that confirms the Illinois Republicans’ interpretation of the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: An appointment to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat is considered temporary, and the state legislature can set up an election to fill the seat currently held by U.S. Sen. Roland Burris.
According to her reading of the 17th Amendment, “although a state legislature may permit the state executive to fill a vacancy by appointment, that appointment is only ‘temporary.’” She said the General Assembly could reduce the U.S. Senate term without violating the senator’s right to due process of removal based on “cause.”
“A temporary appointee to the U.S. Senate has no right that prevents the General Assembly from passing legislation to enable the people to elect their U.S. senator.” In short, the opinion says nothing in the state or federal Constitution prohibits the General Assembly from changing the date of an election to choose a new U.S. senator.
Illinois House and Senate Republicans took that as a cue to call for another special election. “We do, in fact, have an opportunity legally and legitimately to have a special election and let people fill the Senate seat and stop the embarrassment that is the Roland Burris appointment,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican sponsoring a measure, SB 285, to move the primary election date to April 7 and the general election to May 26.
Senate Democrats also are sponsoring their own version of a special election bill, SB 1271, which is scheduled to be heard in a committee this afternoon.
If the Republican version were approved, the election to replace now U.S. Sen. Roland Burris would be on the same dates as local elections and, therefore, save money, Murphy said. Democrats also cited those two dates in December, when the party initially supported the idea of holding a special election to fill the seat vacated by President Barack Obama.
Murphy said Democrats, which have estimated the cost of a special election at more than $40 million, are motivated by politics, not financial concerns. “I think it’s a little ironic that the people who spent us into a $9 billion hole are now going to get a little worried about $15 [million] to $25 million on an issue as important as this.”
He said the state budget still allots more than $15 million for member initiatives this fiscal year. If the General Assembly zeroed out those lines, he said the money could be used to help local governments with the cost of holding a special election. “So sure, it’s a concern but one that we can address if our priorities are right.”
Rep. Bill Black, a Danville Republican, also said the price tag of a special election doesn’t cost as much as public cynicism. “What’s been the cost of the loss of confidence in this state? What’s the cost of people saying, ‘Why bother to vote? It doesn’t make any difference.’ Haven’t we learned anything from the last two or three years?”
The timing, however, would condense the process of finding candidates, circulating petitions and educating voters. Murphy said he’s less concerned about the timing than he is about Burris remaining in office until 2011. “Every time we think we can’t possibly get embarrassed one more time, we do.”
Today’s Chicago Sun-Times reports that Burris’ son received a job with the Blagojevich Administration in September, the month before the governor’s brother called Roland Burris for fundraising help, according to Burris’ February affidavit to the special House committee that recommended Blagojevich’s impeachment.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Lisa Madigan tries to involve the High Court
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked the Illinois Supreme Court to temporarily remove Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office and replace him with Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. But the process to get Blagojevich out of office — if he doesn’t resign first — already started in the legislature and in the federal courts.
It’s unknown whether the high court will even hear the case or how long it would take, but Madigan said with Blagojevich in office, the state is paralyzed and in crisis.
“In light of his arrest and the filing of his criminal complaint, Gov. Blagoejvich can no longer fulfill his official duties with any legitimacy,” she said during a Chicago news conference, carried live on multiple media outlets, including CNN.
She seeks a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, which she said could be quicker than the impeachment process. However, she wants the Illinois legislature to continue pursuing impeachment and trial.
If Madigan’s motion were to succeed before the Supreme Court, Blagojevich would be prevented from filling the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, acting on legislation, directing state contracts, directing the Illinois Finance Authority and dolling out state funds.
Among the items held up by this week’s events is a $1.4 billion borrowing plan that would help the state pay an extreme backlog in bills owed to medical providers who care for Medicaid patients. The plan was supposed to be carried out this week; however, it needs the attorney general’s signature to certify that she’s unaware of any proceeding or threatened litigation challenging the authority of the governor to hold his office. “So I, at this point, would not necessarily be able to sign that,” she said.
Madigan said is her job as the attorney general to serve as the lawyer for the people of the state, and it is her job to present the question to the court. However, the motions beg political questions, to which she did not address during her press conference. “Political issues and political matters are not even on my radar screen this week,” she said to a question about her filling the vacant U.S. Senate seat.
She is exploring a run for governor in 2010. She also is the daughter of House Speaker Michael Madigan, arch nemesis of Blagojevich.
Here are the documents filed in Springfield this morning:
The motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction
The brief in support of the motion
The motion for leave to file a verified complaint
The Supreme Court Rule 382 upon which Madigan’s motion is based
(If the links still aren't working, try here.)
It’s unknown whether the high court will even hear the case or how long it would take, but Madigan said with Blagojevich in office, the state is paralyzed and in crisis.
“In light of his arrest and the filing of his criminal complaint, Gov. Blagoejvich can no longer fulfill his official duties with any legitimacy,” she said during a Chicago news conference, carried live on multiple media outlets, including CNN.
She seeks a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, which she said could be quicker than the impeachment process. However, she wants the Illinois legislature to continue pursuing impeachment and trial.
If Madigan’s motion were to succeed before the Supreme Court, Blagojevich would be prevented from filling the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, acting on legislation, directing state contracts, directing the Illinois Finance Authority and dolling out state funds.
Among the items held up by this week’s events is a $1.4 billion borrowing plan that would help the state pay an extreme backlog in bills owed to medical providers who care for Medicaid patients. The plan was supposed to be carried out this week; however, it needs the attorney general’s signature to certify that she’s unaware of any proceeding or threatened litigation challenging the authority of the governor to hold his office. “So I, at this point, would not necessarily be able to sign that,” she said.
Madigan said is her job as the attorney general to serve as the lawyer for the people of the state, and it is her job to present the question to the court. However, the motions beg political questions, to which she did not address during her press conference. “Political issues and political matters are not even on my radar screen this week,” she said to a question about her filling the vacant U.S. Senate seat.
She is exploring a run for governor in 2010. She also is the daughter of House Speaker Michael Madigan, arch nemesis of Blagojevich.
Here are the documents filed in Springfield this morning:
The motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction
The brief in support of the motion
The motion for leave to file a verified complaint
The Supreme Court Rule 382 upon which Madigan’s motion is based
(If the links still aren't working, try here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
