Recall will be easier said than done

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution this week that would allow for the recall of a sitting governor, so long as he or she has spent at least six months in office. Some say, however, that the hoops voters would have to jump through make the amendment relatively useless.

To pass, the amendment needed support from 60 percent of those who voted on Tuesday. It received the backing 66 percent, or more than 2 million votes.

If voters want to remove a governor from office, they first must file an affidavit with signatures from 20 lawmakers from the Illinois House and 10 from the Illinois Senate. The signing members must be evenly split from both parties. If the State Board of Elections approves the request, voters would get 150 days to circulate petitions and gather signatures from enough people to equal 15 percent of the turnout for the last gubernatorial election.

For example, if the threshold was based on the turnout in this week’s election - 3.6 million - voters would have to get more than 525,000 signatures. Petitions must also have at least 100 signatures each from 25 counties in the state. (The American Civil Liberties Union in Illinois recently questioned the constitutionality of that requirement.) Once the petitions are turned in, the Board of Elections has 100 days to approve them.

If the board finds the signatures valid and gives the go-ahead, a special election would be held to ask voters if they want to remove the governor from office. Candidates who wanted to replace the governor would also appear on the ballot. So if voters approve the recall, the special election will also serve as a primary election. If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor will fill in until another election is held within 60 days to choose a replacement.

Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield and director of the Sunshine Project, described that process as a “screwy Rube Goldberg device.” He said the requirements voters would have to meet to unseat a governor makes the notion of recall power “largely symbolic.” However, he said it is difficult to strike a balance between making the requirements realistic for voters to reach, while still making it difficult enough that a governor would not be unseated unless there was true public outrage.

Emily Miller, who researched Illinois’ recall amendment for the Better Government Association, described the amendment as a “hybrid” between recall and impeachment because legislators must sign off to initiate the process. “Illinois is unique in that [among states that have recall], and it is that way because, frankly, it is another way to retain power in the Illinois legislature,” Miller said.

The sponsor of the bill in the House, Rep. Jack Franks, said he did not initially plan on including the requirement that legislators sign off. But it became a part of the bill through compromise with Gov. Pat Quinn. Franks, a Marengo Democrat, wanted recall to apply to all constitutional officers, but that was dropped from the final version, as well.

Franks said recall is rarely used in the state’s that have it, and he hopes Illinois won’t need it. He likened it to a "nuclear deterrent" against bad behavior from a governor. But if voters feel strongly enough to use it, he said they should be able to successfully remove a governor. “I trust the voters. … People have to have a passion for them to stand up and do a recall.”

While Franks did not include the legislature in his original plan, he says he thinks it is a good idea because voters can hold lawmakers accountable by asking them to sign on to a recall movement.

Election day: Close races, big spenders and unhappy voters

By Jamey Dunn

As the candidates at the top of the ticket fly throughout the state trying to energize voters the day before the election, polls show Republicans have a slight edge in two close races.

A poll of likely Illinois voters released today by Public Policy Polling has U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk leading the race for U.S. Senate with 46 points to Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias’ 42 points. The same poll shows Gov. Pat Quinn, with 40 points, trailing Republican Sen. Bill Brady, who has 45 points. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 3.4 percent.

Meanwhile, legislative leaders are pouring money into General Assembly races. The Illinois Campaign for Political reform released a list today of 14 legislative races — seven from each chamber — where both candidates combined reported more than $1 million in campaign funds.

Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield and director of the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit campaign contribution database connected to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said the total number of races with more than $1 million in funds will likely be closer to 16 when all is said and done. “Republicans are seeing opportunity. Democrats are playing defense,” Redfield said.

He added that in recent years, Republicans have had to spend more to fight for suburban districts. But with Democrats — who have a demographic advantage in Illinois — facing high levels of voter frustration and apathy, Republicans have more money to target downstate districts.

As for the possibility of a Republican-controlled Illinois House, Redfield said: “I would be surprised, but I wouldn’t be shocked. … If the Democrats stay home, and the Republicans go to the polls, you could get something like 1994 [when Republicans took control of the House.]”

Redfield said almost half of Brady’s campaign cash has come from national Republican groups. He says close races for Senate and the governor’s office in a state that is typically Democratic might have compelled national Republican organizations to spend more this time around. “Nationally, Republicans have not spent a lot of money in Illinois [in the past] because there really wasn’t much point.”

There has been heightened involvement from national parties in governor’s races across the country, due in part to the fact that states will soon be redrawing legislative districts. “If you get a Republican governor, then that’s a stopper in terms of redistricting in Illinois,” Redfield said. Even if the General Assembly stays in Democrats’ hands, a Republican governor could refuse to sign off on any map they create.

A race thousands of miles away may also affect Illinois. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is battling in a close contest for his seat. If he loses and the Democrats hang on to the Senate, there is a good chance that U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin would take over as leader for his party. Durbin said he has no plans to challenge Reid if he wins reelection.

“I have no idea what anyone else is doing, but I told Harry Reid, gave him my word, I would do nothing in any way whatsoever to angle for his position,” Durbin said. He’s the majority leader. He’s going to be reelected as the majority leader.”

Redfield said that even though it seems Democratic voters in Illinois are disaffected, Illinois Democrats would still be power players in Washington, D.C. “We [would] have the Senate majority leader and the president from Illinois. That would be interesting.”

The economic downturn and a campaign season of negative ads and divisive rhetoric highlighting the state’s and the country’s ills will do little to inspire voters, according to Redfield. “If people were depressed before about the economy after this election cycle, they are even more depressed. … Where are you going to cast a positive vote tomorrow night?”

That outlook is reflected in the Public Policy poll, which says that no matter who voters choose as their next U.S. senator and governor, they will likely not be satisfied. More respondents had an unfavorable opinion than a favorable one of Kirk, Giannoulias and Brady. More than half of respondents did not approve of Quinn’s performance as governor.

Besides picking candidates, voters will also have to decide if they want to add recall power to the Illinois Constitution. If more than 60 percent of people who cast their ballots approve the amendment, voters — with the backing of 30 legislators from both chambers and both parties — would have the power to recall a sitting governor.

Safeguard in recall amendment could be its downfall

By Jamey Dunn

A provision to require statewide voter support to unseat a governor, which legislators viewed as a safeguard in a proposed recall amendment to the Illinois Constitution, has raised questions of constitutionality days before voters will consider it.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois claims that requiring any effort to recall the governor from office to get at least 100 signatures from 20 different counties violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by running counter to the “one person, one vote” principle.

Harvey Grossman, ACLU of Illinois’ legal director, said the requirement gives individual voters in smaller counties more power. In a large county, such as Cook, it would theoretically be easier to find 100 voters to sign a petition, while in a much smaller county it might be more difficult. Grossman said this would mean signatures from voters in smaller counties would be in greater demand, and the voice of a voter in larger county would be diluted.

Grossman said one alternative that would ensure statewide support would be to require signatures from a certain number of legislative districts, which are drawn up to contain the same number of voters. He said such a plan would prevent the problem that using counties, with varying populations, presents.

Rep. Jack Franks, a sponsor of the amendment, said legislators, working with Gov. Pat Quinn’s office, tried to ease the fears of those who were concerned that a governor could be recalled too easily or that recall power could be used as a political cudgel to threaten a sitting governor and sway his or her decisions. The requirement that a recall campaign collect signatures from multiple counties was meant to prevent a more populous county from single-handedly initiating a process, which would affect residents throughout the state.

Those seeking to recall a sitting governor would have to collect signatures from citizens equal to 15 percent of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A bipartisan group of 20 House members and 10 Senate members also have to sign off on a recall effort.

Franks, a lawyer, said he does not know if the ACLU’s argument would hold up in court, but he said the organization should have raised concerns earlier in the process instead of days before the election. He is encouraging voters to approve the amendment, saying that if it is struck down, previous voter support would make it easier to pass a new version through the legislature.

Grossman, who wrote an opinion piece on the topic for the Chicago Tribune, said that his organization was responding to recent complaints from voters. “We felt we had a duty, once it was brought to our attention, to inform the voters.”

While the ACLU does not take a stance on recall, the organization is encouraging voters to reject the amendment because it is unconstitutional. He said the ACLU does not have any immediate plans to stage a legal challenge of the amendment if it receives the required support from 60 percent of individuals who vote in the general election next Tuesday. However, he thinks if it does pass, “the most likely result would be a court would strike down recall altogether.” He said the legislature should "go back to the drawing board" and create an amendment that would not face such legal challenges.

Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield and director of the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit campaign contribution database connected to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, described finding the right balance of safeguards against abuse while still making a recall process feasible for voters as a “three bears kind of problem.” He added the Quinn and the legislature could have taken more time if they wanted to get the amendment just right. “I don’t know that there as a lot of thought about these issues. … They could have found better mechanisms to protect against the things they wanted to protect against. … Could we have spent six months and got a better provision that would have been on the ballot two years from now? Sure.”

Redfield said although Quinn has historically supported recall, the impeachment and removal from office of his predecessor, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, added political pressure to get an amendment on the ballot this November. “The governor wanted that skin up on the wall as he was running for election.”

Redfield said he is not convinced by the ACLU’s case against the amendment. “I think the argument is a stretch, and I think it’s one of the reasons [they] didn’t raise it sooner.” He thinks it will do little to sway voters one way or another. “If you’re for recall, you’re for recall. If you’re against it, then you’re against it.”

Poll: Recall amendment likely to pass

By Jamey Dunn

A constitutional amendment that would allow voters the power to recall a sitting governor seems to be the only sure thing on the statewide ballot for the upcoming general election, according to one poll.

The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute’s recent poll of more than 700 likely voters found 65 percent of participants favored recall power that would be applied to governors. Only 27 percent were opposed to recall. While the amendment in front of voters in November is limited to the governor’s office, 66 percent of respondents in the poll approved voters having the power to recall other statewide elected officials.

John Jackson, a visiting professor at the public policy institute, said the convictions of former Gov. George Ryan on corruption charges and the impeachment and corruption trials of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich contributed to the public’s support of recall. “I think [recall] is a sure thing. ... [It’s] the scandal from the last two governors that drives this idea. [Recall is] a recourse that the voters could take,” he said.

Voters were in favor of open primaries, an issue the General Assembly will take up in its veto session. Almost three quarters of respondents would prefer not being required to declare a party affiliation to vote in primary elections. Gov. Pat Quinn used his amendatory veto power to tack an open primaries provision onto an elections bill. Jackson said he hears an “endless stream of complaint” from voters about having to publicly identify with a party to cast their votes.

More than 75 percent of respondents also disapproved of the state’s current redistricting plan.

More than 80 percent of participants backed term limits for legislators, as well as limiting the time an individual can be speaker of the House or Senate president. They also favored limits on the campaign money given by leaders to rank-and-file members. More than half of those surveyed supported public financing for judicial races.

Jackson said he thinks legislators may take notice of the strong public backing on some of these reform issues — especially the open primary amendatory veto — that will be before them in the near future. However, he said that does not mean any action on those issues is in the works. “When will the tide turn in Illinois? And what will make it turn? … That’s the bigger question, and the far the more important question.”

Jackson said the next installment of poll results, which comes out Monday, will address the public’s perception of the state budget.

Veto session wrap-up and goodbye

By Bethany Jaeger
This will be my last post as Illinois Issues Statehouse bureau chief. I am moving on to the private sector to be a management consultant with a Springfield-based firm. Thank you for reading and and for sharing a string of unbelievable experiences with me during the past four years.

That said, the legislature completed its annual fall veto session and won't be back until January 12. After that week, it's not scheduled to be back until early February. Read a summary of substantive measures below.

Campaign finance
SB 1466 Individuals, businesses, unions, associations and political committees would be limited in the amount of money they could donate to candidates each election cycle, under a measure approved by both chambers along partisan lines. Legislative leaders and political parties, however, are only limited in the amount they can contribute to candidates in primary elections, not general elections. While reform advocates considered the limits on top political party officials as a compromise and a starting point, Republicans denounced the bill as “business as usual” by consolidating political power in the hands of the few.

In addition to contribution limits, which would be applied on a graduated scale depending on the entity donating and on the candidate’s race, the reform package also aims to improve transparency and enforcement. Candidates would have to report contributions and expenditures four times a year, as opposed to the current twice a year. Donations of $1,000 or more would have to be reported within two to five business days year round. The Illinois State Board of Elections would gain new ability to conduct random audits and investigate potential violations. A task force would study the effectiveness of the implementation of the new law, as well as the feasibility of public funding of political campaigns. Read more details in last night's post.

Recall amendment
HJRCA 31 As part of the fallout from the impeachment of then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, voters will be asked on the November ballot whether to change the state Constitution to give them the power to remove a sitting governor. Placing the referendum on the ballot required legislative approval, which was received in August. At least 60 percent of voters in the 2010 general election would have to vote “yes” to amend the Constitution. If approved, then individuals seeking to remove a governor in the future would have to gather a certain number of signatures (15 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election) before voters could be asked whether to remove the sitting governor. Also, 20 House members and 10 Senate members from both political parties would have to sign off on a recall proposal from citizens.

MAP grant funding
SB 1180 Gov. Pat Quinn restored $205 million to Monetary Award Program, which offers financial aid to nearly 138,000 low-income college students. As part of more than $2 billion in budget cuts this fiscal year, Quinn initially did not fully fund the so-called MAP grants to cover an entire school year. The administration authorized spending for only one semester, creating panic among higher education students who relied on the grants. Quinn toured the state to pressure the legislature to approve restoring the funding, and the General Assembly complied in October. However, neither the governor nor the legislature approved a way to pay for the $205 million needed. Quinn said he would seek new revenue sources after January, when fewer votes would be necessary for approval. The move comes on the heels of an updated projection that the state will collect nearly $900 million less than anticipated.

Legislative pay raises
SB 2090 Legislators last spring approved a measure that would change the way legislators get pay raises and would require them to take four unpaid furlough days, as well as forfeit their annual cost-of-living raises this fiscal year. Quinn changed the measure to permanently end automatic cost-of-living raises. The Senate overrode the governor’s change. If the House does the same, the original changes would take effect. If the House does not agree to override the governor’s changes, the entire bill would die so that none of the changes would take effect.

Cemetery oversight
SB 1471 All cemetery owners, managers and employees, including those who are hired to trim trees or maintain cemetery grounds, would have to register with the state and carry identification cards to prove their clearance to work on site. Owners, managers and all employees who had direct contact with customers also would have to go a step further by becoming licensed by the state and subjecting themselves to criminal background checks. The bill is in response to regulatory gaps exposed during in the Burr Oak Cemetery scandal last summer (see Illinois Issues, September 2009, page 13). Bodies buried in the historic African-American cemetery in Alsip were moved and dumped into a mass grave in an alleged scheme to resell gravesites. The bill would consolidate all regulatory oversight to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and require cemetery maps, plats and burial records to be maintained and publicly available. Family burial grounds, inactive cemeteries and cemeteries smaller than 2 acres would be exempt to the new rules.

Cook County governance
HB 4625 Cook County Board members would need fewer votes to override a board president’s veto. If signed into law by the governor, overriding the Cook County Board president would require a three-fifths majority rather than a four-fifths majority, or 11 out of 17 votes rather than 14 votes. It would be effective immediately, contrary to Cook County Board President Todd Stroger’s wishes that it would be effective after his current term ends in December 2010.

HB 4624 An effort to repeal Cook County’s penny-on-the-dollar sales tax increase failed during veto session. Board President Todd Stroger enacted the sales tax hike from 0.75 percent to 1.75 percent in February 2008. Estimated to generate about $400 million for county coffers, the tax has been criticized for making Chicago’s total sales tax rate one of the highest in the nation. County board members have repeatedly tried to repeal the tax increase over Stroger’s veto but have failed to meet the four-fifths majority required.

Free rides for seniors
SB 941 All senior citizens, regardless of income, will continue to receive free ridees on mass transit systems throughout the state. An attempt to roll back the program started by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, failed to advance in the Senate. The bill would have ended the free rides for seniors age 65 and older other than for those who are low-income and qualify for the state’s Circuit Breaker program, and it would have reportedly saved $37 million for cash-strapped transit agencies in the Chicago area.

Governor’s budget address
HB 1409 Legislators denied the governor from moving his annual budget address to March, which he requested to give more time for his new budget director, David Vaught, to assess the state’s fiscal status. The governor must propose a budget in February, unless the legislature changes the date.

GOP leadership
SB 600 The Illinois Republican Party will not have to change the way it elects its State Central Committee members, which are internally elected. A measure to change the system to allowing the public to elect committee members failed to gain the supermajority of votes needed in the House. Fewer votes would be needed if the issue came up again after this month.

Power to recall governors "up to the people"

By Bethany Jaeger

When voters head to the polls November 2, 2010, they’ll vote on who they want to represent them in the General Assembly, who they want as governor and constitutional officers and whether they want the ability to recall a governor.

The ability to recall a sitting governor would require changing the state Constitution, which would require at least 60 percent of voters in the 2010 general election to vote “yes.”

The version approved Thursday by the Illinois Senate 56-1, House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 31, would only apply to governors. Previous versions proposed much broader powers to recall all elected officials, including county board chairs and judges. That proposal passed the House last spring but stalled in the Senate.

Gov. Pat Quinn said he has supported recall proposals for 33 years and described Thursday’s version as “the ultimate ethics measure.”

“The very best way to ensure the governor does the right thing all the time is to have in our Constitution the power of recall with respect to the office of governor,” he said.

Some legislators warned, however, that the fear of being recalled by unhappy voters or by organizations with narrow interests would make governors only do what is popular at the time, not what is in the best interest of the state in the long-run.

Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said the recall provision is going down a dangerous path. “I often believe we do things or fail to do things because we are afraid of the shadow of our next election,” he said to his peers during floor debate. “But when you do this, when you put something like this in [the Constitution], that shadow is upon you at all times.” However, he ended up voting in favor of putting the question before voters.

Quinn said allowing voters to decide what is in their Constitution is a fundamental part of democracy, and he intends to support the referendum. “If the conduct of the chief executive betrays the public trust, they don’t carry out the will of the people in a very significant way, voters should not be subjected to having to wait years and years until the next election to review their performance.”

Here is some more background about the proposal from a previous blog post:

• A governor must be in office for 6 months before the recall process is started.
• 20 House members and 10 Senate members from both parties would have to sign off on an initial recall proposal from citizens.
• Once legislators approved the measure to put the question on the ballot, individuals seeking to remove the governor would have 150 days to round up the signatures to put the question of whether to remove the governor before voters. They would need a number of signatures equal to 15 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. For instance, Rep. Jack Franks said the number of signatures currently needed would be 750,000 based off of the 2006 election.
• There must be at least 25 different counties with 100 signatures each.
• This version of the bill would only apply to the governor’s position, and it contains new safeguards intended to prevent abuse of the power. These new aspects came under fire from House Republicans.

September issue: Out with the Old — NCLB

Check out the September edition of Illinois Issues magazine.

Find a profile of Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, who has taken her party away from the legacy of James 'Pate' Philip, according to writer Kevin McDermott, in "Her own style."

In our cover story, educators and policy groups weigh in as Congress prepares to reauthorize the 2001 No Child Left Behind law. See "Out with the old."

And get a preview of an Illinois Supreme Court case that has potential to clarify what nonprofit hospitals need to do to qualify for property tax exemptions. Read "Charity care" before the case's oral arguments, scheduled for September 23.

In the print edition, only, University of Illinois at Springfield professor Christopher Mooney analyzes Gov. Pat Quinn's "populist" style as he calls attention to direct democracy concepts of recall and citizen initiative in "Let the people speak."

Also in print-only, MarySue Barrett, president of the Metropolitan Planning Council, pens a guest essay about "Wise spending," or a method she says would get infrastructure investment right.

As always, the print edition also includes, among other monthly features, the award-winning column by Charlie Wheeler, director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at UIS. This month, he says, "Illinois' budget is the most out-of-whack in recent history."

Budget not the only thing in limbo

By Hilary Russell
Just as the state’s operating budget is in limbo with five days left in the fiscal year, many substantive bills were left in the lurch at the end of the regularly scheduled spring session. The following is a list of measures that Illinois Issues magazine covered in our monthly “legislative checklist” throughout the spring. See the full list in the July/August print edition. In the meantime, here is a list of bills that stalled but that could come up in this fall’s or next spring’s legislative sessions:

HJRCA 31 The constitutional amendment sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks, a Morengo Democrat, would give voters the option to remove a sitting governor from office. The resolution would require voters to decide whether they wanted to change the state’s Constitution to include a so-called “recall” provision. The bill passed the House, but it didn’t get called for a final vote in the Senate. Senate President John Cullerton recently said he would not call the measure for a vote until Gov. Pat Quinn signed another ethics reform measure, HB 7, which would cap the amount individuals, businesses and political organizations could contribute to candidates. Franks’ recall measure doesn’t have to be approved until May 2010, and he said he expects that it would pass without problems before then.

HB 2643, SB 1292 Newly hired state employees and teachers would receive less generous pension benefits than current employees. Quinn proposed the so-called two-tiered pension plan as a way to save the state money in the next fiscal year and to reduce the mounting pension liabilities in the long run. But public employee union members strongly oppose the idea and argue it ultimately won’t save the money projected by the governor’s office. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, an Orland Park Democrat, and Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, stalled in both chambers.

SB 1381 A bill allowing the limited use of medical marijuana, sponsored by Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat, narrowly passed in the Senate, marking the first time in Illinois’ legislative history that such a proposal won approval. The clock ran out before House sponsor Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat, presented it to the full chamber. Lang said he didn’t have enough votes to pass it and that he plans to lobby for the bill and could call it in the future.

SB 744, sponsored by Sen. Terry Link, proposed opening new casinos in Chicago, Danville, Rockford and Waukegan, as well as adding gaming positions at existing riverboats and allowing slot machines at horse racing tracks. According to Link, a Waukegan Democrat, the gaming package could generate as much as $1 billion a year. While the Senate approved the measure, the House sponsor, Lang, said he chose not to call the bill and would like to make changes so the bill would not specify where the gaming facilities would have to be built.

HB 2234 would recognize civil unions and give same-sex partners some of the same legal rights, including power-of-attorney, as married couples. Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat, sponsored the legislation. It narrowly passed out of committee but wasn’t called on the floor because, Harris said, he didn’t have enough votes to ensure passage. He added that new legislation in Iowa that now legitimizes same-sex marriage could help pave the way for passage of Illinois’ bill in the future; however, Harris’ civil unions measure would not be the same as same-sex marriage.

HB 397 redefines stalking. The measure amends the 1961 criminal code by defining stalking as a behavior intended to terrorize or endanger another person through intimidation or threats. Rep. Dan Brady, a Bloomington Republican, sponsored the measure. The bill stalled in the House. Brady said the measure is undergoing further negotiations between the state’s attorney’s office and the attorney general’s office. He expects to present it again during the 2010 spring session.

HB 2633, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Julie Hamos of Evanston, called for stricter rules to define how and when inmates in minimum- and maximum-security prisons were transferred to Tamms Correctional Center in Alexander County. Questions about the treatment and living conditions of the prisoners prompted Hamos to write the bill, which she said is on hold because a new director recently took over the center. She said she wants to wait to see what kind of changes will come about as a result.

HB 288 proposes that public schools could give students a few moments before class begins to observe a moment of reflection. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Fritchey, a Chicago Democrat, and Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat. The moment of reflection would be determined on a school-by-school basis. Fritchey’s definition of a moment of reflection would replace the existing Student Reflection and Student Prayer Act, which requires every school to have a moment of silence during which students could either reflect on the day ahead or pray. Because the law lacked consequences for not observing the moment of silence, some schools observed it while others did not.

Controversy has surrounded the moment of silence issue because federal court deemed it unconstitutional to require public school students to pray during school hours.

The law invited a lawsuit. Fritchey, who voted against the original moment of silence bill, proposed the new version that would remove the “student prayer act” from the name and allow teachers to choose whether to honor the moment.

Haine said the role of the government is to encourage freedom of expression, not force it on individuals who may hold different beliefs, but he said he didn’t know if he could get enough votes for the bill to pass next session.

Everything in limbo

By Bethany Jaeger, with Jamey Dunn and Hilary Russell contributing
Illinois’ human service providers, as well as other state contractors, remain in limbo as to whether they’ll receive state funding after July 1. The General Assembly finished its special legislative session this afternoon without sending a spending plan to the governor. Lawmakers aren’t scheduled to return until Monday afternoon (the Senate won’t be back until Tuesday), which some providers said would be too late. Providers, many of whom rallied at the Capitol yesterday, anticipate having to close their doors or lay off employees without a state operating budget in place by then.

“What’s going on right now is cruel, it’s cynical and it doesn’t need to be happening. And it should have been addressed this week,” Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said after the legislature adjourned. She added: “There is a lack of clarity, a lack of leadership, in terms of what is going on. And in the meantime, people are dangling in the wind thinking that their lives are going to be inextricably altered.”

She proposed enacting a temporary budget to keep state services going, uninterrupted, and to give service providers more predictability.

Gov. Pat Quinn continues to publicly reject the idea of a temporary budget and said lawmakers still have time to enact a full-year balanced budget within six days. But he said balancing the budget, which he projects will carry a $9.2 billion deficit, will require a two-year income tax increase to generate $4.2 billion. (Comptroller Dan Hynes calculated the deficit at $7 billion.)

Legislative leaders of both political parties have cast doubt on the governor’s ability to gain enough votes in each chamber to approve a tax increase by July 1, although House Minority Leader Tom Cross said a few of his members are leaning toward a tax increase if they see action on other efficiencies and long-term spending reforms first.

Senate Democrats maintain that they approved a version of a permanent income tax increase in House Bill 174, which never got called for a vote in the House. According to Sen. James Meeks, the caucus doesn’t want to give up on the idea of offering property tax relief and increased education funding. Meeks said a temporary increase would result in a permanent increase in two years. “Temporary should scream out to everybody saying, ‘In two years, they’ll be back.’”

There could be more immediate support for a short-term borrowing scheme. A plan backed by Quinn would issue pension obligation notes rather than bonds, which typically are repaid over longer periods of time with higher interest costs. The House advanced the plan, Senate Bill 415, today. It would allow the state to make its full contribution into the public employee pension systems and free up $2.2 billion to help plug the deficit.

“If we get $2 billion to help close the deficit, that’s a good thing,” Quinn said after finishing a series of meetings with all four legislative caucuses. “We’re making progress, but we still have $7 billion to go.”

The governor and all four caucuses appear to agree one goal: to reduce spending by another $1 billion. But they might disagree on how to do that.

Quinn said his administration could save about $125 million by mandating 12 unpaid days off, or furlough days, for state employees, including unionized workers. Layoffs also could be considered, he said, although he added that he wouldn’t pursue layoffs until after he and the General Assembly settled on whether the state would generate new revenues first. “Under our contract, we can lay off employees if we don’t have the money to pay them,” he said.

Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said union leaders already met with the administration last week and determined that furlough days and layoffs wouldn’t save significant amounts of money. Henry Bayer, Council 31 executive director, said last week that even if every state employee worked the entire year unpaid, the state would only save about $3 billion. Lindall added this afternoon, “Any number of furlough days would be an insignificant savings to the state but a very real reduction in services.”

Cross said his caucus agrees with the need to look for $1 billion in cuts and recommends moratoriums on programs, furlough days and salary freezes, as well as reduced travel budgets.

Capital and recall
Two other items on hold include the $29 billion capital construction program and a provision that would allow voters to decide whether they wanted to change the state Constitution so they could recall the sitting governor.

Quinn said he will not sign the construction program without an operating budget in place. Democratic Sens. Martin Sandoval of Chicago and John Sullivan of Rushville said the capital plan and the operating budget have nothing to do with one another. In a Statehouse news conference, they joined organized labor groups to say Quinn has fallen through on his promise to immediately put people to work. "People are falling off the edge, losing their homes, having a very difficult time making ends meet, and he’s decided to hold the jobs bill as a political football until he gets his tax hike,” Sandoval said, citing the state’s 10.1 percent unemployment rate.

On the other hand, the Senate Democrats have held one of Quinn’s initiatives, House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 31: a recall provision. Senate President John Cullerton said yesterday he would not call the provision for a vote until Quinn signed an ethics package that would limit the amount individuals, businesses and political organizations could donate to candidates. However, the Senate hasn’t even sent the measure, HB 7, to the governor’s desk.

House approves recall provision

By Jamey Dunn, with Hilary Russell contributing
Illinois voters could have the chance to vote on whether they want authority to boot the governor from office, thanks to a measure that passed the House Saturday.

The House approved a similar effort last year after frustration from then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged corruption scandals. But it stalled in the Senate.

This year’s measure, Constitutional Amendment 31, would allow voters to cast their ballots on whether they want to change the state Constitution to include a so-called recall provision.

Many said that the provision should include the ability to recall all constitutional officers. Franks said he would like to add that later, but in the wake of the alleged Blagojevich scandal, he wanted to give voters a way to address corruption in the governor’s office.

“I firmly believe if we’d had it during the last administration, we’d have used it,” he said. Franks added that he thinks the legislature would have never removed Blagojevich from office had he not been indicted.

Gov. Pat Quinn Quinn said a recall provision would make the legislature accountable because if a corrupt politician had to be removed, the General Assembly would have to sign on to the effort, along with voters.

The requirement to have legislators sign off on recall drew the most ire from Republicans. They said that making voters get lawmakers’ approval takes the power away from the people.

Republicans said they want Franks to hold the bill and negotiate some changes. Franks’ measure would not need to be approved until six months before the general election to get on the 2010 ballot. But Franks said it could be called in the Senate after the midnight deadline Sunday, when the legislature adjourns.

Here are some numbers associated with the recall process laid out in the bill:

• A governor must be in office for 6 months before the recall process is started.
• 20 House members and 10 Senate members from both parties would have to sign off on an initial recall proposal from citizens.
• Once legislators approved the measure to put the question on the ballot, individuals seeking to remove the governor would have 150 days to round up the signatures to put the question of whether to remove the governor before voters. They would need a number of signatures equal to 15 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. For instance, Franks said the number of signatures currently needed would be 750,000 based off of the 2006 election.
• There must be at least 25 different counties with 100 signatures each.
• This version of the bill would only apply to the governor’s position, and it contains new safeguards intended to prevent abuse of the power. These new aspects came under fire from House Republicans.

Recall returns, other reforms coming

By Bethany Jaeger and Jamey Dunn
The legislature continues to advance measures that would try to prevent the alleged wrongdoing by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich from going on long enough for a federal indictment to intervene.

Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat and longtime Blagojevich critic, revived his effort to change the state Constitution so voters could “recall” elected officials. The effort failed last year. This time, however, he’s calling for a constitutional amendment that would only focus on allowing voters to recall the governor, not other statewide officeholders or legislators.

Franks called it a first step and said that recall should only be used in extreme situations, describing recall authority as a “nuclear option” to remove corrupt or inept officials. He pointed to 18 other states that have some version of a recall provision, but it’s only been used twice in recent history, the most recent in California in 2003.

The bill is scheduled for a committee hearing tomorrow morning. We’ll have more then.

Sen. Susan Garrett, a Lake Forest Democrat, also is sponsoring a measure to increase transparency in the way the governor appoints people to boards and commissions. While Gov. Pat Quinn’s office already published a Web site listing all appointments, Garrett’s bill, SB 1602, would aim to increase transparency, prevent conflicts of interest and “ensure the process isn’t dominated by political insiders.” She referred to several Blagojevich appointments involved in the ongoing federal investigation of using public office for private gain.

Both Franks and Garrett said the legislature continues to advance reform measures not addressed by Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission. Franks said the panel did good work, “but by no means is it all inclusive or the only reasonable voice.”

The commission did not make a specific recommendation, for instance, about whether to let voters recall elected officials. Commissioner Patrick Collins previously said the group only gave recommendations that received unanimous support, and recall was not unanimous but deserved additional consideration.

One area the commission did make specific recommendations was campaign finance. While last week’s attempt to debate so-called contribution limits soured, another attempt could be made as soon as tomorrow. Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, went as far to say he expects some form of contribution caps to pass both chambers tomorrow. The process is expected to start with a Senate committee hearing in the afternoon.

Harmon has been negotiating a compromise with lawmakers and the Illinois Reform Commission. He said there is “if not broad agreement, at least broad acceptance” of $5,000 contribution limits for individual donors. That’s a more lenient limit than the $2,400 cap recommended by the commission. But the bigger sticking point, according to Harmon, is whether to limit the amount statewide political parties can donate to their candidates.

But a statement from House Speaker Michael Madigan today made it seem as though that issue may be close to a resolution among Democrats.

A public TV program called Illinois Lawmakers reported that Madigan said he and Senate President John Cullerton have come to an agreement on capping the amount of money political parties can transfer to candidates’ campaign committees. Both leaders have withheld their support of the idea in the past.

“We are moving in the right direction.” Madigan said. “There should be caps on contributions. There should be caps on transfers between committees.”

FOIA rewrite advances
One area where lawmakers did strike a compromise with competing versions is strengthening the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act.

The Illinois Press Association and the Illinois Attorney General expressed disappointment with a watered down version last week, but both enthusiastically supported the version that won House approval today. “This bill did not have everything we wanted, but we were very happy with this bill,” said David Porter, spokesman for the Illinois Press Association.

Senate Bill 189 would increase the standard for public bodies to proving a requested document is exempt from the law. It also would shorten the time public bodies would have to respond to requests from seven business days to five.

One major change is that a certified “public access counselor” would have authority to review and determine whether documents should have been released under the FOIA, and he or she would be able to subpoena documents. The counselor could go as far as issuing binding opinions to resolve disputes and sue to enforce those opinions.

We’ll have much more in the next few days.

If the flame is extinguished - UPDATED

By Jamey Dunn
Quinn is sticking to his back-up plan of tackling ethics issues at the ballot box if the legislature does not approve substantial reforms by the end of this session. However, the state Constitution limits the issues voters can petition to get on the ballot.

“If things don’t go exactly according to plan, there is a process in Illinois that exists that allows people to go to the ballot box,” Quinn said outside his Statehouse office this morning. “And I haven’t been a stranger to that over the years, and we certainly will examine that, if necessary. But, I hope it isn’t.”

Despite Quinn’s generally optimistic and cooperative tone, Quinn essentially said if the legislature fails to make major changes in the way state government operates, he would look to the voters to do it for them.

He’s tried to do that in the past. However, the proposals were blocked from the ballot by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1976, when it ruled the initiatives did not fall under the limited scope set by the Constitution. The state charter limits voters from changing anything other than the section that deals with the legislature. And any proposed changes have to pertain to “structural and procedural subjects.”

The governor said he would like to broaden the way voters can amend the Constitution by allowing them to also consider initiatives related to ethics, which he said would “give the voters ongoing power to enact ethics wherever needed.”

Quinn backs other changes that were not recommended in the report, including recall of elected officials and extending public financing beyond judicial races to the other branches of government. He said that he hopes to get a recall amendment on the ballot in 2010. UPDATED: Lawmakers are considering several recall amendments. Some would grant voters the power to recall executive officers only, and some would apply to the legislative and judicial branches, as well.

Commissioners said they could not reach a unanimous decision on whether to recommend a recall amendment, so the report lists “recall” as needing further consideration.

Quinn said that because many of the proposed ethics reforms have been discussed for years, the General Assembly should be able to make decisions on them by the end of session. “The people of Illinois are impatient, and they feel it shouldn’t take long at all to enact good government and clean government.”

Shifts at the top

Update: Sen. Don Harmon, the Oak Park Democrat sponsoring the agreed upon ethics reform, said last night he hopes to call the measure in committee today.

Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, a Crete Democrat, was replaced on the powerful Senate Rules Committee by Sen. Rickey Hendon, a Chicago Democrat, today.

The committee controls which pieces of legislation advance to floor debate and which are held.

Halvorson said she was surprised and that it wasn’t her decision, but she felt as though the move by Senate President Emil Jones Jr. would allow her to refocus on serving as majority leader in the last month of scheduled session when so many things hang in the air.

“The Senate president felt that it was a distraction because every little thing was taken out of context, put into somebody else’s context and was keeping us from doing what was important,” she said.

For the past few months, Halvorson received criticism for holding in the Rules Committee a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to decide whether to recall elected officials. A broader measure eventually was called for a vote but narrowly failed on the Senate floor. Halvorson also was called a roadblock to highly anticipated ethics reform that would ban state contractors from donating to the officeholders who grant the contracts. The ethics reform could come up for a vote soon, according to House and Senate sponsors who announced an agreement last week.

Halvorson said she supported each of those measures despite being on the opposite side of the issues from the Senate president.

“It’s no secret that I was for the recall,” Halvorson said. “I was for the pay-to-play legislation. I’m anti-pay raise. I think I was causing a few too many problems.”

Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokeswoman for the Senate president, added: “She needs to focus on the issues that concern her Senate district and not be responding to claims that are baseless. In deciding to take her off Rules, this will allow her to better focus on the issues in her Senate district.”

Davidsmeyer added that Halvorson's bid for Congress has nothing to do with the decision, although Halvorson said the "unnecessary" controversy over highly publicized legislation wouldn't have happened if she weren't running for Congress.

Halvorson faces Republican Martin Ozinga, president of a concrete and construction firm, and Green Party candidate Jason Wallace to replace Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller in the district southwest of Chicago.

Note: The House rejected granting pay raises to its members this afternoon. The Senate must do the same for the raises not to take effect.

Anticlimactic

By Bethany Jaeger
Illinois citizens will not have a chance to vote on whether the state Constitution should be changed to allow voters to recall elected officials, including judges. The state Senate narrowly rejected a measure, Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 70, that would have placed the so-called recall amendment on the ballot in November. (See more here and scroll down.)

There’s little to no chance that the General Assembly can approve any measure to pose a constitutional amendment to voters this year, given that the deadline to put those questions on the November ballot is Sunday, May 4. Neither chamber will be back in session until May 5.

It’s been a series of dramatics since the House approved a narrower measure to ask whether voters should be able to recall only constitutional officers and state legislators (it's House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 28). The Senate hijacked that bill and “improved” it to include judges and local officials. Top Senate Democrats, however, opposed the addition of judges and withheld their votes Thursday. The measure failed 33-19, with 2 voting present. It needed 36 votes to pass.

Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson said it was a travesty that the Senate stymied both measures. “This is truly a sad day in Illinois, that we’re not giving people the opportunity to have a say in what most people would suggest to be just competent government.” The sponsor, Sen. Dan Cronin, an Elmhurst Republican, said after the vote that fear ruled the day. “The people who voted against this, this is about their fear of being held to a higher standard. The world’s changing. They need to change with it.”

Opponents, including Democratic Sen. Mike Jacobs of East Moline, said although he’s had some serious disagreements with the current governor, recall is not the way to go. “The notion of recall is better suited for cars than for the governor of Illinois,” he said during floor debate. “Forget recall. The governor of Illinois should do the right thing, and that’s resign.”

Hell freezing over?

By Patrick O’Brien
An ethics reform package aimed at cleaning up state contracting practices, including alleged practices under the spotlight of a federal corruption trial of Tony Rezko, could make its way through the General Assembly very soon.

The so-called pay-to-play measure would ban political contributions to statewide officeholders from any business with more than $50,000 in contracts awarded by that office. The business’ contracts with the state would be canceled if they broke the law. Family members of the contractor also would be banned from donating to the officeholders.

Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, a Crete Democrat, all but dared Gov. Rod Blagojevich to veto or alter the bill in an attempt to “improve” it, as he has with other legislation. “Let him try it,” she said a Statehouse news conference Wednesday. Chicago Democratic Rep. John Fritchey, the House sponsor, vowed that his chamber would override a veto, while the Senate sponsors said they would attempt to get enough votes but couldn’t promise them.

A deal is a long time coming. Lawmakers have debated this version of ethics reform for three years. But the measure gained momentum this year because of the Rezko trial, which includes allegations of exchanging campaign contributions for state contracts and jobs. It's also an election year. “There’s a good chance it may be snowing in hell right now,” Fritchey said of the timing.

Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat and sponsor, said the bill will be heard in a committee next week. He said Senate President Emil Jones, a Chicago Democrat and Blagojevich ally, wanted the bill “improved” even more but that Jones wouldn't stop the measure from advancing to the House. Fritchey said he expected the proposal to move soon.

Working for the weekend?
By Patrick O'Brien
The Illinois House could be in Springfield all weekend to approve a constitutional amendment that would give voters the right to recall elected officials.

House Speaker Michael Madigan said members could be in the Capitol until Sunday as they wait for the Senate to pass its own version of a recall proposal. If the House approves the Senate version by Sunday, there’s a chance it could still land on the November ballot for voters to consider. If the House changed the Senate version, they would miss the May 4th deadline to approve constitutional amendments in time to appear on this year’s ballot. (To be clear: The question on the ballot would ask voters whether the state should change its Constitution to allow a recall, not whether they should recall the current governor)

The Senate proposal would allow voters to recall elected officials, including local politicians and judges. It also would link the lieutenant governor and the governor, which Sen. Rickey Hendon said was because the two officeholders are elected in the general election together (although they're not considered running mates in the primary elections). Under Hendon's proposal, if the governor were recalled, the lieutenant governor would be, too. The House version, sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat, is directed only at statewide officeholders, not local officials and judges. That measure is stuck in the Senate.

Missed opportunities

Gov. Rod Blagojevich escaped what would have been a media frenzy today by sneaking around Springfield for the annual Governor’s Prayer Breakfast and, according to the first lines of his speech, holding another meeting in the governor’s mansion about a state capital plan. His office provided audio of the nine-minute speech, and spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said he then met with labor leaders about capital. He was back in Chicago by noon. The Statehouse press corps didn’t know about the events until after the fact. The quick in-and-out allowed him to avoid reporters who would have followed his every move to ask him to respond to Tuesday’s news — a political insider pleaded guilty and indicated that Blagojevich knew of an illegal deal to exchange a high-level state job for campaign contributions.

Ali Ata, former executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators and fudging his federal income tax return. The federal probe is separate from but related to the case called “Operation Board Games,” involving Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s alleged influence in state business and campaign fundraising. Here’s that indictment, again.

Ata’s plea agreement indicates Rezko was instrumental in hiring Ata as executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority in exchange for his hefty contributions to Blagojevich’s political campaign. The state agency formed in 2004 and finances about $3 billion in projects for economic development each year.

The plea agreement said Ata met with Rezko and “Public Official A,” identified as Blagojevich, before Blagojevich was elected governor in 2000 or 2001 to talk about supporting his political campaign. They later talked about granting a state position in return.

Donations came in chunks as large as $25,000, as seen in Illinois State Board of Elections records. You can search all of Ata’s campaign donations here. Type in his name and scroll down to see his July 25, 2005, donation of $25,000 to Friends of Blagojevich.

In one conversation, Ata said he would accept a position within the administration, and Blagojevich allegedly said it had “better be a job where [Ata] could make some money,” according to the plea agreement. Ata allegedly was told he could head the Illinois Finance Authority as long as he agreed to report to Rezko. He officially was appointed in January 2004.

The plea agreement says Ata believed that he needed to please Rezko to keep his job. That involved donating about $125,000 to Rezko between 2003 and 2004, while he led the state agency.

Ata faces up to eight years in federal prison and up to $500,000 in fines. He’s fully cooperating with federal authorities.

Public reaction
The more that unfolds in the federal investigations surrounding the Blagojevich Administration, the more ears might perk up at the sound of “recall.” That would allow voters to kick someone out of office, but it requires a change in the state Constitution, either through an individual amendment or through a constitutional convention. Support for both could be growing, according to a survey by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Springfield. A convention would allow elected delegates to rewrite the entire state Constitution. And a majority of the public would have to approve the new charter.

Debate within the Capitol includes whether such emotional voting would lead to undesirable consequences in the long run. Whether the public likes or dislikes Blagojevich, changing the state Constitution to allow a recall of constitutional officers or state lawmakers — or any elected official, as proposed in the state Senate — could forever change the way elected officials behave. Supporters say that change is good because it would remind public officials that they always are accountable to the people who elected them. Opponents argue that change is bad because it would make public officials even more paranoid about voter dissatisfaction and, in turn, lead them to do whatever it takes to ensure they’re reelected.

For more information about a constitutional convention, see previous Illinois Issues articles:

November 2007 feature about Con-Con logistics, by Pat Guinane

December 2007 Q&A with Wayne Whalen, a delegate in the 1969-1970 Con-Con

Illinois Issues Blog entries about Con-Con

See more in the upcoming Illinois Issues magazine in the first week of May.

Politics, politics, politics

Update: Action was taken on several on several items from yesterday's contentious Senate committee, the new information is below.

By Bethany Jaeger
Dark shades blocked the sunshine from entering a packed committee room at the Capitol Wednesday, when a nasty political storm between Senate Democrats exposed reasons the legislative process has been so frustrating the past few years.

It’s interesting that the Democrats easily approved a constitutional amendment to allow a progressive income tax, potentially affecting taxpayers statewide. Yet, they spent two hours personally attacking each other while debating a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to kick them out of office in a recall election. The threat of losing office strikes a deep nerve.

Recall of elected officials
Constitutional amendment 28 The two-hour debate about a recall provision to the state Constitution was, at times, laughable at the same time it was inappropriately personal and egotistical. It’s all rooted in political vendettas and perception of power. More than once, Senate President Emil Jones Jr. had heated exchanges with Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who publicly stated that the Senate was “up to shenanigans” and intended to kill the recall measure. Jones said that was wrong and disrespectful and called for an apology, which he never got. At another point, Sen. Iris Martinez, assistant majority leader from Chicago, said she would lead a recall effort against the Democratic sponsor, Rep. Jack Franks of Woodstock, because he supported her opponent in the last election.

Although dramatic, the back-and-forth banter did raise an important question: Which officeholders should be eligible to be recalled? The version that won House approval last week includes statewide officeholders — the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, comptroller and treasurer — as well as individual legislators. But it does not include judges and local officials.

Sen. Rickey Hendon and Sen. Donne Trotter, both Chicago Democrats, are changing the measure to include judges and local officials.

Franks, Quinn and Watson said after committee that they believed — and that it would be perceived — that the changes were intended to bog down the measure so that the recall provision wouldn’t have enough time to be approved by both chambers before May 4. Constitutional amendments must be approved by then to appear on the November ballot.

Trotter flatly denied that perception, saying, “I did not pick up this bill to kill it.” He added that he intends to make the bill “better” and that there’s a “sense of unreadiness” to advance the measure. That’s especially because the House sat on it from August until last week and left little time for the Senate to consider it.

So Trotter held the measure in committee, meaning it has to move through both chambers in the six session days scheduled before May 4.

Progressive income tax
Update: The bill has been moved to final passage stage in the Senate. It must pass both chambers by May 4th.
Constitutional amendment 92 – The state income tax would change from the current flat rate — 3 percent for individuals and 5 percent for businesses — to a progressive rate that would increase with income levels. Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat and sponsor of the measure, described Illinois’ flat tax as an “obstacle” to addressing the state’s long-term problems of debt and retiree health care obligations. Sen. Michael Frerichs, a Gifford Democrat and co-sponsor, said the proposal is about “tax fairness.”

But the constitutional amendment would not set new tax rates or income guidelines. Those would be up to legislators to debate and put into law once voters approved the change to the state Constitution.

Sen. Christine Radogno, a Lemont Republican, opposed the idea of going to the voters right now for that reason. “We’re putting this question that has very broad implications to a body and a government right now that people don’t have confidence in, and they have no control over the outcome of this process once it starts,” she said.

Business groups oppose the measure.

Ethics reform
Update: The bill was moved to final passage stage in the Senate.
HB 824 The Senate committee unanimously approved a measure to ban so-called pay-to-play politics, or trading campaign contributions for state contracts. Like a House version (HB 1) that received unanimous support last year, the Senate measure would prohibit businesses from donating to political campaigns of officeholders whose offices grant the contracts. It also would ban political contributions to candidates for the office that would grant the contract, as well as contributions to statewide political parties that can fund the officeholders. Stronger disclosure provisions would require companies with state contracts worth more than $50,000 to report political contributions to the Illinois State Board of Elections.

Sen. Debbie Halvorson, a Crete Democrat and congressional candidate, has taken some heat in the press for not allowing the House version to move in the Senate. She said during committee, “Our frustration has been that nobody believes that anybody really wants true reform, which is absolutely not true. We want it. We’re going to get it.” She said she believed this version could win approval by both chambers.

Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson of Greenville wasn’t so confident, saying politics between the two chambers could prevent any ethics reform from being enacted. Radogno, the deputy minority leader, added that a more comprehensive measure that includes pension reforms also sits dormant even though it already worked through the House and the Senate. But it can’t move to the governor’s desk until the Senate approves the same language as the House.

Harmon said the House sponsor, Rep. John Fritchey, indicated they could compromise to ensure both chambers approve the same language. That wasn’t enough for Radogno. “The issue isn’t about compromise,” she said. “The issue isn’t about coming up with a good bill. Both chambers have done that independently. The issue is procedural and the gamesmanship that’s going on there, where we keep lobbing bills — all good bills — back and forth across the rotunda.”

Smoking in casinos
Update: The attempt to exempt river boats failed in the Senate.
SB 2707 Illinois’ riverboats would be allowed to let patrons smoke inside for five years under an exemption to the statewide smoking ban, as approved by the Senate committee on a vote of 7-6. Minority Leader Watson, the sponsor, said the exemption would help riverboats recoup millions of dollars lost after the smoking ban took effect. When riverboats lose money, the state collects less gaming tax revenues. Opponents argue that the decrease in gaming revenues is rooted in the slowing economy, not an effect of the smoking ban.

Reorganization of state agency functions
Update: The House has also rejected the reorganization plan.
Executive Order 801 A Senate committee rejected Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s executive order that would combine functions of three more state agencies, intended to save about $121 million. He previously consolidated the procurement and human resource functions of the revenue and the corrections departments but drew criticism from labor unions, which fear more consolidations would result in job losses and loss of services.

Politics of health care
By Patrick O’Brien
A House committee approved a universal health care plan yesterday, but the proposal may have more to do with politics than policy and appears to have little chance of advancing.

The measure, HB 311 called the Healthy Illinois Act, seems headed for debate in the full House, however. House Speaker Michael Madigan and Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie added themselves as sponsors to the measure Monday.

Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, a Des Plaines Republican, said today that the issue is being used to put lawmakers on the spot before the November elections. “All of the sudden we find the speaker as cosponsor of this bill. It could be that they’re covering themselves with the public.”

Madigan previously criticized fellow lawmakers for not being able to make tough political decisions and cast tough votes. Health care has become an important issue this year, and efforts by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to expand the state’s programs have met resistance from courts and from lawmakers.

The health care plan that advanced out of committee Tuesday, however, would constitute a much larger expansion of health care than the governor’s proposals. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Mary Flowers, a Chicago Democrat, would abolish private ownership of for-profit hospitals.

Nicholas Skala of Physicians for a National Health Plan said the plan would combine taxpayer money with employer contributions and a payroll tax to fund the system. The cost is unknown, but supporters said it would help lower costs and eliminate administrative waste. The system would absorb all health care spending in the state, which was last measured at $64 billion in a 2000 study.

After sitting on the measure since last January, Flowers said she brought the proposal to the committee because of health care horror stories in her district.

Lawmakers: Can you follow the money?

By Patrick O’Brien
Lawmakers still don’t know why Gov. Rod Blagojevich gave a $1 million grant to the wrong organization. The administration sent Deputy Gov. Louanner Peters to take the grilling Wednesday before a House committee, whose members say there are more questions now than before the hearing.

Peters testified for more than an hour but provided little new information about the grant to the Loop Lab School in Chicago. The governor said that the money was supposed to go to rebuild the administrative offices of Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago after a fire gutted the building. The school was renting the office at the time.

Beyond a history lesson about the landmark building, Peters continually cited an ongoing investigation by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that she said prevented her from discussing the grant. She couldn’t say how long the investigation would take. She referred to John Filan, chief financial officer of the state, who oversees the department but who wasn’t there to answer questions.

Peters dutifully responded to every inquiry, mostly referring questions to the administration’s lawyers. Peters also compared the grant in question to the pet projects of legislators, saying there was little oversight over those projects.

The stonewalling was complete when Peters and another administration official raced out of the room after the hearing without taking questions.

It’s still unclear how the school, a separate entity from the church, ended up with money instead. The governor previously called it a “bureaucratic mistake” that was handled by two former employees.

Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat and frequent Blagojevich critic, scheduled the hearing. He said real estate documents show the property went into foreclosure two months after the school paid John Thomas $1.3 million for the second floor of the building. The Chicago Sun-Times reported, based on unnamed sources, that Thomas was an FBI informant in the current federal trial of Blagojevich insider Tony Rezko.

Franks questioned Peters on what he deemed inconsistencies in the governor’s account of the deal, saying the grant was fast-tracked and ignored obvious “red flags” in the school’s recent past. Franks said the grant never should have gone through because a cease and desist order related to a sexual harassment charge against the school was on record. There also were concerns over a felony conviction of a school administrator who the governor later pardoned.

The school currently isn’t operating.

Franks promised more meetings on the subject and requested a list of documents from Peters for a future hearing. “We need to find out if this was a mistake or if it was done on purpose,” he said.

CDB: “Time is money”
By Bethany Jaeger
At the same time next door, more House members heard that the longer it takes to approve a statewide capital bill, the more likely the state will have to pay top dollar for unanticipated emergency repairs to state buildings, including schools.

“Time is money,” said Janet Grimes, executive director of the Capital Development Board, which oversees construction projects for state facilities. “Prices have been rising by as much as 5 percent a year. The price for construction has risen 27 percent since the last time the state allocated funds for the school projects.”

The number of projects classified as an emergency has tripled since fiscal year 2002, she said. “At that time, 13 projects were handled as emergencies, totaling $3 million. And last year that tripled. So we had 40 emergency projects totaling $10.5 million ... It’s definitely cheaper, smarter and more responsible to maintain buildings, and the state simply hasn’t been doing that.”

The agency seeks $2 billion for its portion of the capital plan, but Grimes said it’s up to legislators to approve the funding source. So far, that's selling the Illinois Lottery or expanding gaming. Both are buried in politics, which promise to drag out the debate and leave public buildings waiting for a long time.

Franks: “Throw the bums out”
By Bethany Jaeger
Constitutional Amendment 28: If voters believe a constitutional officer or a state legislator is taking the state in the wrong direction, Franks, the Woodstock Democrat, says they should have the ability to recall that official and elect a replacement.

The so-called recall provision would require voters to approve a change in the state Constitution. The legislature has to approve Franks’ measure for a ballot to pose the question of whether to allow a recall. The Illinois House continues to consider Franks’ measure and changed it Wednesday to remove judges from the measure, but it still has a long way to go.

Eighteen other states have a recall provision, according to Franks.

Opponents argue that voters already have the ability to kick officials out of office. “It’s called an election, frankly,” said Rep. Al Riley, a Matteson Democrat, during debate. Rep. Jay Hoffman, a Collinsville Democrat, added that a recall provision could lead lawmakers to become even more paranoid that they would lose their seats for disagreeing with their constituents.

Franks said it’s an “extraordinary measure that shouldn’t be taken lightly” and isn’t meant to be used if voters simply hold a grudge against a particular candidate. He added that a recall provision is necessary to regain voters’ trust in government, particularly given the recent series of federal investigations into state officials, including the current and past governor. Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn supports the idea, and the governor has said he too would support a recall provision.

“They think that their officials are supposed to be corrupt,” Franks said. “They think that’s just how it’s always going to be. And they don’t have the ability to change it.”

Recall the governor?

It’s no secret state Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat, often disagrees with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, also a Democrat. But Franks said Thursday that he’s been so disturbed by the governor’s actions in his first and second terms that he drafted legislation to change the state Constitution to allow voters the ability to recall an elected official after they voted him or her into office.

“I don’t think I would have written it but for what’s going on in Illinois this year,” Franks said at a Statehouse news conference. “You talk about the perfect storm. It’s like this governor is the poster child for recall.”

This comes after the Chicago Tribune asked readers whether they think Illinois voters should be able to remove a public official from office, Blagojevich specifically. The Tribune then published results that showed a majority of the 1,200 readers who responded did support a recall of Blagojevich.

Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn stood by Franks Thursday but would not say he supports the legislation simply to get Blagojevich out of office. Rather, Quinn said he supports, and thinks voters support, the principle of recall as a tool for public accountability. And this year, being a “very disappointing year,” could serve as a vehicle for a grassroots campaign to put the question to voters in November 2008, he said, adding that it’s an ideal time because a presidential election year typically attracts a lot more voters.

In particular, Quinn said he was disappointed by the governor’s proposed gross receipts tax on businesses, the stalled ethics reform and the governor’s lack of leadership on skyrocketing electricity rates after a state law expired.

“This whole year has been so disappointing with the gridlock and the failure to respond to the public interest that I think it underlines the need for having extraordinary tools of democracy, direct democracy, like recall,” Quinn said.

In order for Quinn and Franks to secure a question on the November 2008 ballot, they would have to win approval from three-fifths of both legislative chambers. It also would require six months of public debate before being posed to voters. Three-fifths of voters then would have to say, "Yes, recall the official and elect this person in his or her place."

If it were posed to voters and approved in 2008, then it would take effect in the April 2009 elections. That would be the last year of Blagojevich’s second term. And the lieutenant governor would not necessarily be the person listed on the ballot as the candidate to replace the governor.

Franks said the recall provision would top his legislative agenda in January. “This is a perfect example, this session, why we need to have the ability to remember that the citizens control the government and that we are public servants and not their masters.”