Archive for January, 2008
January 21st, 2008
Kiyoshi Martinez, who last spring was the Register Star’s Capitol intern, is jumping from journalism into the hotbed of politics.
Kiyoshi has accepted a job with the communications staff of the Senate Republicans. As such, he will help manage Web and press matters for Senate Republican lawmakers, perhaps even Sen. Dave Syverson of Rockford or Sen. Brad Burzynski of Clare.
Kiyoshi is an extremely bright young man — a master of words and the World Wide Web. I’m sure he will excel at this job just as he did when he diligently served this newspaper. The Senate Republicans scored with this catch.
I wish him well.
January 20th, 2008
Obama lost Nevada after losing New Hampshire. And though there’s still a chance he might stomp Clinton on Feb. 5, when Illinois and 21 other states vote, he heads into so-called “Super Tuesday” behind the perception that he’s losing.
That is not good for him.
The CapFax Blog has a great roundup of related coverage.
UPDATE 1
For the second time in recent months, Obama is pledging to be more aggressive toward Clinton (actually, both Clintons), particularly when it comes to responding to attacks.
You may recall that Obama said in the fall that he would step up his posture in the race. His announcement at that time followed months of complaints from donors that he was dropping the ball by appearing too passive.
January 20th, 2008
Gov. Blago is travelling the state Monday to commemorate Martin Luther King Day and promote his free-rides-for-seniors plan.
His press release:
After attending a breakfast in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago on Monday, January 21, Governor Rod R. Blagojevich will make stops in Peoria, Moline and Decatur to urge seniors to register early to receive free public transportation under the long-term mass transit funding bill that received final approvals from the General Assembly. Under the new law, individuals aged 65 and older will be eligible to receive free service on main line and fixed route mass transit systems starting in 60 days. The Governor will also reiterate the importance of now passing a comprehensive capital plan in Illinois.
No, there’s no stop in Rockford, the place the governor has so fondly called “forsaken and forgotten.”
Speaking of which, the governor has apparently forgotten to “certify” the mass transit bailout plan, which includes his free-rides-for-seniors component. Until he does so, it cannot become law.
UPDATE 1
Blago certified the bill. It is now law.
January 18th, 2008
The mass transit deal reached in Springfield yesterday means seniors around Illinois will soon enjoy free rides.
But the deal is not final until the governor formally signs off on it. Under the Constitution, Blagojevich must certify that the bill “conforms to his specific recommendations” now that lawmakers have voted to accept his changes to the bill. Not until then does the bill become law.
This is a technical consideration. But it also has political implications: By formally approving the bill, Blagojevich will officially accept the sales hike embodied in the bill, thereby reneging on his pledge to oppose such hikes. He has not yet certified the bill.
January 17th, 2008
He danced, she danced, they all danced — but at the end of the day, Gov. Rod Blagojevich got his way.
House Democrats lined up to blast the governor for his personality and his policy, but in the end, the mass transit bill narrowly passed 61-47.
Now the bill moves to the Senate. Republicans are currently meeting separately to discuss strategy before the vote and are expected to return shortly.
The bill would send significant money to the Chicago mass transit system. The bill also provides additional money for downstate systems, such as Rockford, which is scheduled to receive $1.2 million.
The newest addition to the bill was the governor’s proposal to let senior citizens ride mass transit free of charge.
The House debated Blagojevich’s amendatory veto for about an hour and a half today.
Rep. Robert Molaro, D-Chicago, said today’s debate about the governor’s political games was the “Illinois Shuffle.” The reference reminded me of a new popular dance tune called the “Cupid Shuffle,” in which everyone dances to the same tune.
Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago, decried Illinois’ amendatory veto, saying there is a reason only seven states give their governors amendatory veto powers.
“We were a signature away last week,” Fritchey said. “Leadership is not about press conferences. … It’s not about playing ‘Gotcha,’ with the public… ‘gotcha with the media.”
Fritchey, like most of his Democratic colleagues, ended his speech by saying he did not want to hold up the bill and be the one responsible for the massive transit cuts that would occur Sunday in Chicago.
House Republican leader, Rep. Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said although the Democrats blasted the governor now, they are the ones to blame for this mess.
“What I find a little fascinating about today, many on teh Deomcratic side of the aisle want to pick on teh governor,” Cross said. “It’s your party, it’s your leadership … You run everything in this state. You love to tell us that.”
In the end, most of the Democrats did dance to the same tune, and a few Republicans joined in. Of the Rockford delegation, Rep. Chuck Jefferson was the only member to vote for the bill. Reps. Dave Winters, Jim Sacia and Ron Wait all opposed the bill.
UPDATE 1
The Senate followed the House, voting 32-19 in favor of the governor’s change to the mass transit bill. The Senate, however, declined to consider the “trailer” bill that would narrow the class of seniors eligible for free rides.
It’s now up to the governor to certify that the Legislature’s “acceptance” of his changes “conforms to his specific recommendations.”
January 17th, 2008
Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, just blew his top on the House floor over a recent column by Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times.
Steinberg had this to say about downstaters resisting Chicago-led efforts to bail out Chicago-area mass transit agencies:
Chicago is the economic engine that drives Illinois, if not the entire Midwest, and the sooner the hicks in the hinterlands understand that, the better.
Sacia responded: “I’m proudly one of those hicks from the hinterland.”
He then read this passage from Steinberg’s column:
Beyond our own bickering leaders, one major reason our public transit system is again poised to collapse — and, as they say, the third time’s the charm — is that Downstate legislators, envious and resentful of the city, see no connection between Chicago’s economic future and their own, and can’t imagine funding public transportation in Sodom-on-the-Lake without first extorting a big slice of blueberry pie for themselves in Porktropolis. Each one has a pet project — new milking stools, a galvanized metal silo, whatever — they’re demanding as ransom for bailing out Chicago transit, and if it shuts the city down, well, so what? It’s just a bunch of sinners and minorities anyway.
And he responded: “What a damn insult! And the good part, the thing that makes me feel good, is I listen to people like Rep. (John) Fritchey stand on this floor and point out what a political charade this is. There isn’t anyone on on the other side of the aisle that I wouldn’t help with a bill if I possibly could. And I know in my heart of hearts the vast majority of you would help me with a bill. This is one that was a real tough struggle for me to get through. And I didn’t need my nose rubbed in it!”
Thereafter, other Republicans mocked Steinberg — and, by extension, the Chicago-centric air that pervades the Capitol — by referring to themselves on the House floor as hicks.
Even Rep. Lou Lang, a liberal Democrat from Skokie, proclaimed: “I’m a proud member of the hick caucus!”
January 17th, 2008
Well that was short, sweet — but not to the point.
The House convened shortly after 11 a.m. today, but they didn’t stay in their seats for long. The House Democrats quickly shuffled out of the room to “caucus” — or in laymen’s terms, to gather behind closed doors to discuss party strategy for the mass transit vote.
It’s hard to say how long they will be gone — one person said it could be up to two or three hours. When theydo reconvene, you can listen to the House discussion live right here.
And so we wait.
UPDATE 1
House debate is now underway. Expect a vote by 2 or 3 .m.
The Senate has not yet convened. Like Blago, they tend to run late.
UPDATE 2
The House just voted 61-47 to accept the governor’s amendment. The Senate must now vote.
January 17th, 2008
Although politics and government are supposed to be separate in Illinois, even trained eyes like ours can’t see a difference.
So, after writing two posts today about government, how about a little dose of political campaigning to start your morning off right?
Watchdog group, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, runs a very compelling blog and its most recent post can help anyone keep updated on races throughout Illinois.
January 17th, 2008
To follow my bureau chief’s very informative post, it is possible that lawmakers would approve the amendatory veto to save Chicago transit.
However, they may follow that action with separate legislation that would mitigate the bill language they just passed.
Still don’t understand? Let me walk you through it.
According to published media reports, it is possible that lawmakers in the House could approve the governor’s amendatory veto that includes his proposal to give seniors far and wide a free pass on mass transit.
Then it is possible that a House member would propose what is called a trailer bill. Essentially, they could introduce a bill to follow the amendatory veto that would, in their eyes, clean up the language of the legislation they had just passed.
So what would be in this trailer bill? Essentially it would “put caps on the governor’s plan to give seniors free rides,” according to Chicago Sun-Times writer Monifa Thomas.
There have been complaints that the governor’s free ride proposition would allow people such as House Speaker Michael Madigan or billionaires like new Chicago Tribune owner Sam Zell to ride the CTA for free. Simultaneously, a single mother making minimum wage is still chucking out full price for her bus or train ride. Now, billionaires probably don’t even know where the nearest transit stop is, but in theory, this is how the proposal is structured. It is likely any trailer bill that is proposed today would attempt to correct that issue.
But then again, this is Springfield, and the cliche “anything can happen,” just doesn’t do this place justice.
P.S. Here’s a helpful Q&A from the Tribune’s Eric Zorn on this utterly confusing amendatory veto mess.
January 17th, 2008
The Illinois governor is blessed with a broad array of veto options. In fact, Gov. Rod Blagojevich enjoys veto powers that are “among the most extensive in the nation,” according to an annotated state Constitution published by the state’s Legislative Research Unit.
Today, when lawmakers return to Springfield to respond to Blagojevich’s latest veto, we all may learn much more about the governor’s interplay with legislation — and just how well it’s going over with those folks who are actually supposed to craft the law.
Blagojevich used an amendatory veto to dramatically change a bill designed to bail out Chicago-area mass transit systems, primarily through an increase in the regional sales tax. Blagojevich indicated he would accept that sales tax hike, despite his pledge not to support any such tax hike, just so long as lawmakers embrace his plan to give seniors around Illinois a free ride on public trains and buses. (See below posts for more background.)
There is tremendous pressure on lawmakers to accept the governor’s change to the bill. If lawmakers in both the Senate and House cannot agree on whether to accept or reject the changes, then the entire bill dies and they all must start over with a fresh bill. Meanwhile, the Chicago-area transit agencies are threatening route cuts, fare hikes and layoffs if they all don’t soon get more state money.
Still, putting political consideration aside for a moment (is there any other consideration in Springfield?), there are significant questions about whether the governor’s amendatory veto goes beyond the scope of the power granted to him by the Illinois Constitution. In other words, is the veto unconstitutional?
I can’t answer that question directly. But I can tell you what I know.
The governor has four types of vetoes he may choose from:
1) A total veto, which may apply to any bill;
2) Line item vetoes, which apply only to spending bills;
3) Reduction vetoes, which also apply only to spending bills; and
4) The amendatory veto, which may apply to either spending or non-spending bills such the mass transit bill.
What distinguishes the total veto from the amendatory veto is this: In the case of the total veto, the governor simply sets forth his objection and returns the bill to lawmakers. In the case of the amendatory veto, he suggests how to change the bill and makes his approval contingent on that change. For more detail, see the state Constitution.
Lawmakers have one option for dealing with a total veto: They must decide whether to override the governor’s objection. If they wish to override, they need a three-fifths majority in both chambers to do so. Otherwise, the entire bill is dead.
In the case of the amendatory veto, lawmakers have two options. They may accept the change or reject it. If they wish to override, they need a three-fifths majority to do so. To accept the change, they need only a simple majority.
From the Constitution, regarding the amendatory veto:
The bill shall be considered in the same manner as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members elected to each house. Such bill shall be presented again to the Governor and if he certifies that such acceptance conforms to his specific recommendations, the bill shall become law. If he does not so certify, he shall return it as a vetoed bill to the house in which it originated.
Now, back to questions about constitutionality of the governor’s action. According to the annotated Constitution I mentioned above, the Illinois Supreme Court has described its own position on how far the governor’s might go.
As to the scope of amendatory vetoes, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated that an amendatory veto may not propose a completely new bill; change the fundamental purpose of a bill; or make “substantial or expansive changes” in it. However, the court has held that the Governor may make more than technical corrections. Indeed, the voters in 1974 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict the Governor’s amendatory veto power to technical corrections and matters of form.
On the other hand, the high court has backed governors in certain instances.
The court has upheld amendatory vetoes, agreed to by the General Assembly, that (1) reduced the rate of the additional corporate income tax that partially replaced the personal property tax from 2.85% to 2.5%; (2) made several changes in an urban renewal bill, which the court described as minor improvements dealing with the “clarity, fairness and practical requirements” of the bill; and (3) made many changes to a bill on labor relations for public employees, including extending it to cover a bi-state agency, restricting injunctions against strike-related activity, prohibiting mandatory “fair share” payments from going to political candidates, and adding two state department directors to the body that considers decisions by arbitrators following an impasse between unionized employees and a unit of government.
What does this all mean? Good question.
It’s unclear at this point whether the governor’s veto of this bill might somehow end up before the courts. If it doesn’t, then this whole discussion may amount to nothing more than a head-expanding exercise.
House Speaker Michael Madigan has historically taken a hard line on amendatory vetoes. He also happens to be the governor’s political nemesis. So expect to hear cries from House members that the governor stepped beyond his constitutional power by dramatically reshaping the bill.
As a practical matter, the more immediate concern is how lawmakers respond today. To accept the governor’s free-rides-for-seniors plan, they need only a simple majority. They had little more than a simple majority when they passed the original bill — the Senate approved the bill with 30 votes, the absolute minimum necessary, while the House approved it with 62 votes, just two more than necessary — so the vote today is expected to be close.
Might they attempt to override the governor, thereby restoring the bill to its original form? I don’t know, but it seems unlikely. Yesterday, a House committee voted overwhelmingly to accept the governor’s change, so that appears to be the direction in which the full chamber will head today. In any case, to override the governor, lawmakers would need more votes than they put up the first time around.
If lawmakers can’t, at the least, vote to accept the changes, the entire bills dies and they all start over.
UPDATE 1
ArchPundit has more.
Next Posts
Previous Posts
