Posts filed under 'Emil Jones'
May 9th, 2008
Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland, recently made what struck me as a remarkable observation about the politics of race and leadership in the General Assembly. In response, Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, provided some insight into how he sees those powerful, yet delicate, dynamics.
 |
| Jefferson |
I was talking to Winters about the status of Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey’s truancy agenda — sponsored by Jefferson — and he said he was confident that Jefferson could garner Senate President Emil Jones Jr.’s support for Morrissey’s plan once it clears the House and lands in the Senate.
I’m no expert on Jefferson’s relationship with Jones, I told Winters, but I wouldn’t think Jefferson would necessarily have the inside track to Jones. Last spring, Jefferson joined House Speaker Michael Madigan’s leadership team. Jones and Madigan, both Chicago Democrats, are feuding. So my first assumption would be that Jones would view Jefferson as a Madigan surrogate and would therefore be hostile toward him, I told Winters.
 |
| Winters |
“I would assume that he is not seen as Madigan’s guy as much as he is the Black Caucus guy,” Winters responded. “Emil probably has very good relations with the Black Caucus.”
Members of the House Black Caucus — the collection of African-American state representatives, all Democrats — pick three members of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team. Last spring, they picked Jefferson for one of those three seats.
Like Jefferson, Jones also is black.
“Blood is stronger than water,” Winters said.
Jefferson disagreed with Winters’ interpretation. In fact, Jefferson suggested the sentiment may be just the opposite of what Winters suggested — that perhaps Jones is disappointed in black House members for following Madigan’s lead.
“Jones has some animosity toward the House members as it relates to the Black Caucus because we are under Mike Madigan’s reign,” Jefferson said.
“Well, he’s the speaker of the House. That’s who we supposedly follow. (Jones is) upset sometimes that maybe we don’t follow his lead the way he feels we should. And that’s OK. That’s his perception of the situation. Just like Emil holds his members accountable, we’re accountable to Mike Madigan. And because we’re accountable to Mike Madigan, it doesn’t get us favoritism with the president of the Senate.”
Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer declined to comment.
 |
| Jones |
“(Jones) views that sometimes it’s maybe not (the House Black Caucus) being in his corner as it relates to a lot of things. Well, that’s not the case,” Jefferson said.
“If we’ve got to pick an issue, we’re probably going to be more supportive of the House issue, under Mike Madigan’s reign, than we would under his leadership as president of the Senate. I don’t think we’re enemies. But I don’t think that I can get anything done (in the Senate) any sooner than (Sen.) Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) in the Senate. If anyone is going to champion a bill, I’d certainly want to go and talk to President Jones about the bill. But I think that we need to pick it up on that side with Sen. Syverson to make sure he’s doing everything.”
Jefferson concluded, “We need to be able to cut across party lines. And the fact that I’m black and Emil is black, I don’t think carries a lot of weight with Emil at this point in time.”
April 14th, 2008
It’s the greatest of perennial questions at the Illinois Capitol: What’s Mike Madigan Up To?
He is the Capitol sage, a man widely regarded for political acumen but difficult if not impossible to read. So it goes that last week when Madigan antagonized House Republicans, Capitol insiders found themselves again asking themselves and each other this question.
The speaker’s strategy over the last week doesn’t make sense on the surface. It doesn’t seem rational. Here we are, less than two months from the formal May 31 end of session, and Madigan and other state leaders have not even a basic framework for the next state budget. Yet Madigan acts to divide the parties in his own chamber — thereby making the prospect of a budget deal even more elusive.
He is already facing off with Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones Jr., his fellow Chicago Democrats, and now he is poised to fight House Republicans too. Is he yearning for a long, ugly summertime session — just like the one last year, only worse? It’s one thing to relish a good fight. It’s quite another to invite additional opponents into the fight against yourself.
Theories on Madigan’s motives abound among political insiders: Perhaps he is trying to supercharge the Democratic base in advance on the Nov. 4 general election. Perhaps he is trying to whip the House Republicans into line. Perhaps, amid a toxic political climate, he is getting paranoid.
It’s not clear when we’ll know what Madigan is up to, or when the mess is Springfield might work itself out. But I’ll do my best to sort through some of the variables at play, and maybe, just maybe, I can put some of this chaos into order:
- The Obama factor. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama may appear light years away from his days in the Illinois Senate, but as a candidate for president he may do much to shape the politics of Illinois this year. If the ultra-popular Obama leads the Democratic ticket in the November general election, he could pull other Democratic candidates upward. In other words, Democratic and independent Illinois voters likely will turn out in droves to vote for Obama, if he is the Democratic presidential nominee, and in doing so they are more likely to support other Dems on the ballot. And that means the Dems controlling Springfield may have substantial wiggle room this year. They may be able to take risks — such as a brutal, intra-party, summer-long fight over the budget — and not suffer losses in the November general election.
- The Rezko Factor. Tony Rezko, a former top fundraiser and adviser to Blagojevich, in on trial for allegedly using his insider clout to shake down firms seeking business with the state. As I noted in my Saturday column, Blagojevich has been MIA for much of the last two years as the feds closed in on his inner circle. (Chris Kelly, another former top Blagojevich fundraiser and adviser, also is under indictment on federal tax-related charges.) If Rezko is convicted, pressure will build on Rezko and Kelly to share with the feds any dirt they have on Blagojevich, who has already been named as “Public Official A” in the Rezko case. I would expect Blagojevich to head even deeper underground; he won’t want exposure to rank-and-file lawmakers, the public or the media. If Rezko is acquitted, Blagojevich could feel emboldened and be much more enthusiastic about a high-profile fight at the Capitol.
- Madigan v. Jones. The intensity and sincerity of the animosity between Madigan and Jones cannot be exaggerated. These two men are locked in a political battle of the titans — a brawl dominating state government matters large and small.
- Jones & Blagojevich. At least until further notice, Jones is in lockstep with Blagojevich.
- More cash to spend. If Madigan and Jones agree on anything, it’s that they both have expressed support for income tax hike to generate more state revenue. Jones is a longstanding proponent of a tax hike to help public schools with more state money. Last spring, Madigan kicked off the spring session by saying it was time for the state to take responsibility for its pension debt and other fiscal problems (you can’t pay off this debt without raising more money). Last summer, he went a step further by actually suggesting an income tax hike.
- Blago’s tax-hike pledge. Blagojevich continues to insist he won’t raise taxes on “people.” His no-tax-hike pledge, in fact, is the pledge from his races in 2002 and 2006 that he has most often repeated. Only, he violated that pledge by approving a sales tax hike for the Chicago-area early this spring, as part of an effort to bail out mass transit systems. Will he now support an income tax hike?
- Supermajority after May 31. The formal end of spring session is May 31. After that, lawmakers must produce a three-fifths majority to approve any bill with an effective date prior to the following June 1. A budget for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning July 1, obviously must be effective before then. Passing a budget after May 31, therefore requires a three-fifths majority. It is not possible to achieve a supermajority in the House without at least four Republican votes, and that’s assuming every one of the 67 Democrats in the chamber sticks together. Jones does have a supermajority in the Senate, but he failed repeatedly to keep his own members together last year. Even with his supermajority, Jones failed to steamroll Senate Republicans when it really mattered.
Now, back to the question of what Madigan is up to. What if he is three steps ahead of everybody else at the Capitol, as he is so often said to be? What if he is acting in accordance with a rational plan to advance his political objectives?
All of the conventional theories of Madigan’s motives assume he will continue his fight with Blagojevich and Jones. They discount the possibility of the three Democrats making a deal.
Is it possible that Madigan is trying to signal to Jones that he is prepared to make a deal, perhaps on a tax hike, by pushing the Republicans away? It’s a radical theory, but I’ve certainly crazier ones.
Madigan, Jones and Blagojevich could make a budget deal by May 31, and approve it without a single Republican vote. Come June 1, they do need Republican support, and it’s anybody’s guess what that might mean — particularly if the parties are divided in both chambers.
Then again, the lines of communication between Madigan and Jones, just as between Madigan and Blagojevich, and now between Madigan and House GOP Leader Tom Cross, are dead, sources say. Any deal among the Dems appears a long way off, at best.
And the summer fast approaches.
Last summer, work at the Capitol resembled the scene near the end of “Animal House”where frat guy Stork wanders into a parade, shoves aside a drum major, and then leads the marching band into a dead-end alley. The band members, still playing their instruments, march themselves into a wall, crushing each other.
Last summer, Blagojevich and lawmakers repeated this scene twice daily.
February 13th, 2008
The feud between Gov. Rod Blagojevich and House Speaker Michael Madigan all but consumed state government last year, dragging out consideration of major initiatives from the state budget to a bailout for mass transit systems.
If action on Wednesday was any indication, when Madigan opened a new front in the political war, posturing and gridlock will continue well into this year too.
Madigan on Wednesday spread word to House committee chairs that certain bills will not advance unless they include a provision effectively pre-empting the governor’s authority to craft rules around those bills once they become law.
It was a direct assault on the governor, who in November used an “emergency” rule to sidestep the Legislature and unilaterally implement a phase of his plan for universal health care. The governor first tried to maneuver his plan through the Legislature — the conventional route for major spending initiatives — but lawmakers rejected it.
A special committee of lawmakers, who under state law have the power to review the governor’s administrative rules, rejected that “emergency” rule. The governor responded that he believed the committee’s role is merely advisory and that it did not have the power to reject his rule.
A suburban attorney filed a lawsuit challenging the governor’s decision to ignore the committee’s decision, and a court is reviewing the matter. The legal controversy is not new. Former GOP Gov. Jim Thompson argued in 1980 that the committee’s power to reject a governor’s rules is unconstitutional.
Madigan’s new strategy apparently is intended to kill the governor’s rule-making authority altogether, or at least when it comes to certain bills, by requiring such bills to cover all the details that the governor might otherwise cover in the course of an administrative rule.
A rule sought by the governor cannot conflict with the law it is linked to. If the Legislature addresses every conceivable detail in the actual bill, there would be nothing left for the governor to address with a rule.
The governor’s rule-making authority would be effectively neutralized.
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said all “appropriate” bills must now include an amendment requiring lawmakers to include details that have been traditionally left for the purview of the governor’s rules.
“Our interest is to help (the administration) implement their policies, and so bills that would require rules, we will amend them so that’s prohibited,” he told me. “It will spell everything out in the legislation.”
He added, “The administration wishes those to all be in the law, and that’s what these amendments will require the agencies to do.”
But will Madigan succeed in implementing his new strategy, thereby prompting wholesale change in how Illinois laws are made, or will he succeed only in aggravating the governor?
It’s not clear. Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a Chicago Democrat like Blagojevich and Madigan, sided with the governor during last year’s protracted battle of wills. If Jones continues to watch Blagojevich’s back this year, it’s unlikely the Senate will sign off on bills stuffed with all the additional language Madigan intends to stuff them with.
If Jones balks at Madigan’s strategy and the speaker refuses to budge, there will be more gridlock at the Capitol.
The development came the same day lawmakers returned to Springfield after a month-long break. Committee hearings were thrown into flux as legislators tried to figure out what this meant to bills already drafted and ready for a vote.
In Illinois, laws are built on three levels. The state Constitution is the foundation and basic framework. Statutes approved by the Legislature speak to the details left out of the Constitution. And rules implemented by the governor speak to the details left out of statutes. Through rules, the governor’s agencies implement law.
Madigan’s strategy would effectively morph certain bills to cover the nuance typically covered in rules. This, in effect, would make bills much, much longer. And, amid gridlock on top of gridlock, the lawmaking process would become even more convoluted.
