Category Archives: State of Illinois

BREAKING NEWS: Illinois Senate overrides Governor’s veto on SB2477

The Illinois Senate today voted 45-11 to override Gov. Blagojevich’s amendatory veto of SB2477, and Sen. Shadid got a round of applause as this was his last public act before leaving office.

SB2477 would give Public School District 150 the ability to use the Public Building Commission to raise funds for school construction. Blagojevich’s veto amended the bill to require a referendum to access PBC funds. If the House follows suit and overrides the Governor’s veto, the bill will become law as is, and the PBC could sell bonds on behalf of the school board for renovation or construction of school buildings without taxpayer approval via referendum.

UPDATE: Today, I’m unveiling a new feature on my blog: audio! Click the play button below to hear the Senate action today on SB2477:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/SB2477.mp3]

I’m still working out the kinks a bit — for instance, you’ll notice there’s a buzz in the audio; that’s because my current setup for recording is analog and I have a bit of 60-cycle interference. I’ll try to fix that for the future.

My thanks to 1 Pixel Out for the WordPress embedded audio plug-in.

League of Women Voters targets gerrymandering

League of Women Voters logoFrom a League of Women Voters of Greater Peoria press release:

Illinois redistricting, “ILLINOIS JOIN UP — REDISTRICTING ON THE SQUARE”, will be the subject of a special morning meeting of the League of Women Voters of Greater Peoria on Saturday, November 18th at the Lariat Steakhouse, 2232 W. Glen, Peoria, IL.

THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

League members have been studying the [redistricting] question for about a year, and committee chairman Dr. Elliott Murray, with Jim Thomas and Bruce Brown, will present an overview of the committee’s work and a proposed action plan for change.

The presentation begins at 9:30 AM, but a buffet breakfast ($10.00 which includes tax and tip) will be available at 8:45. Please call Bill Hall at 309-691-4706 if you plan to have breakfast.

Bravo to the League of Women Voters for tackling our heavily gerrymandered Congressional districts.

Poll results and the future of polls

According to the Journal Star’s midday update, the latest poll numbers for governor are as follows:

  • Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) — 44%
  • Judy Barr Topinka (R) — 40%
  • Rich Whitney (G) — 7%
  • Undecided — 9%

The margin of error for this poll (provided by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research) is ±4%, so the front runners are in a “statistical dead heat.”

I got to thinking about these polls…. Peoria County Clerk JoAnn Thomas has stated that 1,500 people have already voted in the county (not including the city) — that’s roughly 3% of the total registered voters in the county (approx. 50,000). If that’s the trend statewide, that’s a significant percentage. In contrast, Mason-Dixon polled 625 “likely voters” out of 7.3 million registered voters in Illinois.

So, the question is, how long do you think it will be before we start seeing polls of early voters instead of likely voters? If there are enough early voters to make the sample statistically diverse enough, couldn’t you just see pollsters calling an election before election day even arrives? I think it’s just a matter of time.

LaHood remark ignores gerrymandering

Rep. Ray LaHood was on 1470 WMBD-AM this morning explaining and defending his position in support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and in favor of reforming the page system. Most of that conversation was nothing new, but one passing remark LaHood made really irritated me. I don’t have an exact quote, but it was pretty close to this: “If my constituents feel I’m doing a bad job, there’s a referendum coming up in 32 days [Nov. 7] and they can vote me out of office.”

To a certain extent, that’s true. If he really ticked off enough people, they probably would kick him out of office. But the problem is that our congressional districts are drawn in such a way that instead of the voters choosing the representatives, the representatives choose their voters. It’s called gerrymandering, and it looks like this:

IL Congressional Districts

Notice especially the 17th district (in purple) along the western border of the state. Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous? It’s so egregious, The Economist recognized it as “the champion gerrymandering” of the whole country. It essentially takes Democratic voters out of the 18th district and puts them in the 17th district, helping the 17th district stay Democratic and the 18th district stay Republican. Lane Evans represents the 17th district; LaHood represents the 18th district.

In fairness, Evans and LaHood aren’t personally responsible for this inequity; they’re only the beneficiaries. The congressional districts are drawn (or, more accurately, manipulated) at the state level. But there is state legislation proposed that would change the way districts are drawn.

House Bill 3699, “The Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Act,” was proposed on March 10, 2005, by Republican Lee Daniels and would set up a redistricting plan similar to Iowa’s redistricting process, “where the non-partisan Legislative Research Unit draws the maps and writes the legislation with the advice of a 5-member appointed commission” (FairVote.org, the source of this explanation of the bill, has a wealth of information on gerrymandering in general, and Illinois’ pending legislation in particular).

I called Schock’s office to find out his views on this legislation, but was unable to get an immediate answer. Since the legislation was referred to the Rules Committee immediately after it was introduced, there hasn’t been any floor debate on it yet. It’s likely that he’s in favor of a fairer redistricting process, although he probably won’t be able to comment on HB3699 specifically.

If we want to see real accountability to the voters in this state, the gerrymandering has to stop. We should be writing to our representatives and demanding redistricting reform.

UPDATE: I received a call back from Rep. Schock’s office and he has expressed support for HB3699 or a similar bill that would reform the state’s redistricting process. HB3699 was referred to the Rules Committee by Speaker of the House Mike Madigan, and according to Schock’s office, Madigan is the one who has the power to bring it out of committee. It’s been in the Rules Committee since March 2005.

Well, then I called Rep. Daniels’ office (Elmhurst, IL) to find out some more information about the status of the bill. His office confirmed that Speaker Madigan had referred it to the Rules Committee and that the bill is dead. Since Daniels is retiring this year, he won’t be back next legislative session to reintroduce the bill. So, it needs a new sponsor.

I called Rep. Schock’s office to request that he (should he be reelected) sponsor this or similar legislation. (I say “similar legislation” because I’m not tied to Daniels’ particular plan; there’s more than one way to reform the process. The important thing is to ensure the redistricting process is indeed reformed so that regions, not political loyalties, are represented.) His staff will confer with him on it and let me know. I’ll let you know what I find out.

Ryan sentenced; could serve time in Pekin

George RyanFormer Illinois governor George Ryan was sentenced to six and a half years in a minimum-security prison. And at which prison will he be serving that time? We don’t know yet, but the Bloomington Pantagraph reports (emphasis mine):

Although his final destination remains unknown – as does the exact start-date of the 78-month prison sentence he received Wednesday – the federal Bureau of Prisons generally attempts to place inmates within 500 miles of their homes.

Prisons within that proximity of the governor’s Kankakee home include: Pekin, Terre Haute, Ind,; Springfield, Mo.; and Oxford, Wis.

Oh, please, please, please, let him serve his time in Pekin! That would be sweet.

Ryan’s a crook and a creep

I see former governor George Ryan is back in the news. Seems a number of death row inmates he pardoned are now suing a group Chicago police officers claiming that Ryan’s pardon proves their innocence. So, the defendants want Ryan to testify as to why he pardoned them. That seems reasonable — his pardon is the lynchpin of the case.

So, what is Ryan doing? Claiming “executive privelege.”

Huh. Gee, thanks, guv’nuh. Is this your way of sticking in to the system that convicted you for your licenses-for-bribes scheme? Do you have nightmares about those kids who died because your little fundraising plan? I would think the least (and I mean the least) you could do for penance is cooperate with the court.

I hope they lock you up and throw away the key.

Pantagraph can’t decide if it’s for or against earmarks

I was looking up some information on Ray LaHood and the money he brings to our community through the earmark system, and I ran across this editorial from Sunday’s Bloomington Pantagraph. (I recommend you read it, as it will make it easier to understand this post.)

It’s titled, “Illinois missing out on federal ‘pork’ feeding,” and the basic thesis is that Illinois pays more in taxes than it gets in federal spending on state projects. In fact, they claim we’re 46th out of the 50 states, receiving “only 73 cents for every $1 its taxpayers sent to the nation’s capital in fiscal 2004.”

What I’m trying to figure out is if they’re for or against earmarks. They say, “Illinois is subsidizing the ‘earmarks’ and ‘pork’ that are helping drive up our national debt.” So, they’re against it, right? But then they conclude by saying:

We’re not holding our collective breaths for any earth-shaking tightening of the reins from lawmakers who like to remind us that these pork projects date back to the days of George Washington.

If the rules don’t change, then Illinois’ representatives should do a better job of feeding with the others at the trough.

This strikes me as highly hypocritical, and puts lawmakers in a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” situation. If they “bring home the pork,” they’re criticized for driving up the national debt. Yet, if they show restraint and don’t use the earmark system to its maximum, then they’re criticized for subsidizing other states’ pork and not bringing enough to Illinois!

If I were a lawmaker and read that editorial, it would persuade me to just keep on doing what I’ve been doing.

Legal loopholes make a mockery of the Open Meetings Act

I have had further correspondance with an attorney who spoke to me on condition of anonymity. Here’s a transcript of what we talked about regarding the school district’s actions and whether or not it violates the Open Meetings Act (OMA).

Real Lawyer:

C.J., I regret that there has been some misinterpretation by others about the OMA as it applies to the actions of Dist. 150. Just to clarify, the OMA and caselaw interpreting it do not (unfortunately in my view) prohibit ratification by the board after an action has been taken. What the OMA prohibits is the board taking official action on anything in closed session. Whether the board decides to approve something in advance or ratify it afterwards, it must take that action in open session.

Me:

Thanks for the follow-up. I am confused, however. If they can take final action in closed session, then approve it post facto in open session, doesn’t that make the prohibition against closed-session final action in the OMA meaningless?

Lawyer:

The board cannot take final action for the property purchases in closed session. I think Matheson may have made a remark at their last meeting stating they could do so; if he did say that, he was wrong. And “final action” doesn’t necessarily mean a formal vote; anything constituting approval can be a final action.

I don’t know what if any action the board took prior to the Prospect property purchases. But the fact that they ratified the purchases at their last meeting, in the open, was likely sufficient under current case law. This is what I think is unfortunate, but until the case law is overturned that’s what we have.

This is all sort of splitting hairs, but I wanted to try to clarify it.

Me:

Sorry I’m not grasping this. It sounds like you’re saying this (not you personally, but case law): If the school board approves in closed session the acquisition of property, it constitutes “final action” per the OMA, and is therefore illegal. But, that illegality is nullified if the board subsequently approves the purchase in open session. Am I understanding that right? They can perform an illegal act and then magically turn it into a legal act by approving it publically after the fact?

Lawyer:

In essence you are right; that’s the clear implication. And the way you phrased it helps, I think, to demonstrate why post-action ratification should not be permitted, at least in situations like the one we have with the property purchases. By allowing a board to “cure” a mistake via ratification afterwards, the courts have made it too easy to evade the intent of the OMA’s requirement for openness.

Is that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard? What we have here is a legal loophole for the school board or any other public body to skirt around the Open Meetings Act and take secret action, away from public scrutiny, even though it involves spending (in this case) $877,500 of taxpayers’ money! All they have to do to make it “legal” is approve it after the fact in open session. Big deal. The money’s already gone! How could they not approve it? The contracts are already signed. Talk about violating the spirit of the law….

If the case law does indeed allow for this loophole, it should not be allowed to stand. Senator Shadid, who has expressed concern about the secrecy under which this action was taken, should work with his colleagues in Springfield to immediately propose an amendment to the Open Meetings Act that specifically prohibits such “post-action ratification” by a public body.