Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** If there is a war on coal, then coal is losing badly
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Speaking of coal…
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Former Gov. Pat Quinn on Monday filed more than 86,000 signatures to place a binding referendum on the November ballot that, if approved by voters, would set term limits for the current and future Chicago mayors and add an additional challenge for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to overcome in his bid for re-election. […]
The City Council in June voted to put three nonbinding referendum questions to Chicago voters in November. Aldermen voted to put on the ballot questions asking about uses for potential legal marijuana proceeds, the possibility of creating a new homeowners property tax exemption and whether to ban plastic straws.
The Emanuel administration has said that because a state law limits the number of referendums on each ballot to three, those in the council’s batch would leave no space for Quinn’s. Quinn insists his binding referendum is unaffected by the three-question rule because it’s a constitutionally protected right of voters to limit the number of terms their mayors can serve.
That was a jerk move by the council, but I dunno about Quinn’s constitutional argument.
* More on that from Fran Spielman…
Quinn argued again Monday that the crowding-out strategy won’t work. Binding referendums are in a separate category and, therefore, not subject to the three-question limit, he said, contradicting the city’s Law Department.
* Greg Hinz notes that Quinn didn’t file close to twice the number of required signatures…
However, petitions always are scrutinized to death by opposing campaigns, who look to eliminate signatures from those who are ineligible to vote because they’re too young, not a citizen, aren’t registered to vote in Chicago, used the wrong notary or have moved since the last election and haven’t re-registered—among other reasons. That’s why election pros almost always urge their clients to file with at least twice as many signatures as are needed. Quinn fell well short of that standard [86,481 submitted signatures compared to a 52,519 minimum requirement].
* Back to Fran…
The former governor also shot down the Emanuel campaign’s argument that election season in Chicago will be underway — with mayoral candidates already gathering signatures — by the time the binding referendum is held on Nov. 6.
“That’s been addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court in Broadview, where the court held that petition passing during the course of 2016 [didn’t matter]. It was put on the ballot. Voters voted on it. The incumbent mayor challenged it, saying the season had begun and the court just threw that out. That’s never gonna work,” Quinn said.
The Broadview case, however, was about a somewhat vague term limits referendum that the village board claimed was prospective in nature. Quinn’s proposal would be retroactive. So, that’s a whole different can of worms. And it may not survive based on that.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 10:35 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** If there is a war on coal, then coal is losing badly
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Speaking of coal…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s going to be hard to disqualify 34,000 signatures absent a pattern of fraud argument. He’s got a harder road against the other two obstacles.
Comment by Southside Markie Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 10:50 am
If I were a job creator, I would be so excited./s
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 10:50 am
Crowding out ballot questions is a time honored tradition in city hall. Definitely a jerk move, but not unique to this year.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 10:50 am
I don’t understand Quinn’s end game here. What does he want? Is he wanting to run for Mayor?
Comment by Not It Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:02 am
In an article recently in the Tribune about something similar in Calumet City - they quoted one of the judges on the appeal.
“This assumes that the ballot is a public forum and that there is a constitutional right to place referenda on the ballot,” the court said in an opinion written by Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Frank H. Easterbrook. “But there is no such right. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees direct democracy.”
We’re an indirect democracy, Easterbrook wrote. Citizens elect representatives to make all types of decisions, including ballot initiatives, the judge wrote. He cited numerous legal precedents and noted that the “Rule of Three” has a rational basis in law.
“Limiting the number of referenda improves the chance that each will receive enough attention, from enough voters, to promote a well-considered outcome,” Easterbrook wrote on behalf of the court.
The ruling made clear that the “Rule of Three” is valid. Some people are unhappy that a party in power can seemingly abuse the “Rule of Three” to clog ballots with sham questions that deny citizens the chance to pose questions about other issues.”
This ruling allowed a RETROACTIVE term limit question to be upheld and also upheld the rule of three, meaning that a municipality could block the ballot in this manner.
FWIW this decision was just handed down this summer, Quinn’s case is going nowhere. Not based on the retroactive nature, but based on the rule of three.
Comment by Chucky Jay Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:03 am
Pat Quinn, with the Cutback Amendment, understands how to get the legalese to work to withstand muster.
That said, the idea of getting the signatures and withstanding that challenge, the goal is to make any attempt to get something on the ballot to be a legally sound question.
Like many things with Quinn, these are all over the place with many ties left untied, and handed in like a sloppy book report.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:04 am
**It’s going to be hard to disqualify 34,000 signatures absent a pattern of fraud argument. **
Not really… its actually pretty tough to get over 50% for a validation rate, especially in Chicago. Lots of duplicates, lots of bad addresses. I believe Rauner’s validation rate for Term Limits was in the low 50’s - and that was statewide, and Chicago’s validation rate tends to be lower.
Comment by SaulGoodman Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:05 am
==I don’t understand Quinn’s end game here. What does he want? Is he wanting to run for Mayor?==
These kinds of process-reform ballot measures are kind of Quinn’s bread-and-butter. It’s probably an end in itself.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:10 am
The Board of Elections is going to be crawling with 30-40 Rahmigoons every day from now until Monday putting together the challenge.
Comment by Grand Avenue Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:17 am
- Chucky Jay - Quinn’s case might be a little different. Obviously the city council took action for the sole purpose of denying the right of the voters on the question of term limits. If the court feels this was done intentionally and to defraud due process Easterbrooks opinion might not hold up. As for the retro active question the former mayor of Country Club Hills lost that argument and he was tossed off.
Comment by Board Watcher Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:20 am
@Board Watcher - this argument was used in the Cal City case too, but the courts still upheld the ballot questions validity along with the Rule of 3.
Comment by Chucky Jay Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:24 am
Pat, how can we miss you if you won’t go away?
Comment by Blue Bayou Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:26 am
Pat Quinn is running for Mayor of Chicago this February. No ifs, ands or buts.
Comment by Colin O'Scopy Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:29 am
Give him credit for hustle. Quinn was out canvassing in Lincoln Square at Shakespeare in the Park the night before the petitions were due, which seems like a good place to fish for valid signatures from registered voters. He seemed a little surprised when I told him I’d consider voting against Rahm, but that I thought term limits were a bad idea.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:31 am
Quinn wouldn’t run for mayor, he’d run for Consumer Advocate. Lost in the hoopla surrounding term limits is the fact that the petition would also create a totally new elected office seemingly tailor made for Pat Quinn.
Comment by TopHatMonocle Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:33 am
“Jerk move”? Not at all. The city council determined those other questions were more important. Besides, the record from states and cities w term limits shows negative unintended consequences. Even more reliance on staff and lobbyists for institutional knowledge and precedent and more.
Even if one disagrees with those findings, I havent heard a single person say “Man, things dramatically improved once we imposed term limits!”
Comment by S loop guy Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:37 am
“I don’t understand Quinn’s end game here. What does he want? Is he wanting to run for Mayor?”
At 6:30 this evening, Quinn will be the guest at First Tuesdays with Mick (Dumke) & Ben (Joravsky) at the Hideout.
https://www.hideoutchicago.com/event/1725539-first-tuesdays-mick-ben-chicago/
Maybe Pat’ll reveal what he’s up to there.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:50 am
“Even more reliance on staff and lobbyists for institutional knowledge and precedent and more.”
That’s an argument against legislative term limits. Not a single person makes that argument when it comes to term limits for executive offices.
Illinois either needs to make it a lot easier to run for office (like cut the signature requirement for Mayor from 12,500 to 500) or it needs to have term limits.
In Illinois’s case, it is weighted way too heavy in favor of incumbents, who are able to serve for decades without even being challenged because it is too hard to make the ballot. Either enact term limits or drastically ease up ballot access.
Comment by Grand Avenue Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:51 am
**The city council determined those other questions were more important. **
LOL
Comment by SaulGoodman Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 11:51 am
The irony in all of this is Pat Quinn is the perfect illustration of why we don’t need term limits.
Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:17 pm
He came to a local meeting of organizers two years ago pitching these referenda and gathering signatures. He came to the same group this summer, doing the same thing. He explained that he could combine the signatures from two years ago with this year’s and file them together. That “there is no expiration date” on them. But he wasn’t asking if we’d signed last time. Who knows what his counsel advised, but it’s possible the petitions contain 1) two cycles worth of signatures and 2) so many duplicates. Which suggests it’s not a very popular idea. Even combined with the creation of a Consumer Advocate.
Comment by Anon and on Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:24 pm
These kind of shenanigans are why we should have held a con-con in 2011. If anything, the rule of 3 should give first dibs to binding citizen referenda with the highest # of valid signatures, then to binding council referenda, then to nonbinding. And maybe a guaranteed spot for at least 1 citizen and at least 1 council binding referendum (if any are submitted that otherwise meet requirements).
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:26 pm
@Board Watcher. Due process only applies when the governmnet seeks to deny an otherwise protectible legal interest, i.e. life, liberty or property…
Easterbrook’s opinion clearly states that citizens do not have a protectable interest in having their referenda appear on the ballot. Thus, the city counsel cannot deny due process on this issue even if it did approve the 3 questions for ballot only to prevent Quinn from getting his on the ballot.
Comment by TominChicago Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:28 pm
====I don’t understand Quinn’s end game here. What does he want? Is he wanting to run for Mayor?
I think he is a true believer. He’s annoying, almost always wrong, and a pest, but I don’t doubt his sincerity.
Comment by Archpundit Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:33 pm
Not sure why he even cares about Mayor limits. There is a guy named Madigan who has been in office 5 times as long as da Mayor
Comment by Silicon Prairie Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:38 pm
== The city council determined those other questions were more important. ==
So three nonbinding questions are purportedly more important than allowing the public to vote in a binding referendum on a question that actually care about, namely term limits. The three-question limit has been abused for years by city councils who want to keep inconvenient citizen initiatives off the ballot. The law ought to be reformed or repeal to prevent this kind of anti-democratic and self-serving behavior.
Comment by anon2 Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:46 pm
==Due process only applies when the governmnet seeks to deny an otherwise protectible legal interest==
Including a right given to the people under the Illinois Constitution, article 7. Yes? Easterbrook wasn’t talking about a constitutional right, but article 7 is constitutionally protected. If I’m reading that & Quinn’s arguments correctly.
Comment by Moist von Lipwig Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:47 pm
===article 7 is constitutionally protected===
My reading is it’s permissive.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:50 pm
==I don’t understand Quinn’s end game here.==
I do. Quinn loves term limits.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 12:50 pm
Is it too late to put Quinn limits on the ballot?
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 2:43 pm
==I don’t understand Quinn’s end game here.==
Equal parts true believer, publicity hound and perennial candidate. He probably doesn’t know what he’s running for just yet. But he’s going to be running for something and this will be something he’ll tout.
Comment by Southside Markie Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 2:47 pm
Not sure why people, except for Rahm loyalists, get worked up about opposing Quinn on this.
The substantive opposition to mayoral term limits seems to always include examples about state legislatures– not chief executives.
It’s a major difference that shouldn’t be glossed over in the debate.
Might be a bad idea to term limit rank-and-file legislators, but it’s totally sensible to limit big city mayors.
Reminder: Chicago’s the biggest city in America that doesn’t term limit its mayor. Fighting the Quinn effort is transparently self-serving, anti-democratic and cynical.
Comment by Sugar Corn Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 2:59 pm
The loyalists are going there starting tomorrow to try and get signatures tossed. Maybe the Mayor and his loyalists are a little scared? Otherwise, they wouldn’t be seeking volunteers.
Comment by DaleyMail Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 3:28 pm
==Quinn’s proposal would be retroactive.==
Wait, what?
Comment by Sugar Corn Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 5:13 pm
==Quinn’s proposal would be retroactive.==
Does that mean that Rich Daley’s last 4 terms would be vacated?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 6:13 pm
6:13 comment is mine. Sorry. Hit send before finishing.
Comment by Southside Markie Tuesday, Aug 7, 18 @ 6:14 pm
“‘Jerk move’? Not at all. The city council determined those other questions were more important.” If “more important” means “less of a threat to entrenched power,” yeah. The commenter is disingenuous.
Comment by Michael Thursday, Aug 9, 18 @ 3:43 am