From the Archives: Term Limits in Illinois
by Pat Quinn
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
The term limit issue has been sweeping the country. Since 1990, voters in 15 states have used the petition and referendum process to impose term limits on their state legislators.
Earlier this year [1994] in Illinois, term limit supporters filed 437,088 petition signatures from almost every county calling for a statewide referendum on term limits. The proposed “Eight is Enough” constitutional amendment would limit state legislators to no more than eight years in the General Assembly.
Illinois voters are fed up with the callous unresponsiveness of entrenched political insiders. At a time when the state has monumental budget problems and is in serious need of meaningful tax reform, most Illinois General Assembly members are more concerned with giving themselves a pay raise. Illinois Senate President James “Pate” Philip, a 28-year incumbent earning $55,420, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “We are so grossly underpaid it’s unbelievable.” With Philip’s support, most lawmakers voted to award themselves a 9 percent pay raise, in addition to cost-of-living allowances. This is the kind of political-insider government we can do without in Illinois, and voters who support limiting elected officials to no more than eight years in the same office do so as a rational means to get new people with fresh ideas in government.
In a statewide opinion poll published recently by the Chicago Tribune, nearly 70 percent of voters said they would vote in support of the term limit amendment if it appeared on the ballot in November. But in the midst of all this support for change, the Chicago Bar Association (CBA)—a registered lobby group of 21,000 lawyers—rushed forward to protect the political status quo. The CBA filed a lawsuit to block the Eight is Enough term limit referendum from appearing on the November 1994 ballot statewide.
Interestingly, the CBA also lobbied the General Assembly in support of a pay raise for judges. On the same day that the legislators approved the judicial pay raise, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the CBA challenge to the term limit referendum. Six weeks later, on August 10, in a 4-3 split decision, the Illinois Supreme Court denied voters the chance to vote on the term limit referendum this November. In a cowardly action, the court refused to explain why it will not allow Illinois voters the chance to participate fully in the democratic process.
Illinois is the first state in the nation to reject term limits before the people have had a chance to vote on the issue. The Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling against the Eight is Enough referendum is a slap in the faces of more than six million voters and is an insult to the highest ideals of democracy. The court’s majority ruling ignores the fact that the Illinois Constitution clearly gives voters the right to reform their legislature. The constitution provides citizens with the power of initiative and referendum. The authors of our state constitution wanted voters to be able to propose changes to the legislature in cases where, through self-interest, the General Assembly opposed them.
Accordingly, the dissenting judges soundly refused the Chicago Bar Association’s claim that the Eight is Enough proposal was not a suitable subject for a citizen-initiated referendum. Justice Moses Harrison, with Justices James Heiple and Benjamin Miller joining him in dissenting from the majority opinion, writes, “Section 3 of article XIV reserved to the people of this State the right to advance this amendment and to vote on it . . . Democracy should be permitted to take its course, as the drafters of our constitution intended. To hold that the law mandates a contrary result is a fiction that venerates the power of our incumbent legislators and demeans the intelligence of their constituents.” In an editorial published August 24, the Wall Street Journal said, “The court’s decision reeks of politics. . . . Term limits is the fourth initiative affecting the Legislature it has removed from the ballot.”
The term limit issue needs to be decided at the ballot box. In losing the right to vote on this referendum Illinois voters are losing ownership of their government. If this ruling is allowed to stand, Illinois will not have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” What we will continue to have is a government of the incumbents, by the lawyers, and for the lobbyists.
—Pat Quinn
Treasurer of Illinois
This article first appeared in the November 1994 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
On January 29, 2009, after Rod R. Blagojevich was removed from office, Pat Quinn became the governor of Illinois.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Eagle on 30 January 2009:
I am very much for term limits. I would go so far as to advocate a limit on total political “service” – limiting individuals from making political office-seeking a life-long “career”.
And, it seems to me that Pat Quinn is a relatively good figure in Illinois’ political arena. He will have his hands full with a budget mess, taxes that are already too high, and squabbling constituencies.
It would be informative to hear the Chronicles editorial staff weigh in on the whole Blagojevich scandal, much as they did on the enthusiasm that greeted Palin’s nomination in 2008. I would think there could be some very useful insights, particularly given the fact that the Chronicles editors and offices are located in Illinois.
What were the main policy pronouncements of and the “successes” relative to these that the former governor achieved?
Why did so many of Illinois’s other politicians detest him? Did they always or was the Fitzgerald indictment the catalyst?
Setting aside what appear mostly leftist policies, what was the crime for which the former governor was impeached and removed? Distasteful behavior was seemingly abundant, but the news media seems unwilling or incapable of reporting straight-forwardly the purported crime. In viewing on television the closing statements of the house-appointed prosecutor, as well as statements from members of the house to the media, no coherent explanation was given about the crime that got Blagojevich canned.
It seems to me – again, as someone who does not view Blagojevich’s policy stances sympathetically – that this was a media-generated political lynching catalysed by the US prosecutor’s office. The few leaked statements for the FBI wiretaps revealed potty-mouthed language and a good deal of bravado, but nothing in the way of impeachable offenses, as far as my amateur legal analysis determined.
I find myself perplexed that neither the media nor other Democrats supported Blagjevich’s very basic, and seemingly reasonable, request: if the FBI tapes were to serve as the basis of his impeachment, then why not demand that the federal prosecutor make them public in their entirety in order to better understand the full scope and context of what was hinted at in the few excerpted pieces? If Blagojevich is entirely guilty, as is suggested, this would have only helped prove the point. If he was merely potty-mouthed, then this would have served to further embarass him but exonerate him of other allegations.
Pat Buchanan, another person not likely to sympathize with Blagojevich’s political agenda, has asked much the same. Who is being protected on the tapes and will the public ever hear them?
2 Comment by Leo on 30 January 2009:
Blago(using the abrev.)will probably go on trial next year.At that time the United States will produce the tapes and probably dozens of live witnesses.Blago will,of course,have the opportunity to present witnesses on his behalf and he may or may not testify himself.The allegations against Blago are numerous and quite serious.There seems to be a substantial misunderstanding in the media as to the crimes alleged.You do not have to receive a bribe to be guilty;solicitation of same is enough.The tapes I heard strongly suggest solicitation.Obviously(in for instance the Senate opening matter)he eventually received nothing.A jury will decide if he put it up for sale.To say that “all politicians do it” is wrong,and not a defense anyway.If you were on the jury,and you were convinced that Blago solicited a job for his wife in exchange for a Senate seat I would hope you would convict.If you did not believe such an exchange was a quid pro quo,you might well acquit.I’m not sure what your evidence is that this is a “political lynching”.You should accord the U.S. Attorney’s office the same neutrality you seek for Blago and avoid such language.I can’t think of a bribery case where the defendant didn’t immediately state it was politically motivated!Sometimes they’re right,but often they’re just being rascals.Besides “political motivation” is not a defense;a crook is a crook if proven to be a crook whatever the prosecutor’s motivation.This is another great misunderstanding in the media;there is a defense of “selective prosecution” but it is seldom successful outside of racial claims.Finally,as to impeachment,because it is not a criminal trial,the expected constitutional protections you allude to do not apply.Here I agree with you that there is an element of unfairness.His impeachment,however,was perfectly legal.
3 Comment by Eagle on 30 January 2009:
Leo,
I am guilty of subscribing to western, specifically American, juridicial philosophy which treats the accused as “innocent until proven guilty”. As such, I stated that it SEEMED, given the little evidence, a political lynching. I think the American tradition is to be suspicious of claims – particularly on the part of one branch of the government against anyone.
Further, I was not commenting of the legality of the impeachment, merely the impression created. I don’t know about nor understand Illinois law well enough to comment on the legality. I hope that Chronicles’ Legal Affairs editor will be persuaded to weigh in on this part of the law and its general history in the US.
As far as the released transcripts you refer to, they in fact did not present one ounce of evidence of solicitation. The overall recordings may – so why not air them?
Finally, you, like the news media and members of the Illinois House, state that the allegations against Blago are “numerous and quite serious”. I am not saying that I have any knowledge to refute that – I am merely asking what are they?? Specifically. And by what facts presented should I be swayed to believe them?
If he’s guilty of being foul-mouthed and unliked and the legislature is allowed to impeach you on this basis, ok, let’s say that. If it’s something else, why doesn’t everybody stop beating around the bush and come out and connect the dots clearly for the public.
Finally, you say: “You should accord the U.S. Attorney’s office the same neutrality you seek for Blago and avoid such language.”
Maybe. But I guess I have read too many accounts like the ones Paul Craig Roberts writes about on this site to leave my prejudice against government prosecutors at the doorstep. You are seemingly, by the way, espousing an un-American “guilty until proven innocent” philosophy in proposing this.
The media convicted Blago long before the impeachment. Well, they convicted the Duke rape defendants also. The general news media is next to worthless on just about anything these days. That’s what I think – no neutrality accorded them either.
4 Comment by Leo on 30 January 2009:
If you’re getting your information from Paul Craig Roberts on our justice system then you,like him,believe most people are innocent who are in jail,coerced into pleas or convicted on frame-ups.These are essentially the beliefs of radical leftists who believe that our racist justice system has imprisoned millions of innocent minorities falsely accused of committing crimes by racist cops and prosecutors.Someday,if you and Paul have the time,get yourselves mugged in ,say,Detroit and finally experience the reality of our criminal justice system.As to the media “convicting” Blago,you can find plenty of media sources that have not “convicted” him.What is your point?The First Amendment is still in place.Indeed it was the media that eventually blew out the “Duke rape” case…after I agree rushing to judgement.You should drop your “prejudice” against government prosecutors …one,you might need one someday and two,although not perfect,when you finally get out in the world you will find them generally honorable.Apparently,you and I have heard and read the same tapes and transcripts and disagree on the meaning.Fine.A unanimous Illinois legislature did not find it as innocent as you do.You can criticize all of them,too.
5 Comment by Eagle on 30 January 2009:
Leo,
Am I defending Blago or am I asking basic questions? Can you explain the charges and where you see any meaningful evidence? The tapes are not a matter of interpretation, as you claim. They may represent circumstantial intent, but do not represent a solicitation. Do they?
Roberts may well be over the top and generalizing too much in his assessment of the justice system. But that you cannot believe that government functionaries and the mainstream news media may be misrepresenting or outright lying about something is laughable.
Unanimous decision by the state senate? Please. Have you seen and heard these representatives on televsion? They are embarassing in their mis-use of the English language, not to mention general inability to articulate a logical argument. The US Congress is frequently unanimous or nearly unanimous in their votes also. So what? Are you telling me that the national legislature regularly displays virtuous characteristics? Don’t make me laugh. Unanimity and posturing are regular attributes of the oligarchies running the governments at the federal and state levels precisely because oligarchies definationally don’t allow real dissent…and the argument of unanimity is irrelevant to the questions I posed.
The media eventually broke the Duke case?? What media are you using, because I must be on the wrong wavelengths. Who and where are the “plenty of media sources that have not “convicted” him” with reference to Blago? I have only seen smug news-readers with little to no analytical capability, the same ones used to routinely spread government propoganda and marxist indoctrination.
You show me the dissatisfied mugging victims who cannot find justice and I’ll show you the white collar “criminals” who went to prison because they could not keep up with the tens of thousands of regulations being imposed in their business sector. Many of them were guilty indeed – of poor judgement in entering esoteric business fields in which the legislators outpaced their ability to digest or even understand often contradictory laws. Didn’t Prof. Wilson just post some choice observations about the number of laws a normal society needs?
Again, I am not defending Blago, but neither will I take givernmental functionaries nor the new media at their word when basic questions remain unanswered. Processes, rules, and laws matter in a civilized society.
6 Comment by David N. on 30 January 2009:
Speaking of Paul Craig Roberts and the Duke Lacrosse case, where was Roberts when Durham prosecutor Nifong was trying to send 3 innocent men to prison for 30 years? As far as I know Roberts did not write a single column on the subject.
7 Comment by Leo on 31 January 2009:
Eagle, I think we’ve both made our points and will just be in disagreement.If I’m still around when Blago goes to trial and he is acquitted,I won’t be that upset.If he is convicted,I am sure you will not be upset.We both should wish him and the prosecutors a fair trial.At the beginning of any trial,the judge and lawyers voir dire the jury pool on inter alia neutrality towards the parties.If you expressed a prejudice against the prosecutor or his office,you would be removed for cause from the jury pool.The same thing would happen to any potential juror who could not be neutral to Blago.I personally believe Blago is playing towards a potential jury pool with his recent antics.I can safely tell you there is sometimes an unseemly play for public sympathy before trial to influence the potential jurors.Although both sides play this,I have to be honest and tell you defense lawyers get away with it more often.And that’s probably as it should be… clearly the prosecution is under more constitutional restraint to mind its public comments than the defense is.This accounts for some of the frustration in the prosecution’s economy,if you will,of comment.As to the media…let them say what they want…any juror who cannot put what he or she has heard away and be neutral is expected to be removed.And remember the jurors are under oath(usually) in the voir dire process.Finally,as to your comments on Professor Wilson’s observations–I hear you ,brother!I hear you as a small or midling(?) businessman and an attorney,I really do!!But this is a monster created by bureaucrats,”solons” and judges…not really prosecutors.When the anxious businessman is in my office,after relaxing with some banter about my office Nixon memorabilia,his first question is often,”How well do you know the prosecutor and can you get me a deal?”My answers are usually as follows:”I know him and I can work with him”,”I don’t know him,but I know his boss” and “I can always get you a deal,but not always one worth taking….eventually my friend we’ll have to consider whether you’re actually innocent!”(This is said with a disarming grin).And to trial we often go.Sincerely wishing you a good weekend and GO CARDINALS!!
8 Comment by Lee on 31 January 2009:
I agree with Eagle regarding the FBI: “It seems to me – again, as someone who does not view Blagojevich’s policy stances sympathetically – that this was a media-generated political lynching catalysed by the US prosecutor’s office.” While I can’t stand Blago, I keep wondering what is being stolen from us as this media frenzy goes on. The Federal prosecutor should have been required to put up when he made the arrest. To think, as the prosecutor inferred, that Senate seats are somehow sacred is pure congressolotry. And if he had waited he would have gotten even more criminals — all of whom are worth getting rid of.
It’s still true, we live in and are subject to an (at best amoral) oligarchy. Our elections and legislative processes are just part of the elite’s “bread and circuses”.
9 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 31 January 2009:
the CBA also lobbied the General Assembly in support of a pay raise for judges …
Joke:
Q. what do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: your honor.
Judges in the Land of Lincoln have been making some pretty bad decisions for quite a long time. The idiot in Rockford who successfully ruined that city’s schools comes immediately to mind.
10 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 31 January 2009:
Mr Quinn should take note, the office is still bugged. He’s likely to have his private house phone tapped too. This is not paranoia, this is the Bush-Clinton-Bush police state we didn’t vote for but got anyway.
11 Comment by Robert on 31 January 2009:
#0 Joke:
Q. what do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: your honor
OOUCHE!!!!!!!!!!!! Easy Eitienne, your incoming posts are getting near my home and profession!!!
12 Comment by Buster Marshall on 31 January 2009:
I think there is a large gap between not trusting the government and having a prejudice against any certain or larger group of offices. Anyone in power over someone else to bring charges or convictions should be watched as if you do not trust them, make sure they stay on their toes. Questions are alright to ask of our government officials. That does not say that you should spew that the judicial system is racists and the cops are racists and the law and order of our country is corrupt. People like to take a few bad apples, or many bad apples, but definitely all of them are not bad apples and yet we say they are.
Yes, we may need a prosecutor one day, but that does not mean that we cannot still question our elected and non-elected government officials of their actions.
13 Comment by James Kabala on 31 January 2009:
I was intrigued by the existence of this article and disappointed by the laconic note attached to it. Not being an Illinois resident, I had hitherto assumed that Mr. Quinn was a garden-variety liberal Democrat of no particular distinction. Clearly, if he has written for a publication known for its strong and uncompromising conservatism, his views must be more distinctive than that.
Who, then, is he? Is he a Midwestern (and non-veteran) Jim Webb? Is he a economically liberal, social conservative Irish Catholic of the type that flourished before Irish pols began to follow Ted Kennedy’s pernicious lead? How did he come to be a Chronicles contributor, and how long did his association with the magazine last?
14 Comment by Eagle on 2 February 2009:
Leo, thanks for the exchange. One hopes the truth emerges and the appropriate justice is applied.
Sorry to hear about the Cardinals. My hopes were with these underdogs. They put up quite a good fight.
I have to mention, though, on my broader topic…how amused I am today to find another nominee of the new presidential administration in trouble for what some would characterize as tax evasion. I will ask this: is it not interesting how the media chose to lay off of both the Treasury and HHS nominees for their admitted and significant tax crimes, er, oversights? Oversights that land lesser (connected) men in serious trouble. And yet, hints and unproven allegations of foul-mouthed Blago made the media go into a frenzy. Why the two different faces of the media? Why not the same incredulity over Geithner’s and Daschle’s behavior which are instead explained away as indiscretions and honest mistakes? We know they stole hundreds of thousands from the tax authority whereas we don’t yet know for sure that Blago formally solicited thousands in pay for play?
By the way, regardless of what happened…call me crazy, but I think I want the new guy in charge of the IRS to be innocent of tax evasion or at least well-aware of its codes so as to not get himself in trouble over his own filings. Didn’t this even merit any media scrutiny??
15 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 2 February 2009:
@11 Robert
When you consider the expense of attending law school these days along with the added expense of taking the bar, one does have to wonder why a fellow who could make $400 an hour chooses a government job that is unlikely to pay off the college loans.
16 Comment by Leo on 3 February 2009:
Eagle,thanks for the sympathy over the Cardinals but I am consoled over the 7 point spread and my Steeler-loving brother owes me dinner.