Part-Time Pundit

The Illinois Senate’s Version of the Recall Amendment / Recalled Officials Can Run to be Their Own Successors

After the fiasco two weeks ago, when the Illinois Senate buried Rep. Franks’ recall amendment (HJCRA28), Senator Hendon introduced his own recall amendment in the Senate. This version (SJCRA70) is substantially similar to Rep. Franks’ recall but has a few changes: the ability to recall judges, the Governor and Lt. Governor have to be recalled together, and salaried local officials can be recalled.

Two weeks ago, I testified at the Senate Executive Committee hearing on HJCRA28 and spoke specifically about the ability to recall judges. There is understandably some concern with this (and rightfully so) that unpopular but legally sound decisions could cause a judge to be recalled from office. I had proposed that as a prerequisite to recalling a judge, the judicial discipline process in Article VI, Section 15 of the current state constitution be used. At the time, Senator Hendon expressed that he liked the idea and he has incorporated my suggestion into his current amendment.

The big problem with the bill that no one has caught so far (and admittedly, I missed it when I testified two weeks ago) is that an officeholder subject to a recall can also run to succeed himself should the recall succeed. To illustrate, let’s say Blagojevich/Quinn get a successful recall petition that’s on the ballot. Both can, in turn, can submit the right paperwork to run in the succession election that occurs during the same election. It is important to note because of the condensed time frame, there are no primaries. This means, like what occurred in California in 2003, you would have a crowded field running to replace a recalled official. It is entirely plausible that an official who is successfully recalled will be able to get “re-reelected” with a plurality of the vote in a crowded field. That is why most recall provisions prohibit the recalled official running from running as a successor candidate. There is no prohibition in this amendment.

An interesting idea surfaced two weeks ago during the recall debate then, that because the Governor and Lt. Governor run together as a ticket that they must be recalled together. I find this idea rather unconvincing considering that there is no requirement that they must be impeached together. I think it is a ploy to accomplish two things: put Lt. Governor Quinn in the hot seat for pushing this issue and make it harder to accomplish recalling a governor successfully. Voters who may want to recall a Governor may vote no simply because they don’t want to “take it out” on the Lt. Governor. I am not sure how much of an effect it has, but it’s there.

Lastly, the big change and big win is the inclusion of local officials in the recall amendment itself. The amendment, however, restricts recall to only “salaried” elected officials. This immunizes school boards, for one. In smaller towns or counties, elected officials there may not draw a salary. Officials who are paid per-meeting “stipends” may also not be subject to recall. It’s a limitation that I can live with, but I prefer that anyone elected can be recalled. It’s philosophically sound that way. I’m not sure the reason for shielding unpaid officials.

I certainly do think that SJCRA70 is an improvement on HJCRA28 with the adding in of judges and most local officials. I think the threshold for signatures could be lowered to 10% for all the offices and would like to raise the number of counties needed for statewide recalls, but by and large I think most of it is good. The show-stopper here is that a recalled official can run to be their own successor which all but nullifies the intent of recalling them in the first place.

April 30th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Constitution, Politics | no comments

Preparing for an Illinois Constitutional Convention

One of the chief arguments against a constitutional convention is the statement that there has been no preparation for the upcoming question that will be on the ballot in November. In 1968 and in 1988, preceding the question being on the ballot there were several committees, organizations and legal groups that produced numerous reports on various aspects of the constitution and what the advantages and disadvantages are of several reforms. None of this preparation has been present for the upcoming 2008 vote, it is true to a small degree.

Largely, the preparation for a constitutional convention has been done by the same two individuals (with the valued assistance of many other individuals) who are pushing for a yes vote on the con-con question: myself and Bruno Behrend. We’ve been talking about this for years, identifying the flaws in the current constitution, the reforms that are sorely needed in Illinois to stem corruption and ways to truly empower the voters to make their voices heard. Admittedly, this is a less than ideal situation.

In addition to a book we’ve written that will be coming out in May called “Illinois Deserves Better: The Ironclad Case for an Illinois Constitutional Convention”, we’ve written a draft constitution which we think covers the deficiencies in the current constitution, reforms those aspects of the constitution that assist corruption and truly empowers the voters.

You can view our work at http://www.myillinoisconstitution.org and comment on each section of our draft constitution individually. It is time to open up the political process to the public so that we can truly participate in the governing process and that should start with the drafting of our new constitution (or the amendment thereof). Feel free to leave comments and feedback, we want to know what you think.

April 22nd, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Politics, con-con | no comments

Can a Constitutional Convention Fix Illinois’ Broken Government?

Illinois voters will be presented with an historical opportunity to fix the structural problems that plague Illinois government and fix deficiencies and loopholes in our current constitution. There are problems that can only be fixed in a constitution but the entrenched interests have come out saying a convention is unnecessary. Here is why they are wrong.

There are two arguments that a constitutional convention is inadvisable: the necessary changes can be made through other means (i.e. electing better politicians) and that there is no way to ensure that reform-minded delegates get elected. Skipping past the individual merits of these arguments for a moment, the arguments perfectly illustrate the problem. On one hand, we need to elect better politicians (I agree); on the other hand, we can’t enough elect good politicians to make a difference (I also agree). The opposition to a convention presents no solutions, just another intractable problem.

Fixing the balanced budget loophole that allows the state to count debt as “income”, ending gerrymandering, allowing binding citizen referenda, creating recall elections, enabling open ballot access and term limits all have to be done in a constitution. There exist only three ways to amend the constitution. The legislature can do it, citizens can have a referendum to amend the legislature article only, or a constitutional convention must be convened.

Currently the General Assembly is required to pass only one bill per year, the state budget. They could not even do that without being months late and still engaging in chicanery. HB 1, one of the many state ethics reforms bills in the General Assembly was passed 116-0 in the House and has 47 Senate Cosponsors. You would think that a bill that is not only supported by 80% of the Illinois Senate, but actually sponsored by 80%, would be law. One Senator, Emil Jones, has killed the bill and that is that.

The General Assembly cannot pass simple reforms right now, much less the constitutional changes that are required to fix our broken government. There are amendments in the General Assembly that contain many of the reforms that Illinois citizens want, they’ve been declared dead on arrival.

Citizens could initiate referendum, but only on the legislative article of the constitution and then only the “structural and procedural” items it contains. Some good reforms could be made this way, but it would not fix the deep-seated structural problems (like counting “debt” as “income”) in the Constitution because those referenda would not be allowed.

That leaves the only option to fix the structural problems with our government and the current constitution is a constitutional convention. This is the precise reason why such a provision was put into the current constitution; to allow the people to take control and reform the government when all other avenues have failed.

The state is in dire shape with over $106 billion in debt, a failing pension, government officials on every level being investigated or indicted on federal corruption charges, and the needs and interests of citizens routinely being ignored. Illinois deserves better.

Electing good politicians would help, but there are structural problems in our constitution and laws that close the political process to “outsiders”. Third party and independent candidates, for instance, have to get 10-15 times the number of signatures as “established” parties, for instance. More importantly, constitutions are written to restrict the harm bad politicians can do. That’s why there are “Bills of Rights” and “checks and balances” with a mind of keeping the level of harm as small as possible.

If a convention happens, it will take work to identify and elect reform-minded delegates and it won’t be easy. However, sitting by and hoping things get better means the state gets driven to bankruptcy, more politicians get indicted and the needs of the citizens continue to be ignored. This November, citizens have the power to take back their government and effect the changes that are needed before it’s too late. The General Assembly has failed; now it falls to us.

April 2nd, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Politics, con-con | no comments

April Fools! : A conservative convert to Obamamania!

Joke is on you, Daily Kos.

For most of my life I have been a staunch conservative, not sure really when that started, I just always was. It was the way of things. However, after 7 years of a conservative presidency, a quagmire of a war, an economy in tatters and on the way down, it is clear that conservative policies are simply wrong.

If the “free market” big business policies of Republicans worked, why are millions of us losing our homes and millions more on the edge? If tax cuts for the rich were to herald in an era of unpresidented prosperity, why are there records of numbers of people on food stamps? We’ve seen tort reform, where is the health care for the 50+ million people who don’t have insurance?

It’s clear that the ideas have simply failed, which is largely why I (and conservatives and right-wingers) were so vicious. When you don’t have anything else to stand on, you attack and claw away. But eventually (hopefully) you realize that you are fighting for a failed idea. And that’s why I’ve jettisoned conservatism, the Republican party and I’m going for Obama.

The Obama campaign, more than anything, is a voice to the disenchanted that things have to change. Republicans, despite the rhetoric, have sold us out to the rich. Values voters are all about the “right” thing, as long as its “their” rights. Yet, not even a few weeks can go by without a Bush cabinet member being implicated in corruption, more Republican congressmen found on the take, and the biggest proponents of “social values” being exposed as notorious perverts. Enough is enough; we need change. I cannot associate with the Republican party anymore. I’m not leaving them, they have left me and millions others poorer in their wake.

The childish partisanship (which I had once ashmadely participated in) that has been fostered by Bush has brought about bitter divisions that have left America weaker within than we ever have been. A senseless war has left us weaker abroad. A “go-it-alone” foreign policy has left us isolated with no friends. No that we need foreign investment to prop up our economy, we are left with no one willing to help us except George Bush’s Saudi oil buddies.

Limited government has been shown for what it really is, allow big corporations to run roughshod over workers, the environment and our legal system. When banks are on the verge of falling over now, it is the shareholders not the average consumer that gets a bailout. It’s no wonder the gap between the rich and poor is accelerating so rapidly… at every chance this government simply takes more from us and gives it to them.

I plan to vote for Obama in November (as soon as Hillary’s slash-and-burn campaign of self destruction ends) so we have the chance to turn America around and make the American Dream possible again

April 1st, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Politics | no comments

Free Chastity Book Offer for Priests/Religious…

If you are a priest, seminarian or religious, my friend Dawn Eden wants to give you a copy of her book, Thrill of the Chaste. Read more here, but I highly recommend this book.

March 25th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Religion | no comments

On the Road to an Illinois Constitutional Convention

Earlier on this website, news was reported about HRJ0111 that creates a committee of 8 legislators to help prepare the materials for the con-con question that should be put on the 2008 ballot. This has highlighted a simmering debate in the background about whether a con-con would be good for Illinois or not, and there are a variety of perspectives on that. Other media discussions on the con-con this week include an article by The Southern, a talk radio show on the subject by Peoria Pundit, and video from CAN-TV discussing the con-con.

The interesting thing about the debate on this issue as a travel across the state is two-fold. First, honest grassroots people of all political stripes generally agree that both Illinois is in serious constitutional trouble and generally agree about the package of reforms needed. Second, those opposed to a convention do not debate the reforms that are needed, they simply argue that a convention would "make things worse" or that it simply would not be successful.

It is important to point out, my push for a convention is not meant to enshrine conservatism in the Illinois Constitution. While every reform I am pushing is amenable to conservatives, progressives and moderates agree also. A constitution isn’t a place for policy debates, it’s a place to deal with fundamental rights and governmental structure in which amazingly everyone more or less agrees. For instance, recalling elected officials, open ballot access, binding citizen referenda, open government and ending gerrymandering all enjoy majority support in both parties among the grassroots.

If such a push for a convention were meant to establish conservatism as the supreme law of the land, it would fail. Let’s be honest, conservatism isn’t particularly welcome in the Illinois GOP. The push for a convention would allow for people of all political stripes (including conservatives) to freely advocate for their ideas in a meaningful way. An as an aside, I firmly believe that the future of the ILGOP depends on convincing voters of their reform credentials and supporting this convention is about the only way they can assume any real power in this state again.

The push for a convention is meant to open up the political process so people besides entrenched interests can influence the debate on issues. The corruption in the governor’s office is enhanced and incentivized by a constitution that gives him a great deal of power he ought not to have. The governor should not be able to create legislative benefits that no one asked for, no one wants but no one can do anything about. We should not have a chief executive who can establish laws by fiat.

The corruption in the General Assembly is a factor of a legislative structure that insulates the ILGA from public influence. Districts are gerrymandered to make races uncompetitive. Elections push out third parties and independents. The primary system reflects a political reality that hasn’t been true for many decades. Lastly, the legislative leaders (the four tops) have complete control over the legislative process. We do not elect and pay the salaries of 118 representatives and 59 senators just so Sen. Jones and Rep. Madigan can make all the big decisions. Those two can and have unilaterally killed bills, just take a look at HB1 to see how a unanimous bill in the House with 47 Senate cosponsors can be stopped because of one man. We vest too much power in this individuals and we see the logical result… rampant corruption.

Normal Illinois voters see this and are disgusted. They see their friends, families and themselves taxed out of their homes for "pay-to-play" politics. They see government at every level in Illinois under federal investigation. They see other states thrive while Illinois is left behind. Most importantly, the issues important to Illinois voters are left by the wayside.

Not every problem facing Illinois needs to be addressed in a constitution, but many elements of the 1970s constitution (for instance, creating a strong governor) have directly lead to the constitutional crisis we are in now. There exists no other avenue with which to effect these reforms and waiting 20 years ensures that the crisis will grow to the breaking point. This is the last, best hope for normal Illinois voters of all political persuasions to enact the reforms we so desperately need. Illinois deserves better. Join me in making it happen.

March 14th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Illinois, Illinois Consitutional Convention, Illinois Constitution, Politics, con-con | no comments

What if Chavez Isn’t Bluffing About War with Colombia?

Hugo Chavez is making news again, this time threatening war with Colombia (a U.S. ally) over the assassination of terrorist elements that have taken refuge in Ecuador. The facts aren't quite known, but it is alleged the Colombia sent military forces into Ecuador to attack members of the FARC, a terrorist group that has been staging attacks in Colombia and taking hostages (it is currently holding three U.S. citizens, for instance).

In what was considered a bizarre response, Chavez ordered several battalions to the border with Colombia and has threatened all-out war with the country. Ecuador is understandably upset, but many attribute Chavez's latest media-grabbing stunt as more saber-waving from a dictator who craves international attention for "standing up to U.S. imperialism." There are important reasons to take Chavez's threats at face value, but first some background.

United States Military Doctrine

Since the 1990s, the United States Armed Forces have held various iterations of a win-win doctrine. The current version of the doctrine (the 4-2-1 strategy) states that the United States will maintain the capability to "conduct two, overlapping 'swift defeat' campaigns… [and] the force must be able to 'win decisively' in one of the two campaigns". In layman's terms, this means the United States has set up its military to win two medium-sized wars simultaneously.

It is also important to note that the United States military debates its over-reaching strategy out in the open for the world to see. Not a single spy is needed to determine how we structure our military and with what aims in mind. A foreign agent can pick up any number of academic journals, surf the various public military and government websites, or read the many books written on the subject. No security clearance is needed. Other countries know full well what we design our military to do and conversely know what limitations we build into our system.

One can look at the current situation of the U.S. military and see how this strategy has worked (albeit not without bumps). The military is engaged in operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq and achieving successes in both countries. The only area where improvement has not been substantial is in the area of nation-building, particularly, getting the native populations to take responsibility for their own political destiny. The lack of will for U.S. imperialism has come at a price.

The current situation shows that the strategy can work and is working. Al Qaeda in Iraq is essentially no more. However, it has also shown that it engages a large proportion of the resources available to the United States military that can be used for war-fighting. The preventative operations still continue, sure, but it is less than clear that the United States could, without significant difficulty, engage in a third conflict; much less a fourth conflict.

The Foreign Policy Objectives of China and Russia

In the sense of power distribution, international relations is similar to a zero-sum game. When one nation loses power, some other nation or nations gain power. The inverse is also true; when a nation gains power, it comes at the expense of another. When the USSR collapsed, the United States largely gained the power that was left on the table. This has been a point of consternation for some time for the former world power.

On the other hand, China, which has never been a superpower, does overtly crave such a status. In order to achieve such a status, the United States would have to relinquish or lose some of its current power. This leaves China and Russia as partners in a similar quest, to gain international power at the expense of the United States, the only country which that power must come from.

As an additional sideshow, there are a variety of powers across the globe that would cheer at the prospect of an American military embarrassment (no small number are European). Many lay commentators cheer on Russia and China, who criticize America's foreign policy, including commentators in the United States. One ought not to be naïve to think that these nations which murder journalists and dissidents, repress speech, and shun the rule of law inside their own borders are suddenly acting with the purity of wind-driven snow once on the international stage.

Currently, both Russia and China have ties with Venezuela (that include Russia shipping military goods to Venezuela). Russia also has historical ties with Serbia and has been a vocal supporter of Serbia against the independence of Kosovo. Currently, both areas are now volatile with Chavez's threats on one side and antagonistic behavior by Serbia on the other. Kosovo and Colombia, on the other hand, are US foreign policy commitments to continue to support those countries.

As an important counterpoint, there are elements in China and Russia that do not see eye-to-eye with the hostile-to-the-US foreign policy. They are minorities but they are the ones with money. Many of the largest businesses in both countries are beneficiaries of the American economy and thus have a vested interest in the status quo.

Could Chavez Be Serious?

Currently, the United States economy is in trouble; there is broad consensus on that at this point. Bad lending is never a good thing for an economy. Full-on economic collapses are usually combinations of multiple factors, bad lending often being one. So if Chavez isn't serious, he, along with Russia and China, is quite stupid. That is a presumption we ought not to make.

The United States military is structured to win two conflicts simultaneously. If both Kosovo and Colombia-Venezuela go hot, even militarily we would be stretched thin, if not to the breaking point. Odds are we would face the choice of sacrificing one or the other to avoid "losing" a war. With forces already on the ground in Kosovo under the auspices of NATO, we would likely have no choice but to fight in that conflict. Colombia, on the other hand, would be very easy to leave out to dry.

If forced to fight in both additional conflicts, it would provide an enormous additional strain on an already troubled economy. Drastic funding choices would have to be made to support the resources required to fight in all four conflicts simultaneously independent of the number of troops consideration. It is entirely possible that it could push an economy on the brink of recession into a full-on recession. Or for that matter, push an economy in a recession into a far worse economic position.

If China and Russia want to take definitive action to ensure American power is decreased, all they have to do is stoke the flames of conflict in Kosovo and Colombia. American political debate is focused on the superficials; no real political movement would support retaliatory action for subtle actions by Russia and China to provoke other nations to pick fights. In short, there would be little political cost to Russia and China in provoking these fights while there is everything to gain.

The only counterbalancing effect is whether those nations would prefer to ride on America's economic coattails or if they'd rather see American foreign power decline to their advantage. With the economic troubles America is facing, it becomes increasingly tempting to think those economic coattails aren't as long as they once seemed. Time will tell which trains of thought will win out.

March 14th, 2008 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, International, Military / War, Politics | no comments