A movement being led by former Gov. Pat Quinn may have been thwarted by the City Council, which on Wednesday approved a measure that puts three referendum questions on the ballots for the Nov. 6 elections that will be used in Chicago.
FOR WHAT
IT’S worth, state law limits the number of referendum questions that can appear
on a ballot to three. Meaning even if Quinn manages to get the petition signatures
of support sufficient enough to get his mayoral term limits question on the
ballot, it won’t appear because this year’s ballot is now crowded off.
I
suppose Quinn could still try to push his measure. But it wouldn’t apply to
Chicago, so what would be the point.
I’ll
admit that anybody who tries to claim the City Council is taking on issues of
great significance is oh so full of bull caca.
The only reason for doing this is to prevent the term limits issue from even
being contemplated by voters.
It’s a
dirty trick, which means the tricksters of City Hall (who have a long, glorious
history of such maneuvers in the name of electoral politics) win yet again!
BUT IF
YOU think about it, the whole term limits referendum reeks of a dirty trick
maneuver. Are we really supposed to feel sorry for someone who was playing “dirty
pool” because they got beat at their own game?
For the
record, Quinn wanted Chicago voters to be able to decide on a binding
referendum that would say no one can serve more than two full four-year terms
as mayor of Chicago.
It would
have taken effect immediately upon being voted on. Which would mean that for
the 2019 municipal election cycle, Emanuel wouldn’t be eligible to run for
mayor.
We’d have to pick from any of the other dozen-or-so mediocrities who have dreams of working out of City Hall and being thought of as the “Man on Five” (or Woman, to be technically accurate) all because they think a sufficient number of people despise the idea of Rahm Emanuel in office that they’ll vote for anybody else besides him come Feb. 26 (and again on April 5 in a run-off election).
BUT NOW,
PEOPLE won’t be able to decide if they want mayoral term limits before next
year’s elections. Which makes the issue a moot point for now.
Quinn, I’m
sure, will continue to fight. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Quinn tried
shaming aldermen to do the “right thing” in terms of letting his referendum
question advance.
Let’s be
honest. The idea of any political person doing the “right thing” or having a
solid moral compass probably means that someone has been watching “Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington” a little bit too often. It ain’t a gonna happen!
As for
Quinn’s suggestion that the courts could rule in a way that forces his
referendum on the ballot, I’d only remind people that the courts in the past
have not been sympathetic toward referendum access – at times kicking questions
off the ballot even if sufficient signatures of support have been obtained
(which Quinn hasn’t done yet).
SO WHAT
ARE the questions we’ll get to offer our (solely advisory) opinions on come
November?
Should money from (future) medical marijuana taxes be used to fund public education or mental health services? Should Chicago offer a homeowner’s property tax exemption for people who have lived in their houses for 10 or more years? And should Chicago outlaw plastic straws within the city limits?
All may
be legitimate questions to put forth to the voters.
But in my
mind, they reek of the same political stink that a term limits measure would
have had if that was the only way Rahm’s critics could find to actually beat
him on Election Day.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment