How ugly will the legislative battle be?

I’m a fairly regular reader of the Capitol Fax website who got my chuckle Friday from their “Question of the Day.”


“Which happens first?” As in the release of former state Rep. Derrick Smith from the West Side; or the agreement by Gov. Bruce Rauner and the General Assembly on a budget for state government for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

WHAT’S FUNNY ABOUT that is the fact that Smith is the legislator who earlier this week was sentenced to five months in prison on federal charges he accepted bribes.

Under the federal system, he’ll have to do 85 percent of that time. With five months, that means four-and-a-half months of real time served. He’ll get just a couple of weeks off for good behavior.

That means he’ll be a free man sometime in September. Probably right after Labor Day he will have paid his debt to society, and we can go back to forgetting we ever knew who he was (his stint in Springfield before getting caught in a criminal investigation really was that short).

But the partisan political differences between Gov. Bruce Rauner (the man who is supposedly liked by 40 percent of the electorate and disliked by 36 percent – with the remainder clueless about what to think) and the Democratic-leaning state Legislature are so large that it is likely Smith will be free and there still won’t be a budget in place.

EVEN THOUGH THE General Assembly is expected under usual procedure to approve a state budget for the upcoming year before their spring session ends at the end of May.

Remember that one year when Rod Blagojevich was governor when the differences of opinion (that’s putting it mildly) between he and the Legislature were so great that the matter didn’t get settled finally until about early December?

That could wind up looking like a tea party by comparison to what could happen if both Rauner and the Legislature’s leadership remain as pig-headed as they are capable of being.

I remember back to 1991 when the budget didn’t get approved until the early hour of July 19 and people thought that was some sort of record moment that would never again be achieved.

UNTIL IN FUTURE years when it kept taking until early July to settle a spending plan for state government. All of this was basically about then-Gov. Jim Edgar and House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, showing who could go longest without blinking.

Personally, I get the sense that Rauner has so many ideological points he wants to score that he’s willing to remain stubborn on budget issues, which are serious because of the fact that the budget approved last year really made no sense unless you presumed the General Assembly would come back later in the year and approve the extension of the state income tax hike that started withering away at year’s end.

We still have those pension funding issues. We have a governor who seems to think he can merely force his views upon the public (which may be why nearly half of all those who have an opinion disapprove of him).

And, quite frankly, we have a House speaker with a veto-proof majority who’s more than willing to make an effort to let the new governor who the real boss is of Illinois government.

I HAVE READ my share of gags on the Internet about how Smith may wind up being released from prison and somehow get himself back into the Statehouse just in time to vote on the final budget proposal.

Although I think it more likely Smith will wind up spending the summer months at a minimum-security prison facility serving his sentence, reading the news and shaking his head with contempt at the knuckleheads in Springfield who are letting this budget mess drag on and on.

  -30-

EXTRA: Now, he’s gone!

SMITH: Now a former legislator

Derrick Smith is no longer a member of the Illinois House of Representatives.

Upon being found guilty Tuesday in U.S. District Court on corruption charges, he lost his legislative post. Democratic Party officials will get to pick someone to replace him for the rest of his term (which basically amounts to the six days of the fall veto session in November) later this summer.

SMITH, OF COURSE, was the guy who got kicked out of the Illinois House two years ago when he was indicted because of the great shame he brought upon the Legislature. Yet he managed to get re-elected in the general election cycle because his name remained on the ballot. Although this year, he lost in the Democratic primary.

There are those people who claim that Smith was an absolute travesty because of the fact he didn’t disappear upon indictment – lingering on in the Legislature like a perpetual lame duck.

I always thought the fact that some people were getting so worked up over this was a tad pathetic. Because the reality is that now that he has a felony conviction, he will be removed from office.

Ultimately, he is gone. Whether it happened then, or now, doesn’t make much difference.

HE GETS TO focus his attention now on how little of prison time he can somehow manage to be sentenced to later this year.

And as for those people who were determined to postpone his trial a few days so he could be a part of any General Assembly action toward resolving the budget mess, it would seem that his lone presence wasn’t enough to get anything done.

The Legislature still punted, putting off a real definitive vote until autumn.

In all, Smith doesn’t have much of a legislative legacy. He didn’t accomplish much. Most of his colleagues go out of their way to distance themselves from him.

YET HE GOT so much public attention from having been removed, then re-elected.

Has ever a nothing legislator been paid so much attention in proportion to how little he accomplished?

  -30-

Smith trial; it’s about time!

Wednesday’s the day that jury selection is supposed to start for state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago.

SMITH: Dirksen Bldg., rather than Capitol

He’s the West Side-based legislator whose presence in the General Assembly has been an embarrassment to the powers-that-be, and whose timing of his trial has also managed to complicate things.

DERRICK SMITH IS going to be remembered by political observers far longer than his accomplishments in the Legislature would merit.

Smith is the legislator who faces federal charges in U.S. District Court because of a letter of recommendation he wrote on behalf of a day care center operator who had applied for a $50,000 state government grant.

Prosecutors contend the only reason he wrote such a letter was because he was given a $7,000 cash payment. A simple matter of bribery – although Smith contends he was merely offering support to someone who wanted to locate a needed service in his district.

It will be up to a jury that has yet-to-be-picked to decide whether Smith’s account has any legitimacy, or if he was just trying to enrich himself with some extra pocket cash.

THE ACTUAL CRIME for which Smith is alleged to have committed is petty. Even taking into account that the actions for which political people often are convicted don’t amount to large amounts of money, this incident is unmemorable.

But Smith will get remembered because he just won’t wither away.

COLEMAN: Will have Smith's attention

He’s the guy who got kicked out of the Legislature back in 2012 – just over a year after he was originally appointed to fill a vacancy in the Illinois House. His colleagues overwhelmingly decided he was a disgrace to their collective reputation – which is saying something significant considering some of the clowns who have served there.

But he managed to get re-elected in the 2012 general election cycle – on account of the fact that his name was already on the ballot. And for whatever you want to think about idiotic voters in the district casting a knee-jerk vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate, the other candidates on the ballot really weren’t any better.

THE VOTERS CHOSE to stick with the political organization they were used to, rather than let Republicans play ideological games with their West Side legislative district.

MADIGAN: Down a vote

But it still creates the laughable condition of an indicted man getting re-elected to office. The pathetic part, however, was that it took federal prosecutors so long to get this case to trial that he served just about the entirety of that term in office.

He was even on the ballot back in the primary. We could have repeated this whole condition.

Insofar as Smith himself, he falls into the masses of the Legislature. I generally find that there are about 20 to 30 members of the General Assembly (177 members total) who have some special skill or knowledge to be notable. The rest, like Smith, take up space, and cast votes when needed.

WHICH EXPLAINS WHY Smith’s name cropped up into the news in recent weeks. He actually wanted a delay in his Wednesday trial date. The Legislator’s leaders wanted him to be available for the entire week so he could cast his vote on efforts to pass a state budget and determine how funds will be raised to pay for things.

It was presumed that Smith would be a reliable vote for whatever it was that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, wanted done.

But that’s not going to happen. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman made it clear she expects Smith to be in her courtroom on Wednesday. Although considering how confused the political people are as to what they will do, I don’t think Smith’s absence will make a difference.

  -30-

Putting legal process on trial? ‘Hurry up and wait’ takes longer these days

It has been more than a couple of decades since I regularly hung around courthouses in my reporter-type person duties. Yet the general rule of thumb I remember was that it usually took a court case about two years to make its way through the legal procedure.

The Criminal Courts building looks similar in some ways. But the legal process seems to be getting more and more drawn out.

 

Back in 1989 and early 1990 when I was a regular reporter at the Criminal Courts Building, or roaming around the various suburban courthouses, I covered many a trial of events that took place in 1987.

SO IT IS with that memory in mind that I noticed a Chicago Tribune story that previewed the upcoming trial of Allan Kustok, which is scheduled to begin Tuesday at the courthouse in suburban Bridgeview.

Kustok is a man who has the image of a respectable pillar of society. Except that he now faces criminal charges for the slaying of his wife.

Back on Sept. 29, 2010!

The case is going to get its share of attention in coming weeks because Allan and his now-deceased wife Jeanie had two children who became athletes of some prominence at area universities.

BUT TO ME, the idea that this case took three-and-a-half years to get through the process so that a trial could be held is what is truly notable about this case.

I realize that criminal trials are not something to be rushed into – even though I’m sure the people who view themselves as “law and order” types (they’re really borderline fascists who want a justice system to bully others) wish they could be.

Delays can be just as lengthy at the federal complex

I also recall one of the most humorous moments I ever experienced in a courtroom was once hearing a woman tell someone else “We’re going to have a trial today” because her brother had been killed the day before.

Actually, it was just a bond hearing that day, and if I recall right, the defendant in question pleaded guilty about a year-and-a-half later. Which means there never was a trial.

BUT IT JUST seems like cases are taking longer and longer to work their way through the process. It was last month that Roy Valle, a former village clerk in suburban Lynwood, pleaded guilty to criminal charges for a February 2011 car collision that killed another woman.

He’s now a man in his mid-60s serving a six-year prison sentence. Not a pleasant experience for him, I'm sure. But it took nearly three full years for that case to get through the legal process – and it ended in a plea.

No trial necessary.

It’s not even just the Cook County Circuit Court system that has the delays. As I wrote last week, state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, faces charges in U.S. District Court based on claims by prosecutors who say he was bribed for his government actions.

IF HE IS found guilty, he will have to give up his legislative post.

Yet Smith is now on the ballot for his third term in the Illinois House of Representatives, even though he was indicted in his first term. This is now becoming the ongoing joke of the local election cycles – that an indicted legislator will continue to get himself re-elected (because the opposition can’t come up with a credible candidate)!

I find the delay to be more troubling than the re-election of an indicted goof (who, theoretically, is innocent until proven otherwise).

And yet it isn’t just these three cases.

THE CRIMINAL COURT facilities truly are nothing more than a factory these days, watching as cases creep their way through the process of discovery (by which attorneys for prosecution and defense exchange information so that everybody is properly prepared for a trial – should a case come to that).

And with many people facing the process of sitting through hours of time every time they have to show up at a courthouse, the idea that a case can get endless continuances after just a few minutes goes so far as to create the idea that these cases linger on indefinitely.

Which makes that whole legal concept of how people are entitled to a speedy trial seem like a bigger joke than the idea that the Chicago Cubs will someday win something of significance.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Currently, I do some work for one of the daily newspapers in the suburbs, and occasionally have to show up at courthouses in Cook County. My superficial observation about change is that they seem not to. In that they look grungier as if they haven’t been cleaned since the days I was a courthouse regular, and sometimes I sit in a busted courtroom seat that I could swear was busted all those decades ago too.

Madigan backing Smith to be expected. I'm more upset by lack of a federal trial

I remember once having an Illinois House of Representatives of the Democratic persuasion try to dispute the notion that all of the House Dems were just lackies who voted the way Speaker Michael Madigan told them to.

SMITH: He's still around

This legislator told me that the only hard-and-fast commitment she had to make in exchange for Madigan’s support (including the periodic transfers of cash from Madigan’s campaign funds that keep many legislative campaigns alive) was to promise that she’d vote in support of measures to keep Madigan in his leadership post.

TO THE BEST of my knowledge, state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, complied with that demand. He never did anything that would have challenged Madigan’s authority to be House speaker (without which Madigan would be just another schlub legislator from the Southwest Side).

So should it be any surprise that Madigan is backing Smith’s bid for re-election come the March 18 primary over other candidates. Madigan aides themselves admit that the speaker is supporting Smith because he’s the incumbent – and for no other reason.

Yet there are those who are acting “shocked, shocked to learn” that Smith can be endorsed by anybody for re-election.

Smith, after all, is the guy who got booted from the Illinois House two years ago when he was indicted by federal prosecutors on claims that the cash he took for his government activity amounts to bribes.

BUT IN WHAT was the quirk of the 2012 election cycle, Smith managed to get re-elected to a two-year term – one that will soon come to an end. Because the federal court system is one that takes time to work one’s way through, he has yet to be found guilty of anything.

So, he’s running for re-election to another two-year term in this year’s election cycle. The reality of our political set-up is that incumbents have a lot of advantages, no matter how inept or sleazy we may perceive them as being.

He’s going to keep getting re-elected until the very day that a “guilty” verdict is rendered. I don’t really like that idea, but I accept that it is reality.

MADIGAN: Merely playing politics

So I’m not so concerned about the fact that Smith probably will win the Democratic primary AND the general election in November.

THE REAL QUESTION is whether “the feds” can get their act together to obtain a conviction of some type against Smith.

Perhaps those of us who are all upset that Madigan would think to support Smith – instead of trying to pick a no-name and rise him from the muck to a position of authority in the Illinois House – ought to focus our attention on why it takes so long for a criminal case to actually come to trial.

For a case that is supposedly as obviously a “guilty” verdict as some political people would like us to believe, perhaps this should happened long ago.

For those who have already forgotten the specifics of this case, it involves a $7,000 payment he received after writing a letter supporting a day care operation that sought a $50,000 grant from state government.

I’M SURE HE’LL argue that he was just making a recommendation about something proposed for his West Side-based legislative district, just like any other legislator would do. This will become a case – when it finally goes to trial – that will become a matter of how much we actually trust anything Smith says.

Now I’m not writing this commentary in defense of Smith. It’s more a criticism of those people trying to score more cheap political points off of a pending indictment.

What's taking them so long?

I expect Madigan to keep supporting Smith so long as he fulfills Madigan’s interests.

What disgusts me is that Smith, if he really is as guilty as prosecutors want us to believe, isn’t in a prison cell already. And if he isn’t guilty, that a criminal charge has lingered over him for so long!

  -30-

It’s campaign time – ’14 cycle begins

I didn’t venture down to Springfield early Monday, although I wish I could have. For there was the occurrence of a key moment in an election cycle.

The ticket of Tio Hardiman/Brunell Donald-Kyei filed its nominating petitions Monday so it could challenge Pat Quinn/Paul Vallas come March 18. Photograph by The African Spectrum

 

The filing of nominating petitions; the documents required of any candidate to show that he has any kind of support that makes him (or her) worthy of a spot on the March 18 primary election ballot.

EVEN IN MY absence, however, the usual spectacle took place – hundreds of people lined up outside the offices of the Illinois State Board of Elections to submit their petitions in hopes that they can be the first to file for their desired office so as to qualify for the top slot on the ballot.

In some cases, the actual candidates came out to wait their turn in line. While others sent their political operatives to do the dirty work of bearing with wintry-like weather.

It seems this year, there were a few people who camped out beginning last week to ensure they were they absolute first people in line when the state Board of Elections offices opened at 8 a.m. Which is always the case. I’ve seen it in the past – only the names have changed, ever so slightly.

According to the Chicago Tribune, they were people who worked for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. Personally, I’d have been more impressed if Madigan himself had shown up to file his petitions.



William Brady gets credit for filing ...

INSOFAR AS THE Republican brawl for the gubernatorial nomination, it seems that William Brady and Kirk Dillard to file the petitions that their campaign aides put together for them.

While Bruce Rauner sent aides to do it for him, and Dan Rutherford sent Steve Kim – his running mate for lieutenant governor, to do the paperwork that gets the two of them on the ballot.

Since all were on hand when the Elections Board office opened, there will be the lottery sometime next month to determine who actually gets the top ballot spot (which according to political superstition can be worth as much as 5 percent of the vote).

Won’t it stink for the candidate who froze his tushie off on Monday, only to lose the lottery and wind up last or next to last?



... own petitions, as did Kirk Dillard

THERE’S ALSO THE Democratic Party brawl, so to speak, for governor.

Tio Hardiman filed his petitions to get on the ballot, meaning that Gov. Pat Quinn will have an actual challenger for the primary. But now we know the actual name of Hardiman’s lieutenant governor running mate.

She’s Brunell Donald-Kyei, an attorney who according to the Capitol Fax newsletter once worked in the Public Guardian’s office before going into private practice, where she was the attorney for Eugene Mullins – a friend of former Cook County Board President Todd Stroger who was found guilty of corruption charges for allegedly taking kickbacks related to county contracts.

We can joke about a possible Paul Vallas/Donald-Kyei debate, although it probably says a lot that the State Board of Elections website botched her name. We may have some voters searching for “Donald Brunell” on the ballot.

THAT IS IF they don’t just ignore the Hardiman/Donald-Kyei slot and cast their vote for Pat Quinn.

I’m focusing primarily on the governor’s races for now, because I suspect they’re about the extent that anybody is paying attention to political campaigns at this point.

Other elections will get their day in the sun, although it probably will be a cloudy, overcast day and few will pay attention. It always causes me to feel dismay the degree to which many people don’t pay attention to their elected officials – then want to rant and rage when their ineptitude comes through.

Although I found it intriguing to see state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, filed his petitions Monday for re-election. Smith, of course, was the freshman legislator whose colleagues kicked him out of the Legislature when he was indicted on federal charges that amount to soliciting bribes.

SMITH: The political thing that won't go

BUT SMITH GOT himself re-elected in the very next election cycle. And it seems the U.S. Attorney’s office is taking so long to get around to Smith’s trial that he may well finish out his current term and get himself picked to another!

For those who are repulsed at the notion, his conviction would eventually remove him from office. But the Smith shadow will continue to cover the General Assembly.

It is why political observer geeks such as myself find days like Monday to be something special. It literally is a day when everybody who wants to run for office has to make their physical presence in Springfield – or at the County Building downtown if their desired dream post is a Cook County government position.

It’s not quite the same as those people who line up to ensure they get any seat for a rock concert or major sporting event. Even though it ought to be regarded as more important -- considering the influence these people have to dictate how the tax dollars generated from our incomes actually gets spent.

  -30-

EXTRA: History, or Illinois’ lack of political backbone on display?

It seems that Illinois will barely qualify as being amongst the top third of the states of the United States that decided to go forward in striking down the state laws that made it clear marriages between gay couples were not legitimate.

QUINN: His turn to act

Illinois would like to think it is some sort of progressive place. Yet in the end, both Iowa and Minnesota beat the Land of Lincoln to the punch in approving a measure that permitted marriage as an option (rather than just civil union) for gay people.

AND OVERALL, ILLINOIS is 15^th (out of 50) in terms of approving the concept – which once Gov. Pat Quinn puts his signature to the bill will strike down the law the then-Republican-dominated General Assembly enacted in 1996 that specified that marriage between gay couples was completely unacceptable in Illinois.

Do you want a sports analogy? It’s kind of like the integration of Major League Baseball, where the Chicago White Sox were the fifth ball club overall (out of 16 in existence back then) that took on black ballplayers.

The White Sox may be better than the Boston Red Sox, Detroit Tigers, St. Louis Cardinals or Philadelphia Phillies – but they’re not anything to brag about in that regard.

Although I suppose it could have been worse. Illinois could have let this issue linger on a few more years and we could have wound up being something like 40-somethingth in terms of approving the issue.

I DO FEEL for anyone who winds up someday getting married in whichever state winds up being 50^th of the 50 states to implement it. Because those public officials probably will take pride in being last and will probably behave in ways that the anti-abortion activists do – they push for all kinds of restrictions to make it next to impossible for a woman to actually get an abortion.

MAYFIELD: She was "present"

In terms of the politics, it is intriguing that the reports starting creeping out of the Statehouse on Monday that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, was picking up the telephone and calling certain legislative colleagues to put the pressure on them to quit being wishy-washy on the issue.

The 61 Illinois House members who voted for the issue probably include a few who wish they could have voted “present” (only two did).

As it turns out, there were only three Republicans who went for the idea – including former House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, who apparently wants urban votes in his bid to become Illinois treasurer in next year’s election cycle.

SMITH: "P" vote adds to legacy

HE’LL NEED THEM, because the rhetoric already is spouting out from opponents of the concept who are determined to dump those supportive legislators come the March primary elections. The Illinois Review website that likes to tout conservative causes couldn’t wait to publish a copy of the roll call for Illinois Senate Bill 10 – just so we’d know who the evildoers are!



Personally, I think state Rep. Thaddeus Jones, D-Calumet City, is typical of the fence-sitting. I haven’t talked to him on Tuesday, so I don’t know what exactly went through his mind.

But he’s a guy who started out the year saying he definitely supported the idea. But as a member of the Black Caucus, he got a lot of the pressure from assorted African-American ministers who wanted him to oppose.

He was publicly supportive of the notion of delaying a vote as long as possible. But in the end, he turned out to be a “Yes” vote on Tuesday – just like he originally said he would be.

MADIGAN: Could he be active earlier?

THE FACT THAT it took so long to resolve, but got settled quickly once Madigan inserted his presence, makes me wonder why he couldn’t have done this back in the spring.

It could have been resolved then, and we could have averted an entire summer’s worth of nonsense rhetoric that I’m sure has inflamed the matter all the more – and may have even created a sense of distrust between the gay rights activists and those who back African-American interests.

Was it worth it?

Or perhaps this is the issue that shows all this talk about “blue” states and Illinois being so far gone to the left is just a bunch of nonsense.

  -30-

EXTRA: Impeach Obama?!? I fully expect the effort, and a headache

As I write this, the sounds of Ray Charles are echoing throughout the McCormick Place convention center, and President Barack Obama is preparing to find the diplomatic way of giving a raspberry to the campaign of Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

OBAMA: Still the prez, w/ same enemies



But I’m also sure that there are other people who are preparing to make Obama’s political life miserable – perhaps they want him to regret that he ever had presidential aspirations.

FOR I DON’T doubt that some people in our society are p’o-ed at the idea that they voted against him in both 2008 and 2012 – and he still managed to win both election cycles.

It doesn’t help that the breakdown of our Congress won’t change. Democratic Party partisans will still control the U.S. Senate, while Republicans will keep the U.S. House of Representatives.

I never seriously thought we were going to get the return of “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.,” but current House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, made it clear he’s “not going to budge one inch” on issues.

Which means the second Obama presidential term has the potential to be just as much of a partisan pissing match as the past two years has been.

DESPITE THE FACT that we will now have Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., because his Republican opponent engaged in stupid talk when it came to talk about rape (while trying to appeal to the people who believe abortion ought to be a criminal act), the basic hostility of our political scene on the federal government level hasn’t really changed much!

So we’ll probably get the initiative in the House of Representatives to repeal health care reform, along with a lot of other partisan cheap shots.

I really believe the more hard-core of the ideologues will try to come up with grounds for impeachment hearings, although I’m not going to speculate what kind of partisan tripe they will claim the president did that would make his removal from office a necessity to preserve our republic.

They’ll probably go in the history books as being regarded about as ridiculous as the impeachment effort was against Bill Clinton some 14 years ago. But being ridiculous has never prevented political people from doing something in the past.

SO THE NEXT two years are likely to be more of the past two years.

Although the new line of rhetoric will focus on the popular vote. CBS News just went through a whole diatribe not long ago about how Romney at that moment was leading Obama by nearly 1 million votes (my mind imagines actor Mike Myers’ “Dr. Evil” character saying that figure), although later admitting that the gap was closing.

Will we get the rhetorical nonsense from conservative ideologues about how Obama doesn’t deserve to be president? Don’t bring up 2000 or George W. Bush. Consistency has never been important to political blow-hards.

So what thoughts do I have in these moments before Obama preaches to his choir at the McCormick Place?

TYLENOL. WE NEED to stock up on it in significant qualities for the next few years.

Because all the psycho-babble we’re going to hear emanating from Washington is going to give us a serious migraine headache!

  -30-

SMITH: Confident, for now



EDITOR’S NOTE: Just to give some of you more of a headache. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., got 63 percent of the vote – although if it had been up to the Kankakee County portion of the district, Brian Woodworth would have won (he took 61 percent of the vote there). And if that’s not enough mental pain, consider that Derrick Smith (the expelled state representative from the West Side) was leading with 62 percent of the vote. He’s back (at least until his indictment becomes a criminal conviction)!

What a blowout, all because of apathy

You may have heard about it by now – the indicted and expelled state Rep. Derrick Smith is an overwhelming favorite to return to the Statehouse in Springfield.

SMITH: Will he do a Schwarzenegger 'I'll be back'?



Then again, you may not have. Because it seems the fact that Smith has an overwhelming lead in a recent poll is most likely the result of apathy. Nobody cares!

NO MATTER HOW much the pundit-types try to get you all worked up about the thought of a sitting legislator facing criminal charges, you seem to have more important things in your life to worry about.

Which may well be the reason why Smith winds up getting re-elected to the General Assembly and his old Illinois House seat in the Nov. 6 elections.

I’m sure some of the pundit types are going to claim that this is an embarrassment – a stain on the political reputations of Illinois and Chicago. They’re going to claim that something is seriously wrong that “the people” could willingly pick such a person – even though they have an alternative in that election.

I’m not going to make that argument.

IF ANYTHING, I’M going to say that the only stain is on the reputation of the Illinois House itself. For they were the ones who acted this spring and summer with great, self-righteous indignation to put Smith through hearings and ultimately orchestrate a public vote in which they overwhelmingly decided to expel him from the state Legislature.

Yet they couldn’t do anything about the fact that he had already managed to win the Democratic nomination for the Illinois House 10^th District seat (which represents the Near West Side of the city).

He remains on the ballot, and there is something of an effort resembling a third-party campaign by Lance Tyson (a one-time aide to former Cook County Board President Todd Stroger) that is meant to challenge him.

Although the Capitol Fax newsletter recently reported how the only official who seems to be giving Tyson any kind of support is Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (who lives in that legislative district).

OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS seem to not really care who manages to win this particular election.

Which would explain the poll taken by the We Ask America group. Tyson only has 9 percent support, compared to 48 percent backing for Smith.

Admittedly, that is a huge group of undecideds. Perhaps they will unite against Smith and enable Tyson to gain a term in the Illinois House of Representatives.

Although I’d say it is more likely they could care less, and the people who do bother to vote in that particular legislative district will just go knee-jerk Democrat. Meaning Smith gets their vote despite the fact that he faces a criminal indictment in U.S. District Court that says he used his legislative seat to solicit cash bribes.

IT’S NOT THAT people approve of bribery; which is what the conservative ideologues will try to claim. Although I’d argue they’re just bitter about the fact that their preferred political party is so weak in the city that they couldn’t even get a token challenger to Smith on the ballot.

Perhaps what we’re tired of is self-righteous political rhetoric. Which is what we got our fill of during the whole expulsion process. Just about everybody felt the need to either denounce Smith, or claim they really weren’t that close to him to begin with.

If it turns out that Smith manages to get himself re-elected for a few more months, perhaps that blow to the Legislature’s ego is appropriate punishment. Perhaps they shouldn’t be trying to treat Smith as some sort of historic exemption – particularly when one considers the number of political people who have faced criminal indictment and remained in office until the very end.

That end, of course, being the day that they are found “guilty” and have to resign their post. In all likelihood, Smith will wither away eventually. It will be in a way, however, that will deny other officials a chance to score some cheap rhetorical points for themselves.

  -30-

EXTRA: A bizarre little twist

Could we be seeing the concept of “state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago” once again in the near future?

SMITH: Will he be back?

I’m not quite sure what to make of the fact that the political powers-that-be on the West Side have picked a replacement to finish out the rest of Smith’s term – which runs through January.

EDDIE WINTERS, WHOSE career is as a Chicago police officer who has run token campaigns for the Legislature, was picked to be the Illinois House 10^th District state representative. Not that it’s going to take up much of his time.

He’ll have to be in Springfield come November when the General Assembly reconvenes for a couple of weeks for the fall veto session. Then, he’ll have to show up in January for the last couple of days of the current legislative session.

Then he gets to go back home, and will be able to add the line to his resume that he was an Illinois state representative – albeit one that no one will remember years from now.

What is strange about this is the fact that this is the campaign where Democrats in the district are throwing their backing behind an independent candidate to try to keep Smith from winning re-election on Nov. 6 – just three months after he became the first legislator to be expelled in more than a century.

THAT CANDIDATE IS Lance Tyson (a former aide to Todd Stroger when he was Cook County Board president), and it would have seemed ever-so-logical for Tyson to be picked as the replacement legislator so as to give him the image of incumbency.

Any advantage that would allow Tyson to actually gain votes from people in a district that goes knee-jerk Democrat (and likely won’t put much thought into the idea of Smith being too tainted by the federal indictment pending against him to get their vote) would have seemed natural. And yes, the only token Republican was too weak to even stay on the ballot.

Besides, picking the desired replacement to complete a predecessor’s term is the way it often gets done in Springfield. When Constance Howard resigned her seat months before her planned retirement, it was a no-brainer that Elsie Sims would get to add the “state Rep.” and “D-Chicago” to his name five months earlier than he originally anticipated.

Could there be some serious hesitation about Tyson getting too comfortable? Or could it be clueless political operatives who aren’t too clear about what they’re doing?

WHICH WOULD MAKE me wonder if they’re really up to the task of letting the voters of the legislative district to vote a nearly-straight Democratic ticket on Nov. 6 – all except for the state representative candidate?

All in all, it makes me incredibly pleased to be of South Side origins, rather than coming from the West Side. It would be headache-inducing for me, at least, to have to cope with this voter decision personally.

  -30-

At least the Ill. House didn’t drag the Derrick Smith affair out all afternoon

It seems that at least for the next five months, Derrick Smith is just another person who lives on Chicago’s West Side. He loses the “state Rep.” before his name, and the “D-Chicago” after it.

SMITH: Gone (for now)

Because the Illinois House of Representatives went ahead and gave Smith the boot. He is expelled from the House seat to which he was appointed last year to fill a vacancy. The powers-that-be in Chicago will have to come up with a replacement for the seat through January – which is when the term will end.

BUT LET’S NOT forget that Smith won the Democratic primary back in March. He remains on the ballot, and could easily manage to get himself re-elected to his own two-year term beginning next year.

Not that I think Smith will survive through two more years in the Legislature.

Because while the legislators would not be permitted to expel him a second time for this same cause (the charges he faces in U.S. District Court that say he accepted bribes as an Illinois House member), there is the fact that those charges will eventually come to trial – or force Smith to accept a “guilty” plea.

Either way, it is likely that Smith could someday face prison time. That is what ultimately will get rid of him from the political scene.

WHICH IS WHY I am inclined to think of Friday’s special session to consider Smith’s expulsion as being nothing more than an excuse for other legislators to bloviate about the need for high morals – while doing little of substance.

The 100-6 vote that was cast for Smith’s expulsion? Smith told reporter-types at his attorney's office Friday afternoon that he now knows who his friends are.

Pure hot air! Both from Smith and the Illinois House. It makes me think that Springfield, Ill., is now competing with Chicago for its long-held “title” of “the Windy City.”

RILEY: Not a knee-jerk reaction



If anything, I think the legislator I have the most respect for these days is state Rep. Al Riley, D-Olympia Fields.

WHEN THE ILLINOIS House Select Committee on Discipline issued a report this summer recommending Smith’s expulsion, Riley was the lone member who voted against it.

He said at the time that he believes it should be up to the people of that legislative district whether Smith should continue to represent them up until the point he has a criminal conviction on his record.

Since then, he has told reporter-types that he wishes there were some lesser penalty Smith could suffer rather than expulsion.

In short, Riley didn’t feel the need to bloviate, or get all pompous and wind-bagged with his rhetoric. In fact, Riley wasn’t among the “100” or “6” on the roll call. He didn’t cast a vote of any kind. Not even a “present” or an “abstention.”

EVEN IF YOU seriously are of the mindset that Smith must go, you have to admit there is something worthy of respect in a legislator who put some thought into this issue and how he would act on it.

Of course, it helps that Riley comes from a safe south suburban district. He’s not likely to get any grief for not jumping on the “expulsion” bandwagon.

I’m also pleased that the Illinois House just acted on Friday. They didn’t feel the need to draw this out. A part of me honestly didn’t expect an action until late afternoon. Yet it was shortly after 1 p.m. that I learned what happened.

TYSON: A new legislator?



Perhaps the legislators were more interested in going through the motions of pretending to act on pension funding reform, while doing nothing.

BUT BACK TO Smith, who may well decide to regain his House seat out of spite to the political establishment that has created an alternative political party in that legislative district, and has picked former Todd Stroger chief of staff Lance Tyson to run against him.

I suspect Tyson will be the person picked to finish the remainder of Smith’s term so he can have something resembling the “aura” of an incumbent. But you just know some people will turn this into a campaign between an indicted politico and an aide to a politico some people desperately want to believe will be indicted someday.

What an ugly mess!

It makes me wonder how inept the Republican candidate in that district truly was if she was unable to stay on the ballot against this campaign field.

  -30-