Is there really room on ballot for mayoral term limits referendum?

I can’t help but wondering who with the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners is going to wind up being punished politically for giving aid and comfort to the notion that a referendum question about term limits for the mayor may have some legal merit.

Somebody gave thought to what was right; how dare they!

That question, along with one whether a position of Chicago city consumer advocate ought to be created, are the latest initiatives by Pat Quinn – the former governor who is trying to remain politically active as a man inclined to throw a wrench into the political works.

THUS FAR, THE courts have ruled in ways that say the measures are not valid – saying there already are too many referendum questions on the ballot for Nov. 6 AND that Quinn screwed up in the way he filed the referendum questions.

But as the Chicago Sun-Times reported on Sunday, elections board officials went ahead and had ballots printed up WITH the referendum questions on them. Also, voting machines used in polling places in Chicago will include the issues so people can cast their “yes” or “no” votes.

Officials say they went ahead and did so because they wondered if an appeals court of some form will come up with a ruling making the referendum questions legitimate.

If elections board officials had not shown the initiative to put the issues on the ballot, it would be possible for a court to say they were legitimate questions that could not be on the ballot because there wasn’t enough time to reconfigure everything to include them.

WHICH IS EXACTLY the kind of political chaos that people opposed to including the referendum questions on the ballot would like to see happen.

Just like the intent of the Chicago City Council to come up with three other referendum questions for consideration wasn’t so much because anybody in city government cares about the use of plastic straws in restaurants (an environmental threat), but so as to screw up the intent of anyone who’d want to use a referendum question to measure public support for a concept.

Such as whether or not people should be limited to two terms (of four years apiece) in the office of Chicago mayor.

Emanuel's choice makes term limits issue a moot point, … 

Nobody in a position of political authority really wants anybody messing around with that issue. Out of fear that voters might give a knee-jerk response and say “yes” to the idea. Which would then put political people in a real predicament.

SO IF YOU are of the perspective of the “goo goo” (the good government activist who has some sort of high-minded noble concept of what government ought to be all about), you are probably very pleased with the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

Because somebody there thought it important enough for votes to be recorded so as to put the issue on the record, even if nothing is done with the vote tallies – an attitude the political hacks of the world most definitely want nothing to do with.

As for the “hacks,” I suspect their priority now will be to ensure that those votes are NEVER counted, or disclosed in any way.

Which if it turns out that the courts continue to say the referendum questions are invalid, is exactly what will happen.

THERE WILL BE no reason to count the votes that people cast on these particular referendum questions. In fact, they will become the ultimate non-issue of the Nov. 6 election cycle.

… but Quinn likely to pursue regardless

In fact, I’m sure there will be some activist types who will start making demands that those votes be counted regardless, and that the vote tallies be publicly disclosed. Something I’m sure the “hacks” will consider to be an act of political heresy

How dare you tell people that maybe a majority of people who bothered to cast ballots would want to limit the stint one can serve as mayor – similar to how we limit the time of anyone as U.S. president! As though the will of the public serves any point in an election.

What next? We’ll probably start hearing from people who say we’ve had too many “Daleys” serve as Chicago mayor. Sorry Bill!

  -30-

86,481 is well short of 104,000

It’s the standard rule of thumb for political candidates wishing to get themselves on the Election Day ballot – you need double the number of required signatures of support required by law in order to have a serious chance.

QUINN: Adding mayoral term limits to legacy?

In fact, the campaigns that get on the ballot with ease usually have far in excess of the minimum number of support signatures; but pick out the ‘cleanest’ petitions so as to reduce the number of signatures that successfully get challenged.

SO WHEN I learned that the nominating petitions for former Gov. Pat Quinn’s Chicago mayoral term limit referendum question were filed this week with the city Clerk’s office, I checked to see how many signatures the Mighty Quinn had on his petitions.

86,481, to be exact.

Which is more than the 52,519 valid signatures Quinn needs to have in order to have a chance of getting the term limits question on the Nov. 6 election ballots in Chicago.

I say have a chance because this issue is going to wind up being decided by a judge, or more likely by the judges of the Illinois Supreme Court.

FOR THE CITY Council already has come up with three referendum questions of its own for the Nov. 6 ballots (remember the plastic straws question?), and the argument will be made that state law limits up to three referendum questions per election cycle.

They’ll claim in all earnestness that there just isn’t any room for Quinn’s term limits question.

Even though the council came up with their own referendum questions for the explicit purpose of squeezing out any other issues that city officials might not want contemplated. Such as term limits, which if it were to be on the ballot and actually pass would prohibit Mayor Rahm Emanuel from seeking re-election come the 2019 election cycle.

EMANUEL: Won't let Quinn stand in his way of re-election

Of course, that IS Quinn’s intent in pursuing this issue. He’s amongst the people who want Anybody But Rahm as mayor, and he figures this might be the only way to actually beat him on Election Day. Just as Republican mayoral dreamer William Kelly is now spewing rhetoric saying there will be "hell to pay" from voters next year if Emanuel succeeds in kicking the term limits measure off of this year's ballot.

SO WHAT HAPPENS now?

As I stated before, the usual goal is to get double the number of signatures required for success. Which means Quinn needed to file some 104,000 signatures to have a chance that 52,519 of them would be ruled valid.

At 86,481, I’m sure Quinn will claim he has 34,000 extra signatures. But it can be argued he’s actually 18,000 signatures short.

From my own experience of covering elections boards (not just in Chicago, but everywhere) throughout the years, I know how anal-retentive election officials get when it comes to picking their way through a nominating petition – going line by line looking for any signature that is suspect.

THE ADDRESS OF the registered voter given on the petition doesn’t match up with the address on file with city Elections officials. Perhaps the name doesn’t match up, or the person isn’t registered to vote. Which makes their signature of support worthless!

Then, we’ll also get the minions who, on the day they were presented a nominating petition and given a chance to sign, decided to clown around. Yes, “Mickey Mouse” and “Bart Simpson,” along with numerous other nonsense signatures such as “I.P. Daley” (as though he’s the long-ignored distant relation of the former mayors), get put on petitions.

Conniving types of "da Hall" will try to concoct a means to disqualify 35,000 signatures

There also will be the election judges who take overly-strict interpretations to knock signatures off so as to get the total under 52,519 – even if Quinn and his backers eventually get some of those restored, it will take up time and effort in the courts to do so. Which takes time away from them to pursue the serious issues they are interested in.

Which means that no matter what rhetoric Quinn spewed this week about his efforts, he’s a long-shot to succeed – even though I’m sure he wants to think this referendum will rank up with the Cutback Amendment of the early 1980s that reduced the size of the Illinois House of Representatives by one-third.

  -30-

Aldermen save Rahm by crowding out mayor term limit measure from ballot

I think I’d be more offended at the cheap, dirty trick tactic meant to protect Mayor Rahm Emanuel off the ballot in the 2019 mayoral election if it weren’t for the fact that the people who desperately want Anybody But Rahm as mayor are using their own dirty trick tactics to try to remove him from office.

EMANUEL: Saved! For now

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.

QUINN: Will continue to fight

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?

The land of the political dirty trick, from all sides

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-

EXTRA: Would anyone have dared try to ‘term limit’ a Daley out of office?

Is it really time for Rahm to leave City Hall?

It seems to be the newest tactic amongst those people who are desperate to have Anybody But Rahm to be mayor of Chicago – a term limits proposal that would knock Rahm Emanuel off the ballot altogether for the 2019 election cycle.

It seems such an effort has been under way for the past couple of years, to limit to two, four-year terms, the amount of time anyone can hold the post of Chicago mayor.

Pat Quinn thinks so!

AND YES, THE initiative is being led by former Gov. Pat Quinn – the man who previously in political life led the drive to slash the Illinois House of Representatives from 177 members to 118. On the logic that we really didn’t need so many people running around the Statehouse grounds calling themselves legislators.

So yes, Quinn is just the type who likes to do radical things that shake up the way we perceive our local government.

The “cutback” amendment seriously altered the way our state Legislature operated – and some are convinced not for the better (it did reduce the number of Chicago Republicans and rural Democrats who serve in office).

So I’m sure Quinn isn’t going to be swayed by any arguments about letting the people pick whom they want for office – rather than telling them certain people can no longer hold office.

How would Daley have reacted, ...

THE FACT THAT Richard J. Daley served into a sixth four-year term in office (it took the Grim Reaper to remove him from government) and his son wound up holding the post for just over 22 years (deciding to retire finally instead of seeking a seventh term in office) is something I’m sure Chicagoans think of as a plus.

While I know there are some who think both of those men served at City Hall far too long (and would probably dread it when the next generation of the Daley family produces a mayoral candidate), I’m also sure there are others who will be quick to dismiss those people as malcontents.

And also most likely claim that Quinn is trying to revive his political aspirations by banding together the malcontents into a sizable voter bloc.

... or his son, to anybody daring to suggest term limits

After all, if the people really were anxious to have Quinn back in office, they never would have dumped him as governor in 2014 or might have actually given him the Democratic nomination to run for Illinois attorney general come the Nov. general election.

PERSONALLY, I’M ALL for letting voters decide for themselves who they want to have in office. If the outcry against Emanuel getting a third term as mayor is really so strong, then he will fail to win in the 2019 election cycle.

If it turns out that the assortment of egomaniacal would-be politicos talking about running against Rahm next year has a legitimate mayoral contender, then that person will prevail against Emanuel in a real election.

Knocking out Emanuel by term-limiting him would seem to give us a new mayor from amongst the mediocrities that thus far have lined up to take on Emanuel.

It seems like people think the only way Emanuel can be beaten is to not have him run. Which I don’t consider a plus for the Chicago electorate.

ALTHOUGH I ALSO have to admit to being skeptical anything will become of the term limits proposal. It will take 52,000 valid signatures of support to put such a referendum on the Nov. 6 ballot – where if it passes it would then take effect for the 2019 election cycle.

Repeal term limits if Daley-Thompson ever runs for mayor?

Quinn admits he figures he’s going to need about 100,000 signatures of support to ensure the idea can successfully fight off the inevitable legal challenges that the critics will pursue.

But Quinn, according to assorted published reports, only has about 50,000 signatures, which took him two years to compile. Can he really get 50,000 more within the next couple of months – the deadline for the Nov. 6 elections?

Or would Quinn have a better chance of making himself relevant in the mayoral cycle by trying to run himself for the post against Emanuel and the others – including Paul Vallas, the man who tried to resurrect his own political aspirations by being Quinn’s running mate back in ’14?

  -30-