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-

As GOP sees things, it's one down and one to go -- Dump Mike Madigan!

Now that Rahm Emanuel has taken himself out of the running for another term as Chicago mayor, it seems the political crackpots of the world will develop a new target.

MADIGAN: The top GOP bullseye?

As in Michael Madigan, the speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives AND chairman of the state Democratic Party.

ALL THOSE VOICES who were gearing up to go through an election cycle next year screaming and screeching about the need to get Emanuel out of political office will now shift their focus for the need to “Dump Mike Madigan!” The man who has literally been a state government official since the early 1970s and has been the leader of Democrats in Springfield since 1983.

Emanuel formally said Tuesday he wasn’t seeking re-election to a third mayoral term. That led Gov. Bruce Rauner and Republican allies (he doesn’t have many) on Wednesday to talk publicly about the need to put Madigan into retirement.

Not that such talk is totally original. Rauner and Republicans in general have campaigned for years on the theme that Mike Madigan is all that is evil about government and that the esteemed “Mr. Speaker” needs to go.

But Rauner and his allies made a point of touting their pledge that they want candidates to campaign on – the idea that no one should serve as a legislative leader for more than 10 years. Madigan has been one for nearly four decades, and in political circles is regarded as a record-holder for lengthy tenure in a state government.

EMANUEL: GOP didn't beat him at the polls

ACTUALLY, RAUNER ISN’T pushing to limit legislative leaders. He’s just looking to limit Madigan. In fact, the governor specifically wouldn’t say that the Republican legislative leader, Jim Durkin of Westchester, ought to face a limit on his service.

Which makes all of this a batch of hooey (I could use cruder terms that would be more accurate). Pure partisan politics at its worst.

Rauner can’t figure out a way to get the voters to dump Madigan on Election Day, so he’s trying to figure out ways of neutralizing Madigan while in office. Perhaps reducing his role so much that Madigan would become bored and decide its finally time for retirement.

RAUNER: Will he be the '18 political departure?

Which is a large part of the reason why I have always been suspicious of the concept of term limits – I think voters ought to be able to pick whom they want, and if they’re stupid enough to pick someone inept over and over, then perhaps they’re getting what they deserve!

THERE’S ALSO THE fact that Madigan’s true “offense” is that he’s not playing along with the politically partisan vision that Rauner wanted to impose on state government – which largely involves undermining the influence of organized labor so as to benefit the financial interests of big business.

When Rauner goes about making ridiculous comments about Madigan’s behavior being “criminal” (as he has done in the past), it makes me wonder if the people of Illinois picked a would-be tyrant for the office of governor.

As I already wrote, perhaps we deserve a bit of suffering for making such a pick, although 2018 is the chance we can try to impose a bit of logic back to our state government when we cast ballots for governor.

As for Madigan, he can be a strong-arm himself – one more than willing to play power politics to get things done. Only in Madigan’s case, there is also just enough of a soft touch that one doesn’t realize how hard he’s been knocked out of the box. There’s a reason he got that nickname “The Velvet Hammer” all those years ago.

BUT IF MADIGAN truly unsettles the public mindset, he can be beaten. All political people ultimately are beatable – even some of the biggest, most-established names of politics have experienced losses by voters.

DURKIN: Nobody looking to dump GOP leader

Particularly since in Madigan’s case, all it would take to truly defeat him is to gain the support of voters in one legislative district (as in the neighborhoods surrounding Midway Airport). Those are the people for whom Madigan is the local legislator – and I also don’t doubt they keep re-electing him because they like the idea that their guy is the overall boss who gives orders to everybody else.

Instead, we’re getting more and more evidence that Nov. 6 will be the Election Day that does result in a significant incumbent loss – as in the departure of Bruce Rauner following one term as governor.

Could it really be that Election ’18 will go in the history books as the one in which a majority of Illinoisans (particularly the two-thirds who live in metropolitan Chicago) will see a choice of Rauner and Madigan, AND decide to keep the latter?

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Call it a ‘win’ for Quinn – for now

One-time Gov. Pat Quinn, the man who’s leading the effort to tell Rahm Emanuel he can’t run for a third term as Chicago mayor, has at least one point going in his favor.

Pat Quinn not likely to 'play nice' … 

The Chicago Board of Elections Commissioners says that amongst the 87,000-plus signatures of support on the nominating petitions to put a term limits proposal on the ballot for the Nov. 6 elections in the city, there are 54,995 that are valid.

WHICH IS IN excess of the 52,533 minimum that Quinn needs to have for his measure to have a chance of being put up for consideration by voters.

Of course, there still are issues of whether there’s room for Quinn’s referendum question because of the City Council’s effort to crowd stray issues off the ballot. There’s also the issue of whether Quinn goofed when his petitions asked people to consider both term limits AND creation of a consumer advocate for taxpayers.

An issue that some people cynically say is meant to create a position that Quinn himself could hold in the future. Which would be a brilliant political move, if he can pull it off.

Eliminate Emanuel (who already has served two terms as Chicago mayor) and gain himself a post to fill – since he lost his bid for Illinois attorney general back in the primary and may not be able to win election to a more-conventional political post.

… as he challenges Rahm Emanuel's political future

THE BOTTOM LINE amongst all this is that there’s a long way to go before we know if the mayoral election cycle of 2019 will consist of Emanuel and a dozen-or-so people who can only fantasize about replacing him; or will it be just the political dreamers on the ballot next year.

Because even if the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners thinks in favor of the Mighty Quinn, this is a case bound to wind up with lawsuits in the courts and all of the rulings appealed all the way to the very top.

It will be the Illinois Supreme Court that ultimately decides whether or not Quinn’s hard-ball political maneuvering actually bears some line of logic within the law.

What other issues are of note this coming week in this wonderous land along the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan?

ORDER IN THE COURT? I’LL TAKE A HAM-ON-RYE:  Anybody who seriously watches our legal system knows that the people who work in at have touches of “control freak” within them.

VAN DYKE: Was his speaking out contemptable

Take the case of Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago cop facing criminal charges for the shooting death of a teenager. He’s supposed to go on trial this week, but the legal proceedings will step up with a special hearing on Saturday – with the great legal issue of whether Van Dyke ought to be held in jail while the trial takes place.

Van Dyke gave interviews to the Chicago Tribune and to WFLD-TV, trying to portray the public perception of himself as something other than a thug. That has the special prosecutor brought in to handle the case upset – and he wants Judge Vincent Gaughan to find the cop in contempt.

Considering that Gaughan has gone to extremes to control what people have been able to say publicly about this case, he may well decide in favor as part of his efforts to maintain order. Anyway, it means the activity around the Criminal Courts building will be more active compared to what usually would take place in the days of a Labor Day holiday weekend,

JAZZ ‘FANS’:  It will be an intriguing weekend for fans of jazz music. The city’s annual Jazz Festival will take place through Sunday, with famed composer Ramsey Lewis scheduled to give on Saturday what some are billing as his final Chicago concert ever. 

Jazz 'fans likely to celebrate this weekend

Although I hear that phrase and can’t help but wonder if Lewis, who has produced more than 80 albums during his lengthy career, has a touch of the Rolling Stones in him. How many times have we heard of that crew making their “last performance ever” – or last until they change their mind and decide to perform yet again.

One other thought. Should the gubernatorial campaign of J.B. Pritzker consider the Jazz Fest, and all other events held at the Pritzker Pavilion in Millennium Park, to be free advertising?

  -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-

EXTRA: Note to GOP; Quit yer whinnin' and find a challenger

The latest whiny rant that makes the Illinois Republican Party seem like a six-year-old who just dropped his ice cream cone and Mommy won’t buy him another came out Wednesday, and this time Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White is the target,

WHITE: Two decades, and counting, in current post

The one-time Party of Lincoln wants us to be all offended that White will not say for sure if he’s running for re-election in 2018. He has hinted in the past he’d like to retire (he’s already 82 and has held the post since 1999), but seems to be one of those political people who just can’t see himself doing anything but holding office.

OF COURSE, FOR Republicans the real issue is that if White does run again, it is very likely they won’t be able to come up with a credible challenger. That would mean yet another high-profile political post they would likely lose come the 2018 election cycle.

If White does retire, maybe some GOPer has a chance to slip into office and prop up the potential future political opportunities for Gov. Bruce Rauner. Of course, that’s presuming voters aren’t so fed up with the Illinois political status quo of ‘no budget’ that they don’t just dump him too.

Republicans are trying to make it an issue that White ran for re-election back in 2014 even though he previously had hinted at retirement, and has since made statements in 2015 and 2016 that he didn’t want a sixth term as secretary of state.

We, the voters of Illinois, didn’t seem to get too offended just over two years ago. Who knows how we’ll react. Or do you really think a gaudy, cluttered license plate design is really the kind of issue that will rile up voters?

RAUNER: He'd like political allies

ALTHOUGH IF YOU really want to get technical, you’d think the Illinois GOP would be the last entity to try to make an issue out of term-limit pledges.

For they’re the ones who include amongst their ranks Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. He’s a congressman from the part of Illinois that is suburban St. Louis, and when he originally ran for office back in 1996 he made a firm pledge that – if elected – he would not serve more than six, two-year terms in office.

Which means we should be coming up on the 10-year anniversary of Shimkus’ departure from the Washington scene. Somehow, Shimkus keeps concluding that his presence in the District of Columbia is still needed. As far as I know, he’s going to face about as credible of opposition on Election Day ’18 for his congressional seat as White will for secretary of state.

SHIMKUS: Supposed to leave 10 yrs ago

It is kind of odd in White’s case, because I remember when he first got elected to his present post in 1998, the idea was that White was a long-time state legislator and Cook County recorder who would serve a term or two in Springfield before taking political “retirement.”

JESSE, HOWEVER, SEEMS to be a political survivor. One whose presence causes the Republican Party to engage in such lame nonsense as what they’re now spewing.

And yes, this latest Republican statement tells us that White is sticking around because Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, wants him too. It all comes back to Madigan, in the minds of the Illinois GOP.

I guess the idea of coming up with more credible candidates who can actually beat the opposition is an idea that goes beyond their intellect; or perhaps even the power of all the millions of his own money that Rauner has committed to spending in next year’s election cycle.

All I know is that it is likely Rauner will be a little bit poorer come early 2019 – and probably just as lonely politically as he is currently.

  -30-

Quinn continues political crusades; this time for mayoral term limits

And some people wonder just why Democrats didn’t get all sad and mushy about the thought of Pat Quinn losing out as governor back in 2014 – even though what it has wrought in its replacement has fulfilled some of their worst nightmares.

QUINN: Crusader won't wither away

We got to see why yet again this weekend, when Quinn reared his head to take on what must be considered yet another of his causes – pet issues he will be prepared to beat to death regardless of who gets offended.

FOR QUINN IS now an activist-type who says his latest cause is term limits for the Chicago mayoral post. He wants to set it at two terms of four years each.

Which, if it were to become reality, would accomplish what voters weren’t able to do during the most recent municipal election cycle. Rahm Emanuel would be through.

He’d be able to finish out his current term. But he wouldn’t be able to try for term three come 2019.

Of course, there are those who believe that Emanuel has been bogged down with so much baggage that there’s no way he could win a third-term anyway. He has to settle for this being his final term in office.

EXCEPT, …

The reality is that Democrats might not be able to come up with a credible challenger in 2019. They certainly weren’t able to do so the last time around. So the efforts to “Dump Rahm” may wind up focusing on forcing Emanuel off the ballot altogether.

Regardless, such an effort is not something that is going to put Quinn’s name on anyone’s guest list in coming months. Then again, Quinn is the guy who helped to create the Citizens Utility Board and also slashed down the size of the General Assembly by one-third.

If anything, his term-and-a-half as Illinois governor is probably the least significant part of his political career. His legacy will be as the guy who constantly nagged political people and pointed out their flaws and tried to shame them into doing the right thing.

WHICH DOESN’T REALLY work because many political people just don’t have any sense of shame to begin with.

Which is why they were more than willing to dump all over the Quinn gubernatorial request to extend the tax hikes he had imposed past a deadline so as to ensure there would be enough funding to cover government expenses.

You can say the Legislature, with its failure, created the current state financial mess – with Gov. Bruce Rauner’s politically partisan hard-headedness intensifying the degree to which damage has been done.

Yet I don’t think anybody seriously is wishing for a return of Pat Quinn to the governor’s mansion. The Republicans are glad to have someone bearing their own political label in place.

AND AS FOR the Democrats, many are probably glad to see that the self-styled government reformer who often was willing to turn his wrath on themselves is gone from the political scene.

Heck, there is irony in the fact that Quinn felt compelled to use a Sunday afternoon press conference to announce his effort to keep Emanuel from gaining any additional power through the benefits of incumbency.

It was his tactic from the days of old when he was the outsider banging on the doors of government desperately trying to get a response. A Sunday stunt means he gets on the Sunday television newscasts, largely because there’s little to nothing else happening that can be covered. Although it should be noted that last Sunday was the exception.

Which may wind up hurting chances of Quinn gaining attention for his latest term limits crusade – what with people potentially being more concerned with mass shootings and slaughter. Although I wouldn’t put it past Quinn to find a way to try to address that issue too on a future Sunday morning.

  -30-

Is Pat Quinn destined to become the “Jimmy Carter” of Illinois governors?

Admittedly, the hard-core conservative ideologues refuse to accept the premise that Jimmy Carter’s post-presidential public service was of great significance. Yet the bulk of us do see that, and the label of “best retired president” is often used to describe him.

QUINN: Post-gov success?

Why do I wonder if former Gov. Pat Quinn has the potential to achieve a similar status within the Illinois political world?

THE SPECULATION WAS provoked last week when Quinn made some public appearances, including one at the University of Illinois’ Urbana campus – where amongst other things he said he has no intention of running for office again.

But he does want to continue to work on “consumer issues.”

There are those who are convinced that of course Quinn will run again. Whether it be another attempt to become governor come the 2018 election cycle, or perhaps a bid for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois – should Richard Durbin decide to step down (itself not likely).

I have to admit that anything is possible. The fact is that between serving a term as Illinois comptroller and becoming governor upon the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich, there was a 14-year period in which Quinn was a perennial candidate.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND U.S. Senate, on several occasions. He never had money to run a serious campaign, and certainly never had the backing of the political party (which would have wished he would just wither away into insignificance).

But Quinn always felt his populist views gave him something to say to the public; even if they always pissed off the politicos to the point where I’m sure many older Democrats were pleased to see him lose his re-election bid last year as payback for all the times he trashed their viewpoints on various issues throughout the years.

RAUNER: Could Quinn top him, long-term?

So the fact that he’s now in his early 60s without a significant campaign fund to fall back on and many Democrats pleased that Quinn is now part of the past isn’t going be enough to discourage him if he does get the whim to run for office in the future.

Some are already joking about whether Quinn can fall farther down the political reputation path than has Roland Burris – who went from being a credible gubernatorial candidate in 1994 to being the guy whose interim appointment to the U.S. Senate became the butt of Saturday Night Live sketches.

BUT WHAT IF Quinn really follows the consumer advocate route? Literally going back to his roots. If he had never become governor (winning a term in his own right back in 2010), he still would be remembered within political circles as the guy who created the Citizens Utility Board.

Quinn reduced this legislative chamber by one-third some 33 years ago

And also the guy who led the effort that resulted in the early 1980s reduction of the General Assembly from 236 to 177 members – which may have eliminated the concept of Chicago Republicans and central Illinois Democrats from the Legislature, but also gave us far fewer blowhards holding elective office (always a plus).

Could it be that Quinn winds up creating a new consumer group that winds up taking the lead of provoking change within our political people? At the very least, it would mean many more Sundays of Quinn press conferences to garner attention on the weekend television newscasts (and those Monday morning newspapers).

Quinn reverting to that gadfly role, being the pest who constantly points out the flaws of our politicos. It could be that the best thing Quinn does for Illinois is revert back to his natural role.

BECAUSE WE’RE FAR from a perfect place in Illinois – although anybody who seriously thinks Indiana, Wisconsin or any surrounding state is significantly better than ours is nothing but delusional.

CARTER: A Quinn role-model?

I found it interesting that Quinn advocated the need for term limits – an issue that Gov. Bruce Rauner also is pushing. Although I get the sense that Rauner’s efforts are meant to build a Legislature of lackeys who would follow his every whim.

Could Quinn become the guy who provides a legitimate measure to reduce the likelihood of individuals gaining too much political influence solely to seniority?

Now I don’t see Quinn winning anything the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for peace that Carter’s post-presidential service garnered. Although it could be a key to people someday seeing what a mistake their 2014 gubernatorial vote (or lack thereof) truly was!

  -30-

Putting a limit on term limit talk

By now, anybody who cares knows that we're not going to have a chance to express our view on the concept of term limits for state government officials on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general elections.


Both the circuit and appellate courts had rejected the idea, and the Illinois Supreme Court on Friday decided not to even hear the concept. Which resulted in the Illinois State Board of Elections signing off on the final ballots for the upcoming Election Day.


THERE WON'T BE any referendum question about whether state officials should be limited to two terms in office. There will be enough other referendum questions to occupy voters' attention.


Yet I can't help but be a bit appalled at the attitude of Republican candidate Bruce Rauner, whose finances have been behind much of the effort to bring the issue up.


He wants to stir up the resentment of those voters who have been unable to overturn Democratic Party candidates at the ballot box, so now they want to make them ineligible to run again in future elections.


Any sense that this term limits measure is a "good government" issue is a batch of nonsense. It is meant to encourage more people of a certain ideological bent to show up at the polling place.


I SUSPECT THAT the people who are now screeching and screaming for term limits would eagerly call for their abolishment the moment they got political officials of their ideological preference into office.


It isn't sincere. It has nothing to do with reform or good, honest government.


So when Rauner on Friday issued a statement denouncing the state Supreme Court and saying he expects the voters to back his idea by voting for his allies in November, I'd say it is the only time he has been honest about this issue.


He wants to use this idea in ways that get him more electoral support. Perhaps he would have found a way to let this issue slip by the wayside once the election is over -- if he is able to win.


"A PRO-TERM LIMITS General Assembly pushed by a pro-term limits governor can put this critical reform in place any day they want," Rauner said. "Illinoisans should have that in mind when they vote this November."


Except that political people of all ideological persuasions are going to have their self-interests in mind. No one is going to come forth and implement this idea voluntarily. And yes, the Supreme Court previously had ruled that term limits changes the rules for electing legislators so significantly (by limiting whom we can pick) that it goes too far and violates the state's constitution.


Rauner may be right on one point. This may influence my vote, although in a way he won't like.


All his cheap talk and posturing on this issue is such a turn-off that I may wind up making a point of voting against him just because of this.


IT IS THE reason why I have written several commentaries this spring and summer as to why this term limits measure is a bad idea that probably sound like they're written by the most intense of 'machine' hacks.


I'll also admit to being semi-impressed by the fact that Gov. Pat Quinn -- who once himself backed an effort to impose term limits -- has said this would be his last term in office IF he wins on Nov. 4.


It would mean about nine years in office -- two terms of his own and the part of Rod Blagojevich's term that he completed. By any stretch of the imagination, that is enough time for most officials to complete what they intend to do.


Now if Quinn experiences a change of heart some time in late 2017 and decides to run for yet another term, then perhaps we can hold it against him then. Until then, ...


  -30-

Ranking term limits with debates and sombreros as mark of a loser

I have some very unofficial rules I have developed for myself during my time as a reporter-type person in determining the legitimacy of political candidates.

RAUNER: Money, and term limits?

The first candidate who complains that his opponent won’t debate him (or her) is a loser (and a whiner).

THE FIRST CANDIDATE who puts on a sombrero at a political rally, thinking it will get him the Latino vote, is un tonto – and a loser.

And most importantly, the first candidate to come out and try to make an issue of term limits is probably someone so insecure that the only way they think they can win is to create a situation where the opponent can’t even run!

The reason I bring this issue up is because of the degree to which Republican gubernatorial nominee Bruce Rauner is trying to use the “term limits” issue to his advantage. A committee he's involved with will file petitions Wednesday to try to get a state Constitution amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Pat Quinn is a long-time political hack who shouldn’t even be allowed to run, is what Rauner would have us think.

HECK, RAUNER BACKERS are going so far as to remind us how Quinn himself once led an effort to try to impose term limits for state government officials. Meaning Quinn is now a hypocrite.

He should hang his head in shame and slink off into the political sunset. Unless you’re one of those ideologues who believes that any government official who doesn’t pursue a socially-conservative agenda is a criminal who ought to serve time in prison!

QUINN: '14 his last election?

Yes, I’m mocking the kind of people who get all worked up over term limits because they’re more interested in creating fantasy situations for government – rather than trying to present themselves as the best possible candidate who we, the people, ought to pick instead of some long-time incumbent.

Maybe it’s because I really do believe that the real “term limit” is Election Day, when we can dump anybody we really can’t stand. It does happen! Incumbents do lose!

MADIGAN: Is '18 her 'turn?'

INSTEAD OF TELLING us why we should want to vote for him (other than his primary rhetoric about how he’d be the guy who would dump all over organized labor), we’re getting cheap talk about how Quinn shouldn’t be able to run.

Quinn took this issue seriously enough that he came out and said this week he won’t be running again after this election cycle.

SHIMKUS: Broken promise?

For if he wins, it would be his second four-year term as governor, along with the couple of years of Rod Blagojevich’s last term that he was unable to complete.

Actually, that probably is enough time for any one person. It would be the way for Quinn -- the man whom we also remember for his token loser campaigns for U.S. Senate and Illinois lieutenant governor (in '98) to go out on top. Here’s hoping that if the Mighty Quinn prevails on Nov. 4, he keeps his word.

BECAUSE NOT ALL political people do.

Take Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. He’s a member of Congress from near St. Louis whose district includes much of Southern Illinois. He first got elected to Congress in 1996, and he made a promise back then that he wouldn’t serve more than 12 years.

Let the voters decide?!?

By 2008, that promise didn’t seem to matter as much. He kept running. Heck, he’s still a member of Illinois’ congressional delegation.

Nobody in that district seems to hold it against him that he didn’t keep his word about term limits. I don’t even really get worked up about it.

IT JUST REINFORCES my viewpoint that when a candidate comes out and rants and rages in favor of limiting how long people can hold public office, what they most likely mean is that they want limits for people of the other political party who might challenge them someday.

Most certainly not for themselves!

  -30-