ShareThisNov. 2 ballot on amendment to the IL Constitution
November 2, 2010 is a day of reckoning for Illinois voters. Will they vote “YES” in favor of the proposed Constitutional amendment giving voters the power to recall their governor or vote “NO” to reject it?
In weighing their decision, voters may well remember how and why the proposed amendment started. At the height of the Blagojevich “pay for play” scandal, some lawmakers thought it was only right to give the people the means to get a corrupt governor out of office instead of enduring him or her for his entire term.
Before the Blagojevich corruption trial, three former Illinois governors have been jailed, namely:
Otto Kerner, a Democrat who served as governor from 1961 to 1968, was convicted of bribery, tax evasion and other counts and was sentenced to three years in prison. He served only less than one year of his sentence.
Another Democrat, Dan Walker, who became governor from 1973 to 1977, was sentenced to seven (7) years after pleading guilty to bank fraud, misapplication of funds and perjury in 1987. He served only 1 ½ years of his jail term.
In 2006, George Ryan, a Republican who served as governor from 1999 to 2003, was convicted of corruption for steering state contracts and leases to political insiders and helping cover up bribes paid in exchange for truck drivers’ licenses first, while he was secretary of state and then, as governor. Ryan was so unpopular that Ex Gov. Jim Thompson’s personal campaign for his pardon before Bush left office was unsuccessful.
The recall amendment proposed by Rep. Jack Franks and Sen. Dan Cronin is what another supporter, Gov. Pat Quinn, said “the ultimate way to get ethics in Illinois.” Chicago Tribune endorsed the recall amendment as a “first step to mount pressure on members of the General Assembly to pass a broader measure expanding recall provisions to state legislators, local elected officials, and judges in the 2011 session.”
The idea is to give Illinois citizens the power to remove a governor when misconduct proves him undeserving of his title. It is meant to send a warning to politicians seeking this position that people are no longer hostage to their term of office. With a minimum of 30 signatures (20 from the House of Representatives and 10 from the Senate and not more than 50% from the same political party), the citizens can start the recall process just six months after the governor has assumed office.
Despite the spoken benefits of a recall amendment, the projected cost of $101 million for a special election and the danger of its abuse, misuse and manipulations by politicians to advance their own political agenda may weigh more heavily on the minds of the voters. Others also call the amendment a sham as the requirements on placing the recall amendment on the ballot and the 55,000 signatures to be collected from voters in 150 days are almost impossible to achieve.
A bleak scenario for advocates of NO to the governor recall amendment has, however, been pointed out by a very concerned citizen from Oak Park, IL, Gary Barnes. He wrote in part to a local publication, “The Illinois Constitution is so naïve that this “recall” could go into effect with a 3/5 “Yes” vote statewide, with no numerical threshold. If all but 30 voters ignore that line, 18 determined “yes” voters is all it would take. If only three voters vote on that line two “yes” voters could it statewide. Then we could have a governor recall election, followed by a new governor election, every year, if initiated by enough people who never understood Matthew 7:1, and there are plenty around.”
Barnes warns people “who don’t think elections make any difference – and therefore don’t want tax dollars spent on more elections” to be vigilant and vote “NO” on November 2.
Given the country’s history of governor recalls, however, only 2 of the 18 states that adopted it had actually used it: North Dakota, when it recalled Lynn Frazier in 1921 and California, on Gray Davis in 2003. It took 13 years from the time Oregon adopted the first recall option in 1908 and another 82 years after, to actually use this option. This fact debunks the theory that it could be subject to abuse. The restrictions placed on its use are much too high to allow abuse.
Thus, it still makes sense to vote YES to the recall amendment. Isn’t it better to have the option available to you for when Illinois gets another very bad governor?