LSC Battle in Chicago

James Meeks is at it again. Last year, he called Illinois a racist state and proposed that more education decisions be made by the state government.

I want the whole nation to look at Illinois," said a defiant Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church and a state senator. "I want the whole nation to ask, 'Why is Illinois racist?' I want them to ask, 'Why is Illinois treating low-income students like that?' "

Now, Meeks is proposing that local school councils be abolished and move their power to the City's government.

Firebrand James Meeks is proposing to eliminate LSCs, according to information being sent around by LSC advocates.

Local School Councils are the parent/teacher volunteer groups formed to oversee each school. Here's how one LSC member described their experience.

For starters, last spring, when our principal's contract was up for renewal, the teachers and parents who serve with me on our LSC spent scores of hours to ensure our principal got a fair shake. As just one small part of that process, we prepared hundreds of anonymous surveys and questionnaires, which we mailed to parents and teachers. We had a remarkably high return rate on those materials. We then spent many nights side by side in meeting rooms at public libraries compiling and discussing the survey results and detailed narrative answers. From time to time we disagreed with each other, but we always did so without being disagreeable. In sum, our LSC members can tell you far more about what's going on inside our school than anyone down at 125 S. Clark can.

The pattern with Meeks is forming. He appears to favor moving power as far away from the classroom as possible. Last year, he wanted to move power away from individual school districts and into the state's government. Now, he wants to abolish LSC's in favor of power in the city.

That's the opposite of the philosophy I take toward education. I believe the power should be as close to the classroom as possible. The bill, SB3063, which needs to get through the rules committee and thus it's entirely dependent on the approval of Michael Madigan.

Cohen Makes It Official

Scott Lee Cohen made it official and formally filed paperwork withdrawing his name from running as a Democrat for Lt. Governor of the state of Illinois.

Embattled Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor Scott Lee Cohen made it official Friday evening and submitted his formal letter to withdraw his candidacy.

Steve Brown, spokesman for House Speaker -- and state Democratic Party Chairman -- Michael Madigan, said the letter was received by the state party and will be submitted to the State Board of Elections on Tuesday.

The leadership of the state's Democratic party lead by such names as Michael Madigan and Pat Quinn will meet sometime after March 5th,when the results are certified, to pick a replacement.
There are plenty of potential candidates to replace Cohen.

ACORN and the Black Panthers: Coming to an Illinois Polling Place Near you?

John Bambenek, who's leading the charge for the Putback Amendment here in Illinois, penned this piece.

When ACORN was caught stacking voter rolls with fake names leading up to the 2008 election, we stood up and took notice. It may be that an aberration is a part of a plan to undermine our system of elections. On Election Day, Black Panthers were inside a Pennsylvania polling station intimidating voters. They ultimately got off and the prosecutor who went after them was assigned. Still, maybe it is simply coincidence.

What if a high-profile state attorney general argued that voters have no right to vote in secret? I’m not talking about Card Check. I’m talking about the voting all of us do in every election.

Consider the following words argued in Champaign County Court in Illinois by the Illinois Attorney General’s office headed by Lisa Madigan:

While plaintiff attempts to suggest to the Court that there is a fundamental right to a secret ballot, no such right exists.

(bottom of Page 11 of pleading)

The Attorney General’s office argues that the United States Constitution, nor any fundamental right, protect a voter from being able to vote in secret. In effect, this means that it is only out of mere courtesy that the government doesn’t simply sit in the voting booth with you making sure you are making a fully informed decision. The words need no parsing, read them for your self.

Lisa Madigan is no outsider. She is the daughter of the immensely politically powerful House Speaker, Michael Madigan. Michael Madigan is also chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois. When Blagojevich became a liability (after he was arrested), Michael Madigan saw him run out of town on a rail. The Madigans are the political power family of Illinois. If they are pushing for something, you take it seriously. They’re pushing to take away your right to a secret ballot in Illinois.

The matter at hand was created by a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation passed in 2007. The bill, SB 662, clocked in at almost 200 pages. A few clauses require error checking of a ballot. If you didn’t vote in all the races on a ballot, the voting machine will reject your ballot. There are many legitimate reasons to under vote, first and foremost, because it’s your ballot and you should be able to vote however you darn well please.

The law requires the machine to reject the ballot and an election judge to come down and talk to you. At first, they’ll ask you to vote in all the races or to destroy the ballot and go home. At the election judge’s ultimate discretion, they can override the machine and process the vote anyway. But if you don’t vote in a way the establishment likes, you have an election judge standing over you (and your ballot) talking to you about it. Seems minor, but the Attorney General isn’t saying this interaction violates the secret ballot. The Attorney General argues you have no right to a secret ballot in the first place.

This issue came to light because a reform-minded Republican candidate for Governor in Illinois stood up to the Chicago-machine Democrats, Adam Andrzejewski. One of his Republican competitors voted FOR this legislation, Senator Dillard. Another was too busy to vote, Senator Brady. Yet another was working for a city government last year who put armed mercenaries in a polling station themselves.

Technically, the regulations (not the law) require the election judge to not look at a voter’s ballot. Of course, there are no real penalties if they do. With Chicago’s storied history of voter fraud, that regulation is a bit like asking a teenage boy to go to a strip club but not look at any of the girls.

The one things separating the United States from the many banana republics of the world that do have a voting rightis that our elections have secret ballots free of voter intimidation. This statement by the Illinois Attorney General taken to its conclusion would allow ACORN workers helpvoters inside the voting booth to make sure they didn’t make mistakes. Or worse, Black Panthers could handle poll security.

It is unfathomable that in a modern society, an attorney general in the United States could argue with a straight face that a secret ballot is not a fundamental right. What’s shocking is that the Illinois Republican Party, save one reform candidate (Adam Andrzejewski) is quiet on the issue.

The integrity of our elections is paramount and must be free and fair. Our very Republic is at stake.

Two Patronage Workers Fired in Cook County

Here's the story from the Sun Times.

Cook County Board President Todd Stroger was sending a message to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan when he recently fired two of Madigan's top political operatives from their high-paying county jobs, county sources said.

Madigan, like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, has not made an endorsement in the county president race and isn't expected to do so, the speaker's spokesman, Steve Brown, said.

But some of Madigan's Southwest Side foot soldiers have circulated nominating petitions and are actively backing Stroger's chief rivals for the Democratic nomination - Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District boss Terrence O'Brien, county insiders said.

Last week when I interviewed Tom Tresser, I didn't mention this but I should have. These two folks were making a total of $230,000 yearly. We, as the tax payers, not only pay for their salaries but their pensions. Thousands of patronage workers' salaries are paid by the County but so are their pensions once they retire.

The story in the Sun Times today is of patronage work used as bare knuckles politics. These two are supporters of Michael Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House. They were fired, presumably, because Madigan has yet to support Stroger. The real story is the number of patronage workers the County has. These folks are hired based on clout and connections and not based on qualifications.

The Putback Amendment

Everyone knows that things in Springfield, Illinois are broken. Everyone knows that the government of the State of Illinois is inefficient and corrupt. That's all true, however, to truly understand the problems in Springfield, we must look at the structure of the legislature.

By its design, the legislature in Springfield consolidates all power in the hands of four people: Tom Cross, Christine Radogno, Mike Madigan and John Cullerton. Those are the Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Power is consolidated through the process by which bills see the light of day. In the Illinois legislature, there's only one way for a bill to be heard and debated: the rules committee. Not surprisingly, each of those four folks are head of the rules committee for their side in the House and Senate. As such, the head of the two rules committees have carte blanche over what bills will and won't see the light of day. So, if any legislator wants their bill to get a hearing in the House, Michael Madigan must approve. You can see how such a process could corrupt, and does.

Second, there's absolutely no transparency. At the beginning of each legislative session, the legislature is allowed to pass any number of "shell bills." These are bills that literally are blank, or shells. Then, when leadership, Madigan et al, feel it's time for that bill to become law, they go into a backroom somewhere, negotiate, and come out with a full bill. They wait no more than 24 hours and force a vote. Even if a legislator wanted to read the bill, they wouldn't have time. So, bills become law and then media scrutinizes them and leaks all sorts of embarrassing details, only by then it's still law. We're seeing a similar process playing out in the current national health care legislative process.

This process played out to a t in the campaign finance reform legislation. After Blago's indictment, public pressure was so extreme that Madigan et al's hands were forced. They brought a campaign finance reform bill to the floor. Then, at the last minute, they went into a back room, cut a weak compromise, and put a watered down version to the floor. This should have come to no one's surprise. The four people in charge are the main beneficiaries of the current campaign finance structure and they are the ones in charge of "reforming it".

This process also played out in Emil Jones' last term. (he was head of the Senate until this latest term) He was allied with Blago. Meanwhile, Madigan opposed Blago. As such, legislation literally came to a halt. All Blago proposed bills were killed in the House and all Blago opposed bills were killed in the Senate. So, nothing got done.

The problem of course was that the power struggles of three pols played out for the entire legislature. That's because the power of the legislature is centered in only four people.

So, what's the solution? Illinois activis, John Bambenek, has proposed the Putback Amendment. Here's what the amendment would do. First, it would create a unicamarel legislature. Each district would be represented by three Representatives. There would still be primaries but a minimum of two candidates would come out for each party. Second, it would impose a term limit of four terms. Each term would last two years. It also eliminates the "shell bill" process and forces only texted bills to the floor. Beyond this, it would create a discharge petition process. If leadership refuses to give a bill a proper viewing, the sponsor can get 25 of 177 legislators to sign a discharge petition and this would force said bill to the floor. Finally, it would create a mandatory seven day period between when a final bill is finalized and voted upon. That way the public would have time to digest it and embarrassing details would come out before it passed not after.

Currently, Bambenek is collecting signatures. He needs 500,000 by May to get the amendment on the ballot in November. If it's on the ballot, it would either need 50.1% of all the voters or 60% of those that vote on the amendment. Typically, far fewer people vote on amendments than vote in total.

Citizens can in fact add amendments to the Illinois constitution as long as they are "structural and/or procedural" in nature. Because that's a vague description, all potential amendments wind up in front of the Illinois Supreme Court. In fact, only six such amendments have been attempted in history and five have been ruled unconstitutional and never passed that stage.

Beyond having its constitutionality challenged, Bambenek expects the validity of each and every signature challenged. There are 102 counties and 110 voting jurisdictions in Illinois. As scuh, the amendment could be challenged in the Illinois Supreme Court and in 110 separate election jurisdictions all simultaneously. If it happens to pass but passes in a close vote, you can also bet
that a vote recount will be requested. All of this will have to adjudicated as well.

The Illinois political machine is the one to challenge this amendment and it will be the machine and its lawyers that will challenge each and every phase of the amendment though Bambenek tells me he's prepared for each and every potential litigative step.

Here's the full text of the bill.

Here's part two and part three of this analysis.

Blagojevich: Crazy or Crazy Like a Fox?

Only time will tell and I, personally, think that he is still mostly crazy. Yet, if he is crazy like a fox, then here is what he is attempting to do. First, on every level politically and legally, his choice of Roland Burris is one that the folks in both Springfield and in Washington D.C. will have to accept. The Huffington Post has a good break down of his solid legal footing.

Rod Blagojevich's decision to appoint Roland Burris to Illinois' vacant Senate seat, even as the governor faces intense criminal scrutiny, is being treated as a crazy political power grab. It also seems very likely to be permanent.

A legal scholar writes in to say that precedent surrounding the Senate's right to not seat certain members seems very likely to fall in Burris' favor.

"My reading of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, is that the Senate probably can NOT constitutionally block Burris from being seated," writes the constitutional law professor. "Art. I, sec. 5 gives each House the power to judge the qualifications of its own members. Powell holds (inter alia) that the qualifications to be judged are those stated in the Constitution (see Art. I, sec. 3, cl. 3 and the 17th Amendment)."

"Burris has met all of those qualifications: he's over 30, been a US citizen for 9 years, he's an Illinois resident; he was appointed by the executive authority of the state to fill a vacancy, pursuant to Illinois law."

If either someone in Springfield or in D.C. tries to stop Burris from being appointed, it will be challenged and likely heard by the Supreme Court. Legally, it appears the Supreme Court would have to side with Blagojevich. Blagojevich is Constitutionally mandated to choose the next Senator. That's what he's done. There is no evidence that the choice of Burris was untoward and so, there appears to be no legal reason to block Burris. Such a showdown would play right into the Governor's hands and hand him much needed political capital. He's already endeared himself to some elements within the Illinois African American community just by picking Burris.

Now, imagine if his choice was rejected either by the Secretary of State or by the U.S. Senate and then it was litigated in the Supreme Court which decided in his favor. Which side would look as though they are doing their Constitutional mandated duty and which side would look as though they are stepping outside of the Constitution?

Furthermore, how far is the Democratic Party willing to take this given how insulting it would be to the African American community. The reality is that the Governor needs nothing more than a political showdown he can win, and he just found it. The farther his opponents take this the bigger a victory it will be once he wins. Frankly, he has nothing to lose anyway.

We've all heard that his potential impeachment hearing is a political not criminal process. What does this mean? On one level, it means that the Illinois House and Senate merely need to find a reason that everyone will accept to remove him. They need not find any act of criminality. The most obvious reason is that the scandal has made him unfit to Govern. Yet, he has just chosen a U.S. Senate pick and that person accepted. What a political gift Burris handed to Blagojevich. Is there any better proof that he is fit to govern than doing his Constitutionally mandated duty of choosing a replacement for Barack Obama? In fact, by having every other political force near him try and take this duty away, it is they, not him, that look as though they are unfit.

Just think about it. He will make this pick. The entire political world will attempt to stop it and likely the U.S. Supreme Court will side with him. Then, Illinois legislators will say he is unfit to govern. Nothing will sound more absurd if this episode plays out as I just described.

Then, impeachment will hinge on something relating to the idea that what he is alleged to have done is so extraordinary that he can't be allowed to continue. Here, again, if Blagojevich is crazy like a fox, he will still have an angle. I have said over and over that Blagojevich knows where all the proverbial bodies are buried. In such a case, all he needs to do is turn the impeachment into a kangaroo court. What Blagojevich did maybe the most brazen act of corruption, but it certainly is not out of the ordinary. Most of the folks about to accuse him of corruption are no less corrupt, just less brazen. If he turns the tables on everyone and throws accusations back at his accusers, what we'll have is a bunch of crooks proclaiming the Governor is not fit to lead because he's a crook.

As John Kerry once said that's like having Tony Soprano lecturing us on violence. Blagojevich can argue that if he isn't fit to lead, then most of the legislature will need to go with him. If he plays it right, he could even be portrayed as the crusader finally exposing the reality of the system in Illinois. If he did some sort of a vague mea culpa in which he acknowledged "mistakes", he could say that he is ready to use this opportunity to overhaul the system, but that he will not be "lectured on honesty and integrity by the likes of Emil Jones and Michael Madigan". In fact, he will have a point. The audacious irony is that the Illinois legislature is in no position to lecture him on corruption. They are no better. An impeachment in which his alleged crimes are on display would be nothing more than that. If it came down to trying to remove him from office for his alleged crimes, you can bet that every piece of dirty laundry would be aired before he was removed. If he's crazy like a fox, that's exactly what he should do.

The Madigans' Peculiar Political Ploy

From the minute Lisa Madigan, Illinois' Attorney General, inserted herself into the Blagojevich fiasco, I smelled something rotten in Denmark. Madigan has done scant little to fight corruption both in the Governor's office and in the state at large. She first stated, disingenuously in my opinion, that she was ready to indict the Governor if he didn't step down immediately. Right after this, she called on an obscure state statute to allow the State's Supreme Court to remove Blagojevich because he is "unfit for office". The problem is that 1) this statute has never been used and 2) this statute was meant for those Governors that were actually incapicated. Being a sociopath is not exactly what the statute was meant for. Yet, Madigan made full of the media spotlight to come out firmly that Blagojevich needs to be removed.

The ploy is even more peculiar once you understand the full family relationships. Her father, Michael Madigan, is the Speaker of the Illinois House. He has a long and contentious history with the current Governor, even though they are both Democrats. (like Madigan's daughter) In 2007, while Blagojevich was merely under the cloud of suspicion, Madigan admitted that he did some research into potential impeachment hearings of Blagojevich. Now, more than ever, would be the time for Madigan to bring impeachment hearings. As Speaker he is the one with the power. He has the mandate and the will of the people. So, why is Madigan waiting? First, it's important to understand that his daughter Lisa was on most people's short list for the Senator's job, and she would also be an early front runner for Blagojevich's current job.

By stepping aside, Madigan also allows Lisa to grab the spotlight and distance herself as much as possible from Blagojevich. Job one for any Democrat running in the next two years in Illinois will be to put as much distance from Blagojevich as possible. In other words, most Democrats will need to perform a sleight of hand on the voters. Madigan would be one of those. While Fitzgerald was investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and convicting all sorts of power broker around Blagojevich and with his sights set directly on the Governor himself, Madigan was conspicously absent in doing the same duty from her own position of power.

It's very likely this latest ploy is an attempt by Madigan, the younger, to create the appearance that she is very far away from Blagojevich. Meanwhile, Madigan, the older, is staying out of her way for the time being so she can grab the Blagojevich distancing spotlight. If all of this sounds cynical, welcome to standard operating procedure in Chicago, Cook County and Springfield politics. Lisa Madigan has spent the last four years ignoring the corruption of Illinois politicians while Patrick Fitzgerald has been a one man wrecking crew trying to bring down the entire system on his own. Now, she sees an opportunity to appear as a crusader against corruption and she is taking it. Hopefully, the voters won't be fooled, but my guess is this is exactly the sort of ploy that she will use to distance herself from Blagojevich when the time comes for her to make her next move up the ladder of Illinois power.