 Monday, the Chicago-based First District Appellate Court agreed to an expedited
appeals process in order to have the matter decided by August 22, the deadline
for when ballot measures must be approved by state election officials.
Last week the Illinois Supreme Court rejected to hear an appeal in favor of a
proposed November ballot measure that would ask voters if state lawmakers should
be limited to serving eight years in office. Last month the court ruled the
initiative didn’t pass constitutional muster, and could not be placed on the
ballot.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner is leading the charge for term
limits legislation.
“We’ve lost our way as a state,” Rauner said in a press conference in Chicago
last week. “Corruption, cronyism, patronage, and folks who have been down there
[in Springfield] for decades who use politics as a personal business for
themselves, as a way of making money.”
Rauner said that voters, and not “politicians and special interests groups”
should decide if limiting terms in public office is right for Illinois.
The proposed constitutional change would also increase the number of Illinois
House members and raise the number of votes required to override a governor’s
veto.
Nick Tomboulides is the executive director of U.S. Term Limits, a Florida-based
group that works towards term limit reform around the country. He says the
failure for the ballot referendum to succeed in the Illinois courts is because
the judges are succumbing to political pressure.
Judges have political agendas too, argues Tomboulides, and are closely
affiliated with the politicians who are fighting against term limits the
hardest.
“The pushback against this reform isn’t coming from the people of Illinois,”
Tomboulides said. “Most polls have term limits receiving at least 70 percent
support. The pushback is coming from entrenched politicians, some with decades
of time in Springfield, who are desperate to keep the status quo.”
Term Limits and Reform, the Illinois group heading the effort to place the
referendum on November ballots, has reportedly collected over 550,000 signatures
from residents in support of the measure.
[to top of second column] |
Tomboulides said he thinks there’s a good chance the
appeals court will rule that the referendum measure is
constitutional, and voters will have a chance to express their
opinion on Election Day.
“Term limits means more open-seat races every
cycle,” Tomboulides said, “which allows more citizens the
opportunity to serve their state. Incumbents create a barrier to
entry into public service because they almost always win their
races. Term limits will create a far more competitive political
field.”
Not everyone agrees that term limits are a good thing, however.
Monmouth College Political Economy and Commerce professor and former
state Sen. Ken McMillan says he doesn’t believe mandated term limits
is a wise policy, as sometimes politicians deserve the boot after
one term, whereas others can serve honestly and honorably for many
years.
“I think term limits is more likely to further dumb down the
public’s knowledge of political affairs. When they are less
responsible for who gets elected since it won’t last long anyway,
they’ll put less effort into being seriously engaged,” McMillan
said.
“Our problem is not that some people have been there too long,” he
said. “Term limits won’t solve anything. Unfortunately, not a lot of
people pay attention to how their representatives or senators vote.
They’re more interesting in if they walk in their hometown parade
and show up at their chicken dinners.”
According to McMillan, voters tend to focus more on how politicians
handle constituent service like fundraisers and public appearances
than the impact they actually have on public policy.
With the expedited appeals process under way, voters can expect to
see the Illinois Supreme Court arguing and ruling on the
constitutionality of the term limits referendum in the next few
weeks.
[This
article courtesy of
Watchdog.]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article.
 |
