The constitutional amendment proposing recall of the Governor and other state and local elected officials failed in the State Senate, three votes short of the 33 votes necessary for passage.
UPDATE: You can also see at the same link that Democratic Senate President Emil Jones thinks legislators and the Governor should get another huge pay raise. For excellent job performance, I'm sure.
Maybe this year, Sen. Mike Frerichs will take responsibility how he votes on the pay raises, rather than blaming his staff.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Recall roll call vote here. Sen. Frerichs voted in favor.
I think they should get huge pay raises. Their salaries are miniscule compared to the power they wield and money they control - maybe we could get some better "applicants" for the jobs.
It's like watching pigs at a trough.
"Maybe this year, Sen. Mike Frerichs will take responsibility how he votes on the pay raises, rather than blaming his staff."
Mike never blamed his staff. He blamed the Senate Democratic staff who provided him with inaccurate information in response to a direct, pointed question. In other words, he blamed Jones' staff, not his own. That may not make it any better in some eyes, but it is a significant factual difference.
Sen. Frerichs voted in favor of the recall, or the opposite of Emil Jones.
So let's hear from the "Frerichs is a just a pawn of Emil Jones" crowd.
"In other words, he blamed Jones' staff, not his own. That may not make it any better in some eyes, but it is a significant factual difference."
Sorry about that, Kevin. Fixed it for you, even though when I worked in Springfield, members often referred to us as their staff, rather than the Leader's staff. Given the power consolidation over there, I have no doubt that such a distinction could be more important now.
"Sen. Frerichs voted in favor of the recall, or the opposite of Emil Jones.
So let's hear from the "Frerichs is a just a pawn of Emil Jones" crowd."
Jones knew he had enough votes to kill this, and certainly instructed his members in competitive districts (especially Downstate) to vote for it, to avoid their taking a hit for it on the campaign trail, and to allow the members to claim that they weren't voting with Jones/Blagojevich.
I've said since early in the 2006 campaign that the most important vote Frerichs would cast would be for Jones for President, as everything else that happens all session is dictated by Jones. This is a perfect example of that.
So no matter how many "keeping up appearances as an independent watchdog" votes Frerichs takes, keep an eye on whether he actually is able to accomplish anything for his district against the wishes of Jones. He can't. He can only do what Jones asks him to do, and hopes that Jones rewards him for his loyalty. That's how it works, no matter how many meaningless votes he takes on legislation that is otherwise going to pass or fail based only on what Jones wants.
Most anyone who has been around the legislature knows that big votes are tallied ahead of time and then certain legislators are allowed to vote in a way that will help them in their home district. It is not just a coincidence that some big votes fail by one, two or even three votes. So you are very naive if you think this vote mean that Frehichs is not coupled to Jones.
So no matter how many "keeping up appearances as an independent watchdog" votes Frerichs takes, keep an eye on whether he actually is able to accomplish anything for his district against the wishes of Jones. He can't. He can only do what Jones asks him to do, and hopes that Jones rewards him for his loyalty. That's how it works, no matter how many meaningless votes he takes on legislation that is otherwise going to pass or fail based only on what Jones wants.
Uh, earth to IP: No legislator, of either party, can get anything accomplished for their district without the approval of the chamber leader. That's how the system is set up.
"Uh, earth to IP: No legislator, of either party, can get anything accomplished for their district without the approval of the chamber leader. That's how the system is set up."
No kidding.
Yet you are somehow arguing that Sen. Frerichs' vote for recall is proof that he's independent. See any contradiction there?
I like this analogy in regards to the recall vote. It's like after Obama gets a 40 point victory over Keyes, the ILGA gives us Keyes anyway. Recall is not only wanted by a wide swatch of voters in both parties (and those outside the 2-party system), it's overwhelmingly wanted.
It shows that the only way to get a state that reflects our values is to have a constitutional convention and fight for it.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I'll do my own "recallin" at the next election. A bunch of overpaid corrupt, do what ever they want, to hell with the voters, the whole lot of them!!!!
And, to be clear, I don't really support recall, and I don't care how Sen. Frerichs voted, as it was never going to pass anyway.
But to use this vote as evidence of his independence from Jones is a bad joke.
IlliniPundit wrote: And, to be clear, I don't really support recall, and I don't care how Sen. Frerichs voted, as it was never going to pass anyway.
Though I am a registered Democrat, I despise Blago, but I'm also not a huge fan of recall measures. The voters had ample opportunity to express their opinion on our governor in 2006, and instead of being sent home by the voters, Blago was returned to office with a healthy majority in both the Democratic primary and in the general election.
I therefore hold no illusions that the electorate of Illinois would make a more informed decision in a hypothetical Blago recall ballot than they did in 2006. Though I may not be the most politically astute voter on the block, I managed to figure out that Blagojevich is a worthless tool during his first three years in office. Unfortunately, many voters didn't receive their revelation in time and are only now seeing the light after he won opportunity to damage Illinois for four more years.
But to use this vote as evidence of his independence from Jones is a bad joke.
There's some need for each legislative body to have some sort of leadership structure to keep some semblance of unity and organization. But how to do this without creating or perpetuating a dictatorial structure such as we have under Emil Jones (and others in the past)?
But to use this vote as evidence of his independence from Jones is a bad joke.
OK, so let me get this straight IP:
If Frerichs votes the same as Jones, then he has no independence.
And if Frerichs votes different from Jones, it was all one big orchestrated phony set-up, and he has no independence.
Now that's simple, isn't it?
To demonstrate independence, Frerichs would have to accomplish (i.e. actually succeed) something that Jones clearly didn't want to happen, rather than these empty orchestrated gestures.
Or to take some clear steps to challenge his leadership. Voting against Jones for leader would demonstrate independence. Voting against last year's disaster of a budget would have demonstrated something. This vote-and-press-release charade isn't fooling anybody who knows anything about Springfield.
When Freirichs files a motion to discharge a bill (and fights for it) against something that Jones bottled up, we can talk.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
When Republicans in the state senate vote for something that Jones is against that is clearly going to fail, are they just pandering as well?
"When Republicans in the state senate vote for something that Jones is against that is clearly going to fail, are they just pandering as well?"
Apparently so, if success is the only true measure of independence. :-)
I think this new way of thinking is great! I choose to interpret the Republicans' votes as an indication that they want to have sex with whales!
"I choose to interpret the Republicans' votes as an indication that they want to have sex with whales!"
You could be on to something xian since they and the Democrats in Springfield are not running a very effective state government. Blago has to view these senators with pride as 'MINI MEs'
Also, I would favor RSW's comment on pay raises these power mongers if they actually put forth some managment effort for state government instead of focusing on "deals", 'hand outs" and more debt.
"When Republicans in the state senate vote for something that Jones is against that is clearly going to fail, are they just pandering as well?"
Yes. When you have no hope of impacting public policy, as with the Senate GOP and Sen. Frerichs, you have nothing left to do but pander.
There are a number of problems with our state government, but there are two in particular which are preventing most of the other ones from being addressed. The first is that Gov. Blagojevich feels he can govern by fiat. But even that isn't insurmountable, if the legislature were committed to restoring constitutional government. But the second problem, unfortunately, is that Emil Jones is committed to protecting Gov. Blagojevich's policy outcomes, regardless of the process used to achieve them.
We warned, during the 2006 campaign, that electing Frerichs to the State Senate would only further empower Emil Jones. We were right, as Jones increasingly outrageous behavior proves. And for those of you who think Sen. Frerichs is above criticism, or that this meaningless vote or that meaningless press conference somehow signifies his independence, I submit that the only significant vote he has taken in his 18 months as State Senator is the vote to empower Jones.
Let's use Frerichs' own standard to judge him - his main goals as a Senator, at least when he was campaigning, were school funding reform and increased funding for the UI. He's failed on both counts, at least for his first two sessions, mostly due to his own Senate President.
Sen. Frerichs is only relevant to the extent he supports Jones - and that is, to date, loyally. If we didn't have the misfortune of being represented by him, we wouldn't even be discussing him, let alone this ludicrous notion that he is somehow independent of Jones.
Here's more from Sen. Frerichs' leader.
Again, we have two intractable problems in State Government: Rod Blagojevich, and Emil Jones. If either were replaced by a competent, responsible Democrat, most of the state's other problems could at least get a fair discussion. But not with Blagojevich and Jones.
Sen. Frerichs was Blagojevich's Champaign County campaign chair in 2002, right around the time the Governor was (allegedly!) selling state jobs to the likes of Mr. Ata.
And Sen. Frerichs voted for and continues to support Emil Jones as Senate President, despite Jones' fervent protection of the Governor and his extraconstitutional administration.
In a few months, when Frerichs starts campaigning for re-election, he'll blame all of the State's problems on someone else, and his sycophants will lap it up, pointing to his fabricated independence and diligent work in passing absolutely nothing that didn't have Jones' blessing.
Let's assume that Senator Frerichs is, indeed, not tied at the hip to Emil Jones. Does it matter? He can't get anything done, anyway. You may recall that one of the big ideas behind electing him was that since he was a Democrat, he could get things done with the Democrats in Springfield. How's that working out?
As for the Republicans, with a Democrat majority in both the house and the senate, there's not much that they can do. However, if they don't take advantage of this in the next election cycle, by pointing out what a one-party system has done here, then I wash my hands of them.
And even more on the illustrious Senate President.
Who is going to be the first Senate Democrat to stand up and say Jones' leadership and devotion to protecting Blagojevich is part of the problem?
Are any of the Democratic State Senators "tough and independent" enough to admit that Jones is is part of the problem?