Mark Brown: Whether personal or philosophical, Quinn and Rahm lock horns on term limits

This is the truest portion of this column from last Friday:

I’m not a fan of term limits. If Quinn’s proposal makes the ballot, I’d probably vote against it. It seems to me that Chicago voters are going to have every opportunity to term-limit Emanuel in 2019 by electing someone else, if that’s what they want.

But I also know that voters like term limits, and they at least deserve an opportunity to vote on the issue when someone has gone to the extreme effort of collecting the necessary tens of thousands of signatures to put the matter before them.

In addition, the City Council shouldn’t be allowed to push such a referendum off the ballot by offering up the usual batch of three useless advisory referenda.

Meanwhile our former governor - who was defeated in 2014 by Bruce Rauner who this year in considered endangered - fights to get his term limits referendum on the ballot in November. I also know as Emanuel doesn't get along with Rauner now, he also hadn't got along well with Quinn when he was our governor. Just remember Quinn and Emanuel are both Democrats so what is the deal?

All the same, is it time for mayoral term limits? How many of you are ready to send Emanuel packing next year?

Ben Joravsky: Rahm makes a joke out of Quinn's term-limit push, but voters could have last laugh

I missed this from earlier this month from Ben Joravsky of the Chicago Reader. He talks about the former Gov. Quinn's attempt at a binding referendum on mayoral term limits in Chicago.

This year Rahm had to figure out a way to keep former governor Pat Quinn from placing a binding mayoral term-limit question on November's ballot.

If it passed, Rahm couldn't run for reelection next year.

Quinn has enough obstacles trying to round up the 50,000 valid signatures by the August 6 deadline.

But just to throw another roadblock in his way, Mayor Rahm had the aldermen place three nonbinding questions on November's ballot.

So voters will get to decide, among other things, whether they want to ban plastic straws or whether they want the state to give them a property tax break.

Hmmm, do voters want to pay less in taxes? That ought to be a real cliff-hanger of a vote.

On his WTTW show, Schutz pointed out that most people see this for what it is—a thinly disguised attempt to thwart Quinn by cramming the ballot with frivolous questions.

Goodness no, the mayor responded, as though he were horrified Schutz would even suggest such a thing. Instead, Rahm said he was just "seeking guidance from the voters."

Here is the Mayor's appearance from June 28, 2018 on Chicago Tonight. Watch it for yourself!

Capitol Fax: Quinn says “mighty” effort needed to get mayoral term limits question on ballot

I know Rahm Emanuel is unpopular as mayor, however, is mayoral term limits an idea whose time has come? Why stop at mayor why not direct term limits to other city elected officials especially aldermen? Why is our former governor just targeting term limits for mayors?

Of course this isn't new as well in addition to advocated for mayoral term limits in Chicago, he's also calling for an elected consumer advocate position. I hope he'll reveal more about that and what the duties for this proposed office entails.

Read on over at CapitolFax.com

Quinn say “mighty” effort needed to get mayoral term limits question on ballot https://t.co/Rkm4kkYStQ

— Rich Miller (@capitolfax) June 7, 2018

Capitol Fax: Today's number 20,000

It has been in the news during the summer that Quinn - our former Governor who lost his re-election bid in 2014 - wants to put a ballot measure either this year's or 2018 election. This ballot measure would term limit the mayor of Chicago and give Chicago an elected consumer advocate.


Not sure about term limits even if many politicians in this state let alone Chicago have served too long in elected office. However a consumer advocate could get my vote. Perhaps something similar to NYC's Public Advocate.


Either way Quinn hasn't been too successful in getting the necessary 53,000 signatures let alone Quinn's own projected 100,00 signatures. Since 2016 is off the table he has another two years to get the job done.


Also bear in mind there's a possibility that the former Governor would run for his old job in 2018. He hasn't entirely ruled it out.

Ward Room: Aldermen Back Referendum for $15 Minimum Wage

Do you agree with this?

Saying it’s “time to act”, a group of Chicago aldermen, along with advocacy groups, low-wage workers and community members, are backing a set of city referendums on the March 18 ballot calling for a higher minimum wage.

All eight members of the City Council’s Progressive Reform Coalition, along with Aldermen Joe Moreno (1), Will Burns (4) and Jason Ervin (28), are backing the measure. Last year, a coalition of advocacy groups worked to place a non-binding referendum on the March ballot to establish a minimum wage in Chicago.

The referendum asks if the city should require a minimum wage of $15 per hour for employees of companies with an annual gross revenues in excess of $50 million.

Together, the aldermen and advocates argue that a higher wage is needed for working families to survive on the kinds of minimum wage jobs that prevalent throughout the economy and are often the primary or only option for workers.

Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker in Chicago only earns $17,000 a year, while a majority of Chicago’s low-wage workers are over the age of 30 and over half live in households receiving all of their income from low-wage jobs, according to a 2012 report by the Women Employed and Action Now Institute.

ABC 7: Community group calls for term limit referendum

On this blog from time to time you have heard about Syron Smith. He is known for the National Block Club University and his runs for state representative & alderman of the 15th ward. Now he's found another cause:

A community group is calling for a referendum on term limits for all Chicago aldermen and for the mayor.

The group is called Blocks of Good Government.

Its members say they will create what they call report cards for the 19 African American aldermen, grading them on the job they're doing.

They say they're limiting it to African American aldermen because their wards have the biggest problems.
...
"We're going to ask the people to sign a non-binding referendum for term limits so no alderman or the mayor can serve more than two consecutive terms in office," said Syron Smith, Block of Good Government. 

To be honest, my position on term limits is bascially open minded but not sure if it's the solution. At the same time, how many of you would consider voting for this? I may not agree with it, but certainly term limits is worth a referendum.

If you're on the red line you might have run into some people who are handing out petitions regarding term limits. Although I'm not clear as to whom this initiative is directed at. That is are we targeting our elected officials on the state level or could this be directed toward elected officials on the local level (city or county)?

Is it time to revisit reducing the number of city council wards?

Visit http://reduceandreformstl.com/

In St. Louis, there is a proposition on the ballot which calls for a reduction of city council wards there. Currently their city council (referred to as Board of Alderman) has 28 members from the 28 wards. The proposition would reduce that number in half to 14. You can check the pro-proposition website by clicking picture to the left.

The arguments made at this post over at UrbanReviewSTL is almost similar to arguments made here in Chicago:

Many of you may not think it’d make a difference or the reduction would be negative, reducing your access. The problem with that way of thinking is we’re paying 28 people to legislate but we go to them for tasks better solved by an empowered city staff.

Our aldermen can’t look at the big picture needs of the city because they are fielding calls about pot holes, stop signs and replacement dumpsters. This is partly their fault, it worked great for making voters feel like they help. But this is no way to run a city.

Since we here in Chicago also depend on our Aldermen for basic city services from pot holes to trash pickup to traffic signs, if Chicago were to reduce their number of Aldermen then the basic job description must change here as well. Although in arguing for this I will consider arguments made during the recent remap especially for many people who weren't happy about being drawn out of the 6th ward. If there were a legal challenge or a reduction in city wards, then the remap wouldn't be as drastic as it turned out to be this time around.

Also, during the remap process late last year and earlier this year, there were a number of proposals put forward. Some of those plans were favored by members of the city council. Especially the current plan that will be implemented in the near future. One plan was put forward by a 6th Ward resident would've kept the ward map the same as it was the past decade. Another map proposed by a city Alderman would've reduced the number of wards from 50 to 35. You can check other redistricting posts at this blog here!

Is there anyone out there willing to stick their neck out to roll out such a proposal in this city, even if it was put up in a non-binding referendum? Do you think a reduction in city council wards would be idea who's time has come?

Ward map vote tomorrow...

I found this comment at the Ward Room blog from our local NBC affiliate. JP Paulus would agree:

Can the media EVER get it right? The REFERENDUM in 1990 did NOT cost the taxpayers $20 million dollars. What cost the $20 million was the challenge to the map. Whatever map wins here, either by Aldermanic vote or referendum, could cost $20-$30 million if challenged in court. If these maps go to referendum (which they should - Let the people decide!) the cost would be less than $100,000. Still a cost, but the people are allowed to decide, not a group of Aldermen in a back room worried just about themselves. The media's misinformation is pushing us away from a referendum and the people having THEIR say (since the "public hearings" are a sham).

If you want to watch the festivities of this vote tomorrow it will start at 10 AM. This is a special session of the Chicago City Council, and I'm sure most of you will want to be there to express your opinion if you're able. If not able to attend a city council meeting there's always the streaming video courtesy of the Chicago City Clerk! Just remember that the council will consider ALL remap proposals filed so far with the city clerk.

BTW, that Greg Hinz seems to have an idea as to whether or not this map will succeed in the City Council tomorrow morning:

But council leaders are working really hard on Alderman Michele Smith (43rd), whose Lincoln Park neighbors are upset about the map and have the money to fund a legal challenge. Sources report she's been offered a map that keeps more of the ward together than the prior proposal, although it still will have 3,000 or 4,000 more residents than new African-American wards.

Council leaders also are trying to reel in Alderman Bob Fioretti (2nd), whose Near South Side turf would be sliced and diced several ways but whose house might be put into a new, mostly white ward stretching north and west as far as Roscoe Village.

Right now, Messrs. Mell and Emanuel need 41 aldermen to approve their map to avoid a referendum fight over dueling maps. Mr. Mell says he thinks he'll have the votes Thursday, and I'd say that's likely, though not certain.

Then we'll see what the lawyers do.

 And yet no idea as to how this map would look other than that it's based on the MBC proposal.

3 counties have "concealed carry" referendum

AP:

Ballots in Woodford, LaSalle and McDonough counties will feature a referendum that asks whether the state should enact so-called "concealed-carry" legislation.

The referendum is advisory only. Voters will not be deciding whether individual counties should adopt those rights, but whether state legislators should bring the issue to a vote.

Advocates of the legislation say such a law is long overdue in Illinois, which is 1 of only two states that haven't passed some form of the statute.

Worth noting here because this blog discusses state and local political. Also I think responsible citizens should be able to have a gun. Unfortunately fearmongering is probably more important and it doesn't help with events not much different than what happened on the 71 bus last weekend.