McHenry County Blog

For years, the Illinois General Assembly has been trying to limit the people who could challenge incumbents.

No more write-in votes for people unless they register with the County Clerk sixty days ahead of time.

Even if someone does register, if another’s name is written in, complete with an “X” in the box, it won’t be counted.

Back in 1973 Algonquin Township Assessor Forrest Hare had displeased the Establishment and it put up a school teacher to run against him in the Republican caucus.

The caucus, which had three polling places where people could vote by secret ballot, was completed at the Field House of then-Crystal Lake Community High School.

The counting ended at about 3 AM and Hare lost by a couple of votes. No recount was allowed, even though the judges told Hare they weren’t sure the totals were correct.

Hare ran as a write-in candidate in the general election and won over 60% of the vote, not in small part because Mal Ballairs of Crystal Lake radio station WIVS-AM pounded the local Republican Party precinct committeemen for refusing to allow a recount every weekday until the election was held.

(To prevent such a situation in the future State Senator Jack Schaffer, who supported the effort to remove Hare, and I passed legislation in 1973 allowing township parties to authorized a township primary election, rather than the caucus route. Algonquin Township Republicans have done that ever since.)

Now, state law does not allow someone who has been defeated in a primary to run in the general election, even as a write-in.

The General Assembly struck again when the State Senate passed House Bill 2009 on last Thursday, March 29, 2012.

One day later it was signed by Governor Pat Quinn, so obviously something after the March 21st primary election stimulated quick action.

That, you will note was last Saturday.

I figure someone figured a Democrat had a potential problem.

The bill was introduced February 17, 2011, by Republicans Mike Fortner and five days later co-sponsored by Republican Sidney Mathias.  It passed the House 75-38-1 on March 29, 2011, just one year before it cleared the Senate. where it passed the Senate 53-3 under the sponsorship of Democrat Don Harmon.

Here’s the language of the new law:

“A person

1. who filed a statement of candidacy for a partisan office as a qualified primary voter of an established political party or
2. who voted the ballot of an established political party at a general primary election

may not file a statement of candidacy as a candidate of

• a different established political party or as
• an independent candidate

for a partisan office to be filled at the general election immediately following the general primary for which the person filed the statement or voted the ballot.  A person may file a statement of candidacy for a partisan office as a qualified primary voter of an established political party regardless of any prior filing of candidacy for a partisan office or voting the ballot of an established political party at any prior election.”

While the law probably got its Senate impetus from some perceived threat to a Democratic Party legislator, it probably will prohibit Dee Beaubien, who was calling people Thursday about her goal to run against Dave McSweeney in her deceased husband’s newly-reconfigured 52th State Representative District.

My thanks to commenter “Dave,” who posted the new statute under the story,

Dee Beaubien Running for State Rep against Dave McSweeney

Of course, it is unknown whether Dee Beaubien voted in the Republican primary election last month, but the odds seem good since the candidate she favored, appointed State Rep. Kent Gaffney, was her husband’s budget staffer and she contributed almost $12,400 to his campaign.

And, there was no way she could have known that House Bill 2009 would be enacted right after the primary election, even before the ballots were canvassed by election authorities.

In the Senate only State Senators Shane Cultra, Dan Duffy and Kyle McCarter voted against the legislation. Duffy’s Senate District covers the one in which McSweeney is running for State Rep.

The roll call in the Illinois House had substantially more opposition. It appears below:

A roll call was not taken for the reapportionment straw poll questions asked by McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler.

Just a series of hand raising.

What you see above is a good indication that the size of the county board will not be cut.

Another raising of the hands indicated that a clear majority favor keeping six districts.

Several board members spoke in favor of a smaller board.

Pete Merkel suggested eighteen or twenty. He pointed out that Kane County was considering cutting its number. If the size were to remain 24, he favored either eight districts of three people or twelve with two each.

“When I first got on the board, I wondered why we had four people representing a district.”

But he really wanted a smaller board.

“We’re all good Republicans, most of us…” at which time laughter erupted in the room.

He was not in favor of twenty-four single-member districts.

Barb Wheeler agreed with Merkel that cutting the number on the board to twenty would be a good idea.

She favored single-member districts. In Lake County there are twenty-three districts.

“Everyone knows who their board member is.”

Democrat Kathy Bergan Schmidt wants twenty single-member districts. She pointed to campaign cost savings. To those who had extolled the current system of having one member from each district on pretty much each committee, she observed, “We can some up with another committee system.”

She also thought it would make the job a little easier with about twelve precincts per district.

“You (wouldn’t) have to have a private fortune or a good fund raising machine,” she pointed out.

“Newspaper aren’t what they used to be. We don’t get much coverage.

“A mailing costs you a small fortune.”

She argued that multi-member districts “makes for a less diverse group of county board members.”

Schmidt also pointed out that most of the large counties in Illinois have single-member districts or two-member districts.

“We should not be out of line.”

She also wanted to see some maps.

“Every ten years we have this wonderful opportunity to re-invent ourselves,” Donna Kurtz said.

She wants smaller districts so people can have “a personal relationship with their county board member.

“Pete hit the ball and hit it out of the park when he came up with two-member districts.”

Kurtz pointed out that 24,000-constituent districts, rather than 50,000-person ones would

• increase out own accountability and
• allow us to do more with less

Wonder Lake’s John Hammerand supported keeping 24 members.  In fact, he would support more, if state law would allow them.

He pointed out, if there were fewer, it would take people away from the full-time jobs.

He told of the gold bathroom fixtures in the Cook County Board’s complex.

Hammerand favored staying on township line, but thought that school district boundaries should be considered.

“I see nothing wrong with the size of out districts,” Union’s Randy Donley said.

“I can get across District 6 faster than people can get across Crystal Lake.”

His choice of size was twelve members with salaries set at “$40,000 to keep up with other counties.

“I know many board members agree privately.”

That “would attract a different element to the board.”

“The older I get, I realize that the more things change, the worse things get,” Ersel Schuster from Seneca Township said.

Of the apportionment of the county board, she observed, “It’s not broken.”

She said she’d be willing to look at two-member districts.  She noted it would make it easier to run for office.  And it would probably be a little less expensive if you broke it up into single-member districts.

McHenry’s Sandy Salgado said she “really like(d) Pete’s idea of two-member districts.”

She pointed out that Richmond and Spring Grove were quite different from the McHenry and Wonder Lake portions of her district.

She described that her constituents had told her it “was a pain in the neck to have to call four people.”

She joined Schmidt in wanting to see a map.

Reacting to the proposal for $40,000 salaries, McHenry’s Sandy Salgado said, “I don’t know if that would attract the caliber of people you’d like to have.”

McHenry’s Nick Provenzano emphasized the advantages of having one member from each district on each committee.

“I think we should have been talking about this a year ago,” he said.  Consideration should be given now to the governance of McHenry County when we reach 500,000, 750,000, a million people.

He wanted to know if there would be full-time county board members with district offices and staff.

“I think we’re underestimating the amount of time it’s going to take to draw a map.”

Lake in the Hill’s Paula Yensen, the second Democrat on the county board, pointed out she was the only one who represented the lower part of District 5.

“If you think we’re going to save money by having fewer districts, I really need to be convinced.”

Veteran Bull Valley member Virginia Peschke reflected on having represented all of McHenry County, except for Algonquin, Nunda and McHenry Townships when she ran the first time.  Then there were only three county board districts of eight members each.

All of the above took place in a Committee of the Whole meeting that ran from 6 o’clock to about 7:15.

Thereafter was a regular county board meeting at which Dr. Mike Fortner, an expert in statistics and reapportionment and, incidentally, a state representative from West Chicago explained the elements of redistricting.

Population could deviate as much as 10% from the smallest to the largest district, he pointed out.

The county board had previously agreed that the difference should not be more than 3%.  That would mean the largest district could be 3,000 more people than the smallest.

Although there has been a rapid growth in the Hispanic population, he has concluded that that “population does not yet rise to the level that meets the need for special redistricting treatment.”

He found no precinct in McHenry County where Hispanics were a majority.

Fortner, a professor at Northern Illinois University, talked of the role geography could play.

He told of the many measures used to define “compact,” mentioning that road and bridge connections might be relevant.

He also said political criteria could be taken into account, e.g., partisan election returns.

“Incumbent protection” came to mind.

Salgado asked about the Iowa method were staffers use computers to draw maps, regardless of where legislators live.

Fortner pointed out that criteria for the process were outlined in Iowa state law.

“It’s hard to know where to start except by starting with existing districts.”

Salgado wanted to see what a two-member district map would look like.

“We’d like to have that go through the Legislative Committee,” Chairman Koehler interjected.

“What if it didn’t meet that committee’s consensus?” Salgado asked.

“Where would that leave me?  Nowhere?”

In the Committee of the Whole meeting, she noted, she hadn’t gotten very far with that idea.

Yensen agreed she would like to see some maps.

Hammerand expressed his displeasure at having to consider race.  “It should be voters and citizens in the United States, which they don’t have to be…We should not be looking at the color of people’s skins.”

Later Fortner explained that the post-Civil War 15th Amendment is the hook that Congress hung the Voting Rights Act on.

Fortner is being paid $150 per hour and has worked four hours so far.  Since the contract is less than $10,000, no board approval was needed, County Administrator Peter Austin explained.

Looking at the six McHenry County districts, Fortner said three needed adjustment.

My son has morphed from a 7-year old, “Dad, take the bug outside” type of guy to an 11-year old “I’ll help you get rid of the ants, Mom” type of kid.

That probably led to the title of this article.

You see, the Illinois power parties are in the process of limiting electoral competition again.

It wasn’t bad enough that write-ins have to register with the county clerk 61 days before the election. (That’s before anyone but an insider even knows there is a possibility of winning a write-in for an office for which there is no candidate on the ballot.)

Now, Republicans and Democrats are so insecure that they want to further limit the Green Party from slating candidates.

And the Illinois Green Party, the only third party in Illinois with official party slating status, has noticed this incumbent protection bill.

Here’s part of the email I received before the Senate Elections Committee voted 8-1 to shoot the bill out onto the Senate floor for certain passage:

“House Bill 723…would protect Illinois’ incumbents by effectively ending the practice of slating, which will almost certainly decrease the number of competitive elections in Illinois.

“‘Legislators in Illinois have an aversion to having someone run against them,’ said Dan Kairis, of Elgin, who himself was slated in 2008 to run for State Representative, 55th district.

“’Rather than accept competitive elections as a necessary function of a democratic system, here we have legislators who want to avoid facing any competition in the future.’

“Kairis and other Illinois Green Party members will be attending the hearing to voice opposition to the bill. The ILGP is urging its members and anyone else interested in bringing democratic reforms to Illinois to call their state senators and tell them to vote NO on HB 723.

“To slate a candidate under current law, leaders of an established party meet and choose a candidate, based on a weighted vote.

“Slating can occur after the primary election if no candidate was nominated in the primary, or if the nominated candidate drops out or passes away.

“Currently, the three ‘established’ parties in Illinois who can slate candidates are the Greens, Democrats and Republicans.”

“If HB 723 passes, the process to fill vacancies in nomination would be become much more difficult, complicated and resource intensive.

“Candidates would not only have to seek the approval of party leaders, but they would also have to collect a massive amount of signatures in a short time frame.

“The additional requirements would also create more paperwork, which leaves candidates even more vulnerable to filing challenges that could keep them off the ballot.

“In fact, HB 723 would make running as an independent or creating a new party a much simpler an alternative for a candidate than running on an established party ticket.

“Despite the availability of the current slating option, in the November 2008 general election, 59 of 118 Illinois House seats and 20 of 40 Illinois Senate seats went unopposed in the general election.

“Even though half of all legislative seats go uncontested anyway, HB 723 will ensure there are many more uncontested races,” said Steve Alesch, co-chair of the DuPage County Green Party, which slated a number of candidates in 2008, including an opponent to Rep. Mike Fortner (R-95th), the bill’s chief sponsor in the House.

“This will have a chilling effect on democracy.”

“With the scandals of Govs. Ryan and Blagojevich not far behind us, the citizens of Illinois are demanding reforms that would reduce the unchecked power of our elected officials,” said Tom Abram, of Urbana, member of the Illinois Green Party coordinating committee.

“This bill is the exact opposite of reform, and it would only further erode the public’s trust and confidence in our electoral system.”

“The bill passed the House earlier in April with a 112-4 vote. “

Sponsored by first term western DuPage County State Representative Mike Fortner (95th District), House Bill 723 is an attempt to prevent a Green Party candidate from challenging him again in 2010.

Is that a classic conflict of interest and admission of vulnerability or what?

Fortner, who beat Green Party candidate Gerard Schmitt 32,257 to 10,024 last year, obviously doesn’t want to bother with a fall election. Hard to take a fall vacation when one has an opponent.

And the DuPage County Republican Party doesn’t want the possibility of a Green Party candidate running for

• county board, as occurred in McHenry County when Frank Wedig ran in the Woodstock-Huntley-Lake in the Hills district last year (getting 8% of the vote, while the lowest winner received 28%) or
• township office, as happened this year when door knocking Wedig ran only 158 votes behind the lowest Republican for Dorr Township Trustee.

The proposed maintain-the-power-party franchise language is below:

a vacancy in nomination shall be 8 filled only by a person designated by the appropriate committee of the political party

1. whose name is submitted by that committee to the State Board of Elections within 60 days after the day of the general primary and
2. who files nominating petitions with the number of signatures, and at the time, required for an independent candidate for that office under Article 10.

The circulation period for those petitions begins on the day the State Board of Elections receives from the committee the notice of the person’s name.

The State Board of Elections shall hear and pass upon all objections to nomination petitions filed by candidates under this paragraph.

Of course, the bill passed the State Senate Committee. By an 8-1 vote. Only Republican Senate Elections Committee Spokesman Dale Righter of Matoon voted against the competition limiting bill.

In the Illinois House, only Mike Boland (D-Moline), Beth Coulson (R-Glenview), Paul Froehlich (D-Schaumburg), Keith Sommer (R-Morton) opposed the bill. Oak Park Democrat Deborah Graham voted “Present,” which has the same effect as voting “No,” because bills need a majority to pass.

= = = = =
The green bug above is used in advertising by Certified Master Arborist Wayne White. He specializes in saving ash trees from the Emerald Ash Borer, which is a plot by the Democratic Party, don’t you know?

A friend of McHenry County Blog has noticed a new law that would allow a sales tax to help pay for new schools.

It would have to be approved by referendum, unlike the extra one-half of one percent sales tax the General Assembly just foisted on us to finance the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace.

Such a referendum could be put on the ballot by the county board or school boards representing at least 51% of the student enrollment within the county.

The ballot would read,

Shall McHenry County be authorized to impose a retailers’ occupation tax and a service occupation tax (commonly referred to as a “sales tax”) at the rate of [not more than ¼ of, ½ of, ¾ of or a maximum of 1%] to be used exclusively for school facility purposes?

The tax would not be on food or drugs, which are not currently taxed by state government, just local governments.

Once passed, it could not be lowered by a referendum initiated by citizens petition.

The McHenry County Board could lower the rate or discontinue it, unless school construction bonds were sold, it could not be lowered if repayment of the bonds would be endangered.

“School construction” is defined about as broadly as anyone could imagine.

The money would flow through regional superintendent of schools. I noticed one very strange provision. The regional supt. can sit on the money up to 30 days.

That reminds me of when all state aid to education used to take that route. School districts lost so much interest while the county superintendent of schools sat on the money that the legislature changed the law to require it to be sent directly to the schools.

The money would be distributed would be distributed on a pro rata basis, according to the percentage of county students in the school district.

I love tax incidence questions.

Who will be the winners and the losers?

My first take is that those areas that are built out will be the losers. They will tend to have paid for their schools.

The winners, if I am correct, will be the fast growth areas, the villages that lust for growth.

I see one intended consequence and one unintended consequence.

Once a flow of money starts and one school district sells bonds based on these sales tax receipts, the tax seems destined to stay forever.

The unintended consequence is that tax money will flow forever (so to speak) and the local school boards will find a way to spend, whether such expenditures are necessary or not.

That’s the problem with “free money.”

Perhaps the law should be changed to allow the money to be spent on operations, as well as building. After all, operations eat up most of the budget and the infusion of new cash could be used to cut the property tax, if all bonds were paid off.

Oh, yes.

This can’t be done in Cook County, even though Senate President Emil Jones jointly sponsored it with chief sponsor Mike Jacobs, both Democrats. House sponsors of Senate Bill 835 were Patrick Verschoore (D-Rock Island), Sandra Pihos (R-Glen Ellyn), Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) and Roger Eddy (R-Hutsonville), who is also a school superintendent.

Locally, State Senator Pam Althoff and Chris Lauzen voted “No,” while State Senator Bill Peterson voted “Yes” on the final 31-24 vote.

The bill passed the Illinois House 74-41. State Representative Jack Franks and Mike Tryon voted against the bill. Mark Beaubien was listed as not voting. Tim Schmitz voted “Yes.”

As an aside, I see language that originated when I was in the Illinois House in the 1970’s. It requires sales tax to be collected on minerals like gravel and coal at the point of extraction. That was some coalition we put together to pass that bill.

A friend of McHenry County Blog has noticed a new law that would allow a sales tax to help pay for new schools.

It would have to be approved by referendum, unlike the extra one-half of one percent sales tax the General Assembly just foisted on us to finance the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace.

Such a referendum could be put on the ballot by the county board or school boards representing at least 51% of the student enrollment within the county.

The ballot would read,

Shall McHenry County be authorized to impose a retailers’ occupation tax and a service occupation tax (commonly referred to as a “sales tax”) at the rate of [not more than ¼ of, ½ of, ¾ of or a maximum of 1%] to be used exclusively for school facility purposes?

The tax would not be on food or drugs, which are not currently taxed by state government, just local governments.

Once passed, it could not be lowered by a referendum initiated by citizens petition.

The McHenry County Board could lower the rate or discontinue it, unless school construction bonds were sold, it could not be lowered if repayment of the bonds would be endangered.

“School construction” is defined about as broadly as anyone could imagine.

The money would flow through regional superintendent of schools. I noticed one very strange provision. The regional supt. can sit on the money up to 30 days.

That reminds me of when all state aid to education used to take that route. School districts lost so much interest while the county superintendent of schools sat on the money that the legislature changed the law to require it to be sent directly to the schools.

The money would be distributed would be distributed on a pro rata basis, according to the percentage of county students in the school district.

I love tax incidence questions.

Who will be the winners and the losers?

My first take is that those areas that are built out will be the losers. They will tend to have paid for their schools.

The winners, if I am correct, will be the fast growth areas, the villages that lust for growth.

I see one intended consequence and one unintended consequence.

Once a flow of money starts and one school district sells bonds based on these sales tax receipts, the tax seems destined to stay forever.

The unintended consequence is that tax money will flow forever (so to speak) and the local school boards will find a way to spend, whether such expenditures are necessary or not.

That’s the problem with “free money.”

Perhaps the law should be changed to allow the money to be spent on operations, as well as building. After all, operations eat up most of the budget and the infusion of new cash could be used to cut the property tax, if all bonds were paid off.

Oh, yes.

This can’t be done in Cook County, even though Senate President Emil Jones jointly sponsored it with chief sponsor Mike Jacobs, both Democrats. House sponsors of Senate Bill 835 were Patrick Verschoore (D-Rock Island), Sandra Pihos (R-Glen Ellyn), Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) and Roger Eddy (R-Hutsonville), who is also a school superintendent.

Locally, State Senator Pam Althoff and Chris Lauzen voted “No,” while State Senator Bill Peterson voted “Yes” on the final 31-24 vote.

The bill passed the Illinois House 74-41. State Representative Jack Franks and Mike Tryon voted against the bill. Mark Beaubien was listed as not voting. Tim Schmitz voted “Yes.”

As an aside, I see language that originated when I was in the Illinois House in the 1970’s. It requires sales tax to be collected on minerals like gravel and coal at the point of extraction. That was some coalition we put together to pass that bill.

The man playing the role of Paul Revere in this year’s RTA/CTA suburban money grab has been the Daily Herald’s Eric Krol.

Friday, he repeated a call made in late May.

The first sentence doesn’t say that the sales tax would be doubled in the collar counties. But Krol does name some of the suburbanites who are selling out their constituents.

Two from Lake/northern Cook County–a Republican and a Democrat–are actually co-sponsors:

• Democratic Rep. Kathy Ryg of Vernon Hills and
• Republican Rep. Sid Mathias of Buffalo Grove.

He adds,

And, only four suburban House members voted against the Ryg-Mathias tax increase:

• Reps. Patti Bellock of Downers Grove,
• Dennis Reboletti of Elmhurst,
• Michael Tryon of Crystal Lake and
• Jim Durkin of Westchester.

“Congressman Mark Kirk of Highland Park recently held a hearing and blasted the RTA proposal as a suburban bailout for Chicago. Democratic Sen. Michael Bond of Grayslake joined Republican Kirk,” the Daily Herald article continues.

Kirks district overlaps Mathais’.

According to Krol, suburban Democratic Party State Representative Bond echoed what suburban Democrats said during the 1974 RTA referendum campaign:

“I will not support any legislation that bails out the CTA at the expense of suburban taxpayers.”

And,

only four suburban House members voted against the Ryg-Mathias tax increase (in committee):

• Reps. Patti Bellock of Downers Grove,
• Dennis Reboletti of Elmhurst,
• Michael Tryon of Crystal Lake and
• Jim Durkin of Westchester.

So, why would a rational suburban legislator oppose this tax hike proposal?

Krol lets Democrat Bond summarize the case:

the suburbs would be paying $220 million more in sales tax. The city of Chicago would pay an additional $100.5 million in sales and real estate transfer taxes.

But of the $322.5 million collected, the CTA would get $193.5 million, Metra $96.75 million and Pace $32.25 million, according to the analysis. The CTA gets 60 percent of the booty, but city folks are paying only about a third of the new taxes.

Let me repeat the cost-benefit analysis:

The CTA gets 60% of the money and pays 1/3 of the tax hike.

Put from a suburban viewpoint, the suburbs pay 67% of the money, while getting 40% back.

A suburbanite who votes for a deal like that is mathematically, not to mention politically impaired.

Finally, why have Republican suburban state legislators allowed Democrats to take the lead in opposing this rip-off?

Yet another reason a Republican come back will be more difficult than it should be.

The man playing the role of Paul Revere in this year’s RTA/CTA suburban money grab has been the Daily Herald’s Eric Krol.

Friday, he repeated a call made in late May.

The first sentence doesn’t say that the sales tax would be doubled in the collar counties. But Krol does name some of the suburbanites who are selling out their constituents.

Two from Lake/northern Cook County–a Republican and a Democrat–are actually co-sponsors:

• Democratic Rep. Kathy Ryg of Vernon Hills and
• Republican Rep. Sid Mathias of Buffalo Grove.

He adds,

And, only four suburban House members voted against the Ryg-Mathias tax increase:

• Reps. Patti Bellock of Downers Grove,
• Dennis Reboletti of Elmhurst,
• Michael Tryon of Crystal Lake and
• Jim Durkin of Westchester.

“Congressman Mark Kirk of Highland Park recently held a hearing and blasted the RTA proposal as a suburban bailout for Chicago. Democratic Sen. Michael Bond of Grayslake joined Republican Kirk,” the Daily Herald article continues.

Kirks district overlaps Mathais’.

According to Krol, suburban Democratic Party State Representative Bond echoed what suburban Democrats said during the 1974 RTA referendum campaign:

“I will not support any legislation that bails out the CTA at the expense of suburban taxpayers.”

And,

only four suburban House members voted against the Ryg-Mathias tax increase (in committee):

• Reps. Patti Bellock of Downers Grove,
• Dennis Reboletti of Elmhurst,
• Michael Tryon of Crystal Lake and
• Jim Durkin of Westchester.

So, why would a rational suburban legislator oppose this tax hike proposal?

Krol lets Democrat Bond summarize the case:

the suburbs would be paying $220 million more in sales tax. The city of Chicago would pay an additional $100.5 million in sales and real estate transfer taxes.

But of the $322.5 million collected, the CTA would get $193.5 million, Metra $96.75 million and Pace $32.25 million, according to the analysis. The CTA gets 60 percent of the booty, but city folks are paying only about a third of the new taxes.

Let me repeat the cost-benefit analysis:

The CTA gets 60% of the money and pays 1/3 of the tax hike.

Put from a suburban viewpoint, the suburbs pay 67% of the money, while getting 40% back.

A suburbanite who votes for a deal like that is mathematically, not to mention politically impaired.

Finally, why have Republican suburban state legislators allowed Democrats to take the lead in opposing this rip-off?

Yet another reason a Republican come back will be more difficult than it should be.