Election laws: Sell no reform before its time

The 85th General Assembly opened with great promise for those who would reform the state's election laws. Gov. James R. Thompson called for reform in his State of the State Message: "Our laws and practices relating to campaigns, campaign financing, elections and election conflicts are a confused, archaic, jumbled, overlapping mess." Reformers took heart and decided this was their year. But as the session progressed, one particular election issue — the question of whether Republican Jerry Weller beat Democrat Ray Christensen in the 85th District House race — got plenty of attention. Election reform got little.

Two election bills were passed. One (S.B. 10) would allow the Solidarity Party to merge with the Democrats — period. The other (S.B. 653) did the same thing, but also added provisions that increased the pay of election judges, widened powers of the State Board of Elections to regulate electronic (computerized) voting systems, permitted fewer election judges in off-year elections and made other minor adjustments to state election law.

The governor vetoed S.B. 10 on August 3. He had not acted on S.B. 653 as of August 25. His veto was based on his doubts about the constitutionality of the special merger of the two parties.

Unpassed were bills establishing partial public financing of gubernatorial campaigns, joint nomination of the governor and lieutenant governor, a recount procedure for statewide elections and a May instead of March primary election date. Most of the bills died in the House Election Law Committee. One reformer attributed lack of action to Democratic wariness about anything that could cause further splits in the party in Chicago. Gary LaPaille, chief of staff for Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-30, Chicago), said Democrats included emergency measures in S.B. 653 and decided the rest could wait. Election law changes are delicate and best passed in the second year of a session, after everyone has looked them over, LaPaille said. And, he added, Madigan was reluctant to take up volatile issues that could divide the Democratic party.

Chairman Douglas Huff (D-19, Chicago) said the committee was hampered by a late start, the Chicago municipal elections and the two-week spring holiday. It was "infeasible to pass all those bills in the time left after Easter vacation," he said.

Republicans, angered by Huff's tactics, demanded their own vehicle bill. They accused Huff of passing the motion to table most of the bills while the Republicans were absent from the hearing. Rep. John Countryman (R-76, DeKalb) called the committee's actions "a farce." Huff replied that the Republicans arrived late to the May 7 hearing because of an "inordinately long" party caucus meeting. The Democrats agreed to a Republican vehicle bill. Then neither bill was called before the deadline for action in the first house.

When those bills were not called, the focus switched to bills coming over from the Senate. The upper chamber had passed a variety of "reforms," which also ended up in Huffs Election Law Committee. Early efforts focused on the bill (S.B. 10) to allow the Illinois Solidarity Party to merge with the Democrats. House Republicans opposed the bill. When it came before the House Election Law Committee on May 28, Rep. Countryman called it "special legislation," prohibited under the state Constitution, since it would benefit only the Democrats.

The Solidarity bill was also opposed by the New Alliance Party, a coalition of Chicago blacks, Hispanics, feminists and gay-rights activists. They want to use the advantages given "established political parties" like the Solidarity Party. One is a 5,000-signature limit for petitions, instead of the 25,000 New Alliance must now meet. New Alliance spokesman John Fraire said that his party would file a court challenge if Thompson signs it into law.

Democrats wanted the Solidarity bill (S.B. 10) to go through the House clean, without amendments that would require Senate approval or give the governor an excuse for a veto. Republicans saw the bill as an opportunity to air their views and point out Democrats' shortcomings. Republicans proposed 79 amendments, lost party line votes on 25, withdrew the rest and chastised Democrats for their intransigence. The measure passed the House June 3.

Other election reform measures did not fare as well. Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch's bill to partially finance campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor with income tax money was assigned to interim study on June 11. It joined a twin measure that originated in the House and was sent to interim study April 30.

Huffs committee did release on June 10 two Senate bills (S.B. 652 and S.B. 653) as vehicle bills that would carry other election reform bills. Following negotiations with Republicans, amendments were added to each. The omnibus amendment to S.B. 652 totaled 207 pages. S.B. 653 received an amendment totaling 39 pages.

But when the two omnibus bills came up on the House floor on June 26, the Republicans still expressed dissatisfaction. Republican floor leader Thomas J. McCracken Jr. (R-81, Downers Grove) complained that the bills were "a compromise forced on us by the recalcitrance of this body" in refusing to pass new election laws over the past two years. The House, however, voted to pass both omnibus bills. They ended up in conference committees on June 29, the night before the end of the session.

In the final hours, S.B. 653 made it over the conference committee hurdle and through both houses, but the other omnibus bill died when its conference committee failed to meet. According to Rep. Anthony Young (D-17, Chicago), the committee lacked the time to go through the bill's 207-page amendment in the last-minute crush of legislation. A Democratic staffer added that the legislators were probably too tired to meet and discuss the bill in the closing hours of the session.

When lawmakers went home for the summer, little had changed with state election laws. The big issue was decided though. Jerry Weller had lost. So had the would-be reformers. Chris Gaudet

(Illinois Issues' previous articles on election reform include: "Reform?" July 1983, pp. 27-28; "Election reform," May 1986, pp. 27-29; and "No election reform," August/September 1986. pp. 24-27.)