1988 legislative elections give new meaning to 'power of incumbency'

The challenger decried her opponent's leadership. The incumbent claimed that outside interests were trying to buy the election. A week before the election about 200 voters crowded into the Adams School cafeteria in Lincoln to listen to the combatants themselves. Rep. Robert F. Olson (R-90, Broadwell) and Rebecca Drake, his challenger from Chestnut, disappointed few at the forum sponsored by the Farm Bureau and the League of Women Voters.

Olson charged that Drake was a pawn of House Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-30, Chicago): "I can vote to represent this district. Her voting soul has been sold to the Chicago area Democrats." Drake asked voters to decide whether they were better off because Olson was in Springfield and went after his record: "I would have been present to vote to restore $267 million to our school districts right here in central Illinois. Mr. Olson only voted present. Where is the leadership on that? I also would not have voted to send $25 million to Cook County schools to insulate against airport noise. To me that is not a priority. And he calls me a pawn of Chicago?"

It was hard to believe that there could be a real race in the 90th Representative District. The district stretches from south of Springfield, north to Petersburg, nearly to Pekin and almost to Bloomington, and includes Clinton and Lincoln. It is the state's most rural district. Drake could not recall its last Democratic representative. And on November 8 it would go nearly two to one for the Bush-Quayle ticket. But it did turn out to be a race, and as such it typified many contests across the state. Like other challengers, Drake made an issue of Olson's record and attacked specific votes. Like other incumbents Olson claimed foul and in the end chose to paint the issue as one of downstate versus Chicago.

During that debate a week before the election, Olson used much of his time criticizing Drake's press releases and campaign literature. One was a mailing that enumerated 20 bills on which Drake charged that Olson had voted with the utility companies and against his constituents. "You people would vote the same way," Olson countered. "They're the conservative tax-paying-man-and-woman-who-wants-to-get-the-most-for-their-dollar votes. If I would have voted the other way, I'd have to change clothes and become a liberal Democrat." Olson supporters, who appeared in the majority, applauded. The moderator asked for restraint so that more questions could be asked.

While Olson was animated and attacking the attacks that Drake had leveled against him, Drake appeared calm under fire. One attendee, who professed neutrality on the race, commented latter that Drake had seemed in control throughout. Drake was almost eloquent in enunciating her prochoice position on abortion. "I feel this is a very personal, a very moral choice that only a woman can make," she concluded.

Drake got into the race after organizing the 1987 petition campaign against locating a low-level nuclear waste disposal facility in Logan County. She claims that Olson's lack of knowledge about the issue and lack of support for her campaign convinced her to run against him. She began in January going door to door. She held some local fundraisers, did some mailings seeking to establish her own name recognition and conducted polling that indicated low name recognition for Olson.

With her own polls showing Drake drawing near Olson around Labor Day, Drake's campaign convinced the Committee for a Democratic House (Madigan's campaign organization) to put some money into the race. At the same time staffers for Minority Leader Lee A. Daniels (R-46, Elmhurst) wondered about the new attention being given the race. House Republicans polls showed Olson with a two to one lead and some surmised the House Democrats' attention to the race was a diversion, an attempt to draw GOP resources from nearby races.

In mid-October, believing her own recognition to have been built, Drake went after Olson's voting record. She hit him on the utility votes. She criticized his record on senior citizen issues. She charged that he had shortchanged schools. And she hit him for flipflopping, voting one way in committee and another on the floor of the House. Drake's secret weapon, she charged, was Olson's voting record, and she documented that record meticulously.

Many votes are taken in the General Assembly simply to produce roll calls for use in campaigns, and Olson defended his record. He noted, for example, that the drug prevention education program he voted against was also a state mandate to schools, and that schools wanted mandates without money eliminated. Olson also relied on fellow Republicans for help. Kansas Sen. Robert Dole — for whom Daniels had campaigned in the presidential primary — cut a radio commercial supporting Olson as a friend of the farmer. Secy. of State Jim Edgar went on the air to boost his fellow GOPer. And on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, Olson tried to portray Drake as a pawn of Madigan. And he played a good bit on the distrust downstaters hold for Chicago pols. "Don't let outsiders buy this election," shrilled an Olson radio ad six days before the vote.

When the votes were counted November 8, the Republicans' prediction proved correct. Olson ended up with 57 percent of the vote, confirming the belief he says he held throughout: "I felt all along no matter how much money was put in the contest,

December 1988 | Illinois Issues | 15

I would still win by somewhat near the percentage the district is Republican, and that's about the way we turned out." Drake said she had always recognized that running as a Democrat and a woman in the 90th district would be difficult. She thinks that finishing 10 percent ahead of Dukakis reflects the work she did. And she thinks the Labor Day surge in the polls was whittled down by Olson's "strident smear tactics" in tying her to Madigan.

After the sound and the fury of the Olson-Drake contest, there was no change in the seat. That was the rule across Illinois in November of 1988, a year that gave new meaning to the term "advantage of incumbency." All of the 39 incumbents sought reelection to the Illinois Senate. None was defeated.

And that was not for lack of effort. Senate Republicans seeking to move from their 28-seat minority status before the 1991 reapportionment, targeted three Democratic seats. The GOP sent Macon County Treasurer Jim O. Edgcomb into battle with freshman Sen. Penny L. Severns (D-51, Decatur). They tapped Crest Hill Mayor Donald Randich to take on another freshman, Sen. Thomas A. Dunn (D-42, Joliet). And Winnebago County Board Chairman John A. Terranova took on Sen. Joyce Holmberg (D-34, Rockford). Randich came closest, losing by just over 1,000 votes. Terranova lost by 4,000 and Edgcomb by nearly 20,000.

At the same time, the Democrats had hopes of regaining the 24th Senate district seat lost two years ago to Robert M. Raica, a paramedic in the Chicago Fire Department. Democrats felt the seat was theirs and that Raica's election reflected the weakness of LeRoy Lemke, the incumbent he had beaten last time. But Raica beat Chicago Aid. William F. Krystyniak by 10,000 votes to retain the seat. A similar effort by Democrats to unseat Sen. Walter Dudycz fell 25,000 votes short.

In the House 112 incumbents sought reelection. Voters returned all but two. The losers were Samuel Panayotovich, who had followed his mentor Edward Vrdolyak from the Democrat to the Republican party. Clement Balanoff, 10th Ward Democratic committeeman, bested Panayotovich by 2,500 votes in Chicago's 35th district, a fact that Democratic strategists hope will give pause to other Democrats thinking of switching parties. Panayotovich's loss was offset by a win by Palos Hills realtor Anne Zickus over Rep. John O'Connell (D-47). Zickus had lost by a couple of hundred votes two years before in a district that is becoming increasingly Republican. Rep. Robert Terzich (D-48, Chicago) narrowly avoided the same fate as O'Connell in the adjoining district with an unofficial 132-vote win. Republicans who turned back challenges included Jeff Mays (96-Quincy), Linda Williamson (52-Northlake), Robert Regan (80-Crete), Larry Wennlund (84-New Lenox), David Hultgren (94-Monmouth), Karen Hasara (100-Springfield) and Ron Stephens (110-Troy). Targeted Democratic survivors included Cal Sutker (56-Skokie), Phil Novak (86-Bradley), LeRoy Van Duyne (83-Joliet), Mike Curran (99-Springfield) and David Phelps (118-Eldorado).

Two of the six House seats where no incumbent was running changed hands. Carrying the 85th district this year was Republican Jerry Weller of Morris, who served briefly in the House last session (the 1986 official canvass gave him a four-vote win but he was ousted following a challenge). The only real surprise this time was in the 95th district, a traditional Republican seat, where Macomb automotive wholesaler Bill Edley, a Democrat, bested former state Sen. Kenneth G. McMillan. Other House newcomers include Rep. Miguel A. Santiago (D-9), Rep. Shirley M. Jones (D-19) and Rep. Donne E. Trotter (D-25), all of Chicago, and Rep. David R. Leitch (R-93, Peoria)

The lack of change did not come from any shortage of spending in the targeted races. The Holmberg/Terranova contest in the 34th cost some $400,000, of which $250,000 was spent by the loser. Sangamon County Treasurer Joe Bonefeste said election night that his spending could go as high as $175,000 in his unsuccessful campaign against Rep. Curran (D-99).

The election is over. Both sides can claim some victories. And the political scientists can assess what happened. James Nowlan, a former representative and one-time gubernatorial candidate who teaches at Knox College, suggests that money may be becoming less of a factor because there is so much of it. With the amounts of money that flow through legislative leaders' campaign chests, financial assistance to a challenger is met by cash from the incumbent's leader. "It's kind of a parity in spending," Nowlan theorizes. He also suggests that in 1988, the next to last election before the decennial redistricting, things had settled out. Incumbents who had held on after the last redistricting were gone, and the representatives tended to reflect their districts.

Barbara L. Brown, a lecturer in the political science department at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, says the advantage of incumbency has increased. And she says the results illustrate the continuing tendency to deal with the presidential election differently than with races lower on the ballot. Brown's theory is that people ponder and invest themselves in deciding how to vote in the presidential contest, then for the races lower down on the ballot either return to their party affiliation or to incumbents. "The farther you go down the ballot, the more it costs you to be informed about what the options are," she says. There was some thought that might change with the departure of the popular Ronald Reagan, but it did not, Brown says.

Jack Van Der Slik, director of the legislative studies center at Sangamon State University, says the voters have decided they want no change. "It's the old story. 'We don't like the legislature, but our guy's okay,'" says Van Der Slik. He says that he will be watching to see if the bitterness of some of the contests carries over into the legislative session. In the past the losers went home and the winners came to Springfield, he says. Now, with the heavy involvement by the partisan staffs in the campaigns, many of those on the losing sides are still around. "I wonder if we're going to see a rising level of acrimony?" Van Der Slik asks.

Rep. Olson, who escaped unbowed if not unbloodied, sees no bitterness. Olson believes that Madigan made him a target and says, "I have somewhat spoken his name to assist my being reelected." But he sees no problems in dealing with Madigan or other Democrats. "We'll look at each other and grin, and it will be business as usual." That may or may not be comforting. It was the will of the voters.□

December 1988 | Illinois Issues | 16

December 1988 | Illinois Issues | 17