The majority rules, but which one rules Senate?

By BILL KEMP

In November Illinois voters gave Democrats a 31 to 28 Democratic majority in the state Senate.

In January Democratic state senators re-elected Philip J. Rock (D-8, Oak Park) Senate president by a 30 to 28 majority.

On April 18 Senate Minority Leader James "Pate" Philip (R-23, Wood Dale) patched together a "majority" coalition of 28 Republicans and two Democrats to challenge Rock. Rock could not muster even the 30 votes needed to adjourn the upper chamber.

What happened? In five months Democrats went from congratulating themselves on retaining control of the Senate after a number of costly and closely contested elections to being, in effect, a majority hunted by a minority.

April 18, the Senate's 14th legislative day, the chamber looked more like it does in late June. The galleries were full. Half a dozen television cameras recorded the events. Senators were for the most part in their seats. Philip was speaking for the Republicans and Rock for the Democrats. It was serious business.

The business was Minority Leader Philip's attempt to install Republicans in key spots in the legislative process. With two rogue Democrats, Philip had the 30 votes needed to pass the rule changes that he had filed in writing five days before. "How many times has President Rock said, 'If you've got 30 votes around here, you can do anything?' . . . When 30 members decide they want to do things, you ought to give them a vote."

Although Philip had 30 votes, Rock had the authority of the chair. He ruled Philip's motions out of order, calling them dilatory, improper and technically defective.

Then the fun began. Philip threatened to boycott meetings of what he called illegal committees and to demand roll call votes for even the most seemingly insignificant motions. He followed through immediately by demanding a roll call on the adjournment resolution. And Philip promised to keep up the pressure until he got a vote on his motions.

The events of April 18th challenged the statesmanlike nature of the Senate, a characteristic that has been put to a stern test over the last three months.

Rock's problem is that his majority in the upper chamber is slim. The 31 to 28 edge that the Democrats enjoy means that on any given vote Rock can only lose one supporter and still retain his majority. Last session, for example, he lost two members to illness on the question of reform of the Chicago public schools and, when Republicans stood united, was eventually forced into compromise talks with the GOP minority.

If Rock needed any reminder of his tenuous position, he got it in January when he was elected to an unprecedented fifth term as Senate president. On the first ballot he got 29 of 31 Democratic votes for the presidency, one short of the chamber's 30-vote constitutional majority. Abandoning him were Sens. Frank D. Savickas (D-15, Chicago) and Ethel Skyles Alexander (D-16, Chicago).

Savickas, whose, southwest Chicago district contains large numbers of so-called "Reagan Democrats," was protesting being dumped as an assistant majority leader. Alexander objected to the failure to provide pension law changes for school teachers. That revolt was quelled when Rock assured Alexander of his support for the pension changes. She voted for Rock, but Savickas continued to vote present, portending the April rules fight.

Rock's problems extend beyond a few disaffected individuals; he must also contend with what has been dubbed a "raucous caucus." His members include black and white liberals from Chicago and conservative "white ethnic" Chicago lawmakers like Savickas. Also part of his caucus are Democrats from relatively conservative downstate districts.

The slim majority and diverse caucus continues to plague Rock. His problems surfaced on March 2 when Philip indicated that he would challenge the makeup of the committees. Philip said then that he had the votes to prevent adoption of the Committee on Committees report setting the committee membership. The usually routine but formal adoption of the committees was put off.

When lawmakers returned to Springfield on March 14, Rock could not muster a 30-vote constitutional majority for the ceremonial adoption of the session's committee structure. A "present" instead of a "yes" vote by two Democrats, Sen. Savickas and Sen. Jeremiah E. Joyce (D-14, Chicago), a former Cook County assistant state's attorney whose district closely resembles Savickas's, halted the Senate from setting up committees and starting the legislative process.

Savickas was still upset about being unseated from his Senate leadership post in favor of Sen. Ted Lechowicz (D-6, Chicago). Joyce protested that Savickas had been treated poorly by the Democratic leadership and said he was expressing his displeasure with Rock by tying up the Senate.

On March 15, Rock temporarily ended the stalemate over committees by invoking a seldom-used Senate rule to form "special temporary committees." In effect, he succeeded in bypassing a Senate floor vote on committees by creating "temporary" committees allowed by Senate rules. Would there be a showdown April 5, the day after the Chicago mayoral primary? No. The Republicans passed on a chance offered under Senate rules to challenge Rock's temporary committees.

On April 13, however, Philip countered by securing signatures from Joyce, Savickas and all 28 Senate Republicans on written motions to institute a Republican-authored committee plan and to make sweeping changes in the inner workings of conference committees.

The Senate GOP plan of April 18 would:

• Change the powerful Appropriations I Committee membership from the current 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans to 12 Democrats and 11 Republicans. And the 12th Democrat would be Savickas, who would replace Sen. Howard Carroll (D-1, Chicago) as chairman of the committee. Philip touted Savickas as a fiscal conservative with whom Republicans could work: "I think everyone agrees that it's unlikely any income tax increase will be approved this year, and given that, we need someone who understands the importance of holding the line on spending."

May 1989 | Illinois Issues | 30

• Change the membership of the Committee on Assignment of Bills — the committee that decides which committees consider individual bills. The GOP plan would change the membership from three Democrats and two Republicans to three members of each party, on the premise that bill assignments should be nonpartisan. Such assignment decisions are important: Last year the Committee assigned mandatory automobile insurance to the transportation instead of the insurance committee, which in the past had always bottled up such bills. The Committee on Committees, which decides the numbers of majority and minority senators on each committee, would likewise have equal representation.
• Change the membership of the Rules Committee from seven Democrats and five Republicans to eight Democrats and seven Republicans to "foster bipartisan cooperation," according to the Republican proposal. In even-numbered years during which lawmakers are supposed to consider only budget and "emergency" bills, it is the Rules Committee that decides what is an "emergency."
• Change from an extraordinary to a simple majority the number of votes needed to overturn a ruling of the chair. The proposed rule would cut into Rock's power by requiring 30 instead of 36 votes to overrule him. If that rule had been in place on April 18, Philip as leader of the 28-Republican-and-2-Democrat majority would have carried the day.

Philip also proposed in the same plan to overhaul the often controversial system of conference committees. The committees -comprised of three House Democrats and three Senate Democrats plus two House Republicans and two Senate Republicans — are supposed to work out differences when the House and Senate cannot agree on the final form of a bill. In practice these committees seldom meet. Instead the compromises are negotiated by legislative leaders, and the reports are drafted by the legislative staff and then signed by a majority of the members.

Philip proposed that conference committee reports also be limited to specific items of House and Senate disagreement on a particular bill. He sought to end the practice of using conference committee reports to carry measures unrelated to the original bills. He also proposed that conference committee reports would have to sit for one legislative day before action is taken unless a Senate majority votes to override the one-day waiting period. Also, conference committees would have to include the chairman and minority spokesmen of the committee where the bill had originally been considered.

Philip claimed that the conference committee changes would prevent something being inadvertantly slipped into a conference committee report at the last moment, a practice that he attributed to Democrats. "We like to have a little better system so we at least know what the heck is going on around here and we don't get embarrassed later on," Philip said.

Rock, on the other hand, suggested the conference committee changes were not new: "That proposal has been made every biennium since I've been down here.'' Rock said that the Rules Committee was prepared to meet and discuss Philip's proposed changes.

The Republicans went to great lengths to claim that they were not trying to dislodge Democrats from their rightful place in the majority. They noted that their changes would not have installed a Republican minority in control of any of the committees. And they claimed that neither Savickas nor Jeremiah Joyce was being asked to betray his fellow party members.

Rock, for one, did not buy that argument. He claimed that Illinois citizens had elected a Democratic majority to the Senate in November and that he would protect that margin: "I simply am not going to give in to this Republican grab for something they were unable to win in November."

Early in March Republican insiders had argued that Democratic majorities on given committees were too large, allowing members to "walk" on controversial committee votes. Margins that more nearly reflected the makeup of the Senate would cause senators to cast votes that they would have to defend back home.

After a day of stalemate April 18, that evening Rock offered a compromise on committees to Philip's "bipartisan" majority. Rock was willing to add one Republican to each of the standing committees. The GOP smelled victory. The Rock proposal would have reduced the overall edge that Democrats enjoy from 60 percent/40 percent to 56/44 percent. And in three committees, higher education, agriculture and commerce, Democrats would have only a one-vote edge. The Senate GOP caucus rejected the compromise.

One of the minority party's functions is to provide the loyal opposition. Republicans say that they challenged the committees, in part, because the opportunity presented itself and it is their obligation to take advantage. Rock takes a different view: "The minority is taking advantage of the fact that one or two of my members are mad at me or the party I represent."

Another minority party function is to become the majority party. And in 1991 the maps of legislative districts will be redrawn. Those maps were last drawn in 1981 by House Speaker Michael J. Madigan and many observers believe that they have guaranteed Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Judy Erwin, Rock's press secretary, characterized the squabble over committees as the first salvo in the 1991 redistricting battle.

The issue of committee makeup had been simmering since Gov. James R. Thompson's March 1 budget address. Rock and his tentative majority skirted the issue with temporary special committees in mid-March. The salvos erupted full blown a month later with the April 18 showdown in the Senate. The matter was not solved April 18.

What the battle for a majority means for the rest of the session is not clear. Rock expressed hope that it would not mean a breakdown in the Senate where he sees lots of work to do: "We have literally all kinds of proposals out there awaiting our action."

But action takes a majority of votes. If Rock has 30 he will be able to move his agendas. If Philip has 30 he will be able to block them.

May 1989 | Illinois Issues | 31