The state of the State

State Treasurer Pat Quinn seemed to harbor few illusions about lawmakers' feelings on the term limits proposal he wanted to see on the November ballot. "They probably broke open bottles of champagne" upon hearing of the Illinois Supreme Court's decision not to allow the controversial question to be put before voters, he said.

But if Quinn's history says anything about his plans for the future, entrenched legislators might not be celebrating for long. Just days after the court's decision, stories were circulating that Quinn was talking about the drastic possibility of creating a unicameral (single-house) legislature in Illinois to replace the state's House and Senate. Although he later said this possibility was brought up repeatedly by a reporter during an interview, he did hint that he's giving some thought to a Cutback II movement — a sequel to his 1980 petition drive that cut the size of the Illinois House of Representatives by one- third. This time, he said, a cutback should be aimed at membership in both the House and the Senate chambers. "I think any change should be significant," he said. "It shouldn't be cosmetic."

Ironically, the Cutback Amendment is the very thing many political observers point to as the root of divisive party-line battles and lack of independence in the House of Representatives. They say it strengthened the hold of leaders on the rank-and-file members of their parties, which has become a common lament of political watchdogs.

But Quinn doesn't sound deterred by such perceptions. "I think they maybe didn't get the message in 1980" when House membership was slashed, he said. If a Cutback II effort were successful, "those in office would realize the ultimate power of voters" — though he didn't elaborate on why a second round of cuts in membership would be any more successful than the first when it comes to spurring the legislature into productive action.

Quinn's reaction should surprise no one. The term limits movement was his baby, and he put a lot of work into getting the 260,000-plus valid signatures required to get it in on the ballot. Plus, it would have been great for his secretary of state candidacy to be tied to such a popular movement; a Chicago Tribune poll found more than two-thirds of likely voters supported the idea.

Unfortunately for Quinn, a swell of voter anger about the absence of the term limits question on their ballots seems unlikely. Although voters probably would approve the measure if given the chance, many also would likely give a nod to their own state representative or senator regardless of how long he or she has been in office. Voters may be angry and frustrated, but they're often more willing to take those feelings out on an institution like the legislature in general than on their own office-holders.

In fact, that's an argument made over and over again by opponents of term limits: Voters already have the power to kick legislators out of office after eight years; all they have to do is vote them out. And there are other good arguments against placing strict limits on the number of times voters can return someone they like to office.

Regardless of the merits of the question, there are some interesting — and disturbing — points to consider in this case.

For one thing, the Illinois Supreme Court's decision makes Illinois the only state where a court has kept a citizens' initiative on term limits for state lawmakers from voters. That's not to fault the justices' decision; their reasoning (one hopes) was based on the wording of the state's Constitution. When the opinion was handed down, the majority reasoning was not made public.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Moses Harrison II, acknowledges that by ruling the measure off the November 8 ballot, the state Supreme Court left citizens with virtually no chance of voting on term limits — no matter how many of them would like the chance to do so.

In filing the lawsuit seeking to keep the term limits question off the ballot, the Chicago Bar Association contended the measure would not directly address the structure and procedure of the legislature — a necessary qualification for putting constitutional amendments spurred by citizen initiative on the ballot. Otherwise, the state legislature must approve placing such amendments on the ballot. Chances of lawmakers putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would limit their own terms are between slim and none. The portion of the state's Constitution that allows for citizens' initiatives "was drafted and adopted as a check on the legislature's self-interest," Harrison wrote. "Under the (court) majority's judgment, that check has been lost. Without an initiative, there is no realistic possibility that a term-limit amendment can ever be realized.

"Regardless of the wisdom of term limits ... democracy should be permitted to take its course, as the drafters of our constitution intended," he wrote. "To hold that the law mandates a contrary result is a fiction that venerates the power of our incumbent legislators and demeans the intelligence of their constituents."

Quinn also pointed out some political considerations that hopefully had no bearing on the justices' decision but nonetheless could reinforce the idea that those with political clout end up getting what they want. The lawsuit that kept the term limits measure off the ballot was filed by the Chicago Bar Association, a registered lobbyist group that supported the legislative and judicial pay raise approved by lawmakers this year.

"What also is extremely concerning here is that the Chicago Bar Association rates judges and publishes full-page ads" with those ratings, Quinn said. "What exactly is their interest? It doesn't look good."

For now, voters may end up shrugging off this whole episode as more mutual back-scratching by people in power. But if Quinn uses something along the lines of a Cutback II to tap into such feelings of frustration and inability of everyday people to affect their government, the Illinois legislature could have a worse fate to contend with than term limits. 

September 1994/Illinois Issues/9