Posted: April 09, 2009

By Doug Ibendahl

 

A number of Republican activists have been copying me on the e-mail responses they've received from some of the 13 Republican Senators who voted "no" on Senate Bill 600 last Thursday. I appreciate that.

 

After reading all these messages generated by the anti-SB600 faction, I can report that while each "no" Senator has his own specific boilerplate language - the basic excuses are as lame as they are the same.

 

After over four years, I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate argument as to why Republicans shouldn't have a voting right restored that had been enjoyed for 70-plus years, before it was stolen away by a bad law two decades ago - a bad law that a few GOP bosses jammed through the legislature without notice to rank-and-file Republicans.

 

SB600 simply reverses that bad law and restores a basic voting right that never should have been stolen from you in the first place.

 

We're talking about a very basic reform, but a lot of phony information is being put out there by a few in an attempt to muddy the waters.

 

I thought I would reprint what one Senator recently sent an outstanding Republican activist. Not having spent as much time on SB600, the activist asked if I would respond to the Senator. I was happy to do that.

 

Below the Senator's message is my response to him. You might find some of the facts and background there of use as we move forward into the House phase of SB600 passage. We can expect to see many of the same phony talking points being recycled. All are easily shot down.

 

 

Text of recent e-mail from GOP Senator to Republican Activist.
Good to hear from you as always [Name redacted]. I share and understand the frustration of my fellow Republicans at our recent inability to win elections in Illinois. However, I do not see changing the process of electing state central committeemen from one where elected volunteers vote in a form of representative government to a direct election by voters as critical to changing that situation. I appreciate and respect that people on both sides of this issue who place greater importance on this distinction than I do. I ultimately chose to vote against SB600 after my weighing of its merits along the following lines. First, those who elect the state central committeemen under the current system are themselves directly elected. This is representative government, which is a fundamental part of American government dating back to our founding.  To the extent that current rules allow some to vote vacant seats, such as a county chairman voting for precincts with no elected committeeman, I think the rules should be changed to prevent this overreach of power. However, SB600 was put forth instead of this more narrowly tailored option. Second, this issue was considered at the last state party convention. After an airing of the issues, this legislation was rejected by a 3 to 1 margin in a vote of over 700 grassroots Republicans. I know some question the validity of this vote. However, I was in attendance at this convention and interacted with the delegates. They were not the type of people to be duped or otherwise co-opted into some rigged vote. Thus, I take the convention vote as a valid representation of the views of a majority of the volunteers who work to elect us. Third, a solid majority of Senate Republicans opposed this bill. Conversely, every Senate Democrat, except one, voted for this bill (and frankly relished doing so). The House sponsor remains Republican-turned-Democrat Paul Froehlich. The bill is to govern the Republican Party's affairs and is being passed by Democrats. I think that is inappropriate. I know many of these arguments against the bill have been made by others and that, in the end, many people found them unpersuasive. I, on the other hand am persuaded by them. I feel people can disagree in good faith over this issue. I respect my colleagues and other loyal Republicans who feel differently than I about it. However, I do not support this bill. Please stay in touch. 

 

 

Response from Doug Ibendahl to GOP Senator who voted "no" on SB600

[Name redacted] forwarded to me the response she received from you over the weekend regarding your vote against SB600. She asked me to respond to you, since she hasn't spent as much time on this issue. I'm happy to do that of course.

 

[Senator], a few comments on what you told [Redacted].

 

* It is true that those who get to choose the members of the State Central Committee (SCC) now are directly elected. However, you ignore the adverse incentives that have been instilled in our system from the top to bottom, as a result of the screwy way we now pick the SCC. What's happened is that all over the state - races for lower party offices become races that are SOLELY about securing "votes" for a member of the SCC. Some folks fear that direct elections will be costly - but the fact is our current system is already incurring great costs - and in a particularly destructive way.

 

For example, here in Cook County where I live (and where a big portion of the Congressional Districts are located all or partially) - people often get onto the SCC with the "votes" of as few as three or four committeemen. We don't have precinct committeemen in Cook with any voting powers - by law. (By the way, I noted you said on the senate floor last Thursday that the SCC was elected by precinct committeemen. That's not true in Cook where around one-quarter of the state's Republicans reside and where the biggest chunk of the Congressional Districts are located).

 

So what happens is a few have learned how to game the system. Every four years, someone looking to get on the SCC backs candidates for Ward Committeeman or Township Committeeman SOLELY to secure votes for an SCC spot. They don't back the best person who will help grow the party, or who will help recruit volunteers, or someone who will knock on doors. After the county convention where they cast their vote for SCC, the person goes into hibernation for four years.

 

Our current system is a major impediment to any hope the GOP might have to be competitive in Cook again. The party apparatus just isn't there, because too many committeemen have been backed for the wrong reasons.

 

These lower level races become expensive - and again, for all the wrong reasons. Worse, our State Party has gotten involved in these lower level races. For example, I can send you a letter from the last race for Ward Committeeman from my Ward from just last year. It's on State Party letterhead, and is endorsing the "pro-Andy" candidate over two far superior grassroots Republicans. (As an aside, the "endorsed" candidate went on last year to try and slate Dems for GOP ballot vacancies for public offices - including a former Chicago Democratic Alderman who had spent 3 yrs in prison on corruption charges - but that's another story for another day.)

 

So in other words, contributor funds to the State Party are being used to back pro-status-quo shills for lower party offices. And because we've got an SCC that's not accountable to Republicans - there is no one on there to put a stop to this abuse. And obviously many don't want to change it, because they are the beneficiaries of the corrupted system. It's a vicious circle that's been destroying our party for 2 decades now.

 

And these negative incentives aren't confined to Cook. Some - certainly not all - County Chairmen have gotten the idea that they have more "power" if they don't fill their precinct committeemen slots. This is a big reason why there is a HUGE vacancy rate around the state. It's also why our State Party does nothing to help recruit precinct committeemen. Almost every other State GOP considers that a basic function of a State Party.

 

For crying out loud, downstate in the 19th Congressional (where I grew up), their SCC member is Bob Winchester. Bob was a Deputy Governor under George Ryan.

 

I'll take my chances with real elections. I think we can do better.

 

*  Next, it's just odd that Republicans get to directly elect the lowest folks on the totem pole but not the top. Further, it's at the State Party level where the most major problems exist. This democracy 3-times removed or whatever isn't satisfactory. Precinct Committeemen get to choose their County Chairman, and that's great. I don't have a problem with that. But the State Party is a completely separate entity. Precinct committeemen will still have a vote for SCC - it will be one vote, just like every other Republican. I hear this "loss of power" argument thrown out - but it never seems to be from an actual precinct committeeman. I don't personally know any precinct committeeman who is so hoggish to say they need super-voting rights for County Chairman AND the SCC.

 

*  If you're trying to compare our system to the Electoral College or to the Delegate system for President (which it sounds like you're referring to), that's a bad analogy. First of all, when someone votes for Delegates in a Presidential race - those Delegates are committed to a certain candidate. That's the sole purpose of their existence on the ballot. Such is not the case for precinct, ward, or township committeeman. Races for those offices are SUPPOSED to be about finding the best grassroots organizer and party builder.

 

*  Next, your reference to the "vacant precinct" issue is misplaced. I've studied the statute, it's already very clear that even under our current system that vacant precincts are NOT to be voted by the County Chairman in the absence of an actual precinct committeeman. But our State Party has directed County Chairman to do so anyway in the past. Again, it's all been about preserving the failed status-quo. It's kinda sad that anyone would see following existing law as some kind of advance or compromise - but in any case - even if our State Party decided to follow existing law in the future with respect to vacant precincts, the fundamental problems with our current system would still remain.

 

* Next, you bring up last year's convention. If you honestly think that rigged affair stood for anything, I really don't know what to say. But everyone I know who was there knows it's probably the single best argument FOR SB600. That event was so divisive, it not only sealed the doom for every big race in Illinois, I would go so far to say it was a material factor in McCain/Palin losing Indiana by a narrow margin (after Bush won it by 27 points in 2004). GOP volunteers were so fed up after Decatur, there was truly nothing keeping Illinois Obama volunteers from streaming over every border.

 

And you say no one was duped in Decatur? Really? So you didn't think the fact that the resolution was written in the negative, and if you supported SB600 you had to vote "no" on the resolution maybe wasn't a bit confusing? Have you ever heard of such a thing before?  You don't think it was shameful that delegates who were trying to ask for clarification were either surrounded by security or just thrown out doesn't cast a blot on the whole thing? You didn't hear a huge group of delegates shouting, "What are we voting on?! What are we voting on?!" I was in the very back of the hall and I did.  You didn't think it was a black day for our party when the thing was just jammed through as quickly as possible with NO explanation or clarification?

 

By the way, McKenna had promised an open debate on SB600. But there was none, zero, on any issue. I've been to the state conventions of the Missouri, Wisconsin, and Iowa GOP's. Ours is the only one that didn't even have microphones set up on the floor. Our State Party is the most closed and horribly run of anything I've seen before. Nothing I've seen comes close. I would be the first to admit there were problems when I was General Counsel for the State Party 10 years ago, but it's out of control now.

 

Again, that's what happens when you take a Republican Party away from Republicans.

 

Bottom line, the Decatur convention was meaningless. If I'm allowed to select a jury all by myself, I can get any verdict. Over three-quarters of the delegate and alternate slots were unfilled - even though tons of good Republicans stood ready to go. But our State Party exercised veto authority and they just denied a lot of reform minded Republicans. I was only allowed to be a visitor for example, even though a committeeman and Vice Chairman of the Cook County GOP had slated me as a delegate. I heard from scores of Republicans who had the same problem. Chicago alone could have sent well over 200 delegates. Only 35 were approved, and I know even fewer showed up.

 

But put aside all the rigging, SB600 as it's now written couldn't have been considered last year, anywhere - because it was only drafted a month ago!

 

Doubling the size of the SCC and adding an equal number of State Central Committeewomen - makes this a fundamentally different SB600 than was even being contemplated last year - that goes for Decatur or anywhere else.  So please knock it off with the convention nonsense.

 

* Next, your analysis of the Democrat help is all circular. Every Republican who is thinking beyond self-interest wants their vote back, who wouldn't? We're Americans and this right was taken away from us 20 years ago with no notice whatsoever. Of course we want our vote back. But because 13 of you vote "no" you want to say this is a Dem bill?  Stop it. You know you aren't speaking for 99.999% of Republicans in Illinois - the folks who ARE the Republican Party.

 

The Dems are voting yes for the simple reason they already have the same right. There is no reason for them to be the bad guys and take the blame from their Republican constituents. Yes, a Democrat lawmaker represents all of his or her citizens in their role as a public official, including the Republicans.

 

[Senator], was SB600 a Democrat bill when you signed-on as a co-sponsor on February 11th? Was it a Democrat bill when it passed in the senate unanimously back in 2005 (and a version that wasn't nearly as good for our party)?

 

[Senator], I also don't like the way you're trying to mislead [Redacted] on this Froehlich sponsor thing in the House. You know that's a red herring. I think Froehlich is a complete weasel for switching parties - but he did something good here. He was around in 2005 and he knows about the way Cross and Saviano killed SB600 there. When Froehlich heard that Lauzen was pushing SB600 again, he quickly asked to be the sponsor in the House - solely to be a placeholder to secure the thing before it could be railroaded.

 

At the appropriate time, Lauzen will reassign it to a Republican. But the point is it will be Lauzen's choice - not Cross' or Saviano's. I agree with what Lauzen is doing. Everyone knows the kind of vicious attacks the first Republican who steps up in the House is going to get. There's no use putting that target on anyone's back any sooner than necessary - especially when we've got an unaccountable SCC that we know won't say a peep to reign in its staff when the attacks and smearing begins of that pro-accountability Republican.

 

There is no Democrat conspiracy here and it's embarrassing to hear this nonsense again. There is a Democrat opportunity now, no question - but it's one you 13 went out of your way to create.  I don't see how you tell Republicans they can't have their vote back - and then turn around down the road and ask for their vote or help on some other race. It doesn't make any sense to me.  Again, it's the "no" voters who created the civil war and the opportunity for Dems all on their own. This reform should be a no-brainer in my view.

 

[Senator], needless to say, I'm very disappointed in your response to an outstanding Republican like [Redacted], just as I was very disappointed with the behavior by you and Bill Brady on the floor last Thursday during debate on SB600.

 

Telling Republicans we're going to respect them again by returning their voice for these top party spots will be a HUGE shot in the arm for our Illinois GOP. SB600 isn't going to change the world, no one has ever claimed that - but it will be a major energizer for the grassroots.  We'll restore some accountability and we'll properly align the right kind of incentives.

 

So candidates for SCC will have to spend time campaigning in an entire congressional district? I think that's great. They'll have to work with Republican voters, candidates and lower level party officials - they'll have no time to threaten frivolous litigation like 18 of the current group are doing.

 

I would describe SB600 as a necessary - if not sufficient condition - for rebuilding the Illinois Republican Party.

 

[Senator], please stop with the phony excuses and just let the rest of us get it done. I think you had your chance.  I would just ask that you not muddy the waters now with wrong and/or misleading information. Thank you.

 

Doug Ibendahl

312/648-0061