Editorial roundup

May 3 Champaign News-Gazette Political gamesmanship

Same-old, same-old in Springfield. The time-honored tactic of legislating by surprise was on display again last week in Springfield when the ruling party passed legislation in the House designed to maintain its majority status.

House Democrats passed a measure Wednesday aimed at reducing competition in the general election by barring political parties from appointing a general-election candidate if no member of that party filed nominating petitions for the primary.

House Democrats also decided to try to goose November election turnout by putting three advisory referendums on the ballot related to in vitro fertilization, election interference and raising taxes on the rich.

On Thursday, the Senate approved the ban on candidate slating and sent it to the governor for signing.

By claiming all the ballot referendum spots available, Democrats achieved two goals. They blocked Republican efforts to ask voters their opinions on redistricting reform, term limits and ethics, and instead put what they consider hot-button issues appealing to liberals on the ballot.

If one of the advisory referendum issues sound familiar, it’s because it is. The Chicago Tribune recalls that in 2014, Democrats proposed the plan to raise taxes on millionaires.

Voters approved the millionaire’s tax then, but nothing came of it. Given the Illinois Constitution’s flat-tax mandate, it’s hard to see how raising the income-tax rate on one segment of taxpayers would survive a legal challenge.

The ban on post-primary candidate slating is more substantive. But it raises a question.

With their supermajority in control of both the House and Senate, why do Democrats persist in proposing and then passing legislative measures out of the blue?

House Republican Leader Tony McCombie complained the “bill was dropped on us at the last minute.” Irritated

by the action, Republicans walked out of the chamber to protest.

As protests go, it was pretty much pointless. Democrats pretty much ignore the GOP, so their departure just made it easier to do that.

As for the bill’s substance, this is clearly an effort to limit voter choice, which already suffers because of the lack of electoral competition in legislative races. …

It’s clear how the ban on post-primary slating benefits incumbents. But how does the public benefit from having its choices restricted in general elections?

Clearly, it does not. But this is strictly about politics in Springfield, not policy aimed at achieving a greater good.

The good news is that previous candidates who were slated after primaries mostly filled a symbolic role of filling a ballot slot. So, in terms of electoral substance, it’s not a big setback.

But it demonstrates once again how politicians are constantly searching for ways to game the system at the public’s expense.