Chicago mayoral term limits (house, closing, live)

[Manterro]

Chicago, unlike Los Angeles and New York, doesn't have mayoral term limits. Many people have strongly suggested term limits in the past but nothing ever happens. Why isn't a referendum put on the ballot during an election, so the people of Chicago can vote on it? Did the former mayors find a way to block it or pass a law against it? Knowing the criminals and unsavory characters who have occupied the mayors office in this corrupt city, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[prhill]

Sadly that would not surprise me either.

[BRU67]

Not that I'm a fan of Rahm but it never ceases to amaze me how few people are asking questions about what happened during the Daley Administration. That guy single handedly brought us to the position that we're in now. And I mean literally since he was essentially a dictator and had city councils who voted to approve every harebrained scheme he proposed, including the 1995 pension holiday, which has created billions in liabilities we're going to have to pay for.

As to term limits, I would be for it, though I suspect it's a little too much too little too late for that. I think Rahm will have viable challengers next election - I sincerely hope some fiscally responsible challengers. And I doubt we will ever have another dictator like Daley, who was a bizzare combination of mob boss and cute little mascot to our city. Though we should do everything possible now to ensure that never happens again.

[xsboost]

Why isn't there one? Because no term limits is in their (those in power now) best interest.

[BRU67]

I truly wish there was a way to make everybody who voted for Daley pay for some of this pension mess, regardless of where were they live now. That would be justice, and would help solve this more quickly.

[NorthSideSoxGuy]

I could be totally off, but I'm pretty sure term limits have never been brought forth due to provisions in the Illinois constitution. As it's currently written, there are strict limits on how referendums can be brought before voters. The public cannot petition to get an initiative on the ballot unless it's under certain conditions. This is what killed the independent maps initiative in the IL Supreme Court. I assume it's the same in Chicago. So unless elected officials vote to term limit themselves or put the question on the ballot, I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

But honestly, term limits are much nicer in theory than in practicality. Yeah, it could prevent elected officials from accumulating Madigan-like or Daley-like power, but it also forces a lot of smart folks out of government after a fixed amount of time. It's usually good to have some people around who know how government works and how to get things done.

Plus, we already have term limits -- they're called elections.

[Manterro]

Originally Posted by NorthSideSoxGuy

Plus, we already have term limits -- they're called elections.

I like that. Good point.

[Manterro]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Not that I'm a fan of Rahm but it never ceases to amaze me how few people are asking questions about what happened during the Daley Administration. That guy single handedly brought us to the position that we're in now. And I mean literally since he was essentially a dictator and had city councils who voted to approve every harebrained scheme he proposed, including the 1995 pension holiday, which has created billions in liabilities we're going to have to pay for.

As to term limits, I would be for it, though I suspect it's a little too much too little too late for that. I think Rahm will have viable challengers next election - I sincerely hope some fiscally responsible challengers. And I doubt we will ever have another dictator like Daley, who was a bizzare combination of mob boss and cute little mascot to our city. Though we should do everything possible now to ensure that never happens again.

I agree with you completely. I dislike Rahm but Daley really messed up this city. The more I learn about him, the more I shake my head in disgust. Years ago, my next door neighbor worked at Meigs Field Airport on the lakefront. She came home from work one day and was crying. I seen her and went to see what happened. She told me Daley had bulldozers tear up airport runways in the middle of the night. The airport was closing and her job would be gone soon. I couldn't believe Daley would do something like that. What a lowlife.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by NorthSideSoxGuy

I could be totally off, but I'm pretty sure term limits have never been brought forth due to provisions in the Illinois constitution. As it's currently written, there are strict limits on how referendums can be brought before voters. The public cannot petition to get an initiative on the ballot unless it's under certain conditions. This is what killed the independent maps initiative in the IL Supreme Court. I assume it's the same in Chicago. So unless elected officials vote to term limit themselves or put the question on the ballot, I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

But honestly, term limits are much nicer in theory than in practicality. Yeah, it could prevent elected officials from accumulating Madigan-like or Daley-like power, but it also forces a lot of smart folks out of government after a fixed amount of time. It's usually good to have some people around who know how government works and how to get things done.

Plus, we already have term limits -- they're called elections.

Yes and no. Yes in that the Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted the Illinois Constitution as preventing the voters from bringing a referendum on term limits. No in that it's never been brought forth. It has been brought forth several times in the legislature, but has never gained any traction. It is part of Rauner's Turnaround Agenda and there have been bills, most recently one limiting the amount of time one can serve as leader of House or Senate, but they've all died.

If Rauner wins this election and gains a majority in the House and Senate, you might see term limits. Otherwise, no way. And it's unlikely the voters could get a referendum on the ballot to force it due to how the Supreme Court has interpreted our Constitution.

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by BRU67

If Rauner wins this election

That's highly unlikely. He's being blamed for everything right now it seems.