by Charlie Johnston
For the last few years I have recommended to political friends that they support SB600, the bill that would create direct election of Republican State Central Committeemen. Even so, ardent supporters of it are likely to be seriously disappointed after it eventually passes. I don't see how it will make much difference and, actually, is likely to concentrate power in fewer hands rather than disperse it among more. As important as who runs the party is to activists, the overwhelming majority of people who vote in primaries don't care.That means that name ID will control the day in such elections and, thus, elected officials who are already well-known or people with lots of money to spend on a hobby will be the state central committeemen.
1) Make one small amendment to SB600 and it would be a significant improvement over our current system. Make people who are elected state or federal officials ineligible for the post. You can be a player or an umpire. You should not be both in the same game. The current SCC structure creates a great opportunity for an ambitious legislator to concentrate power in his hands. The proposed system will do nothing to change that and actually make it easier for legislators to do so. Make this amendment and the party structure becomes more responsive to the grass roots.
2) Adopt the Fair Map Amendment. I have no clue which, if either, party will benefit from this. But gerrymandering - and particularly computer-enabled gerrymandering - has allowed legislators to choose their constituents rather than constituents choosing their legislators. Regardless of who it benefits electoral districts should resemble Lego blocks - squares and rectangles rather than a conglomeration of mutant crabs.
3) Set the primary back to mid-March or early April. The rhythm of Illinois politics has been simple and clear up to the enactment of the early primary. One spends the summer and fall preceding the primary amassing troops and building the organization, largely under the radar screen. From Thanksgiving until New Year, a campaign can only tread water and hone its message and structural hierarchy. People and the media start paying attention after New Year. With a nicely tested organization and a focused coherent message, an underdog candidate can effectively make his case to the public with 13 weeks or more after New Year. The best underdogs don't start gaining real traction in the polls until mid-February. Under the current system, the primary has already been over for two weeks by then. Five weeks is not enough. It is not enough for the voters, or even the media, to honestly vet the candidates. The current system dramatically favors incumbents and the establishment because they already have the infrastructure in place before the political season begins. Neither Al Salvi nor Peter Fitzgerald could have won a primary in early February.
4) Create a runoff primary if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote. Under the current system where a plurality is sufficient, the guy that wins with 35% of the vote might just be the guy that the other 65% of voters were saying to themselves, "Anybody but this guy." When that happens, the party it happens to is critically crippled for the general election. Simple process; top two vote-getters, runoff no earlier than four weeks out and no later than seven. Right now Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard should be in the home stretch of their runoff. It gives a clear winner. Like that winner or not, he clearly comes with a mandate from the majority of the party and is not just a skunk that everyone else divided their votes against.
These are a few practical reforms that would level the playing field and be simple to enact. For that reason they are unlikely to ever be enacted in this state.
