Illinois' corrupt lame-duck tradition

For the vast majority of 2010, the Illinois General Assembly satisfied itself with passing relatively innocuous legislation.

Then, the election came on Nov. 2. The voters spoke, and a new Legislature was elected — made up, to be sure, primarily of the people who already were there, but also with several new faces.

Then in keeping with one of the state's more mysterious political traditions, the old General Assembly that had scarcely gone anywhere near Springfield since spring went back to work for two months.

And suddenly, a state government that had avoided controversial legislation before the election has been swimming in it now that the voters have been tucked safely back in their beds.

Thing is, like so much cynical political practice, this postelection procedure is so widespread and has gone on so long that almost nobody notices any more or if any of us do, we more or less shrug and accept it as the way politics works. This isn't the first time Illinois has held a lame-duck session, and Illinois isn't the only state that has them. Nor is it exclusive to the states. Congress does the same thing.

But let there be no mistake: This is not a model of representative government; it is a corruption of it.

Consider the legislation that has come before this lame-duck General Assembly.

Both houses have approved legislation that provides for civil unions. The Illinois House has passed a measure to abolish capital punishment. And word is, an agreement has been reached on a historic increase in the state income tax.

None of these are minor issues. Each is landmark legislation.

For the record, we endorsed the concept of civil unions. We have some sympathy for the proposal to ban the death penalty but believe it's a complex issue that merits considerable study and vigorous debate. And we strongly question such a large increase in taxes at a time when the economy is still sluggish and when a government that has promised no layoffs to its public employees has failed to get serious about spending reductions.

But the larger point is unrelated to the relative strengths or weaknesses of these proposals.

The point is this: These are major pieces of legislation that should be decided by the legislators who have recently been put into office.

And these are major policy matters that should be addressed in front of the electorate, not when elected officials have conveniently gotten them out of the way.

Why, for example, should Michael Bond of Grayslake have had a vote on civil unions after the electorate ousted him from the state Senate? And why, as another example, should Mark Walker of Arlington Heights have had one on the death penalty after the electorate ousted him from the Illinois House?

Capital punishment and tax increases are significant measures. They deserve to be considered by a Legislature with the full faith and credit of the electorate. That new General Assembly is to be sworn in later this week. These issues can wait that long. The lame-duck Legislature should hold off and get out of the way.