Editorial: The Illinois House and its Madigan rules

Much attention is given to the almost-absolute power the Illinois House speaker wields over state government, and that critical attention is warranted.

We, among many, have called for limits on the number of terms Illinois state legislators can be allowed in leadership positions — a direct reference to the power exercised by Michael J. Madigan, now at 34 years and counting as House speaker, making him the longest serving House speaker not just in Illinois but in any state in the history of the United States.

In response to the chorus of calls, the Illinois Senate two years ago unanimously passed a resolution to limit any senator's occupancy of the Senate president and Senate minority leader positions to maximums of 10 years. An encouraging step in the right direction.

In the Illinois House? Nothing. No such courage or independence by the minions in Madigan's Democratic Party caucus. Not even when Madigan's office becomes embroiled in controversies that would bring down lesser titans.

But the autocratic tendency by Madigan and his lieutenants in the Illinois House doesn't begin and end with the debate over the length of his speakership.

Last week, the House had a chance to make changes to its rules, to provide rank-and-file lawmakers more opportunity to bring legislation to the floor for a debate.

As it stands now, look to Greg Harris and Arthur Turner, both of Chicago; and Natalie Manley of Joliet. They are the three Democratic members of the five-member House Rules Committee, and along with Madigan, they hold the power to move and restrain ideas in Springfield.

Under the current system, all legislation proposed in the Illinois House must pass through the Rules Committee. Harris, Turner and Manley can block all but the rare exception from getting to the floor. Even when a number of legislators have signed on, whether the effort is partisan or bipartisan. They can block it. For any reason.

There does, of course, need to be structure in how proposals rise to consideration. But this system is autocratic, meant to consolidate power in Madigan's hands, and everyone knows it.

Republicans proposed a series of reasonable modifications to the rules, modifications built mainly around the idea of granting hearings for proposals that give evidence of broad bipartisan support.

Hard to argue with that, right?

But every Democrat in the House did. The proposal was shot down on a straight party line vote.

For Democratic state representatives in the suburbs, it seems fair to ask why they voted against their own interests and ours, why they voted to make it harder to bring their proposals to the floor rather than easier.