September 10, 2003
"TWO AGENDA" SPRINGFIELD LEAVES OUT REPUBLICANS

ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART

In most of America's state legislatures, there are customarily two agendas: the majority party's versus the minority party's, with the minority opposing whatever the majority wants. Or the governor's versus the legislature's, which arises when the governor's party is in the legislative minority and the legislature's majority consistently opposes the governor and his programs.

But this is politics as usual: The "out" (minority) party needs to differentiate itself from the "in" (majority) party, so as to give voters a reason to oust the "ins" at the next election. And the Republicans and Democrats are always squabbling, forever in search of a new issue with which to castigate their opponents.

Illinois, however, is a startling aberration. There are two agendas in Springfield: the governor's and the legislature's majority. Interestingly, this conflict is between a Democratic governor, Rod Blagojevich, and a Democratic-controlled legislature, run by House Speaker Mike Madigan. And the two agendas are quite divergent: Blagojevich is focused on doing what is necessary to get himself elected president. Madigan and his House majority, along with Senate Democrats, are focused on doing what is necessary to keep Illinois Democratic and retain their majority. And while those two agendas didn't erupt into mortal combat during 2003, the expectation is that they will at some point in the near future.

And as for the Republican minority in the Illinois General Assembly, they're about as relevant to the operation of state government as a spare tire is to an automobile. They're simply crammed into the proverbial trunk and totally ignored. They have no agenda and no visibility. The Republicans' problem is this: How do you criticize a Democrat who is governing in a fiscally responsible manner?

Unless Blagojevich or the Democratic legislature raises taxes, Republicans will have no issue; and Blagojevich, with his White House ambitions, will strive mightily not to raise the state's income or sales taxes during his tenure. And even on some social issues, Blagojevich is conservative: He supports the death penalty and opposes gay marriage; only his support of gun control makes him attackable Downstate. Most Republicans backed the governor's ethics bill and his creative $10 billion bond refinancing. But the state's anticipated fiscal 2004 revenue shortfall is still projected at $5 billion, so the governor will have to again be creative next spring.

At present, the Democrats hold a 66-52 majority in the House and a 33-26 majority in the Senate. Those lines were drawn by Madigan in 2001, after the 2000 census. They were designed to ensure a Democratic majority through 2012, and they will do precisely that -- unless there is some cataclysmic political event, like a huge tax hike, which sours voters on the Democrats.

Demographic trends in Illinois definitely favor the Democrats. The state's black population is 14.9 percent and the Hispanic population is 12.3 percent, and both vote heavily Democratic. Roughly a third of the white vote in Cook County consists of liberals, who rarely vote Republican. And in outlying city areas and the western and southern Cook County suburbs, white voters back Democrats for virtually every office, unless they are minorities or are too liberal.

In legislative contests, the Democrats have proven themselves superior in candidate recruitment in potentially Republican areas: They run conservative white men in outlying city and south suburban districts and moderate women in suburban districts. Only Downstate, where the national Democrats' pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, anti-gun agenda is reviled, are Republicans somewhat ascendant.

Of Illinois' 59 Senate districts, 17 lie within Chicago, and each elects a Democrat (eight blacks, four Hispanics and five whites); 22 are within the suburban region, which includes Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Will, Kendall and Kane counties, and 14 of those districts elect a Republican and eight elect a Democrat; and 20 are Downstate, of which 12 elect a Republican and eight elect a Democrat. The Madigan-drawn map created five new majority-Democrat suburban districts and two new Chicago-based Hispanic districts, at the expense of Republicans. Prior to 2002, the Republicans had a 32-27 Senate majority.

In 2004 only 20 Senate seats will be up for re-election, of which eight are held by Republicans. Of the 12 Democrats, six are from Chicago, including three blacks (Emil Jones, Donne Trotter and Rickey Hendon), two Hispanics (Miguel del Valle and Iris Martinez), and one white (Ira Silverstein). Each will win easily. So, too, will Lou Viverito, from a Southwest Side Chicago/southwest suburban district around Stickney, and Bill Haine, from the Downstate Edwardsville area.

That leaves four potentially vulnerable Democratic seats:

29th District (Southeastern Lake County and Northfield Township in Cook County): Susan Garrett, then a state representative from Lake Forest, challenged and beat Republican incumbent Kathy Parker of Northfield in 2002 by a solid 7,674-vote margin. Each candidate spent more than $1 million. Parker is not expected to seek a rematch, so Garrett is safe in 2004.

38th District (Downstate Peru, LaSalle): Incumbent Pat Welch has served in the Senate since 1983. He was re-elected in 1998 by 4,060 votes, but he upped that to 10,907 in 2002. If Welch retired, the seat likely would go Republican. But Welch has announced for another term, and he will win again.

47th District (Downstate around Quincy): John Sullivan, a Quincy attorney, pulled a mammoth 2002 upset, beating 22-year senator Laura Kent Donahue, who was part of the Senate Republican leadership. His margin was just 2,394 votes, but he was buoyed by a big vote in his home Adams County, which usually votes heavily Republican. Sullivan is the number one 2002 target for Senate Republicans, but no challenger has yet emerged.

59th District (Far Downstate to the state's southeast tip): Incumbent Larry Woolard resigned to take a job in the Blagojevich Administration and was replaced by Democratic state Representative Gary Forby of Benton. Woolard was re-elected in 2002 with 69.6 percent of the vote and in 2000 with 59.3 percent. But Republicans think that Forby is beatable. Don't count on it. Forby first won his House seat in 2000 by 1,194 votes, but he triumphed easily in 2002 by 9,612 votes.

The bottom line: Republicans need to win all four of those Senate races to win back control. That just ain't going to happen. They'll be lucky to win one. Senate Republican leader Frank Watson of Downstate Carlyle is as conservative as was his predecessor, Pate Philip, and he obstructs the Democrats at every opportunity. He also has raised about $1 million so far for the 2004 campaign -- not bad for the minority party.

But the demographics of the Senate districts are just too tough to overcome in 2004. It will take him until 2008 or 2010 to come close to a majority, and if Democratic state Representative Jack Franks of McHenry runs in 2004 against appointed state Senator Pam Althoff (who in 2003 took the seat of long-time Republican incumbent Dick Klemm, who resigned for health reasons), he could beat her. So the Republican minority actually could shrink.

The Republicans' House minority definitely won't shrink, however. They're not going to wither to their modern era low, which was 72-46 after the 1990 election, but they aren't going to come anywhere close to the net gain of eight seats that they need for a 60-58 majority. House Republican leader Tom Cross of Yorkville, a protege of U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, has raised about $900,000 to date, and he has targeted about a dozen Democratic-held House seats in 2004.

Cross is less conservative than Watson, particularly on social issues, and each has a distinct vision as to how to build their respective majority: Watson wants to knock off Downstate Democrats, which means building a conservative record. Cross wants to knock off Collar County/suburban Democrats, which means building a moderate record.

But, so far in 2003, the Republicans have built no record, and they have fashioned no tangible agenda. That would be acceptable strategy had the Democrats passed some bills or tax hikes against which the Republicans could campaign, but that hasn't happened, and it likely won't in 2004. And that means the Republicans will continue to be legislatively irrelevant through 2006, if not beyond.

(Next week: A district-by-district analysis of key 2004 state House and Senate races.)