I did not hear that. I’m surprised it wasn’t done after the 1986 LaRoushie fiasco.
I’m seeing conflicting info. Did they change it to run together in the primary (like Kentucky) or the Governor nominee appoints the running mate after winning (like Colorado)? I’m ok with former but don’t like the latter. The US Vice Presidential nominees are defacto appointed however they are technically nominated separately and the convention could chose to defy the nominee as is their right (think if McCain had picked Liarman).
If it is indeed a change to the Colorado system then it will be the only statewide office the voters don’t nominate themselves. That’s just wrong.
You absolutely can’t abolish the office even if the guy doesn’t have much to do, NJ’s recent past is case in point of why one is needed. It’s salary and office budget as you say is a drop in the stinking bucket, these people are such hypocrites.
Unlike NJ we have other statewide elected officials in the line of succession whereas all those offices are appointed in NJ and the job fell to the Senate President. However the guy next in line could be from a different party, worked for us in Arizona where Sec of State Brewer took over for Butch but I don’t like that.
We need an amendment to be able to fill the office when it’s vacant as that is currently not possible because the state constitution doesn’t mention it. NY was in the same boat but a court let Patterson fill the office anyway.
In MA it seems they also have no provision to fill the office of LT Governor. What a weird oversight in these state constitutions.
Here’s the article on the proposal by the IL House to abolish the office of Lt. Governor (ironically being sponsored by a foolish conservative Republican who would rather abolish that than NUMEROUS unnecessarily appointed government jobs). They want to make it a ballot referendum for voters to approve. I’d vote NO for the reasons you mentioned when NJ had no Lt. Governor position and it caused numerous problems. Not to mention I do NOT want the Attorney General (currently little Lisa) as “next in line”
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130411/news/704119808/
And here’s the article about them changing the way Lt. Governor’s are chosen in Illinois. This article was written before it passed, but I read in an email two days ago that it’s already been enacted and will go into effect in 2014, so there’s speculation on who the gubernatorial candidates (Rutherford, Dillard, Brady, etc.) would pick as their running mate:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130528/BLOGS02/130529808
I thought they were going with the Kentucky system, but from that article it looks like the Colorado system. Definitely a move that takes away power from Illinois citizens and puts it in the hands of politicians to decide behind closed doors (a terrible idea no matter how many freepers live in their fantasy world that state governments are smarter and know whats best for us). I’m surprised there’s virtually no news coverage about this in Illinois. Voters should rightfully be outraged about the change.
They’ve probably changing it because of what happened when Quinn got paired with that scumbag criminal after the primary and had to force him out so he could appoint Shelia Simon. He wants to be able to automatically do that in the future and take it out of voters hands completely.
IMO, they should keep the current system (voters choose whoever they want for Lt. Governor in the primary), but amend the duties of the Lt. Governor so it’s not a powerless office, and make it similar to the duties of the Vice President (casts the tie-breaking vote in the IL Senate, becomes acting Governor automatically if the Governor is incapacitated, etc.) Of course, that would require common sense, which we don’t have in Illinois.