Mike Madigan

 I am a big fan of the WSIU program State Week In Review. Last week, I emailed the panelists the question, "In your opinion, has Mike Madigan overall been good, bad or neutral for Illinois?" here is part of the response:

Based on that experience, I’d consider Madigan’s overall tenure as speaker as good, with positive benefits for the state.  He’s worked with governors of both parties, from Jim Thompson through J.B. Pritzker, in an attempt to address some of the state’s most pressing issues, including tax and spending pressures, pension reform, more equitable school funding, support for health care and human services, capital improvements, and a long list of once controversial, now generally accepted, positions, such as abolition of the death penalty and recognition of same-sex marriage.

At the same time, he’s opposed gubernatorial initiatives that he considered harmful to the state and its citizens, such as Bruce Rauner’s war on organized labor and Rod Blagojevich’s ill-advised attempt to impose a gross receipts tax.  Indeed, he led the House in impeaching Blagojevich, whom the Senate then removed from office; subsequently, Madigan’s House with the Senate enacted a series of ethics reforms directed at executive branch abuses.

Throughout his career, I believe he’s been motivated by a couple of main objectives: first, to protect the city of Chicago and its institutions, e.g. the mayor’s office, Chicago public schools, the White Sox, from any and all external threats, and secondly, to protect the legislative branch from encroachment by the executive.  To be in a position to do this, he’s been able to change the House from one in which Republicans held a majority for all but seven sessions during the first three-quarters of the 20th century, to one in which Democrats have held majorities since 1997.  Demographic changes have been a big help, along with luck-of-the-draw in redistricting, but without Madigan’s political skills, Illinois would be much more purple and a lot less blue, in my opinion.