Rauner Gets Last Word on Quinn Executive Orders

Former Governor Pat Quinn raised eyebrows when he used the remaining hours of his governorship to issue several Executive Orders. Along with a multitude of last-minute appointments to various boards and commissions, his actions struck many as a sign of disrespect and resentment toward his successor. As if to remove all doubt, the former Governor chose not to attend the inauguration of his successor.

Probably the most pointed Executive Order signed by the former Governor required that governors annually disclose detailed income tax information. This action appeared to be a clear shot at Governor Rauner and suggests that Quinn elected to wage his populist, class warfare campaign beyond the election and right up to the close of his governorship. 

It therefore came as no surprise when Governor Rauner undid those last minute Executive Orders on Friday:

Rauner’s executive orders, issued late on a Friday when fewer people are paying attention to the news, would effectively cancel seven edicts Quinn made during his final days as the head of state government.

The tax disclosure requirement was among a number of final jabs Quinn took at Rauner, who the ex-governor frequently criticized for releasing only limited income tax data during the campaign. Rauner has said he has turned over more information than required under law. There is no requirement under law. 

"It is clear that too many of Pat Quinn's actions during his final weeks in office were in an effort to settle political scores and not wholly aimed at serving the public's interest," Rauner spokesman Lance Trover said in a statement. The administration says it will decide on a "case-by-case basis" if any of Quinn's orders may be "re-implemented."
Rauner’s executive order also cancels Quinn’s move to require state contractors to be paid a minimum of $10 an hour, above the current $8.25 minimum wage. Quinn had unsuccessfully pushed for a statewide minimum wage increase, an issue Rauner said he supports only if coupled with buisness-friendly changes such as workers compensation rules. 

Rauner's action would also repeal orders that would have prevented state law enforcement from detaining a person based on immigration status, as well as additional protections for pregnant women in the workplace. But a law the state approved last year aimed at providing protections for women on the job remains on the books.

The former Governor responded to the repeal of his Executive Orders:

“The action of Bruce Rauner today to rescind these, I think, very necessary executive orders for the common good, I think is self-serving and anti-reform, and he ought to be ashamed of himself,” Quinn said.

No love lost there. Note that the former governor didn't include his successor's new title in making reference to him. In any event, the rescinding of the Executive Orders and final comment by the former governor effectively closes the book on the Quinn administration. 

What's Up With the Tribune's Latest Poll?

As a political junkie I greatly enjoy a good election cycle. This includes following and comparing polling data and methodologies. 

The Chicago Tribune released a poll on September 13 showing Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn with an 11 point lead over Republican challenger Bruce Rauner. This rather large lead for Governor Quinn goes against the grain of almost every other poll that had Rauner ahead. An exception was the Democratic Governors' Association poll that had Quinn up by 3. 

But a poll showing such a stark difference from the rest raises some questions. First and foremost, why is the result so different? It certainly appears to me that the poll is an outlier. And that's not to say that Governor Quinn won't or can't win in November, or that the polling won't oscillate back and forth over the next several weeks. But compared to other polls released around the same time, it provided a result that was, well, weird. Consider these poll results that were released in the neighborhood of the September 13 Tribune poll:

YouGov had Rauner up by 4 (September 11)

DGA had Quinn up by 3 (September 11)

WeAskAmerica had Rauner up by 8 (September 3)

Excluding the WeAskAmerica poll published over a week ago and just focusing on the more recent YouGov and DGA polls suggest that the race is probably very close. And that's why the Tribune poll showing an 11 point Quinn lead is so striking. So what's up?

First of all, most of the polls employed a "likely voter" model. The Tribune poll conducted by APC Research utilized a "registered voter" model. But it gets a little confusing. This morning I listened to the Trib's Rick Pearson discuss the poll on WGN Radio's Sunday Spin (great show). He indicated that it was based on registered voters, but then suggested that the pollster asked the registered voters if they were likely to vote. It doesn't appear that the pollster used the traditional methodologies to determine if a voter was more likely to vote, such as whether they voted in previous elections, if they knew where their polling place was, etc. If the Trib pollster was trying to narrow the universe to likely voters, they used a pretty weak approach. A lot of people will tell a pollster that they intend to vote even though they probably won't show up on election day. That's why pollsters utilize a screening process to determine who really is a likely voter based not on intent, but historical practice. If the Trib pollster used a more involved screening process, it hasn't been fully explained. Since the paper said it polled "registered voters," then that's what I'm going with. And no less than stat guru Nate Silver says that registered voter polling is suspect. 

The second major issue with the poll is that it finds a party identification breakdown similar to a Tribune poll released in the fall of 2008. This equivalency suggests that the electorate will behave as it did in 2008. This partisan breakdown was determined by asking registered voters about their party identity. Even if this partisan breakdown is accurate, the political currents in 2014 are running in the opposite direction compared to 2008. Not only was 2008 a huge Democratic year as a result of war fatigue and an historic meltdown in the financial sector, but it was punctuated by tremendous voter enthusiasm for Barack Obama in Illinois and elsewhere. 

President Obama isn't on the ballot in November and there's a growing sense that the GOP may benefit from structural and policy advantages in 2014 that will result in an electorate favorable to their candidates. Illinois Democrats are sufficiently concerned that their voters won't be as motivated to come out on election day that they are pursuing strategies to mitigate this feared apathy. These include Democratic-favored ballot initiatives, a coordinated campaign with organized labor, and attempts to change the electorate by registering hundreds of thousands of new voters and turning them out. Time will tell if these efforts are ultimately successful. 

The 2014 Governor's race is likely to be very close either way. It's true that polls are just a snapshot in time and that an eternity remains in the Illinois Governor's race. Even so, I suspect that the Tribune snapshot is the equivalent of a blurry photo for the reasons stated above. It will be interesting to see what the next major poll suggests about the state of the race. 

Quinn Vetoes Ridesharing Regulations

Update 2: Apparently some Uber supporters are behaving obnoxiously using social media:

Gotta agree with Representative Zalewski. There's no reason for taunting or harassing on this or any other issue. Besides, this issue isn't over, and taunting the sponsor isn't the most intelligent thing to do if you happen to be on the other side of the issue. 

Update: Per the Illinois Observer, Representative Zalewski, a very serious and hard-working legislator, may be looking into an override of the Governor's veto.  

The Illinois taxi industry was expecting an amendatory veto of the legislation proposing state regulations on ridesharing services. They received a full-boat veto instead. Why? The Governor is embracing local control. From the Governor's veto message:

The principle of home rule is an important one. In ratifying the current Illinois Constitution in 1970, the people of our State endorsed home rule for units of local government. This transformational approach to reallocating the balance of power towards local government and away from the State is perhaps the most significant innovation of the Constitution of 1970. Under Article VII, any home rule unit of government is authorized to: “exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt.” Illinois Constitution of 1970, Article VII, Section 6 (a).

Notably, the City of Chicago, as a home rule municipality, has already enacted an ordinance, scheduled to take effect on August 26, 2014, that addresses many of the same concerns that this bill is designed to address.
Other units of local government may also wish to adopt consumer protections and other regulations to ensure a level playing field for all market participants. Such other units of local government may – or may not – follow the approach that the City of Chicago will adopt.

Given how new the technology is and that the City of Chicago’s new ordinance has not yet even taken effect, it would be premature – and perhaps counterproductive – to enact a rigid statewide regulatory model at this time. It would be more prudent to carefully monitor the City of Chicago's experience and the success and challenges it faces in enforcing its new ordinance. Similarly, lawmakers and the general public will also benefit from observing the experiences of other units of government that adopt their own innovative approaches to regulating mobile device-enabling ridesharing. 

A statewide regulatory framework should only be considered when it is clear that it is not possible to address the problem at the local level. At this point, there is not yet enough evidence to make a judgment about the effectiveness of local ordinances in dealing with the challenges of ridesharing technologies.

Governor Quinn also expressed concern that the bill would "stifle innovation," but he's all-in with the local control argument here. And he's right. In an earlier post I contended that there certainly is a need for some regulatory supervision of the emerging ridesharing industry. Some of the regulations contained within HB 4075 make sense. But there's no compelling reason why the state needs to be the regulator. Let the locals regulate the the ridesharing services that operate within their boundaries. The state should be attending to other matters.

The total veto removes this issue from the gubernatorial campaign since both candidates share the same position. Bruce Rauner won't be able to hit Quinn on "stifling competition," and it's unlikely that the taxi industry will throw in with Rauner because he supported a veto. That said, it will be interesting to see what the taxi industry does with its campaign war chest. Does the industry start spending in legislative races to attempt an override? The legislation was approved with veto-proof majorities in each chamber, but the bill has become pretty highly politicized. Some of those votes may peel off.