Something else that could go into the state constitution
Well this story starts off with the Governor of Nevada moving out of the governor's mansion there since he's having marital difficulties, however, doing so is against state law. Governing 13th. . .
The 1866 law says a governor must "keep his office and reside at the seat of government." It once applied to most constitutional officers but over the years they've all been exempted from the requirement by the Legislature.I know there are worse things about the Governor of Illinois that are being reported these days than the fact that he refuses to reside in Springfield. Still we're looking for things to put in the state constitution and if you're upset that a governor won't reside in the state capitol, then this provision is as good as any to be put in the state's constitution.
2 comments:
I don't know.
Of late, we've had such a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" movement in response to Gov. Blagojevich. I think everyone needs to stop, take a deep breath, and realize that his has been an extraordinarily atypical case of the type of governor we'll have.
No one cared that Jim Thompson lived in Chicago, because he was popular and did a decent job.
No one insisted on a recall provision for George Ryan, even though we knew almost instantly after he took office that we'd probably made a mistake, because he was popular with legislators and lobbyists.
It isn't to suggest that we couldn't perhaps tweak the Constitution (I am not an expert on the IL Constitution by any means, so don't ask me to specify where a "tweak" may be needed). But the clamor to write Blagojevich-specific amendments into the Constitution is incredibly short-sighted and much more deeply rooted in electoral politics.
A provision like this invites lawyers to parse the meaning of "reside." For all we know, our governor does keep a suit of clothes in the mansion. You want him to sleep there 50% plus 1 nights each year? 90? 30? There are far more important issues to fight over.
Post a Comment