Eye On Illinois: Would voters benefit from more legislation getting standalone treatment?

This is the way.

Speaking to the Chicago Tribune as part of a lengthy piece on the fate of ethics reform legislation in the recently completed spring session, state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, landed on the reality of the situation that applies to many other Statehouse issues when she suggested certain proposals might’ve passed had they not been lumped into a larger bill with provisions that couldn’t garner sufficient support.

Obviously, legislation is a matter of compromise – even when one party comfortably controls the majority – and there are always valid concerns about legislative efficiency given the state’s geography and complexities of convening a full session.

That said, the methods we’ve selected have some noticeable shortcomings, and if the process impedes progress, then it might be time to reevaluate the rules of engagement.

The specific issue involves Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, who reportedly wanted to pass something to functionally end the ethics complaint he’s facing based on allegations of violating election finance laws. The proposal’s inclusion tanked support for the overall bill, and with it, more broadly popular ideas like mandating curbside voting access for people with mobility challenges and expanding publicized voting data.

Nothing stops Democrats (or Republicans) from isolating concepts they like and introducing clean bills for future consideration, though simply filing a bill guarantees nothing. Currently, ILGA.gov lists almost 6,750 House and Senate bills filed since the 104th General Assembly started in January, many of which may never even get a committee vote, let alone reach the full floor of either chamber.

Rather than view the concept of legislative compromise as one of negotiating dense proposals where all interested parties get something they like but must leave some goals on the table, what if the process instead focused more on, whenever practical, allowing up-down votes on individual proposals? One possible outcome is a greater likelihood of bipartisan support to advance the most popular ideas and a clearer understanding of which concepts rightly reside in the outer edges of partisan orthodoxy.

I’ll acknowledge this column is one of those “big picture” discussions that might resonate as just a complaint about the way things are without any plausible fixes. And while I do believe breaking down complex bill packages into smaller chunks would better serve the public, in specific regard to ethics reform, it’s long past time to stand individual ideas on their own.

Under the current climate, few voters can discern what elected officials of any party really mean when they mention “legislative ethics,” and even the things lawmakers do manage to pass often don’t address what the public considers to be core concerns.

For lawmakers, the confusion seems to be a feature instead of a bug.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.