The Illinoize Q&A with House GOP Leader Jim Durkin

House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) sat down for a wide-ranging interview with The Illinoize Tuesday in Springfield.

House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) has been down this road before. Another May in Springfield, another May the GOP is shut out of the process. Durkin sat down with Patrick Pfingsten from The Illinoize for 30 minutes on Tuesday.

(This interview has been edited in places for clarity and length.)

Patrick Pfingsten: Here we are in the first week of May, which we all know is crunch time around here. How are you feeling right now?

Jim Durkin: It’s like this every year. There’s always a lot of misdirection, a lot of secrecy, and I was hoping for more this session. I was hoping there’d be more engagement from the majority party after these strong statements that “it’s a new day in Springfield.” It just doesn’t seem like anything has changed. We’re not really involved in any of the major issues. It’s business as usual.

PP: Does it feel any different than when Michael Madigan was still Speaker?

JD: The operations in the House are a little bit different, Speaker Madigan and Speaker Welch have different styles and different ways in which they manage their caucus.

PP: You and the Speaker go back quite a bit. And your districts border each other. It seems your relationship sort of fell out during the Investigative Committee into Speaker Madigan last year [which Welch chaired.] What is your relationship today?

JD: We go back a number of years. We’re both very competitive. Our views of the direction that the state of Illinois should go are very different. As for the Special Investigative Committee, I’m a big boy, I can take a punch. But, I think that they crossed a line in a few areas. They blocked us from seeking the truth. I firmly believe that what we did was the right thing.

PP: Redistricting continues to be one of the most important things hanging over the legislature right now. It’s easy to look at the Republican complaints and assume you want to stall so you can get a seat at the table or win the drawing to draw your own maps. Is that what this is all about?

JD: This is all about the Democrats maintaining their control for the next ten years. It has nothing to do with bringing Republicans in and making this a thought out process. When the Governor says we haven’t been involved in the process, we haven’t been invited to anything. It’s this false narrative from the Governor, the Speaker, and the Democrats that Republicans have no interest in working with the Democrats. We’ve been at every one of the redistricting hearings. We’ve participated either in person or over Zoom. I think its disingenuous for anyone to say the Republicans just don’t wanna work with the Democrats and that we’re just here to say no. It’s real simple, if you want a seat at the table, you’ve gotta get invited to it first. There’s been no invitation. We’re heading in a direction where it’s going to be done like it was in the past. People can say it’s sour grapes from Republicans, but the fact is that both parties have blood on their hands in this process. Everybody’s campaigned on “fair maps.” Governor Pritzker said he’d veto any map drawn by politicians. Chris Welch said we need independent maps to preserve the rights of minorities. So where are they at right now? The great hypocrisy is what we’re seeing playing out right in front of us.

PP: Can a fair map be drawn using ACS (American Community Survey) data and not full census data?

JD: I believe it’s not going to reflect the minority populations. They’ll be disadvantaged the most from using that data. At the end of the day, it’s ACS data that they’re using and the U.S. Census Bureau said the ACS data should never be used for census or for counting people. That’s never been its intent. It’s unfortunate this is probably going to have to go to a court to make a decision as to whether or not this is appropriate, but we’re prepared to do that. This is all being done by pure power politics, the old business model that Mike Madigan created. It’s not right. Independent maps may be the best form of ethics reform we could have in this state. Pure power and ultimate authority is what has put this state in the position it is in. It’s greed and it’s arrogance.

PP: Are you concerned about how bad this map could be for Republicans?

JD: I think its more for people in Illinois who feel they’ve been underrepresented. But, also, have been living under the machine of Illinois out of Chicago. If it is going to be comparable to a map that we had to live with ten years ago, then nothing changes. But House Republicans did something last November that shocked a lot of Democrats: we came out ahead. We were supposed to lose ten seats. We came out ahead. We were outspent by $30 million. Governor Pritzker’s “Fair Tax” failed miserably. There is a sea change with Illinois citizens. It’s not only with Republicans and independents, but with Democrats who rejected the Governor’s constitutional amendment. There are 24 Democratic House districts that rejected the Fair Tax. Yeah, it’ll be unfair to us. That’s politics and I get it, but at the end of the day, it’s Illinois citizens who are losing out.

PP: Does the current ethics bill in the Senate go far enough for you?

JD: No. No. The bill, as its written now, would still allow someone like (indicted former Rep.) Luis Arroyo to be signed up as a lobbyist before the Chicago City Council. We should ban lawmakers from doing that kind of work anywhere in the state. I thought we learned a lesson on that. But apparently not. I think they need to give Carol Pope, our inspector general, more independence. She should be able to initiate an investigation on her own, without having to go through an approval process. To me, that’s extremely important. The revolving door isn’t long enough either. I hope it’s still at an early stage and that it’s still up for negotiation. Right now, it’s a document that does not solve the problems that we are currently witnessing.

PP: Is the idea of a cooling off period really that big of a deal? There are good guys you and I both know that went from legislator to lobbyist.

JD: It depends on what bills they’re carrying in their last session. Automatically, they seem to get contracts after they may pass something for an interest. Then they’re signed up two weeks later. A lot of it is appearances. I think it looks bad when you have a member of the legislature who is proactive in the General Assembly on a lot of major issues all the sudden gets signed up by major firms within a week or two after they leave. We deal with the impression of the public and how they look at us. To me, that is something that people shake their head and say, ‘why do you guys allow that?’ I think a cooling off period for more than six months is appropriate.

PP: Has the way the majority has handled cost of legislation this session been concerning to you? At what point is a good idea not a good idea when you can’t pay for it? Does it seem to you like Democrats just don’t care about how much things cost?

JD: They need to put more care into exactly how much it will cost to implement something. If we don’t have the money to implement something, it means we’re going into deficit spending on this. To add it to the backlog of bills the taxpayers are going to have to pay for. Some members just feel that we’ll pass a bill now and figure out how to pay for it later. It’s no use having a good idea if you can’t efficiently fund it. And to suggest federal bailout money can execute a bill, I think they should hold on and see what the federal government’s parameters are. Because, at the end of the day, they’ll be disappointed when they find out that money can and can’t be used for. The state’s finances continue to get worse, because we continue to spend money and we budget for money that we don’t have. But some people don’t seem to be too concerned about it, and that’s unfortunate.

PP: You have a party that is at a crossroads. You seem to have this real divide, with a group of members who wants to get things done and really wants reform. Then you have a group of members who just want to vote no and not really be a part of the process, except maybe spreading lies and conspiracy theories. How do you bridge that?

JD: Last November [when we had success], we kept our issues local. That’s what we’re going to continue to do. Illinoisans woke up about Springfield with the Fair Tax. And we’re going to continue that message. There have been some differences of opinion, but my job is to make sure that we are operating as a team. We’re in a very good place right now in our caucus. We’re unified. We have differences of opinions on votes, that’s fine. But our message is still strong. We know what we’re against, so what are we for? We introduced 81 bills of things we stand for. Many of those bills will never see the light of day. But, we want Illinoisans to know that there’s an option, there’s an alternative. We stand for better government, we stand for responsible government, we stand for balanced budgets, we can’t overregulate small businesses. You’re always going to have some regional differences and attitudes. I live in the suburbs, people look at issues in the suburbs than they do downstate. But I feel like I do a pretty good job of recognizing and respecting what is important for downstaters. And giving them guidance and counsel as to how to win votes. But the most important thing I have with our members is that I tell them the truth. They respect me. I respect them. They know that this business we’re in is all about numbers. It’s addition, not subtraction. We’re being more thoughtful about how we approach legislation and how we vote and how we debate bills and how we’re going to be operating campaigns. People can characterize certain members of our caucus in a variety of ways, and that’s fine. But we agree on almost everything. We talk it out. We have a couple of disagreements here and there, but we air our grievances among ourselves. We don’t walk out as enemies. We know that there is a goal in mind in the next year and a half. And that’s to make significant advances, gain the majority. That’s what we’re here for. We’re not going to be satisfied with two or three seats.

PP: To do that, do you need a caucus that is more representative of the state itself? The state is 17% Latino, you have no Hispanic members. The state is 12% African American, you have no Black members. Because, currently, the GOP looks like the party of the old white dude.

JD: We have to find candidates that reflect the district. They don’t have to live and die 100% by the platform. I want good Republicans who are going to agree with me on more issues than not. We’re going to find those people. We’re going to be even more attentive and aggressive in reaching out to minority communities, because we know a great deal of them reflect values that we believe in. Small businesses, being overtaxed by the government, strong family values, education, and school choice. There’s a lot of things that we stand for that a lot of people that we traditionally have not been able to recruit, but we’re in a position that people are looking for a change. This is going to be the opportunity in this midterm election. It’s not going to be a bunch of guys who look like me. It’s going to be men and women from all over the state of Illinois that reflect their districts.

PP: Do you think you’ll be speaker someday?

JD: Yes.

PP: No hesitation?

JD: No. I’m not here to finish second. I’m here to win. So is my caucus.