Frank D. Comerford had spent even less time in the Illinois House of Representatives than Rep. Derrick Smith has spent before his fellow lawmakers moved to throw him out.
Comerford, like Smith a Cook County Democrat, was elected in November 1904 and expelled in February 1905. Smith was appointed to a vacant House seat in March 2011 and arrested a year later on federal corruption charges; the House is poised to expel him Friday.
Comerford was kicked out for accusing his fellow representatives of taking bribes. Lots of them. He’d been in the House only a few weeks when he made a speech to students and faculty at the Illinois College of Law in Chicago, calling the Legislature “a great public auction, where special privileges are sold to the highest corporation bidders.”
Smith is accused of accepting a $7,000 bribe to help the owner of a fictitious day care center obtain a $50,000 state grant.
We’ll pause to let you absorb the parallels, but note: Comerford was the accuser, not the accused.
In the speech — and later, in testimony at a House disciplinary hearing — Comerford related tales of widespread graft discussed openly among lawmakers of both parties. He told the stories, he said, because he believed law students would benefit from knowing “the conditions under which laws have been made at Springfield.”
It was more than the usual government-is-a-bunch-of-crooks talk. The incidents Comerford described came with names, dates, places and dollar signs. But they also were largely hearsay. The rookie lawmaker described them as “stories in common circulation at the Capitol,” told to him “in bursts of confidence from members of the Legislature.”
On the way to Springfield to be sworn in, Comerford said, he was taken under the wing of a veteran lawmaker who “explained that it would be a good thing to have me speak in favor of some bills because it would let them get a better price to kill the same bills.”
Comerford said his new colleague told him, “You will be on the inside, and you will have the friendship of everybody.” Comerford repeated the names of the lawmakers who allegedly “handled the money” and related complaints from others that some handlers “never divided it among the boys as had been agreed.”
He also charged that a fellow lawmaker accepted $200 to vote for a candidate for a caucus leadership position but chickened out and returned the money.
The explosive allegations prompted cries for an investigation — of Comerford. A House resolution accused him of spreading “assertions, slanders, insinuations and incriminations … a grave reflection upon the honor and integrity of the Illinois General Assembly.” But he wouldn’t take them back.
“I believe now, as I did then, that the stories are true,” he said.
His colleagues decided they were unfounded. By a vote of 121-13, Comerford became the first and only member ever expelled by the House.
If things go as expected Friday, Smith will become the second. Facing a criminal trial in federal court, he declined to testify before the House disciplinary panel. It recommended expulsion, based largely on court documents filed by the U.S. attorney’s office. Attorney Victor Henderson urged the House to wait until after next year’s federal trial, which he says will exonerate his client. In the meantime, he says, it should be up to the voters of the 10th District on Chicago’s West Side to decide whether to expel Smith.
We disagree. The House has a system in place to deal with allegations of serious misconduct by its members, and expulsion is a remedy it has considered only twice in more than a century. We think the panel made the right call. We’ve seen no groundswell among 10th District voters, rising to their representative’s defense.
That sort of push-back from constituents is in fact what happened in 1905. Weeks after being tossed, Comerford was drafted to run in the special election to fill the seat he’d just vacated. Resolutions were drawn up, denouncing the Legislature for throwing him out. By April he was back in office.
So, yes, voters can have their say about Smith. If he’s expelled, local Democratic leaders will appoint a replacement within 30 days, but Smith could be back at work in Springfield even before he has his day in federal court. He’s still on the November ballot.
