Most Illinois voters assume that when a legislator files a bill, the bill gets a hearing, lawmakers debate it, votes are cast, and the public can see where everyone stands.

That is not how Springfield works under Democrat House Speaker Chris Welch.

In fact, one of the least-discussed realities of the Illinois House of Representatives is that there are three trap doors designed to prevent any bill the Speaker doesn’t want from ever reaching the point of public debate. Most voters never hear about these rules because the media doesn’t write about them.

Surprise, surprise.

The irony is difficult to ignore, though. The party that often speaks most passionately about protecting democracy operates a legislative system that stifles it.

These rules came from former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, the longest-serving legislative leader in Illinois history. Madigan is in prison. Go figure. But not for the rules he wrote; in fact, the rules were re-adopted by the current Speaker. Illinois is considered the most corrupt state in the nation. And we still wonder why.

The first trap door is committee assignment.

Committees exist so lawmakers can hear public testimony, ask questions, and determine whether a proposal deserves further consideration. In practice, however, the Speaker determines which bills receive committee hearings and which do not.

That means countless proposals die without ever receiving a hearing.

A Republican bill dealing with tax relief, school choice, parental rights, tougher criminal penalties, abortion restrictions, or other issues that conflict with the supermajority party’s agenda will not receive a hearing regardless of how much public support it may have. The bill simply sits.

Many voters assume their legislators lost a debate. In reality, the debate never happened.

The second trap door appears once a bill reaches committee.

Committee members can be “changed out” with remarkable ease. Members are frequently substituted in and out of hearings. Capitol veterans often refer to the process as a form of legislative musical chairs.

Why would the Speaker do this?

The answer is straightforward. If certain members of a committee are reluctant to support a bill, they can be temporarily replaced by members who will vote yes. The result is a committee outcome the Speaker can predict with certainty.

Supporters argue this is simply a way for the majority party to govern efficiently. That is what they say in Russia, too. What it does is undermine the purpose of committees altogether, of course. If committee membership can be adjusted whenever a difficult vote arises, the vote on legislation is never in question.

Then comes the third trap door.

Even after a bill passes committee, the House Speaker has a third rule that must be followed even though it’s never written down in the rule book. That’s because it’s unconstitutional. The rule? Before any meaningful bill is called for debate on the House floor (even though it passed committee and thus the Illinois Constitution says it must receive full House debate), the Speaker must have written proof from the bill’s sponsor that he or she has 60 Democrat votes to pass the chamber. If the bill’s sponsor can’t show the Speaker 60 Democrat votes, the Speaker won’t call the bill for debate even though it passed committee.

Sixty votes happens to be the minimum number of votes to pass any bill in the full House. Why does the Speaker require 60 votes be Democrat?

I can see you scratching your head.

Imagine a proposal that has support from 50 Democrats and 30 Republicans. The bill would pass comfortably on the House floor. Yet that would prevent the House Speaker from controlling which bills pass and which don’t, right? You might have democracy break out where a legislator gets a bipartisan majority together to pass legislation. That is not allowed in Illinois.

The public sees a legislative body of 118 members. The House Speaker sees a House chamber of 60 Democrats to pass a bill. (The supermajority does have 78 Democrats to choose from in the House, though, so it’s certainly a reachable (if unconstitutional) goal.)

It is quite amazing to watch the House Speaker leave nothing to chance when it comes to making sure democracy does not happen. Quite amazing and quite disappointing.

Legislatures are supposed to be places where coalitions form, alliances shift, and lawmakers work across party lines when issues demand it. When people ask me why both parties don’t work together, I often point to the three trap doors. It makes the Politburo look like a gentleman’s game.

So the natural response is usually,

“Well, that’s how it works everywhere, right?”

The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are hardly models of perfect cooperation, yet members of the minority party routinely receive committee hearings, offer amendments, and force votes on controversial issues. Leadership exerts influence, but it does not possess the same ability to quietly bury virtually every unwanted proposal before the public ever sees it.

That difference is significant.

The real losers in Springfield’s system are the citizens of Illinois.

When voters elect a representative, they reasonably expect that representative’s ideas will receive at least a minimal opportunity to be heard and debated. They may not win. They may not even come close to winning. But they should be allowed into the arena.

Not in the “People’s House.” Not in Illinois.