One of the realities of Illinois legislative politics is that our state's system tends to discourage competition.

Byzantine ballot-access laws, a highly partisan legislative-district map-drawing process, heavily concentrated populations of partisan voters in Chicago (Democrats) and in the collar counties and Downstate (Republicans), and often-tireless work by incumbents and political parties at the state and local levels to reduce opposition all combine to help tamp down the number of competitive races.

With growing numbers of African-American and Latino politicians calling for Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to resign, it's probably time for the county's Democratic Party leaders to rethink their summertime decision to not endorse anyone in the primary.

The incumbent state's attorney is facing two Democratic primary challengers, Kim Foxx and Donna More.

Foxx, an African-American woman and former prosecutor, is the former chief of staff to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and is backed by other African-American and liberal leaders, plus some labor unions.

More is white, is a former county prosecutor, and has represented casino interests since she left the Illinois Gaming Board decades ago. She also contributed to Republican Governor Bruce Rauner's campaign - one of only a handful of contributions she's ever made. The first-time candidate has demonstrated an ability to raise enough money to compete.

The general rule of thumb for incumbents facing primaries is the more, the merrier. Multiple candidates can split the "anti" vote against the incumbent, which means Alvarez won't need to receive 50 percent plus one to win.

Earlier this month when the General Assembly was in Springfield, House Speaker Michael Madigan called Senate President John Cullerton six different times to ask him to move the child-care-program-restoration legislation once it passed the House.

Yes, six times. The man is most definitely persistent.

As you probably already know, the deal cut with Governor Bruce Rauner's office by state Senator Toi Hutchinson (D-Olympia Fields) and others to mostly restore the draconian Child Care Assistance Program cuts Rauner made this past summer involved not voting on a bill that would've fully restored the governor's cuts.

Madigan wanted that bill to pass, however, and apparently believed through much of the day that his chamber would pass it, even though it seemed obvious that Representative Ken Dunkin (D-Chicago) had once again jumped into the political bed with the GOP governor. Some House Republicans were talking about voting for the bill, though, and that kept Madigan's hopes alive.

Because he thought it still had a shot, Madigan would not relent on Cullerton. And while the constant calls reportedly irritated Cullerton, they didn't work. Cullerton backed up his member's deal and the speaker was politely refused. Six times. The bill died in the House when all Republicans and Dunkin voted against the speaker.

Madigan's pressure on Cullerton was ironic considering that the speaker is sitting on several Senate bills. Cullerton's chamber has twice passed minimum-wage-increase bills that have gone nowhere in the House despite the fact that Madigan pushed a referendum last year to raise the minimum wage. Cullerton also passed a property-tax-freeze bill that provides more money for Chicago Public Schools and kills off the state's ancient school-funding formula. But that hasn't moved in the House, either.

The concept of a public meeting on November 18 featuring the four Illinois legislative leaders and the governor sounds nice, but will it actually move the ball forward and break the months-long governmental impasse?

As you might know, a group of good-government types recently called on the state's leaders to sit down and talk about solving the state's budget issues. The four tops and the governor haven't met as a group since late May.

House Speaker Michael Madigan quickly accepted and then suggested that the meeting be held in public. The move has quite a few people scratching their heads, because nobody expects anything will be solved while the public is looking on.

So why bother?

A big reason is that the Democrats want the public to see what they've been seeing with their own eyes for months. They say the governor walks in, exchanges pleasantries, and then repeats the same basic talking points that he's been making since April.