By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois Supreme court issued a ruling Thursday on state employee health care that bodes ill for supporters of the recently passed cuts to public employee retirement benefits.
The court ruled that health care benefits for retirees fall under the pension protection clause—the very sentence of the state’s Constitution that many supporters of pension reform had hoped the justices would be willing to overlook. The pension clause states: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
The ruling indicates that the justices are inclined to side with public employees and retirees. In the 6-1 opinion, Justice Charles Freeman wrote: “Under settled Illinois law, where there is any question as to legislative intent and the clarity of the language of a pension statute, it must be liberally construed in favor of the rights of the pensioner.” Justice Anne Burke wrote the dissenting opinion. In it, she did not question the protection of the pension clause, but she argued that retiree health care benefits did not fall under that protection.
Some lawmakers seem to see the ruling as writing on the wall for the pension reform law, which is still working its way through the legal system. “Today, the Illinois Supreme Court made it very clear that the Pension Clause means what it says,” Senate President John Cullerton said in a prepared statement. “The court cannot rewrite the Pension Clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve. The clause was aimed at protecting the right of public employees and retirees to receive their promised benefits and insulate those benefits from diminishment or impairment by the General Assembly.”
Cullerton added: “If the court’s decision is predictive, the challenge of reforming our pension systems will remain. As I have said from the beginning, I am committed to identifying solutions that adhere to the plain language of the constitution.”
Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said that while the ruling pertains to a different case, the language used is clear. “You could find some way to parse some of it, but it’s really, really difficult. There’s no logical way to get to upholding Senate Bill 1 (the pension reform legislation) based on the clear content of this ruling and the way they’ve construed the pensions clause.”
Others disagree that the ruling is a harbinger of the pension law’s death. Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who was key player in getting SB 1 passed, said that the justifications the law makes for reducing benefits were not part of the retiree health care case. She said that the court has yet to consider those points. The law lays out the dire fiscal situation that the state is in and claims that state elected officials need special powers to curtail the estimated $100 billion unfunded liability and save the state from a budget disaster. However, one line in today’s decision seems to blow a hole in that argument. “In light of the constitutional debates, we have concluded that the [pension] provision was aimed at protecting the right to receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for them.”
Supporters also claim that a reduction in the amount that employee would pay into the system represents a consideration they are being given for a change to the contract that is their membership in a pensions system.
Nekritz said that the ruling is clear that benefits are protected, but she says it is unclear if that protection is absolute. “Does it really mean that we can do nothing, or are there some things that we can do based on the legal arguments that we make under Senate Bill 1?”
Those arguments aside, if the Illinois Supreme Court rejects the new pension law, what options do legislators have?
Cullerton had proposed offering employees a choice between receiving subsidized health care coverage or keeping their current pensions benefits. If they had chosen health care, they would have seen a reduction in their retirement income including a cut to the expensive compounded interest cost of living adjustments (COLAs) retirees currently receive. Cullerton said that this scheme could potentially fulfill a legal standard of giving employees consideration for a reduction in benefits. The Senate approved the plan, but it was never called for a vote in the House.
However, that plan was based on the idea that health benefits were not protected by the Constitution—a concept that runs counter to today’s ruling. “The concept of consideration is still viable. The court has not rejected it or defined what the limits are. It’s just hard to see what you can give up in exchange,” Redfield said. “It’s hard to see what other major carrot you can offer to people in terms of giving up their COLA.”
Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang introduced legislation that would extend the current income tax rates, which are due to start rolling back on January 1, to pay down the unfunded liability.
But Lang’s plan also calls for larger contributions from employees and an increase in the retirement age. Both of these provisions could be seen as a reduction in benefits by the court. Much of the revenue from the temporary income tax increase has gone toward making the required annual pension payment after lawmakers voted to skip payments and short payments for several years in the past.
There have also been proposals to change the pension payment schedule to even out the cost of the annual payment. The state is currently on a system that resulted in large balloon payments, much like a subprime mortgage. Some such plans also call for funding the system at 80 percent as opposed to 95 percent or 100 percent. Redfield said that a proposal that changes the payment structures would need to be combined with changes to the state’s revenue structure, such as expanding the sales tax base to some services, budget cuts or both. “As a stand alone, then it looks like an excuse to keep doing what we’re doing,” he said.
Republican candidate for governor Bruce Rauner has advocated for moving employees’ future benefits to a system that looks more like a 401-K. That plan would go even further than SB1, so it is unlikely that it would be upheld if SB 1 were rejected. But it is possible that the court’s ruling might strengthen his case for offering a defined contribution plan to newly-hired employees. “It may embolden Rauner to say well we’ve got to get everybody going forward into a defined contribution [plan],” Redfield said. However, such a proposal would have no impact on the unfunded liability for current employee and retiree benefits. It also means the state would likely have to start contributing to Social Security benefits for positions that do not currently offer them.
Meanwhile Gov. Pat Quinn is emphatically sticking by his opinion that SB 1 is constitutional. “We believe the pension reform law is constitutional. This landmark law was urgently needed to resolve the state’s $100 billion pension crisis. It was also urgently needed to ensure that teachers, university employees and state workers who have faithfully contributed to the pension system have retirement security,” said a written statement from his office. “We’re confident the courts will uphold this critical law that stabilizes the state’s pension funds while squarely addressing the most pressing fiscal crisis of our time by eliminating the state's unfunded pension debt.”
Redfield said that there will likely be many suggestions for a Plan B on pension reform in the coming months. “I think people will be floating lots of ideas that probably aren’t feasible and really won’t address the short-term problems—between now and November,” he said. “There’s nothing politically to be gained by standing up and saying ‘you know, we really, really screwed up, and we have no options but to raise your taxes.’”
But he said that new revenues and cuts to state services to cover the cost of the pension systems might be the only real option available to address the problem if the court rejects SB 1. If that happens, the state will almost certainly face another credit downgrade if it fails to act to address the liability. The current budget is based on $650 million in borrowing that has to be paid back. In Fiscal Year 2016, the tax rate will be lower for the entire fiscal year instead of just half of it. FY16 could turn out to be one doozy of a budget for lawmakers and whomever is the governor to sort out. “You want to be around for a historic session for the General Assembly? I think everybody has a front row seat,” Redfield says.
Showing posts with label Illinois Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illinois Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, July 03, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Two proposed constitutional amendments make it to the ballot
By Jamey Dunn
When voters take their ballots in November, the will be faced with two proposed constitutional amendments. One is intended to protect victims’ rights, while the other would bar discrimination against voters.
Efforts to put a victims’ rights provision onto the state’s Constitution have been underway for years. Different versions of the measure have been approved by both chambers in the past, but failed to make it to the ballot. Sponsor Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat, said the amendment approved today made it all the way through the General Assembly because supporters struck the proper balance between the rights of defendants, the rights of victims and the power of prosecutors. “It’s been a long haul for the victims in getting to this point. It’s nice that it’s finally coming to fruition,” said Steans.
The amendment will give victims legal standing in the judicial process. They would have the right to be notified about certain steps in the process, including if their personal information has been requested by the defense. The amendment would also require that judges consider the impact on victim’s and their families, along with all other factors, when making decisions about granting bail and the release of a defendant.
The other amendment approved by the Senate today would prohibit denying the right to vote based on a person's race, color, ethnicity, status as a member of a language minority, sex, sexual orientation, income national origin or religion. Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsored the measure, said that he went to Florida in 2008 and 2012 to volunteer during the presidential elections. “I watched 80 [-year-old] and 90-year-old people, largely of African American and Hispanic descent, wait nine hours to simply cast their ballot to exercise their right to vote. While in other parts of Florida, people were able to vote right away,” he said. Raoul said his mother, who was 82 at the time, had to wait five hours in line to vote in 2012. He said that his proposal would help protect Illinois voters from facing such a situation.
While the amendment does specifically ban requiring voters to present identification to vote, Raoul said that it is his intent to prohibit such laws if they are geared toward discrimination. “If you cast a yes vote for this, you’re casting a yes vote to discourage voter i.d. laws.” Lebanon Republican Sen. Kyle McCarter said that voter identification laws could be enacted in a way that would prevent fraud without being discriminatory. “We should have a voter i.d. that does not discriminate, that provides the i.d. for them them and brings fairness to all the voters,” says McCarter, who abstained from voting on the proposal. Both amendments received broad bipartisan support in both chambers but will still need approval from voters to become a part of the Constitution.
When voters take their ballots in November, the will be faced with two proposed constitutional amendments. One is intended to protect victims’ rights, while the other would bar discrimination against voters.
Efforts to put a victims’ rights provision onto the state’s Constitution have been underway for years. Different versions of the measure have been approved by both chambers in the past, but failed to make it to the ballot. Sponsor Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat, said the amendment approved today made it all the way through the General Assembly because supporters struck the proper balance between the rights of defendants, the rights of victims and the power of prosecutors. “It’s been a long haul for the victims in getting to this point. It’s nice that it’s finally coming to fruition,” said Steans.
The amendment will give victims legal standing in the judicial process. They would have the right to be notified about certain steps in the process, including if their personal information has been requested by the defense. The amendment would also require that judges consider the impact on victim’s and their families, along with all other factors, when making decisions about granting bail and the release of a defendant.
The other amendment approved by the Senate today would prohibit denying the right to vote based on a person's race, color, ethnicity, status as a member of a language minority, sex, sexual orientation, income national origin or religion. Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsored the measure, said that he went to Florida in 2008 and 2012 to volunteer during the presidential elections. “I watched 80 [-year-old] and 90-year-old people, largely of African American and Hispanic descent, wait nine hours to simply cast their ballot to exercise their right to vote. While in other parts of Florida, people were able to vote right away,” he said. Raoul said his mother, who was 82 at the time, had to wait five hours in line to vote in 2012. He said that his proposal would help protect Illinois voters from facing such a situation.
While the amendment does specifically ban requiring voters to present identification to vote, Raoul said that it is his intent to prohibit such laws if they are geared toward discrimination. “If you cast a yes vote for this, you’re casting a yes vote to discourage voter i.d. laws.” Lebanon Republican Sen. Kyle McCarter said that voter identification laws could be enacted in a way that would prevent fraud without being discriminatory. “We should have a voter i.d. that does not discriminate, that provides the i.d. for them them and brings fairness to all the voters,” says McCarter, who abstained from voting on the proposal. Both amendments received broad bipartisan support in both chambers but will still need approval from voters to become a part of the Constitution.
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Chicago pension changes pass in both chambers
By Jamey Dunn
The General Assembly today approved legislation to address the funding shortfall in pensions systems for Chicago city workers.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to stabilize the two systems fell flat last week, but sailed through the House and Senate today. The key factor that helped spur action was the removal of a provision that would have authorized city council members to approve a property tax increase. The new version of Senate Bill 1922, which is sponsored by House Speaker Michael Madigan, allows the city to pay for the plan with property tax money or any other available revenue.
Gov. Pat Quinn is running for re-election on a budget plan that would extend the current income tax rates instead of allowing them to sunset. The potential upside to his plan for some Illinoisans is that is would also offer a $500 annual credit for homeowners that Quinn has billed as property tax relief. Quinn made negative comments about the highly unpopular tax at most public appearances lately. Needless to say the governor opposed Emanuel’s push for a property tax increase blessed by state lawmakers. He panned it yesterday by calling it a “lousy tax” and saying that the proposal was “a sketch” not a clear plan.
But Emanuel described the proposal to reporters in Chicago as: “an honest compromise between leaders of organized labor and the city to secure the pensions; secure it in a way that city can afford it and make sure that to the 61,000 people who have come to relay on it, that it will be there.” Under the measure, workers would be asked to contribute more toward their retirement and would see reductions to their cost of living increases. Retirees would not get increases in 2017, 2019 and 2025. However, retirees with pension payouts of less than $22,000 annually would receive a minimum of 1 percent increase each year and would still get an increase during the skipped years. “If you do nothing, these plans are loosing money everyday. They’re going to go belly up within a decade,” Emanuel says.
As the legislation made its way through the process today, Quinn was unwilling to say whether he supported the bill. “I have to see the final bill. I’ll take a look at it. That’s what I do with all bills.” He did tell reporters that he was encouraged by the removal of the property tax components. “I think they got the message yesterday that [the] provision in the bill was not the way to go, and I’m glad they recognized that.” However, Quinn conceded that the city would have to find money somehow to cover the cost associated with the plan. “If they have any kind of pension reform, they need to have revenue to pay for it, but there’s many different creative ways to do that.”
Republicans in the House backed the plan, saying that it has to be done. “If we do nothing—we already have the roadmap for that. It’s called the city of Detroit,” said Elmhurst Republican Dennis Reboletti. “We can’t let the city of Chicago fail. And if the aldermen there chose to do nothing or choose to raise taxes, that’s their business.” The systems are governed by state law, so the General Assembly must sign off on changes. However, the revenue component of the plan can be handled at the local level. House Minority Leader Jim Durkin echoed that sentiment. “Doing nothing is not an option,” he said during floor debate. “We can’t ignore the fact that the city of Chicago is the economic engine of this state.”
Senate Republicans did not see the issue the same way. They called on the Democrats in their chamber to put the breaks on the legislation, which they say moved too quickly. “It will be here in two weeks, and we’re happy to partner with you, but it must be a true partnership,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno. Senate Republicans say they want to know what the plan is to deal with the city’s other underfunded pensions systems for teachers, firefighters and police officers. “What’s the plan? The place is on fire up there,” Palatine Republican Sen. Matt Murphy said. Murphy said that members of his party are worried that they city might look to the state’s coffers to bail out those systems.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said that it is unrealistic to wait around for an omnibus bill that addresses all the systems because different bargaining units are working out their own negotiations with the city. But he said that if the city can work out a deal with labor, like his bill, lawmakers should approve it. “It’s irresponsible for us not to act when...labor and employer, labor and the city, has come to the table [on this bill],” he said. Raoul said that 31 out of the 34 bargaining representing those affected by the plan have offered no opposition to the bill.
Speaker Madigan had a busy day on the House floor today as the chamber also approved a constitutional amendment that he is sponsoring. House Joint Constitutional Amendment Resolution 52 prohibits denying the right to vote based on a person's race, color, ethnicity, status as a member of a language minority, sex, sexual orientation, income national origin or religion. Madigan said the amendment sends the message, “that in Illinois we believe that every legal voter should be treated equally and have the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.”
Durkin also backed the speaker’s amendment, but others on his side of the aisle panned it as unnecessary. “This is a constitutional amendment looking for a problem,” said Rep. David Reis, a Republican from Willow Hill. Reis is a sponsor of legislation that would require voters to present identification at the polls. Madigan describe such requirements as “voter suppression” during the debate of his amendment.
If the Senate approves the proposal, which seems likely, it will appear before voters on the November ballot. While Madigan has not shared any ulterior motive for the amendment, some see the proposal as geared toward brining out the Democratic base for the general election.
The General Assembly today approved legislation to address the funding shortfall in pensions systems for Chicago city workers.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to stabilize the two systems fell flat last week, but sailed through the House and Senate today. The key factor that helped spur action was the removal of a provision that would have authorized city council members to approve a property tax increase. The new version of Senate Bill 1922, which is sponsored by House Speaker Michael Madigan, allows the city to pay for the plan with property tax money or any other available revenue.
Gov. Pat Quinn is running for re-election on a budget plan that would extend the current income tax rates instead of allowing them to sunset. The potential upside to his plan for some Illinoisans is that is would also offer a $500 annual credit for homeowners that Quinn has billed as property tax relief. Quinn made negative comments about the highly unpopular tax at most public appearances lately. Needless to say the governor opposed Emanuel’s push for a property tax increase blessed by state lawmakers. He panned it yesterday by calling it a “lousy tax” and saying that the proposal was “a sketch” not a clear plan.
But Emanuel described the proposal to reporters in Chicago as: “an honest compromise between leaders of organized labor and the city to secure the pensions; secure it in a way that city can afford it and make sure that to the 61,000 people who have come to relay on it, that it will be there.” Under the measure, workers would be asked to contribute more toward their retirement and would see reductions to their cost of living increases. Retirees would not get increases in 2017, 2019 and 2025. However, retirees with pension payouts of less than $22,000 annually would receive a minimum of 1 percent increase each year and would still get an increase during the skipped years. “If you do nothing, these plans are loosing money everyday. They’re going to go belly up within a decade,” Emanuel says.
As the legislation made its way through the process today, Quinn was unwilling to say whether he supported the bill. “I have to see the final bill. I’ll take a look at it. That’s what I do with all bills.” He did tell reporters that he was encouraged by the removal of the property tax components. “I think they got the message yesterday that [the] provision in the bill was not the way to go, and I’m glad they recognized that.” However, Quinn conceded that the city would have to find money somehow to cover the cost associated with the plan. “If they have any kind of pension reform, they need to have revenue to pay for it, but there’s many different creative ways to do that.”
Republicans in the House backed the plan, saying that it has to be done. “If we do nothing—we already have the roadmap for that. It’s called the city of Detroit,” said Elmhurst Republican Dennis Reboletti. “We can’t let the city of Chicago fail. And if the aldermen there chose to do nothing or choose to raise taxes, that’s their business.” The systems are governed by state law, so the General Assembly must sign off on changes. However, the revenue component of the plan can be handled at the local level. House Minority Leader Jim Durkin echoed that sentiment. “Doing nothing is not an option,” he said during floor debate. “We can’t ignore the fact that the city of Chicago is the economic engine of this state.”
Senate Republicans did not see the issue the same way. They called on the Democrats in their chamber to put the breaks on the legislation, which they say moved too quickly. “It will be here in two weeks, and we’re happy to partner with you, but it must be a true partnership,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno. Senate Republicans say they want to know what the plan is to deal with the city’s other underfunded pensions systems for teachers, firefighters and police officers. “What’s the plan? The place is on fire up there,” Palatine Republican Sen. Matt Murphy said. Murphy said that members of his party are worried that they city might look to the state’s coffers to bail out those systems.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said that it is unrealistic to wait around for an omnibus bill that addresses all the systems because different bargaining units are working out their own negotiations with the city. But he said that if the city can work out a deal with labor, like his bill, lawmakers should approve it. “It’s irresponsible for us not to act when...labor and employer, labor and the city, has come to the table [on this bill],” he said. Raoul said that 31 out of the 34 bargaining representing those affected by the plan have offered no opposition to the bill.
Speaker Madigan had a busy day on the House floor today as the chamber also approved a constitutional amendment that he is sponsoring. House Joint Constitutional Amendment Resolution 52 prohibits denying the right to vote based on a person's race, color, ethnicity, status as a member of a language minority, sex, sexual orientation, income national origin or religion. Madigan said the amendment sends the message, “that in Illinois we believe that every legal voter should be treated equally and have the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.”
Durkin also backed the speaker’s amendment, but others on his side of the aisle panned it as unnecessary. “This is a constitutional amendment looking for a problem,” said Rep. David Reis, a Republican from Willow Hill. Reis is a sponsor of legislation that would require voters to present identification at the polls. Madigan describe such requirements as “voter suppression” during the debate of his amendment.
If the Senate approves the proposal, which seems likely, it will appear before voters on the November ballot. While Madigan has not shared any ulterior motive for the amendment, some see the proposal as geared toward brining out the Democratic base for the general election.
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Statehouse roundup
By Jamey Dunn
There was plenty going on at the Statehouse today, and it’s only the first week of April. A House committee approved a bill to reform Chicago’s pension system for city workers; a group of Democratic senators filed legislation that would make sweeping changes to the way the state funds schools; and the Senate voted in favor of allowing children with epilepsy to use medical marijuana. Here’s a rundown of what happened:
Chicago pension changes
Two days after Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel presented his proposal to stabilize the city’s pension systems for workers, a House committee approved the plan. It would ask workers to contribute more to the system and would reduce their cost of living increases. The city would increase local property taxes to bring in an additional $250 million in property taxes. The legislation is intended to cut the city’s unfunded pension liability of $19.5 billion in half over 40 years. The General Assembly must approve the plan because the city’s systems are governed by state law.
While Emanuel says he has union support for his plan, not all labor organizations are on board. John Cameron, political director for AFSCME Council 31, called the plan “clearly and indisputably unconstitutional.” Senate Bill 1992 seemed to be set up to move quickly thought the legislature today. House Speaker Michael Madigan popped his amendments onto the bill shortly before the hearing, and the Senate held its own hearing shortly after the House panel voted. But the House adjourned before taking a vote. Republican leaders said that they could not support the proposal because they had not had time to digest its contents, and they said that they would rather see a plan that included the city’s retirement systems for police, firefighters and teachers, too. “We careen from one crisis to the next,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno. “Absent a long term plan, I couldn’t advise our caucus to be in favor of this.” But supporters said that the city is talks with with those groups, too. “You can say we’ve piecemealed, but they’re different entities,” said Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul. “This is about solving a very serious problem that impacts the city of Chicago. ... This is a product of negotiations. It’s been indicated that other negotiations are ongoing and things don’t just come to a point of resolution magically at the same time.”
Medical marijuana for epilepsy
The Senate approved SB 2636, which would allow children with epilepsy access to marijuana as a treatment under the state’s medical cannabis pilot program. Some families have found that a liquid form of the drug helps control the disease in children with frequent seizures. Parents say marijuana oil has helped their children, who may have hundreds or thousands of seizures a day, to cut the number down to just a few. Last month, an Arizona judge ruled that two parents in the state could continue treating their son with the drug. Parents of epileptic children are pushing for legislation similar to SB 2636 in other states.
Campus smoking ban
The House approved SB 2202, which would ban smoking on public college campuses. The measure would apply to all university property and would let universities decide what the penalty would be for those who violate the ban. Opponents to the proposal argued that smoking policy decisions should be left to university trustees.
Education funding
After a committee spent more than a year scrutinizing the way the state distributes funds to schools, Democratic lawmakers unveiled a proposal to revamp the education funding formula today. Bunker Hill Democratic Sen. Andy Manar, who chaired the committee, said that currently only about 44 percent of the state education spending is doled out based on local need. He said SB 16 would change that so financial need would come into play when distributing about 90 percent of funds. The proposal would also eliminate the individual block grant that is given to Chicago schools, something Republicans on the committee have supported. The plan would also require more spending transparency at the district level. Maywood Democratic Sen. Kimberly Lightford said that the debate around school funding has to move away from focusing on which districts would be funding “winners” and which would lose out on funds. “We all win. We all win. All the school districts win when dollars are going to the areas that need it the most,” she said.
Manar agreed. “The idea that we can have a few premier school districts in the state that exceed every expectation ... and have an incredible number that lag behind and call that a win in the state system is not a win in my book.” Both said that they were introducing the bill now as a jumping point for debate. “We could have waited until the last week of may negotiated behind closed doors, popped a bill out and then had a vote. That’s not the way to do this,” Manar said. “I’m hopeful that we will have a bipartisan set of cosponsors on this bill.”
Republicans in the Senate said that they had not been invited to today’s press conference and that they had not seen the 400-page bill until it was filed last night. “We welcome the discussion of fair education funding. We believe Illinois school children deserve every opportunity for a quality education — in every school in Illinois,” said a statement from Senate Republicans. “Our 2013 look at school funding found Illinois’ current funding formulas to be outdated, skewed to benefit Chicago and not performing as designed by law. We are reviewing the legislation just filed. At first blush — we have dozens of questions and comments to contribute to the discussion as it is reviewed in the Senate and perhaps the House of Representatives. We want educators, superintendents, schools boards and other education professionals to have that opportunity as well.”
Constitutional amendment for victims’ rights
Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang has been pushing for years to get rights for crime victims enshrined into the state’s Constitution. The House today approved his constitutional amendment to do just that. The amendment is part of a crowded field of efforts to get changes to the document before voters. House Speaker Michael Madigan is sponsoring two amendments. One would prevent discrimination against voters in the state and another would charge a 3 percent income tax surcharge on income over $1 million. The revenue from the additional tax would be used to fund education. Both of Madigan’s amendments have been approved by House committees. There are also two separate pushes to put amendments on the ballot through a citizens initiative. One, which is spearheaded by Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, would impose term limits on legislators. The other, which is backed by a well-funded committee, would change the way the state draws its legislative maps by taking the task out of the hands of lawmakers.
There was plenty going on at the Statehouse today, and it’s only the first week of April. A House committee approved a bill to reform Chicago’s pension system for city workers; a group of Democratic senators filed legislation that would make sweeping changes to the way the state funds schools; and the Senate voted in favor of allowing children with epilepsy to use medical marijuana. Here’s a rundown of what happened:
Chicago pension changes
Two days after Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel presented his proposal to stabilize the city’s pension systems for workers, a House committee approved the plan. It would ask workers to contribute more to the system and would reduce their cost of living increases. The city would increase local property taxes to bring in an additional $250 million in property taxes. The legislation is intended to cut the city’s unfunded pension liability of $19.5 billion in half over 40 years. The General Assembly must approve the plan because the city’s systems are governed by state law.
While Emanuel says he has union support for his plan, not all labor organizations are on board. John Cameron, political director for AFSCME Council 31, called the plan “clearly and indisputably unconstitutional.” Senate Bill 1992 seemed to be set up to move quickly thought the legislature today. House Speaker Michael Madigan popped his amendments onto the bill shortly before the hearing, and the Senate held its own hearing shortly after the House panel voted. But the House adjourned before taking a vote. Republican leaders said that they could not support the proposal because they had not had time to digest its contents, and they said that they would rather see a plan that included the city’s retirement systems for police, firefighters and teachers, too. “We careen from one crisis to the next,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno. “Absent a long term plan, I couldn’t advise our caucus to be in favor of this.” But supporters said that the city is talks with with those groups, too. “You can say we’ve piecemealed, but they’re different entities,” said Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul. “This is about solving a very serious problem that impacts the city of Chicago. ... This is a product of negotiations. It’s been indicated that other negotiations are ongoing and things don’t just come to a point of resolution magically at the same time.”
Medical marijuana for epilepsy
The Senate approved SB 2636, which would allow children with epilepsy access to marijuana as a treatment under the state’s medical cannabis pilot program. Some families have found that a liquid form of the drug helps control the disease in children with frequent seizures. Parents say marijuana oil has helped their children, who may have hundreds or thousands of seizures a day, to cut the number down to just a few. Last month, an Arizona judge ruled that two parents in the state could continue treating their son with the drug. Parents of epileptic children are pushing for legislation similar to SB 2636 in other states.
Campus smoking ban
The House approved SB 2202, which would ban smoking on public college campuses. The measure would apply to all university property and would let universities decide what the penalty would be for those who violate the ban. Opponents to the proposal argued that smoking policy decisions should be left to university trustees.
Education funding
After a committee spent more than a year scrutinizing the way the state distributes funds to schools, Democratic lawmakers unveiled a proposal to revamp the education funding formula today. Bunker Hill Democratic Sen. Andy Manar, who chaired the committee, said that currently only about 44 percent of the state education spending is doled out based on local need. He said SB 16 would change that so financial need would come into play when distributing about 90 percent of funds. The proposal would also eliminate the individual block grant that is given to Chicago schools, something Republicans on the committee have supported. The plan would also require more spending transparency at the district level. Maywood Democratic Sen. Kimberly Lightford said that the debate around school funding has to move away from focusing on which districts would be funding “winners” and which would lose out on funds. “We all win. We all win. All the school districts win when dollars are going to the areas that need it the most,” she said.
Manar agreed. “The idea that we can have a few premier school districts in the state that exceed every expectation ... and have an incredible number that lag behind and call that a win in the state system is not a win in my book.” Both said that they were introducing the bill now as a jumping point for debate. “We could have waited until the last week of may negotiated behind closed doors, popped a bill out and then had a vote. That’s not the way to do this,” Manar said. “I’m hopeful that we will have a bipartisan set of cosponsors on this bill.”
Republicans in the Senate said that they had not been invited to today’s press conference and that they had not seen the 400-page bill until it was filed last night. “We welcome the discussion of fair education funding. We believe Illinois school children deserve every opportunity for a quality education — in every school in Illinois,” said a statement from Senate Republicans. “Our 2013 look at school funding found Illinois’ current funding formulas to be outdated, skewed to benefit Chicago and not performing as designed by law. We are reviewing the legislation just filed. At first blush — we have dozens of questions and comments to contribute to the discussion as it is reviewed in the Senate and perhaps the House of Representatives. We want educators, superintendents, schools boards and other education professionals to have that opportunity as well.”
Constitutional amendment for victims’ rights
Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang has been pushing for years to get rights for crime victims enshrined into the state’s Constitution. The House today approved his constitutional amendment to do just that. The amendment is part of a crowded field of efforts to get changes to the document before voters. House Speaker Michael Madigan is sponsoring two amendments. One would prevent discrimination against voters in the state and another would charge a 3 percent income tax surcharge on income over $1 million. The revenue from the additional tax would be used to fund education. Both of Madigan’s amendments have been approved by House committees. There are also two separate pushes to put amendments on the ballot through a citizens initiative. One, which is spearheaded by Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, would impose term limits on legislators. The other, which is backed by a well-funded committee, would change the way the state draws its legislative maps by taking the task out of the hands of lawmakers.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Madigan proposes millionaire tax for education
By Jamey Dunn and Caitlin Rydinsky
House Speaker Michael Madigan proposed today a constitutional amendment to impose a higher tax on millionaires, which would bring in an additional $1 billion for school funding.
Under the proposal, Illinoisans would pay an additional 3 percentage points surcharge on any income they made over $1 million. The revenue generated, which Madigan estimates could be $1 billion, would be given to each district throughout the state based on the number of students. He estimates that schools would get an additional $550 per pupil. “Over the last several years, every area of Illinois has experienced school closures, teacher layoffs, and classroom cuts due to reduced education funding that has been forced by a crowding out of state revenues,” Madigan said in a written statement. “This is not a complete solution to our education funding issues, but it is a fair and equitable way to reverse a decline brought on by the national economic problems and will help address a number of spending pressures that vary among school districts.”
If both chambers approve the plan by May 5, voters will have the deciding factor of whether millionaires’ should be taxed the additional amount during this November election. Illinoisans’ may also see an amendment to add term limits for lawmakers placed on the ballot from the efforts of Republican governor candidate and multi-millionaire businessman Bruce Rauner. In addition to running for governor, Rauner has launched a campaign to get term limits on the ballot by collecting signatures through a citizens’ initiative. There is also a push to get an amendment on the ballot to change the way the state draws its legislative districts. If either proposal gets the needed signatures, they would likely also have to survive a court challenge to make it to the ballot.
If Madigan’s plan appears on the November ballot and gains the necessary support from voters, schools could expect to see additional funds in 2015, he said. “Given the drastic cuts to education in recent years, and the threat of cutting nearly $1 billion more in this year’s budget, we are encouraged by the speaker’s proposal to invest more money in public education for our children,” Illinois Federation of Teachers President Dan Montgomery said in a written statement.
For the last three years, the state has failed to meet the per pupil funding level required by law of $6,119. Illinois’ temporary income tax increase is scheduled decrease in 2015 from 5 percent to 3.75 for individuals. The lost revenue means that lawmakers are looking at a tough task as they try to craft next fiscal year’s budget. Early projections indicate that almost $1 billion could be cut from schools. Meanwhile, the Illinois State Board of Education requested a funding increase of $1.08 billion for next fiscal year. The bulk of the request, $879 million, would be needed to meet foundation level funding.
Opponents to the amendment say it is nothing more than a political move meant to polarize voters in an election year. They also suspect it is a distraction from what they believe Madigan’s real intent is—to make the temporary income tax increase permanent. Madigan has not taken a stance on what the state should do about the income tax increase; he says the two topics are not linked. “That’s a separate issue. This is separate from the question of whether the income tax increase would be extended. It’s not related.” Madigan said that his plan is not meant to fill in the gaps of potential cuts. “I think that what we are doing here is calling upon people in Illinois that are well equipped to provide support for education which is available to everybody in the state,” he said.
Conservative groups say that the proposal would drive wealth people out of the state. They also note that it could hurt small businesses that file their taxes as individuals. “With the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, one would think the Democrat[ic] leaders of Illinois would want to grow jobs for our families. Unfortunately, yet again they choose to pursue policies that will push more jobs out of the Land of Lincoln by punishing job creators,” David From, the Illinois state director of Americans for Prosperity, said in a written statement. Madigan, who acknowledged that there are some years in which he would earn enough to have to pay the surcharge, said of millionaires in the state: “If they’re in Illinois today, they’re probably so much in love with Illinois that they’re not going to leave, and they’ll be grateful for this opportunity to support lower (grade level) education.” Madigan estimates that in 2011, there were 13,675 millionaires in Illinois.
Rauner ‘s campaign shot back with a statement highlighting his personal giving to schools and education reform efforts. “Bruce is happy to pay more to support education—in fact he's been doing that personally for decades, but he doesn’t support what looks like a first step towards empowering Mike Madigan and [Gov.] Pat Quinn to raise taxes on the middle class, small businesses and family farms,” said a prepared statement from campaign manager Chip Englander.
House Speaker Michael Madigan proposed today a constitutional amendment to impose a higher tax on millionaires, which would bring in an additional $1 billion for school funding.
Under the proposal, Illinoisans would pay an additional 3 percentage points surcharge on any income they made over $1 million. The revenue generated, which Madigan estimates could be $1 billion, would be given to each district throughout the state based on the number of students. He estimates that schools would get an additional $550 per pupil. “Over the last several years, every area of Illinois has experienced school closures, teacher layoffs, and classroom cuts due to reduced education funding that has been forced by a crowding out of state revenues,” Madigan said in a written statement. “This is not a complete solution to our education funding issues, but it is a fair and equitable way to reverse a decline brought on by the national economic problems and will help address a number of spending pressures that vary among school districts.”
If both chambers approve the plan by May 5, voters will have the deciding factor of whether millionaires’ should be taxed the additional amount during this November election. Illinoisans’ may also see an amendment to add term limits for lawmakers placed on the ballot from the efforts of Republican governor candidate and multi-millionaire businessman Bruce Rauner. In addition to running for governor, Rauner has launched a campaign to get term limits on the ballot by collecting signatures through a citizens’ initiative. There is also a push to get an amendment on the ballot to change the way the state draws its legislative districts. If either proposal gets the needed signatures, they would likely also have to survive a court challenge to make it to the ballot.
If Madigan’s plan appears on the November ballot and gains the necessary support from voters, schools could expect to see additional funds in 2015, he said. “Given the drastic cuts to education in recent years, and the threat of cutting nearly $1 billion more in this year’s budget, we are encouraged by the speaker’s proposal to invest more money in public education for our children,” Illinois Federation of Teachers President Dan Montgomery said in a written statement.
For the last three years, the state has failed to meet the per pupil funding level required by law of $6,119. Illinois’ temporary income tax increase is scheduled decrease in 2015 from 5 percent to 3.75 for individuals. The lost revenue means that lawmakers are looking at a tough task as they try to craft next fiscal year’s budget. Early projections indicate that almost $1 billion could be cut from schools. Meanwhile, the Illinois State Board of Education requested a funding increase of $1.08 billion for next fiscal year. The bulk of the request, $879 million, would be needed to meet foundation level funding.
Opponents to the amendment say it is nothing more than a political move meant to polarize voters in an election year. They also suspect it is a distraction from what they believe Madigan’s real intent is—to make the temporary income tax increase permanent. Madigan has not taken a stance on what the state should do about the income tax increase; he says the two topics are not linked. “That’s a separate issue. This is separate from the question of whether the income tax increase would be extended. It’s not related.” Madigan said that his plan is not meant to fill in the gaps of potential cuts. “I think that what we are doing here is calling upon people in Illinois that are well equipped to provide support for education which is available to everybody in the state,” he said.
Conservative groups say that the proposal would drive wealth people out of the state. They also note that it could hurt small businesses that file their taxes as individuals. “With the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, one would think the Democrat[ic] leaders of Illinois would want to grow jobs for our families. Unfortunately, yet again they choose to pursue policies that will push more jobs out of the Land of Lincoln by punishing job creators,” David From, the Illinois state director of Americans for Prosperity, said in a written statement. Madigan, who acknowledged that there are some years in which he would earn enough to have to pay the surcharge, said of millionaires in the state: “If they’re in Illinois today, they’re probably so much in love with Illinois that they’re not going to leave, and they’ll be grateful for this opportunity to support lower (grade level) education.” Madigan estimates that in 2011, there were 13,675 millionaires in Illinois.
Rauner ‘s campaign shot back with a statement highlighting his personal giving to schools and education reform efforts. “Bruce is happy to pay more to support education—in fact he's been doing that personally for decades, but he doesn’t support what looks like a first step towards empowering Mike Madigan and [Gov.] Pat Quinn to raise taxes on the middle class, small businesses and family farms,” said a prepared statement from campaign manager Chip Englander.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Republicans pick running mates and begin to build platforms
By Jamey Dunn
Today is the first day that candidates can begin circulating petitions to get on the ballot, and Republican gubernatorial contenders have started announcing their running mates and are shaping their political platforms.
State Treasurer Dan Rutherford announced via Twitter that he chose Steve Kim, the 2010 Republican candidate for attorney general, as his lieutenant governor candidate. This is the first race under a new that law requires candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to pair up and run together during the primary election. If the Rutherford/Kim ticket goes all the way, Kim would be the first Asian-American elected to a statewide office in Illinois. Rutherford plans to hold a news conference on Thursday to announce officially that Kim will join his campaign. On his Twitter page, Rutherford said he would also announce the “unique and substantive” role that Kim would play in his administration. Kim has is a lawyer with a background in business and served as an adviser to former Gov. Jim Edgar.
Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Republican from Hinsdale, made several stops around the state today to showcase Republican state Rep. Jil Tracy as his running mate. However, he first made the announcement on Twitter yesterday. Tracy, a Republican from Quincy, has served in the House since 2006. She is originally from the Carbondale area and holds a law degree from Southern Illinois University. She worked as an assistant attorney general under former Republican Attorney General Jim Ryan. “Rep. Tracy is someone who could easily step in and be a great governor in the governor’s chair in Springfield. She thrives on getting things done for the people of Illinois, and she has the legislative experience to know how things work in Springfield. But like me she’s mature enough to know how things really ought to work in Springfield, and there is a difference,” Dillard said in Springfield today. If elected, Tracy said she hopes to be an ambassador to the business community and “find out how we’re going to create jobs in the private sector for people in Illinois.”
Republican candidate Bruce Rauner rolled out his plan to make changes to the Illinois General Assembly, including imposing term limits on lawmakers. Rauner is backing a constitutional amendment that would reduce the number of senators from 50 to 41 and increasing the House from 118 to 123. According to a news release from Rauner, the change would “make Senate elections more competitive and save the state money.”
The proposal also calls for changing the threshold to override a governor’s veto from a three-fifths majority to a two-thirds majority. Rauner hopes to gather enough signatures to get the amendment on the 2014 general election ballot, and he has created a political action committee to help with his efforts. If he does succeed in collecting the signatures needed, the amendment would also likely undergo a court challenge. The Illinois Constitution does allow for citizen-initiated amendments, but it limits them to the “structural and procedural subjects” of the article that governs the legislature. As state treasurer, current Gov. Pat Quinn tried to push a term limits initiative, but the amendment was struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court because it did not meet the standard of affecting both the structure and procedure of the legislative body.
This precedent may by why Rauner’s plan also shakes up the number of members in each chamber. Rauner said he wants the limit for governors, too, but the Constitution does not allow for changes to the executive branch via voter initiative. So term limits for the governor’s office could only be achieved if the General Assembly passed a constitutional amendment and voters approved it during a future general election.
Sticking with the digital trend that Republican candidates seem to be embracing, Rauner released a video via his YouTube channel making the case for his proposal. “Eight years and out for everybody,” he says in the video. “No more of this 30 years in power, making millions of dollars on the side from your law firm or your special deal. No more. Be a public servant: Serve the public and leave.” Dillard today called Rauner’s plan a gimmick designed to “attract attention to himself.” He said reducing the number of senators would leave people in less-populated areas with less representation. “The Senate districts will become so large that one won’t even really have the ability to really even see their senator. And I think it’s a real slap in the face to downstate Illinois.”
Quinn has said he continues to support term limits. However, if he is elected to serve another term as governor, he would exceed the eight-year limit that he once advocated for lawmakers.
There have been no indications yet from Quinn, his Democratic opponent Bill Daley or Bloomington Republican Sen. Bill Brady about their choices for running mates. Current Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon is challenging Republican Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka. One person who will not have to worry about picking a lieutenant governor candidate is Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul. He was considering a bid for the governor’s office but announced last week that he would not run. Raoul said he wanted to instead focus on his job as a lawmaker and his role as chair of a special committee working to draft legislation to change the public employee pension systems.
Today is the first day that candidates can begin circulating petitions to get on the ballot, and Republican gubernatorial contenders have started announcing their running mates and are shaping their political platforms.
State Treasurer Dan Rutherford announced via Twitter that he chose Steve Kim, the 2010 Republican candidate for attorney general, as his lieutenant governor candidate. This is the first race under a new that law requires candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to pair up and run together during the primary election. If the Rutherford/Kim ticket goes all the way, Kim would be the first Asian-American elected to a statewide office in Illinois. Rutherford plans to hold a news conference on Thursday to announce officially that Kim will join his campaign. On his Twitter page, Rutherford said he would also announce the “unique and substantive” role that Kim would play in his administration. Kim has is a lawyer with a background in business and served as an adviser to former Gov. Jim Edgar.
Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Republican from Hinsdale, made several stops around the state today to showcase Republican state Rep. Jil Tracy as his running mate. However, he first made the announcement on Twitter yesterday. Tracy, a Republican from Quincy, has served in the House since 2006. She is originally from the Carbondale area and holds a law degree from Southern Illinois University. She worked as an assistant attorney general under former Republican Attorney General Jim Ryan. “Rep. Tracy is someone who could easily step in and be a great governor in the governor’s chair in Springfield. She thrives on getting things done for the people of Illinois, and she has the legislative experience to know how things work in Springfield. But like me she’s mature enough to know how things really ought to work in Springfield, and there is a difference,” Dillard said in Springfield today. If elected, Tracy said she hopes to be an ambassador to the business community and “find out how we’re going to create jobs in the private sector for people in Illinois.”
Republican candidate Bruce Rauner rolled out his plan to make changes to the Illinois General Assembly, including imposing term limits on lawmakers. Rauner is backing a constitutional amendment that would reduce the number of senators from 50 to 41 and increasing the House from 118 to 123. According to a news release from Rauner, the change would “make Senate elections more competitive and save the state money.”
The proposal also calls for changing the threshold to override a governor’s veto from a three-fifths majority to a two-thirds majority. Rauner hopes to gather enough signatures to get the amendment on the 2014 general election ballot, and he has created a political action committee to help with his efforts. If he does succeed in collecting the signatures needed, the amendment would also likely undergo a court challenge. The Illinois Constitution does allow for citizen-initiated amendments, but it limits them to the “structural and procedural subjects” of the article that governs the legislature. As state treasurer, current Gov. Pat Quinn tried to push a term limits initiative, but the amendment was struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court because it did not meet the standard of affecting both the structure and procedure of the legislative body.
This precedent may by why Rauner’s plan also shakes up the number of members in each chamber. Rauner said he wants the limit for governors, too, but the Constitution does not allow for changes to the executive branch via voter initiative. So term limits for the governor’s office could only be achieved if the General Assembly passed a constitutional amendment and voters approved it during a future general election.
Sticking with the digital trend that Republican candidates seem to be embracing, Rauner released a video via his YouTube channel making the case for his proposal. “Eight years and out for everybody,” he says in the video. “No more of this 30 years in power, making millions of dollars on the side from your law firm or your special deal. No more. Be a public servant: Serve the public and leave.” Dillard today called Rauner’s plan a gimmick designed to “attract attention to himself.” He said reducing the number of senators would leave people in less-populated areas with less representation. “The Senate districts will become so large that one won’t even really have the ability to really even see their senator. And I think it’s a real slap in the face to downstate Illinois.”
Quinn has said he continues to support term limits. However, if he is elected to serve another term as governor, he would exceed the eight-year limit that he once advocated for lawmakers.
There have been no indications yet from Quinn, his Democratic opponent Bill Daley or Bloomington Republican Sen. Bill Brady about their choices for running mates. Current Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon is challenging Republican Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka. One person who will not have to worry about picking a lieutenant governor candidate is Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul. He was considering a bid for the governor’s office but announced last week that he would not run. Raoul said he wanted to instead focus on his job as a lawmaker and his role as chair of a special committee working to draft legislation to change the public employee pension systems.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Legislative leaders sue over pay freeze
By Jamey Dunn
Democratic legislative leaders filed a lawsuit today to halt Gov. Pat Quinn’s move to suspend lawmakers’ pay until a pension reform bill is passed.
Quinn used his veto pen earlier this month to strike out the money for lawmakers’ pay from the budget. At the time House Speaker Michael Madigan’s public reaction to Quinn’s decision was not negative. He noted that lawmakers had made much effort to try to get pension legislation passed. “The governor’s decision follows my efforts, and I understand his frustration. I am hopeful his strategy works,” Madigan said in a prepared statement. Senate President John Cullerton called Quinn’s splashy strategy “unproductive.”
Today, both leaders are the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Quinn claiming that his move to cut off paychecks is unconstitutional. In a letter to lawmakers, they called Quinn’s action “purely political” and an “unconstitutional attempt to coerce the legislature to comply with his demands.” The suit says that if the governor were allowed to cut lawmakers’ pay, it would break down the separation of powers between the branches of government because any governor going forward could hold paychecks hostage to extort votes from legislators.
“If the governor’s line-item veto is upheld, the independence of each member of the General Assembly will be forever compromised. Any governor will hold a trump card over a co-equal branch of government, attempting to bend the members of the General Assembly to his or her will with the threat of eliminating their salaries, which for some legislators is their only source of income,” the complaint says. “In this particular instance, Gov. Quinn has stated that his dispute with the General Assembly is over the lack of pension reform legislation. Next time, it may be gun control or abortion rights or tax policy.”
Quinn defended his veto again today. “My action to suspend the appropriation for legislative pay is clearly within the express provisions of the Illinois Constitution,” he said in a written statement. Quinn also is not taking a paycheck.
The Illinois Constitution does address the salaries of lawmakers, as well as those of constitutional officers and judges. The document says that salaries cannot be changed during their terms. From the legislative article: “A member shall receive salary and allowances as provided by law, but changes in the salary of the member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.”
However, the Constitution also states that the governor may “reduce or veto any item of appropriation in a bill presented to him.” Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka said last week that she did not have the authority to pay lawmakers with out the appropriation, which Quinn had vetoed. She said that the only way legislators would get paid is if they voted to override the veto or a judge ordered that they get their checks.
Madigan and Cullerton likely do not want an override vote because continuing in the standard process would be tacit acknowledgement that the veto was legitimate and constitutionally sound. “The purpose of this lawsuit is to protect the independence of the legislature and preserve the separation of powers. It is our hope that the court will remedy this constitutional violation and that future governors will not feel empowered to use such coercive tactics,” they said in their letter.
Quinn said that instead of focusing their efforts on a lawsuit, lawmakers should be working on formulating changes to the pensions system that can pass in both chambers. “Today's lawsuit filed by two members of the Illinois General Assembly is just plain wrong. If legislators had put forth the same effort to draw up a pension reform agreement that they did in crafting this lawsuit, pension reform could have been done by now. Instead of focusing on resolving the state's pension crisis — which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars a day — legislators have chosen to focus on their own paychecks and waste taxpayer time and money on this lawsuit. Legislators should not be rewarded for an endless cycle of promises, excuses, delay and inertia on the pension problem.”
Members of a special committee that is working on pension reform say they are making real progress. However, they say that it may be mid-August or later before the have a proposal to present to the General Assembly at large. Barring immediate court action, lawmakers will miss a their first paycheck under the veto this Thursday. Credit Union 1, which serves state employees, has offered to loan lawmakers half of their $68,000 monthly base salaries for 60 days. Non-members would have to join the credit union and would be charged interest on the loans.
Quinn said he plans to fight the issue in court. “I will defend the interest of Illinois taxpayers in the courts. Nobody should be paid until the pension reform job gets done for taxpayers.”
Union leaders took the lawsuit as a chance to remind lawmakers that public workers’ pension benefits are also protected by the state's Constitution. “Today, legislative leaders sued over the constitutionality of Governor Pat Quinn’s line item veto of legislators’ salaries. We remind lawmakers that the entirety of the Illinois Constitution must be upheld for all citizens, including public employees and retirees — teachers, police, nurses, caregivers, and others — whose modest pensions are protected in Article XIII, Section 5,” said a written statement from the We Are One Coalition. The coalition called on lawmakers to support the union-backed proposal, Senate Bill 2404. “Legislators take an oath to support this constitutional provision — just as they promise to support all constitutional provisions equally. Lawmakers must not cherry-pick or apply a double standard in determining what parts of the Constitution should be defended. They shouldn't adhere to the Constitution only when it's convenient.”
Democratic legislative leaders filed a lawsuit today to halt Gov. Pat Quinn’s move to suspend lawmakers’ pay until a pension reform bill is passed.
Quinn used his veto pen earlier this month to strike out the money for lawmakers’ pay from the budget. At the time House Speaker Michael Madigan’s public reaction to Quinn’s decision was not negative. He noted that lawmakers had made much effort to try to get pension legislation passed. “The governor’s decision follows my efforts, and I understand his frustration. I am hopeful his strategy works,” Madigan said in a prepared statement. Senate President John Cullerton called Quinn’s splashy strategy “unproductive.”
Today, both leaders are the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Quinn claiming that his move to cut off paychecks is unconstitutional. In a letter to lawmakers, they called Quinn’s action “purely political” and an “unconstitutional attempt to coerce the legislature to comply with his demands.” The suit says that if the governor were allowed to cut lawmakers’ pay, it would break down the separation of powers between the branches of government because any governor going forward could hold paychecks hostage to extort votes from legislators.
“If the governor’s line-item veto is upheld, the independence of each member of the General Assembly will be forever compromised. Any governor will hold a trump card over a co-equal branch of government, attempting to bend the members of the General Assembly to his or her will with the threat of eliminating their salaries, which for some legislators is their only source of income,” the complaint says. “In this particular instance, Gov. Quinn has stated that his dispute with the General Assembly is over the lack of pension reform legislation. Next time, it may be gun control or abortion rights or tax policy.”
Quinn defended his veto again today. “My action to suspend the appropriation for legislative pay is clearly within the express provisions of the Illinois Constitution,” he said in a written statement. Quinn also is not taking a paycheck.
The Illinois Constitution does address the salaries of lawmakers, as well as those of constitutional officers and judges. The document says that salaries cannot be changed during their terms. From the legislative article: “A member shall receive salary and allowances as provided by law, but changes in the salary of the member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.”
However, the Constitution also states that the governor may “reduce or veto any item of appropriation in a bill presented to him.” Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka said last week that she did not have the authority to pay lawmakers with out the appropriation, which Quinn had vetoed. She said that the only way legislators would get paid is if they voted to override the veto or a judge ordered that they get their checks.
Madigan and Cullerton likely do not want an override vote because continuing in the standard process would be tacit acknowledgement that the veto was legitimate and constitutionally sound. “The purpose of this lawsuit is to protect the independence of the legislature and preserve the separation of powers. It is our hope that the court will remedy this constitutional violation and that future governors will not feel empowered to use such coercive tactics,” they said in their letter.
Quinn said that instead of focusing their efforts on a lawsuit, lawmakers should be working on formulating changes to the pensions system that can pass in both chambers. “Today's lawsuit filed by two members of the Illinois General Assembly is just plain wrong. If legislators had put forth the same effort to draw up a pension reform agreement that they did in crafting this lawsuit, pension reform could have been done by now. Instead of focusing on resolving the state's pension crisis — which is costing taxpayers millions of dollars a day — legislators have chosen to focus on their own paychecks and waste taxpayer time and money on this lawsuit. Legislators should not be rewarded for an endless cycle of promises, excuses, delay and inertia on the pension problem.”
Members of a special committee that is working on pension reform say they are making real progress. However, they say that it may be mid-August or later before the have a proposal to present to the General Assembly at large. Barring immediate court action, lawmakers will miss a their first paycheck under the veto this Thursday. Credit Union 1, which serves state employees, has offered to loan lawmakers half of their $68,000 monthly base salaries for 60 days. Non-members would have to join the credit union and would be charged interest on the loans.
Quinn said he plans to fight the issue in court. “I will defend the interest of Illinois taxpayers in the courts. Nobody should be paid until the pension reform job gets done for taxpayers.”
Union leaders took the lawsuit as a chance to remind lawmakers that public workers’ pension benefits are also protected by the state's Constitution. “Today, legislative leaders sued over the constitutionality of Governor Pat Quinn’s line item veto of legislators’ salaries. We remind lawmakers that the entirety of the Illinois Constitution must be upheld for all citizens, including public employees and retirees — teachers, police, nurses, caregivers, and others — whose modest pensions are protected in Article XIII, Section 5,” said a written statement from the We Are One Coalition. The coalition called on lawmakers to support the union-backed proposal, Senate Bill 2404. “Legislators take an oath to support this constitutional provision — just as they promise to support all constitutional provisions equally. Lawmakers must not cherry-pick or apply a double standard in determining what parts of the Constitution should be defended. They shouldn't adhere to the Constitution only when it's convenient.”
Thursday, May 02, 2013
House passes comprehensive pension changes
The Illinois House approved changes to the state’s pension systems today that supporters say will likely be the plan that makes it to the governor’s desk.
“Obviously, it does not meet every request. Obviously, it does not make everybody happy. But I think we’re all familiar with the severe fiscal problems of our state. The fiscal problems of the pension systems are a large large part of that broader problem,” said House Speaker Michael Madigan, sponsor of Senate Bill 1. “In my judgment, this is a critical action that must be taken now. It must be taken for future budget making. It must be taken for the fiscal well-being and reputation for the state of Illinois.”
The bill would cap pensionable salary at $109,000, increase retirement ages for employers younger than 36 and increase employee contributions by 2 percent of their salaries over two years. Compounded cost of living adjustments would be capped based on the amount of time worked. For each year on the job, the cap would increase by $1,000. For example, if an employee worked for 30 years but received less than $30,000 of annual pensions benefits, he or she would receive a compounded COLA until the pension benefit caught up with that cap. Then the COLA would be flat amount going forward. Madigan said that it was the House’s affirmative vote a few weeks ago on capping COLA benefits that indicated a comprehensive plan could make it through the chamber. “I think that told the tale, and then we put the bill together,” he said.
Senate Bill 1, which passed 62-51 with two representatives voting “present,” is expected to save almost $2 billion up front and aims to fully fund pension benefits by 2044. The proposal also contains a guarantee that the state makes its annual required payments. When the state pays off bonds that were used to cover previous pension payments, $1 billion of that money will go toward the unfunded liability annually. House Leader Tom Cross, who a co-sponsor of SB 1, warned that lawmakers must become more fiscally prudent if they hope to live up to the funding guarantee in the bill. “I think we all need to keep in mind ... we can put anything we want in the law, and we can talk about the guarantees. But if the General Assembly, either the House or the Senate, doesn’t have the capacity or the willingness or the understanding to not spend more than we have, then it really doesn’t matter what we put in the law.”
 |
| House members listening to pension floor debate. |
Rep. Thomas Morrison, a Palatine Republican, argued that the proposal would not go far enough. He said public employees should get all their benefits earned to date but should then be moved into 401(k)-like plans. “Other states have gone down this road. ... There are huge, huge problems with defined benefits systems,” he said. “I think there are some good reforms in this bill. I wish it would go significantly farther. I think we owe it even to the members of these pension systems to go significantly farther because I still am not confident that passing this bill is going to fulfill a promise to those workers who are counting on (pensions).”
However, Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a key player in the push for pension changes, and others noted the significance of today’s vote. “Today, we are very much taking an historic step to getting Illinois back in fiscal order,” said Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat. “It’s historic in two ways. It’s historic because of the dramatic nature of the legislation itself. These are steps none of us relish taking, but we know we should. It’s also historic because we as a body today are sending a very clear message. We are putting necessity ahead of political expediency and doing the right things instead of the easy thing.”
Union leaders have the opposite view of today’s vote. They believe that cutting the benefits of workers who never failed to make their required payments toward their pensions is unconstitutional and just plain wrong. “Senate Bill 1 is unfair to the active and retired teachers, nurses, police and other employees who paid out of every paycheck to fund their pensions, even as the state shorted its share. On top of that, it is blatantly unconstitutional and thus saves nothing. It simply exacerbates Illinois' fiscal problems. In contrast, our coalition had a productive meeting today with [Senate] President John Cullerton, and we hope to be able to continue the dialogue,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition. Cullerton has said he believes that the House plan is unconstitutional. He is working with union officials to try and craft a plan.
Madigan today dismissed the talks as a stalling tactic from the unions. He pointed to the negotiations of the union’s contract, which took more than a year. “I think this is a continuation of what we experienced a year ago. Henry Bayer [executive director of the American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees Council 31] and the We Are One Coalition—where day to day they simply want to delay, delay, delay because maybe the problem will go away. Precisely what they did on the collective bargaining. And they only came to the conclusion on the collective bargaining because they knew there would be action in the legislature.” Madigan called Bayer an “expert at delay.”
However, the unions and Cullerton say they are making an earnest effort. Cullerton said Wednesday that the coalition presented him with a “credible constitutional plan.” But Madigan said that even if that is the case, it is unlikely that members of his chamber would go for a different bill that, all other things being equal, Cullerton admits would save less money. “I don’t expect that they’ll be able to come to an agreement such that people will be prepared to back away from this bill. There’s two chambers here, and both chambers have to pass the same bill. The House has passed a bill, and so whatever the Senate does, I don’t think it would achieve the cost savings that the House bill does.”
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she expects Republicans to support SB 1 if it is called for a vote in the Senate. “I am pleased the House will be sending over a comprehensive pension reform bill. These are substantial reforms that take a huge step forward in stabilizing the state’s finances,” she said in a written statement. She urged Cullerton to move ahead with the legislation. “A significant number of Senate Republicans supported similar legislation earlier this session. I anticipate they will join with me again to try to pass this bill to the governor’s desk. I’m appreciative of the Senate president’s efforts on a different framework, but the momentum may be building on this bill. Illinois desperately needs pension reform—we can’t afford to wait any longer.”
Gov. Pat Quinn congratulated the House on its vote in a written statement. “Today the Illinois House of Representatives took the biggest step to date towards restoring fiscal stability to Illinois. With the passage of this comprehensive pension reform solution, Illinois is closer than ever to addressing a decades-long problem that is plaguing our economy, our bond rating and the future of our children.”
Before the vote, Quinn said he does not want to dismiss the talks going on in the Senate. “I want to make sure that everybody has their say in both houses of the legislature,” Quinn said this morning. “We have to do it. The sooner it’s done, the better. I do think it’s important that both houses of the legislature know that it’s imperative this month that we pass a bill through both houses that comes to me so I can sign it into law. I want to make that point very clear to all the members of the legislature. We cannot delay. We cannot postpone. Our moment in history to get new pension reform is right now.”
Thursday, April 11, 2013
House votes to eliminate lieutenant governor's office
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House today approved a constitutional amendment to eliminate the lieutenant governor’s office.
If approved by the Senate, HJRCA 18 would appear on the ballot before voters in the 2014 general election. If voters approved the proposal, the position would be eliminated in 2019. Supporters pitched the idea as a cost saving measure. “It is a luxury that we can no longer afford,” said Rep. David McSweeney, who sponsored the amendment. The budget for Lt. Gov. She Simon’s office for the current fiscal year is $1.8 million. Under Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposed budget, the office would get $1.75 million.
Opponents said that the state needs a lieutenant governor to step in if the governor cannot fulfill the duties of the office. They pointed to just a few years ago when lawmakers impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and removed him from office. Quinn was sworn in to the governor’s office the same day that the Senate voted to boot Blagojevich. “The lieutenant governor does have some duties. First of all the lieutenant governor sits on several boards the lieutenant governor has some state duties this constitutional amendment doesn’t deal with those in any way and so there would be a hole in the law,” said Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat. “Secondly and maybe more importantly it wasn’t too long ago in this state that we sent the governor packing and when we did that we had a lieutenant governor in place that took over with a reasonable system under the law to make sure that the duties of the governor were transferred to an appropriate person.”
Lang added as he spoke on the House floor: “I would urge you to think carefully about the role of the lieutenant governor—yes minimal under our statute, yes minimal under our constitution—but nevertheless we’ve just gone through a time in Illinois’ history when I think it’s been important that we had a lieutenant governor.”
McSweeney said that the attorney general could easily step into the governor’s office if the need were to arise again. “We are cutting basic social services. It’s a travesty. We have 8 billion to 9 billion of unpaid bills. How can we justify spending $2 million on this office when the attorney general is capable of taking the responsibility?” he said. “This is a message that we are serious about cutting spending. It will show the voters that we’re finally willing to eliminate an office.”
A spokesperson for Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon said that Simon doesn’t oppose the idea of giving voters a choice about the office. But she is against its elimination. She said Simon has cut during her time in the post. “In these tough economic times, Lt. Gov. Simon has made it her mission to do more with less for the taxpayers of Illinois. She has voluntarily cut her budget by more than 12 percent the past two years and gives back a portion of her salary each year,” Simon spokeswoman Annie Thompson said in a written statement. “Simon is working hard to improve the quality of life for Illinois residents as the state’s point person on education reform, an advocate for victims of domestic violence and our military families, and she is leading the effort to preserve our rivers.”
Simon has announced that she will not be seeking reelection in 2014, saying she wants a chance to do more for the state. “Serving as Lieutenant Governor has given me an opportunity to advocate on important issues that affect our state but it is time for me to do even more,” Simon said in a prepared statement when she announced she would not run for lieutenant governor again. “I want to serve the people of Illinois in a role where I can have an even greater impact.”
The Illinois House today approved a constitutional amendment to eliminate the lieutenant governor’s office.
If approved by the Senate, HJRCA 18 would appear on the ballot before voters in the 2014 general election. If voters approved the proposal, the position would be eliminated in 2019. Supporters pitched the idea as a cost saving measure. “It is a luxury that we can no longer afford,” said Rep. David McSweeney, who sponsored the amendment. The budget for Lt. Gov. She Simon’s office for the current fiscal year is $1.8 million. Under Gov. Pat Quinn’s proposed budget, the office would get $1.75 million.
Opponents said that the state needs a lieutenant governor to step in if the governor cannot fulfill the duties of the office. They pointed to just a few years ago when lawmakers impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and removed him from office. Quinn was sworn in to the governor’s office the same day that the Senate voted to boot Blagojevich. “The lieutenant governor does have some duties. First of all the lieutenant governor sits on several boards the lieutenant governor has some state duties this constitutional amendment doesn’t deal with those in any way and so there would be a hole in the law,” said Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat. “Secondly and maybe more importantly it wasn’t too long ago in this state that we sent the governor packing and when we did that we had a lieutenant governor in place that took over with a reasonable system under the law to make sure that the duties of the governor were transferred to an appropriate person.”
Lang added as he spoke on the House floor: “I would urge you to think carefully about the role of the lieutenant governor—yes minimal under our statute, yes minimal under our constitution—but nevertheless we’ve just gone through a time in Illinois’ history when I think it’s been important that we had a lieutenant governor.”
McSweeney said that the attorney general could easily step into the governor’s office if the need were to arise again. “We are cutting basic social services. It’s a travesty. We have 8 billion to 9 billion of unpaid bills. How can we justify spending $2 million on this office when the attorney general is capable of taking the responsibility?” he said. “This is a message that we are serious about cutting spending. It will show the voters that we’re finally willing to eliminate an office.”
A spokesperson for Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon said that Simon doesn’t oppose the idea of giving voters a choice about the office. But she is against its elimination. She said Simon has cut during her time in the post. “In these tough economic times, Lt. Gov. Simon has made it her mission to do more with less for the taxpayers of Illinois. She has voluntarily cut her budget by more than 12 percent the past two years and gives back a portion of her salary each year,” Simon spokeswoman Annie Thompson said in a written statement. “Simon is working hard to improve the quality of life for Illinois residents as the state’s point person on education reform, an advocate for victims of domestic violence and our military families, and she is leading the effort to preserve our rivers.”
Simon has announced that she will not be seeking reelection in 2014, saying she wants a chance to do more for the state. “Serving as Lieutenant Governor has given me an opportunity to advocate on important issues that affect our state but it is time for me to do even more,” Simon said in a prepared statement when she announced she would not run for lieutenant governor again. “I want to serve the people of Illinois in a role where I can have an even greater impact.”
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
No pension reform for the 97th General Assembly
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House and Senate adjourned their two-year legislative sessions today without approving a pension reform measure, dashing the hopes of those who were striving to get legislation approved during the General Assembly's lame-duck session.
“We didn’t quite get there, so we are going to regroup and start up again,” said Northbrook Democrat Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who sponsored a pension reform proposal a committee approved yesterday but that was not called for a floor vote. She said there is no single component of reform that is holding it up. “It remains a range of issues that members are concerned about. Look, when you’re impacting people’s retirement security, it’s a tough vote, and people have a lot of different concerns about it. It would be great if we could have one thing we could focus on and get it corrected, but that’s not the way this works.”
In what many described as a Hail Mary attempt to get something done on pension reform, Gov. Pat Quinn pushed the idea of creating a special pension commission with the power to create a plan that would become law unless the General Assembly intervened. Under a proposed amendment to Senate Bill 1673, a special commission appointed by the legislative leaders would be required to present a plan by April 30 that would ensure that the pension systems were 100 percent funded by 2045. The proposal from the commission would become law unless both chambers voted to reject it.
“We have to take extraordinary action to help break the gridlock,” Quinn said when he testified in favor of the plan before a House committee today. Quinn said that failure to act would eventually result in the state’s bond rating being downgraded yet again. “We have to understand that this is an emergency.” Quinn compared the idea to the federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission, a federal entity that was created to recommend military bases for closure after it become clear that regional interests were making it all but impossible for Congress to approve closures. If the bill would have passed, Quinn said he would have signed it and then no longer would have been a part of the process. The bill would not have required that the governor sign off on the commission’s proposal.
But detractors questioned the constitutionality of such a plan, and it was not called for a vote in the House. “I myself thought that his late proposal was perhaps not the very best public policy pronouncement. I think there are constitutional questions about it,” Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie said after the House adjourned. Nekritz said she sponsored the measure, which Quinn brought to her, because she thought it deserved consideration. “Clearly, some dynamic needs to change. We have been working at this a very long time, and it’s been challenging to get the necessary votes on the bill, obviously. An idea to sort of shake that up, I think we had to look at that,” she said.
Currie said that those who have been working on pension reform should not take the days events as a failure. “It’s not as if any of this is new. This is very very tough. And I think there’s going to be no matter what we do if we do something there will be constitutional challenges,” she said. “I’m not embarrassed that we didn’t get it done today. I am embarrassed we haven’t done anything so far, but I am encouraged that we, as of yesterday, seemed really to have a renewed focus renewed energy renewed effort on the whole issue of pensions.”
Nekritz and newly sworn in Sen. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat, said they each plan to introduce a pension reform plan in their respective chambers when the new legislative session starts tomorrow. “It’s not at all back to the drawing board,” Biss said. “We feel like we had tremendous momentum yesterday. We still have tremendous momentum today, and we want to carry that forward.” He said the legislation they plan to file would be nearly identical to a proposal, House Bill 6258, which more than a dozen House members brought forward in December. The plan a House committee approved Monday was based on that proposal. But Biss said he and Nekritz want to return to the initial legislation because he said it is a “good negotiation platform.” He and Nekritz both emphasized that they are open to changes to the legislation, and no ideas are off the table. “This issue is tough and complicated, and different people have different challenges with it, and so it’s really a matter of cobbling that majority together one vote at a time. And we’ll learn as we work with these new members one at a time what those issues are. And we hope it will be easier, and we know it won’t be very easy. But we know it can be done,” Biss said.
Senate President John Cullerton believes that the framework for HB 6258 is unconstitutional. “The Constitution says you can’t unilaterally pass a law taking away people’s pension benefits. You have to ask them to do it contractually,” Cullerton said. He maintains that some consideration must be given to workers for any reduction in their benefits. A plan that passed in the Senate would have asked employees to choose between their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments or state subsidized retiree health care. “Their bill unilaterally takes away people’s rights in exchange for nothing. That’s why it’s unconstitutional.”
However, Cullerton said he would be willing to call a bill that he believes is unconstitutional as long as it is approved in tandem with a plan that he thinks is constitutional. “I said that I would support that bill and work to pass it in the Senate as long as they had a backup.” Cullerton called on the House to pass a fail-safe proposal that was approved by the Senate. He said if the Supreme Court were to rule the House plan constitutional, it would become the law. But if the court rejected the House proposal, the Senate version could then be considered. He said he plans to introduce a new Senate bill tomorrow that covers all the pension systems except judges. He said that bill would not include a controversial cost shift of the entire employer portion of pension benefits to downstate schools, public universities and community colleges. “For us to pass a bill which is unconstitutional and to pretend like we did some kind of reform with no backup, only to have it thrown out a year later — a year of lost time of trying to fix the pension system — to me is cynical.”
The 98th General Assembly will be sworn in tomorrow.
The Illinois House and Senate adjourned their two-year legislative sessions today without approving a pension reform measure, dashing the hopes of those who were striving to get legislation approved during the General Assembly's lame-duck session.
“We didn’t quite get there, so we are going to regroup and start up again,” said Northbrook Democrat Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who sponsored a pension reform proposal a committee approved yesterday but that was not called for a floor vote. She said there is no single component of reform that is holding it up. “It remains a range of issues that members are concerned about. Look, when you’re impacting people’s retirement security, it’s a tough vote, and people have a lot of different concerns about it. It would be great if we could have one thing we could focus on and get it corrected, but that’s not the way this works.”
In what many described as a Hail Mary attempt to get something done on pension reform, Gov. Pat Quinn pushed the idea of creating a special pension commission with the power to create a plan that would become law unless the General Assembly intervened. Under a proposed amendment to Senate Bill 1673, a special commission appointed by the legislative leaders would be required to present a plan by April 30 that would ensure that the pension systems were 100 percent funded by 2045. The proposal from the commission would become law unless both chambers voted to reject it.
“We have to take extraordinary action to help break the gridlock,” Quinn said when he testified in favor of the plan before a House committee today. Quinn said that failure to act would eventually result in the state’s bond rating being downgraded yet again. “We have to understand that this is an emergency.” Quinn compared the idea to the federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission, a federal entity that was created to recommend military bases for closure after it become clear that regional interests were making it all but impossible for Congress to approve closures. If the bill would have passed, Quinn said he would have signed it and then no longer would have been a part of the process. The bill would not have required that the governor sign off on the commission’s proposal.
But detractors questioned the constitutionality of such a plan, and it was not called for a vote in the House. “I myself thought that his late proposal was perhaps not the very best public policy pronouncement. I think there are constitutional questions about it,” Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie said after the House adjourned. Nekritz said she sponsored the measure, which Quinn brought to her, because she thought it deserved consideration. “Clearly, some dynamic needs to change. We have been working at this a very long time, and it’s been challenging to get the necessary votes on the bill, obviously. An idea to sort of shake that up, I think we had to look at that,” she said.
Currie said that those who have been working on pension reform should not take the days events as a failure. “It’s not as if any of this is new. This is very very tough. And I think there’s going to be no matter what we do if we do something there will be constitutional challenges,” she said. “I’m not embarrassed that we didn’t get it done today. I am embarrassed we haven’t done anything so far, but I am encouraged that we, as of yesterday, seemed really to have a renewed focus renewed energy renewed effort on the whole issue of pensions.”
Nekritz and newly sworn in Sen. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat, said they each plan to introduce a pension reform plan in their respective chambers when the new legislative session starts tomorrow. “It’s not at all back to the drawing board,” Biss said. “We feel like we had tremendous momentum yesterday. We still have tremendous momentum today, and we want to carry that forward.” He said the legislation they plan to file would be nearly identical to a proposal, House Bill 6258, which more than a dozen House members brought forward in December. The plan a House committee approved Monday was based on that proposal. But Biss said he and Nekritz want to return to the initial legislation because he said it is a “good negotiation platform.” He and Nekritz both emphasized that they are open to changes to the legislation, and no ideas are off the table. “This issue is tough and complicated, and different people have different challenges with it, and so it’s really a matter of cobbling that majority together one vote at a time. And we’ll learn as we work with these new members one at a time what those issues are. And we hope it will be easier, and we know it won’t be very easy. But we know it can be done,” Biss said.
Senate President John Cullerton believes that the framework for HB 6258 is unconstitutional. “The Constitution says you can’t unilaterally pass a law taking away people’s pension benefits. You have to ask them to do it contractually,” Cullerton said. He maintains that some consideration must be given to workers for any reduction in their benefits. A plan that passed in the Senate would have asked employees to choose between their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments or state subsidized retiree health care. “Their bill unilaterally takes away people’s rights in exchange for nothing. That’s why it’s unconstitutional.”
However, Cullerton said he would be willing to call a bill that he believes is unconstitutional as long as it is approved in tandem with a plan that he thinks is constitutional. “I said that I would support that bill and work to pass it in the Senate as long as they had a backup.” Cullerton called on the House to pass a fail-safe proposal that was approved by the Senate. He said if the Supreme Court were to rule the House plan constitutional, it would become the law. But if the court rejected the House proposal, the Senate version could then be considered. He said he plans to introduce a new Senate bill tomorrow that covers all the pension systems except judges. He said that bill would not include a controversial cost shift of the entire employer portion of pension benefits to downstate schools, public universities and community colleges. “For us to pass a bill which is unconstitutional and to pretend like we did some kind of reform with no backup, only to have it thrown out a year later — a year of lost time of trying to fix the pension system — to me is cynical.”
The 98th General Assembly will be sworn in tomorrow.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Unintended ballot language could sink proposed amendment
By Jamey Dunn
Thousands of Illinois voters have already gone to the polls for early voting, but their choice on a proposed constitutional amendment could be set aside because of language that lawmakers did not intend to appear on the ballot.
Last May, legislators approved House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 49, which creates a higher threshold for approving increases in public employee pensions. Currently the legislature can approve such benefits with a simple majority. But if voters approve the amendment that appears on the general election ballot, then a three-fifths majority would be required to pass any pension sweeteners.
But a lawsuit that seeks to nullify the results of the vote on the amendment claims that the ballot instructions given to voters are confusing.
The language in question was approved as part of a piece of legislation that made news for another reason. Senate Bill 3277 allows contribution caps to be tossed out if outside groups spend large amounts to try to influence voters during a campaign. Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill in July, and the provision has already been applied in a current legislative race where a political action committee spent more than $100,000.
The new law also changed the so-called notice language, which appears on the ballot with the proposed amendment and seeks to explain to voters what their actions could mean in terms of changing the state’s Constitution. The new language says:
The failure to vote this ballot may be the equivalent of a negative vote, because a convention shall be called or the amendment shall become effective if approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election. (This is not to be construed as a direction that your vote is required to be cast either in favor of or in opposition to the proposition herein contained.) Whether you vote this ballot or not you must return it to the election judge when you leave the voting booth.
But voters are not deciding whether the state should hold a convention. Unless there is a push by the legislature for a constitutional convention, the question whether to hold one automatically appears before voters every 20 years. Voters opted not to have a convention when they were asked in 2008. “The language just makes no sense because they are two very different questions?” said John Bambenek, who filed the lawsuit to toss out the election results on the amendment question. “There is no way a convention is going to be called, no matter how you vote.” Bambenek, a Republican, is challenging Sen. Michael Frerichs, a Champaign Democrat, in the upcoming election. He said that he filed the suit, along with a dozen voters, when people started coming to him asking him about the confusing language. It is too late to get the question removed from the ballot, but Bambenek hopes to persuade a judge to set aside the results. “If you are going to ask the voters to do something, what they see on the ballot should be correct.”
“It is confusing. It is introducing right out in front of the voters the idea of a constitutional convention. I’m absolutely floored [that it was included in the ballot language],” said Ann Lousin, a law professor at the John Marshall Law School and a member of the research staff during the 1970 constitutional convention. “I think a mistake obviously occurred, and it could confuse voters.” She said the issue might have been caused by a drafting error when the legislation was written.
However, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie said lawmakers never intended for both the words “convention” and “amendment” to appear on the ballot. Instead, she said, legislators assumed that the amendment language would be used in situations such as the current one, when an amendment is up for consideration, and the convention language would be used when voters must decide whether a convention should be called. “If this is a call to convention, tell them this. If this is a proposal to amend the Constitution, put in this,” said Currie, who sponsored the bill. But instead, both scenarios made it on the ballot.
Ken Menzel, deputy general counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said that the board signed off on the language sent to them by Secretary of State Jesse White's office. White spokesman David Druker said that the secretary of state's office serves as a pass through and simply takes the language approved by lawmakers and gives it to the election board. “The board of elections gets the question from us, which we get from the General Assembly," he said. Menzel noted that the language appears on the ballot exactly as it does in the new law. “It just got reproduced exactly like the statute says it shall be,” he said. “We don’t always know what [the legislators] intend.”
Currie said she has not read Bambenek’s lawsuit and would not speculate about the possible outcome of the case. However, she said lawmakers might have to revisit the ballot language in the future to avoid more confusion and potential legal challenges. She said that legislators made the changes to let voters know that if they simply skip the ballot questions, it could have the same result as voting “no.” “We thought we were clarifying it,” Currie said.
The notice language has nothing to do with the content of the underlying amendment and would have appeared on the ballot regardless of the subject matter of the amendment. Lousin, who has spoken out in opposition to the amendment itself because she said it leaves the door open to potentially unforeseen legal challenges, warns would-be conspiracy theorists not to read the problem with the notice language as anything more than a simple mistake. “You do not normally have to look for people to be venal. Just look for people to be stupid, and that usually explains things.”
Lousin said there were plenty of chances to catch the mistake. “The state of Illinois through its various agencies, the legislature, the secretary of state’s office, the State Board of Elections, has put some stuff on the ballot that the voters will be confronted with that could be confusing.” But now that it is on the ballot, she said, finger-pointing does little good. “‘Somebody should have said, ‘What convention?’” Lousin said. “It should have been caught. It should have been, but you know, what can we do now?”
Thousands of Illinois voters have already gone to the polls for early voting, but their choice on a proposed constitutional amendment could be set aside because of language that lawmakers did not intend to appear on the ballot.
Last May, legislators approved House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 49, which creates a higher threshold for approving increases in public employee pensions. Currently the legislature can approve such benefits with a simple majority. But if voters approve the amendment that appears on the general election ballot, then a three-fifths majority would be required to pass any pension sweeteners.
But a lawsuit that seeks to nullify the results of the vote on the amendment claims that the ballot instructions given to voters are confusing.
The language in question was approved as part of a piece of legislation that made news for another reason. Senate Bill 3277 allows contribution caps to be tossed out if outside groups spend large amounts to try to influence voters during a campaign. Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill in July, and the provision has already been applied in a current legislative race where a political action committee spent more than $100,000.
The new law also changed the so-called notice language, which appears on the ballot with the proposed amendment and seeks to explain to voters what their actions could mean in terms of changing the state’s Constitution. The new language says:
The failure to vote this ballot may be the equivalent of a negative vote, because a convention shall be called or the amendment shall become effective if approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election. (This is not to be construed as a direction that your vote is required to be cast either in favor of or in opposition to the proposition herein contained.) Whether you vote this ballot or not you must return it to the election judge when you leave the voting booth.
But voters are not deciding whether the state should hold a convention. Unless there is a push by the legislature for a constitutional convention, the question whether to hold one automatically appears before voters every 20 years. Voters opted not to have a convention when they were asked in 2008. “The language just makes no sense because they are two very different questions?” said John Bambenek, who filed the lawsuit to toss out the election results on the amendment question. “There is no way a convention is going to be called, no matter how you vote.” Bambenek, a Republican, is challenging Sen. Michael Frerichs, a Champaign Democrat, in the upcoming election. He said that he filed the suit, along with a dozen voters, when people started coming to him asking him about the confusing language. It is too late to get the question removed from the ballot, but Bambenek hopes to persuade a judge to set aside the results. “If you are going to ask the voters to do something, what they see on the ballot should be correct.”
“It is confusing. It is introducing right out in front of the voters the idea of a constitutional convention. I’m absolutely floored [that it was included in the ballot language],” said Ann Lousin, a law professor at the John Marshall Law School and a member of the research staff during the 1970 constitutional convention. “I think a mistake obviously occurred, and it could confuse voters.” She said the issue might have been caused by a drafting error when the legislation was written.
However, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie said lawmakers never intended for both the words “convention” and “amendment” to appear on the ballot. Instead, she said, legislators assumed that the amendment language would be used in situations such as the current one, when an amendment is up for consideration, and the convention language would be used when voters must decide whether a convention should be called. “If this is a call to convention, tell them this. If this is a proposal to amend the Constitution, put in this,” said Currie, who sponsored the bill. But instead, both scenarios made it on the ballot.
Ken Menzel, deputy general counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said that the board signed off on the language sent to them by Secretary of State Jesse White's office. White spokesman David Druker said that the secretary of state's office serves as a pass through and simply takes the language approved by lawmakers and gives it to the election board. “The board of elections gets the question from us, which we get from the General Assembly," he said. Menzel noted that the language appears on the ballot exactly as it does in the new law. “It just got reproduced exactly like the statute says it shall be,” he said. “We don’t always know what [the legislators] intend.”
Currie said she has not read Bambenek’s lawsuit and would not speculate about the possible outcome of the case. However, she said lawmakers might have to revisit the ballot language in the future to avoid more confusion and potential legal challenges. She said that legislators made the changes to let voters know that if they simply skip the ballot questions, it could have the same result as voting “no.” “We thought we were clarifying it,” Currie said.
The notice language has nothing to do with the content of the underlying amendment and would have appeared on the ballot regardless of the subject matter of the amendment. Lousin, who has spoken out in opposition to the amendment itself because she said it leaves the door open to potentially unforeseen legal challenges, warns would-be conspiracy theorists not to read the problem with the notice language as anything more than a simple mistake. “You do not normally have to look for people to be venal. Just look for people to be stupid, and that usually explains things.”
Lousin said there were plenty of chances to catch the mistake. “The state of Illinois through its various agencies, the legislature, the secretary of state’s office, the State Board of Elections, has put some stuff on the ballot that the voters will be confronted with that could be confusing.” But now that it is on the ballot, she said, finger-pointing does little good. “‘Somebody should have said, ‘What convention?’” Lousin said. “It should have been caught. It should have been, but you know, what can we do now?”
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
House approves higher threshold for pension increases but not tax hikes
By Jamey Dunn
The Illinois House approved a measure today that would make it more difficult to increase pension benefits, but Republicans argue that the same threshold should be set for tax increases.
There was no opposition in the House to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require that any increase in pension benefits for public workers to receive a three-fifths majority vote to pass. Currently, such increases require a simple majority. “There’s a lot of tough medicine in this resolution. I think the tough medicine is needed,” said House Speaker Michael Madigan, who sponsored HJRCA 49.Under the measure, an increase to salary or wages would not constitute a pension benefit increase, unless the raise was excessive. Madigan said that lawmakers could set the parameters for “excessive” pay increases.
The amendment would up the required support to override a veto of a bill containing pension benefits to two thirds of each chamber. Currently, only a three-fifths majority is required to override a veto. It also calls for increased benefits for municipal public workers to be approved by a three-fifths majority of a local board or council.
Union officials say that the state’s billions in unfunded pension liability was caused by lawmakers and governors opting to skip annual pension payments, not by increased benefits. “This change to the Constitution would not address the true crisis threatening Illinois public retirement systems, which is the habitual failure of politicians to adequately fund the modest pensions earned by public employees. We continue to believe that this funding crisis can only be solved by all parties working together in good faith, and our union remains committed to doing so,” said Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 31.
A recent report from the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability found that the bulk of the shortfall is a result of underfunding.
Lindall also argued that the reduced pension benefits that went into effect last year do not meet federal requirements for employees, such as teachers, who will not receive Social Security benefits for the time they work for the state. “The lower pension tier forced on newly hired public employees must be fixed to avoid severe federal penalties. It is unwise to make such needed amendments more difficult to achieve,” Lindall said.
However, Madigan said that support for sweetening the benefits of those hired under the new pension benefits system is part of his motivation for supporting the amendment. “I’ve already been in conversations where people are saying that the tier two — that was created a few years ago and is in place for those hired to public jobs after Jan 1 of 2011 — is not sufficient. That it has to be improved. That we have to make it better,” Madigan said. “So that’s another reason to support this resolution and raise that vote count because those that even in the current crisis think that we ought to be improving pensions are here at the Capitol building already laying the seeds for what will be their efforts very shortly to again improve pension benefits.” Madigan said that the amendment is not meant to put a stop to benefit increases, but it would make it more difficult to pass them. “If you are an individual here, or if you are a member of a group in the legislature who wishes to work against these bills, this will advantage your position. … You’ll have a better chance.”
Rep. Darlene Senger, a Naperville Republican, said that the measure is “a step in the right direction” but does not solve the state’s pension problems. “I do want everyone to know that when you see this on the ballot in November, there’s a lot more work that has to be done before then in regards to reforming pensions,” she said. “This does not change anything in regards to the debt for the unfunded liabilities … and it does nothing currently to the crisis we have in regards to our state budget with trying to fund pensions and Medicaid.”
Springfield Republican Rep. Raymond Poe said that the amendment should also protect against lawmakers voting to skip pension payments by setting the threshold to skip a payment at a three-fifths majority. “We also need a safeguard in there that you can’t short those payments in the future,” Poe said. The measure contains no such provision. The issue of guaranteeing future payments into the pension system will likely play into the ongoing negotiations over other pension reforms that may include reductions in benefits for workers hired before lower benefits for new employees went into effect last year.
After Madigan’s amendment was approved, Republicans moved to have two constitutional amendments that are languishing in the rules committee called to the floor for a vote. The amendments would require the approval of a three-fifths majority to increase taxes in the state. “Let me commend Speaker [Madigan] for realizing that some votes in this chamber carry heavier consequences and deserve a little bit of extra scrutiny. He is right that decisions that have great impacts on the fiscal health of Illinois residents and the state as a whole should have to meet a higher standard and require a greater threshold,” said Arlington Heights Rep. David Harris, who is listed as a sponsor on both amendments. Harris argued that such a higher threshold should also apply to tax votes. “This is nothing significant or new. We already require a higher voting standard for borrowing, for laws that would preempt home rule and to overturn the governor’s veto. The next logical steep would be to require the very same threshold for bills that would make Illinois residents have to pay more taxes.” The Republicans’ efforts were blocked and the measures did not come up for a vote.
If the Senate approves HJRCA 49, it would appear on the ballot in the November general election. To be included in the state’s Constitution, it would require the support of either three-fifths of those who choose to vote on the question or the majority of those voting in the election .
The Illinois House approved a measure today that would make it more difficult to increase pension benefits, but Republicans argue that the same threshold should be set for tax increases.
There was no opposition in the House to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require that any increase in pension benefits for public workers to receive a three-fifths majority vote to pass. Currently, such increases require a simple majority. “There’s a lot of tough medicine in this resolution. I think the tough medicine is needed,” said House Speaker Michael Madigan, who sponsored HJRCA 49.Under the measure, an increase to salary or wages would not constitute a pension benefit increase, unless the raise was excessive. Madigan said that lawmakers could set the parameters for “excessive” pay increases.
The amendment would up the required support to override a veto of a bill containing pension benefits to two thirds of each chamber. Currently, only a three-fifths majority is required to override a veto. It also calls for increased benefits for municipal public workers to be approved by a three-fifths majority of a local board or council.
Union officials say that the state’s billions in unfunded pension liability was caused by lawmakers and governors opting to skip annual pension payments, not by increased benefits. “This change to the Constitution would not address the true crisis threatening Illinois public retirement systems, which is the habitual failure of politicians to adequately fund the modest pensions earned by public employees. We continue to believe that this funding crisis can only be solved by all parties working together in good faith, and our union remains committed to doing so,” said Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 31.
A recent report from the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability found that the bulk of the shortfall is a result of underfunding.
Lindall also argued that the reduced pension benefits that went into effect last year do not meet federal requirements for employees, such as teachers, who will not receive Social Security benefits for the time they work for the state. “The lower pension tier forced on newly hired public employees must be fixed to avoid severe federal penalties. It is unwise to make such needed amendments more difficult to achieve,” Lindall said.
However, Madigan said that support for sweetening the benefits of those hired under the new pension benefits system is part of his motivation for supporting the amendment. “I’ve already been in conversations where people are saying that the tier two — that was created a few years ago and is in place for those hired to public jobs after Jan 1 of 2011 — is not sufficient. That it has to be improved. That we have to make it better,” Madigan said. “So that’s another reason to support this resolution and raise that vote count because those that even in the current crisis think that we ought to be improving pensions are here at the Capitol building already laying the seeds for what will be their efforts very shortly to again improve pension benefits.” Madigan said that the amendment is not meant to put a stop to benefit increases, but it would make it more difficult to pass them. “If you are an individual here, or if you are a member of a group in the legislature who wishes to work against these bills, this will advantage your position. … You’ll have a better chance.”
Rep. Darlene Senger, a Naperville Republican, said that the measure is “a step in the right direction” but does not solve the state’s pension problems. “I do want everyone to know that when you see this on the ballot in November, there’s a lot more work that has to be done before then in regards to reforming pensions,” she said. “This does not change anything in regards to the debt for the unfunded liabilities … and it does nothing currently to the crisis we have in regards to our state budget with trying to fund pensions and Medicaid.”
Springfield Republican Rep. Raymond Poe said that the amendment should also protect against lawmakers voting to skip pension payments by setting the threshold to skip a payment at a three-fifths majority. “We also need a safeguard in there that you can’t short those payments in the future,” Poe said. The measure contains no such provision. The issue of guaranteeing future payments into the pension system will likely play into the ongoing negotiations over other pension reforms that may include reductions in benefits for workers hired before lower benefits for new employees went into effect last year.
After Madigan’s amendment was approved, Republicans moved to have two constitutional amendments that are languishing in the rules committee called to the floor for a vote. The amendments would require the approval of a three-fifths majority to increase taxes in the state. “Let me commend Speaker [Madigan] for realizing that some votes in this chamber carry heavier consequences and deserve a little bit of extra scrutiny. He is right that decisions that have great impacts on the fiscal health of Illinois residents and the state as a whole should have to meet a higher standard and require a greater threshold,” said Arlington Heights Rep. David Harris, who is listed as a sponsor on both amendments. Harris argued that such a higher threshold should also apply to tax votes. “This is nothing significant or new. We already require a higher voting standard for borrowing, for laws that would preempt home rule and to overturn the governor’s veto. The next logical steep would be to require the very same threshold for bills that would make Illinois residents have to pay more taxes.” The Republicans’ efforts were blocked and the measures did not come up for a vote.
If the Senate approves HJRCA 49, it would appear on the ballot in the November general election. To be included in the state’s Constitution, it would require the support of either three-fifths of those who choose to vote on the question or the majority of those voting in the election .
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Senate approves merger of comptroller and treasurer
By Jamey Dunn
Voters may have the choice to eliminate a constitutional office on the 2012 general election ballot.
The Illinois Senate approved a measure today to amend the Illinois Constitution. The plan would merge the offices of comptroller and treasurer. The legislation has the support of both Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka and Comptroller Dan Rutherford.
The majority of states do not have two separate offices to handle their finances, and in the past, neither has Illinois. Framers of the 1970 Constitution created two positions to add extra oversight after Orville Hodge, the state’s chief financial officer in the 1950s bilked the state out of about $2.5 million in the 1950s. After such blatant corruption, the drafters decided to split up the functions of the office, known as the auditor of public accounts, charging the treasurer with making the state’s investments and the comptroller with paying its bills. (For more on the merger, as well as another story of financial corruption in Illinois history, see Illinois Issues blog February 14, 2011.)
Rutherford said that another move the drafters made—the creation of the office of auditor general—has led to the two fiscal offices being obsolete. He says the oversight provided by the auditor’s office, currently held by William Holland, safeguards taxpayers against graft. He added that advancements in technology over the last six decades also make dollars much easier to track and account for. “Back in the days of Orville Hodge, they were still using typewriters, pieces of paper and pencils,” he said.
According to Rutherford, the move would save the state about $12 million. “If government can be more efficient by having less officers and less departments and so forth, then government should do that.”
The proposal still needs the approval of three-fifths of House members. Then the question of whether to merge the two positions into a single one called the comptroller of the treasury would appear before voters on the 2012 general election ballot. If voters chose to merge the offices, then they would have the opportunity to elect Illinois’ first comptroller of the treasury in 2014.
Voters may have the choice to eliminate a constitutional office on the 2012 general election ballot.
The Illinois Senate approved a measure today to amend the Illinois Constitution. The plan would merge the offices of comptroller and treasurer. The legislation has the support of both Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka and Comptroller Dan Rutherford.
The majority of states do not have two separate offices to handle their finances, and in the past, neither has Illinois. Framers of the 1970 Constitution created two positions to add extra oversight after Orville Hodge, the state’s chief financial officer in the 1950s bilked the state out of about $2.5 million in the 1950s. After such blatant corruption, the drafters decided to split up the functions of the office, known as the auditor of public accounts, charging the treasurer with making the state’s investments and the comptroller with paying its bills. (For more on the merger, as well as another story of financial corruption in Illinois history, see Illinois Issues blog February 14, 2011.)
Rutherford said that another move the drafters made—the creation of the office of auditor general—has led to the two fiscal offices being obsolete. He says the oversight provided by the auditor’s office, currently held by William Holland, safeguards taxpayers against graft. He added that advancements in technology over the last six decades also make dollars much easier to track and account for. “Back in the days of Orville Hodge, they were still using typewriters, pieces of paper and pencils,” he said.
According to Rutherford, the move would save the state about $12 million. “If government can be more efficient by having less officers and less departments and so forth, then government should do that.”
The proposal still needs the approval of three-fifths of House members. Then the question of whether to merge the two positions into a single one called the comptroller of the treasury would appear before voters on the 2012 general election ballot. If voters chose to merge the offices, then they would have the opportunity to elect Illinois’ first comptroller of the treasury in 2014.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Redistricting tweaks head to the governor
By Jamey Dunn
Illinois lawmakers approved changes today to the method they will use to draw legislative districts for future elections. Meanwhile, other reform efforts planned for the last days of the General Assembly's session have not yet taken shape.
If signed by Gov. Quinn, the redistricting measure would add provisions to the process to protect minority voters. Democrats say the measure is an attempt to avoid watering down the influence of a bloc of minority voters by splitting them up into multiple districts.
However, Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the House sponsor of the Senate Bill 3976 , said that “all the constitutional, federal statutory [and] state constitutional requirements” that those drawing districts are tasked to consider, such as making each district as equal in population as possible, would take priority. Once those requirements are met, she said, those drawing the map “ought to, where possible, protect the rights of minority voters by creating crossover districts, coalition districts or influence districts where it is possible.”
The bill also requires four public redistricting hearings throughout the state. Republican opponents said hearings were not enough to give the public input. They said some hearings should be required after proposed maps are drawn, so voters can provide the legislature with specific feedback.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, said there will likely be more than four redistricting hearings, and Currie agrees. Raoul called House Republicans hypocritical for complaining about the bill when they voted against a constitutional amendment he proposed last spring that would have changed the entire process and included more public hearings.
“It’s not a ceiling. It’s a floor. It says we have to have at least four hearings in separate parts of the state, so the people of the state of Illinois, in separate parts of the state, can have a voice in this process.”
Currie said: “The four is the floor. We can have many more, and 10 years ago [when the current map was drawn], we did.”
Republicans were critical what they see as Democrats rolling back transparency provisions in their most recent plan. “This [bill] doesn’t mandate hearings on the proposed map, such as was done in the proposed [constitutional] resolution. So it seems to me it moves backwards in transparency,” said Rep. Jil Tracy, a Mt. Sterling Republican.
Pensions
A $4 billion borrowing plan to make the state’s pension payment for this fiscal year emerged from a Senate committee today without Republican support. Senate Bill 3514 passed as a piece of the budget plan in the House in May after contentious debate. Senate President John Cullerton said the measure would keep the state from missing this year’s payment, which he said would cost the state billions in the long run.
Cullerton has been holding the bill in committee, saying it would need bipartisan support to pass in his chamber. Democrats have enough members to pass the bill, which requires a three fifths majority, but according to Cullerton, not the votes. UPDATE: Cullerton told reporters he now has the support for the borrowing plan, and he intends to call it for a floor vote this week.
Republicans said they would not vote for borrowing plan unless it was part of a comprehensive plan, which included reforms such as changes to the state’s Medicaid and worker’s compensation programs.
“Our position is the same as it was last spring … while at some point in the context of a comprehensive financial plan, we are willing to consider some form of borrowing. We aren’t to that point just yet.”
Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno said she thinks both parties are working well together. However, she wants to see some results of the recent reform efforts, which have been under way for the last few weeks in both chambers, before any Republicans will vote for borrowing.
House Speaker Michael Madigan is backing a constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for legislators to increase public employee pension benefits in the future. If the legislature, governor and voters approved the amendment, lawmakers would have to get backing from three-fifths of the members of both chambers to pass any expansion of pension benefits.
Opponents said current legislators should not tie the hands of future lawmakers when it comes to pension benefits for state workers. The measure passed through committee with only Democratic support.
Illinois lawmakers approved changes today to the method they will use to draw legislative districts for future elections. Meanwhile, other reform efforts planned for the last days of the General Assembly's session have not yet taken shape.
If signed by Gov. Quinn, the redistricting measure would add provisions to the process to protect minority voters. Democrats say the measure is an attempt to avoid watering down the influence of a bloc of minority voters by splitting them up into multiple districts.
However, Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the House sponsor of the Senate Bill 3976 , said that “all the constitutional, federal statutory [and] state constitutional requirements” that those drawing districts are tasked to consider, such as making each district as equal in population as possible, would take priority. Once those requirements are met, she said, those drawing the map “ought to, where possible, protect the rights of minority voters by creating crossover districts, coalition districts or influence districts where it is possible.”
The bill also requires four public redistricting hearings throughout the state. Republican opponents said hearings were not enough to give the public input. They said some hearings should be required after proposed maps are drawn, so voters can provide the legislature with specific feedback.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, said there will likely be more than four redistricting hearings, and Currie agrees. Raoul called House Republicans hypocritical for complaining about the bill when they voted against a constitutional amendment he proposed last spring that would have changed the entire process and included more public hearings.
“It’s not a ceiling. It’s a floor. It says we have to have at least four hearings in separate parts of the state, so the people of the state of Illinois, in separate parts of the state, can have a voice in this process.”
Currie said: “The four is the floor. We can have many more, and 10 years ago [when the current map was drawn], we did.”
Republicans were critical what they see as Democrats rolling back transparency provisions in their most recent plan. “This [bill] doesn’t mandate hearings on the proposed map, such as was done in the proposed [constitutional] resolution. So it seems to me it moves backwards in transparency,” said Rep. Jil Tracy, a Mt. Sterling Republican.
Pensions
A $4 billion borrowing plan to make the state’s pension payment for this fiscal year emerged from a Senate committee today without Republican support. Senate Bill 3514 passed as a piece of the budget plan in the House in May after contentious debate. Senate President John Cullerton said the measure would keep the state from missing this year’s payment, which he said would cost the state billions in the long run.
Cullerton has been holding the bill in committee, saying it would need bipartisan support to pass in his chamber. Democrats have enough members to pass the bill, which requires a three fifths majority, but according to Cullerton, not the votes. UPDATE: Cullerton told reporters he now has the support for the borrowing plan, and he intends to call it for a floor vote this week.
Republicans said they would not vote for borrowing plan unless it was part of a comprehensive plan, which included reforms such as changes to the state’s Medicaid and worker’s compensation programs.
“Our position is the same as it was last spring … while at some point in the context of a comprehensive financial plan, we are willing to consider some form of borrowing. We aren’t to that point just yet.”
Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno said she thinks both parties are working well together. However, she wants to see some results of the recent reform efforts, which have been under way for the last few weeks in both chambers, before any Republicans will vote for borrowing.
House Speaker Michael Madigan is backing a constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for legislators to increase public employee pension benefits in the future. If the legislature, governor and voters approved the amendment, lawmakers would have to get backing from three-fifths of the members of both chambers to pass any expansion of pension benefits.
Opponents said current legislators should not tie the hands of future lawmakers when it comes to pension benefits for state workers. The measure passed through committee with only Democratic support.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Citizens' initiative may not pass legal muster
By Jamey Dunn
An amendatory veto issued by Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday would allow citizens to present legislation related to campaign finance reform and ethics to the General Assembly for a vote, but it may also step on the toes of the Illinois Constitution.
If voters could collect 100,000 signatures, their proposal would be drafted into law, and the legislature would be required to take a vote on it. From the statement issues by Quinn:
The ethics initiative that I propose gives the people of our state the ultimate power to express and protect their interests: the power to change state law. Too often, issues such as ethics and campaign finance reform get pushed from the forefront. Voters need a safety valve to ensure that ideas, however inconvenient or unpopular for incumbent officeholders, proceed through the legislative process.
However, this may go too far in placing legislative power in the hands of citizens.
“The [Illinois] constitutional document sets down certain power that the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches have, and the legislature cannot just give away its power to introduce and pass laws. ... [These changes are] purporting by statute for the legislature to essentially cede part of its constitutional authority — to make laws — to citizens,” said political scientist Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield and director of the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit campaign contribution database connected to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.
But Quinn does not agree. From the veto message:
The legislative power to pass laws is a mighty power. My recommendation below does not detract from the General Assembly’s constitutional authority. Under my proposal, the General Assembly retains its full lawmaking authority.
Redfield said the framers of the state Constitution made a clear decision not to include a broader citizens’ initiative procedure. “The [Constitutional Convention] delegates considered initiative. They knew about the California model … and they consciously rejected it. They crafted a limited citizens’ initiative process. … This [amendatory veto] attempts to essentially amend the Constitution by statute, and you can’t do that.”
Redfield said it is doubtful that the legislature would approve the veto or an earlier amendatory veto that would create an open primary election system. He says they are likely just vehicles to get Quinn’s message out to voters.
“There’s no hope that either one of them is going to get accepted in the legislature, but it is an easy way to very publicly assert a position. To be for or against X or Y … and you don’t have to rent a hall or send out a direct mailer.”
An amendatory veto issued by Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday would allow citizens to present legislation related to campaign finance reform and ethics to the General Assembly for a vote, but it may also step on the toes of the Illinois Constitution.
If voters could collect 100,000 signatures, their proposal would be drafted into law, and the legislature would be required to take a vote on it. From the statement issues by Quinn:
The ethics initiative that I propose gives the people of our state the ultimate power to express and protect their interests: the power to change state law. Too often, issues such as ethics and campaign finance reform get pushed from the forefront. Voters need a safety valve to ensure that ideas, however inconvenient or unpopular for incumbent officeholders, proceed through the legislative process.
However, this may go too far in placing legislative power in the hands of citizens.
“The [Illinois] constitutional document sets down certain power that the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches have, and the legislature cannot just give away its power to introduce and pass laws. ... [These changes are] purporting by statute for the legislature to essentially cede part of its constitutional authority — to make laws — to citizens,” said political scientist Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Springfield and director of the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit campaign contribution database connected to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.
But Quinn does not agree. From the veto message:
The legislative power to pass laws is a mighty power. My recommendation below does not detract from the General Assembly’s constitutional authority. Under my proposal, the General Assembly retains its full lawmaking authority.
Redfield said the framers of the state Constitution made a clear decision not to include a broader citizens’ initiative procedure. “The [Constitutional Convention] delegates considered initiative. They knew about the California model … and they consciously rejected it. They crafted a limited citizens’ initiative process. … This [amendatory veto] attempts to essentially amend the Constitution by statute, and you can’t do that.”
Redfield said it is doubtful that the legislature would approve the veto or an earlier amendatory veto that would create an open primary election system. He says they are likely just vehicles to get Quinn’s message out to voters.
“There’s no hope that either one of them is going to get accepted in the legislature, but it is an easy way to very publicly assert a position. To be for or against X or Y … and you don’t have to rent a hall or send out a direct mailer.”
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Plan to eliminate lt. gov advances
By Jamey Dunn
Whichever candidate becomes lieutenant governor may be the last person to fill the job.
A legislative committee passed a proposal today for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the office.
House Speaker Michael Madigan said eliminating an office with a nearly $2.1 million budget and few duties, other than replacing the governor if he or she is unable to serve, makes sense when the state is strapped for cash.
If the lieutenant governor’s office were eliminated, the attorney general would be next in the line of succession for the governor’s job. That could result in a shift in party power in the highest executive office when a governor of one party could be unable to serve and an attorney general from another party then stepped into the job.
Republican committee members said they supported the amendment in theory but added they did not want to fill up the ballot with constitutional amendments passed by the legislature and crowd off voter initiative amendments that reach the ballot through petitions signed by voters.
“Politically, it’s possible that if you don’t like an amendment to the constitution that is being circulated by the voters, [you could] fill up the ballot with three questions amending three articles and exempt any voter initiative out there to amend the Constitution, and that is my concern,” said Rep. Michael Tryon, a Crystal Lake Republican.
The Illinois Constitution does limit amendments proposed by the legislature to only three articles of the Constitution. For example, the lieutenant governor amendment would apply to the Executive Article, the amendment that would allow voters to recall the governor that will appear on the ballot in the general election will apply to the Suffrage and Elections Article. So if Madigan’s proposal passes, the legislature will only be able to place an amendment to one more article on the ballot in November.
However the section of the Constitution that applies to initiatives sets no such limits on amendments presented by voters. Initiatives can only amend the Legislative Article of the constitution, but the document does not limit the number of initiative amendments that can appear on the ballot.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross made what is perhaps a more pertinent argument in a letter to Madigan that the legislature should address the redistricting process before lawmakers use up all of their opportunities to place amendments on the November ballot.
When asked whether his proposed amendment was a response to the scandal over Scott Lee Cohen winning the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor, Madigan said he has been considering the measure for about six months.
As for replacing Cohen, he said the statewide Democratic committee plans to hold an open hearing where applicants can present their credentials, and then the committee would vote to choose a candidate in a public meeting. He said there is no timeline planned for the hearing, but the committee has an organizational meeting planned for March 15 .
Whichever candidate becomes lieutenant governor may be the last person to fill the job.
A legislative committee passed a proposal today for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the office.
House Speaker Michael Madigan said eliminating an office with a nearly $2.1 million budget and few duties, other than replacing the governor if he or she is unable to serve, makes sense when the state is strapped for cash.
If the lieutenant governor’s office were eliminated, the attorney general would be next in the line of succession for the governor’s job. That could result in a shift in party power in the highest executive office when a governor of one party could be unable to serve and an attorney general from another party then stepped into the job.
Republican committee members said they supported the amendment in theory but added they did not want to fill up the ballot with constitutional amendments passed by the legislature and crowd off voter initiative amendments that reach the ballot through petitions signed by voters.
“Politically, it’s possible that if you don’t like an amendment to the constitution that is being circulated by the voters, [you could] fill up the ballot with three questions amending three articles and exempt any voter initiative out there to amend the Constitution, and that is my concern,” said Rep. Michael Tryon, a Crystal Lake Republican.
The Illinois Constitution does limit amendments proposed by the legislature to only three articles of the Constitution. For example, the lieutenant governor amendment would apply to the Executive Article, the amendment that would allow voters to recall the governor that will appear on the ballot in the general election will apply to the Suffrage and Elections Article. So if Madigan’s proposal passes, the legislature will only be able to place an amendment to one more article on the ballot in November.
However the section of the Constitution that applies to initiatives sets no such limits on amendments presented by voters. Initiatives can only amend the Legislative Article of the constitution, but the document does not limit the number of initiative amendments that can appear on the ballot.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross made what is perhaps a more pertinent argument in a letter to Madigan that the legislature should address the redistricting process before lawmakers use up all of their opportunities to place amendments on the November ballot.
When asked whether his proposed amendment was a response to the scandal over Scott Lee Cohen winning the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor, Madigan said he has been considering the measure for about six months.
As for replacing Cohen, he said the statewide Democratic committee plans to hold an open hearing where applicants can present their credentials, and then the committee would vote to choose a candidate in a public meeting. He said there is no timeline planned for the hearing, but the committee has an organizational meeting planned for March 15 .
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
If the flame is extinguished - UPDATED
By Jamey DunnQuinn is sticking to his back-up plan of tackling ethics issues at the ballot box if the legislature does not approve substantial reforms by the end of this session. However, the state Constitution limits the issues voters can petition to get on the ballot.
“If things don’t go exactly according to plan, there is a process in Illinois that exists that allows people to go to the ballot box,” Quinn said outside his Statehouse office this morning. “And I haven’t been a stranger to that over the years, and we certainly will examine that, if necessary. But, I hope it isn’t.”
Despite Quinn’s generally optimistic and cooperative tone, Quinn essentially said if the legislature fails to make major changes in the way state government operates, he would look to the voters to do it for them.
He’s tried to do that in the past. However, the proposals were blocked from the ballot by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1976, when it ruled the initiatives did not fall under the limited scope set by the Constitution. The state charter limits voters from changing anything other than the section that deals with the legislature. And any proposed changes have to pertain to “structural and procedural subjects.”
The governor said he would like to broaden the way voters can amend the Constitution by allowing them to also consider initiatives related to ethics, which he said would “give the voters ongoing power to enact ethics wherever needed.”
Quinn backs other changes that were not recommended in the report, including recall of elected officials and extending public financing beyond judicial races to the other branches of government. He said that he hopes to get a recall amendment on the ballot in 2010. UPDATED: Lawmakers are considering several recall amendments. Some would grant voters the power to recall executive officers only, and some would apply to the legislative and judicial branches, as well.
Commissioners said they could not reach a unanimous decision on whether to recommend a recall amendment, so the report lists “recall” as needing further consideration.
Quinn said that because many of the proposed ethics reforms have been discussed for years, the General Assembly should be able to make decisions on them by the end of session. “The people of Illinois are impatient, and they feel it shouldn’t take long at all to enact good government and clean government.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
