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?”
Showing posts with label constitutional convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitutional convention. Show all posts
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Con-Con question remains unclear
The ballots are in, but legal concerns are ongoing. Sixty-eight percent of Illinois voters on Tuesday rejected the call for another constitutional convention. The results don't satisfy a group of supporters who still want clarification about the process of putting that question before voters, as constitutionally mandated every 20 years. At this rate, the 2008 question could drag out until 2010.
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn says he is considering whether to file a new complaint over the handling of the referendum or to continue seeking the Illinois Supreme Court’s clarification on the issue. Quinn says voters in numerous counties did not receive their blue pieces of paper, as mandated by a judge last month.
From the beginning, Quinn and others who supported the call for a convention expressed concerns that the language was misleading, which was affirmed by two court decisions. He says if opponents can defeat this referendum, then opponents of future referenda could do the same.
“My major concern above all else is that this not become a precedent and a habit of the legislature when they hear about something they don’t like on the referendum ballot, that they put together an ‘explanation’ — in quote marks — to help the voters along, when, in fact, it’s designed to steer the voters against it,” Quinn says. “If that becomes a pattern of behavior in Illinois, then it really will be a blot on our democracy.”
The Chicago Bar Association, meanwhile, does not plan to file another lawsuit over the results of the referendum, says Steve Pflaum. He's the association’s general counsel and a partner with McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago. However, the association does plan to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review a lower court’s opinion to determine whether the ballot was unconstitutional and whether the remedy of a so-called corrective notice was inadequate.
The association, like Quinn, wants to clarify the process. “Our primary objective at this point would be to try to establish the legal principals that govern these Con-Con referenda so that when we do it again 20 years from now that we won’t have this kind of confusion and these kinds of problems,” he says. He adds a big however. “If the court agrees with us that the separate ballot requirement that is expressly contained in the Illinois Constitution was violated here, then it’s quite possible that the court would conclude that it would be necessary to redo this Con-Con referendum.”
Pflaum estimated that the association wouldn’t file the appeal with the Supreme Court for another month. And if the high court ruled that the referendum had to be redone, he says it most likely wouldn’t happen until the 2010 General Election.
The association also is asking voters who did not receive their blue notices with their ballots to fill out affidavit forms to help plaintiffs gather evidence.
The Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, which formed a well-funded campaign to defeat the referendum, issued this statement from its executive director, Nancy Kaszak, last night: “This campaign was a unique opportunity for organizations and individuals from across the political spectrum to come together and provide real leadership. Voters saw through the rhetoric and rejected opening up our state's foundational document to wholesale re-write. We look forward to working with leaders of every political persuasion to solve the challenges facing Illinois.”
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn says he is considering whether to file a new complaint over the handling of the referendum or to continue seeking the Illinois Supreme Court’s clarification on the issue. Quinn says voters in numerous counties did not receive their blue pieces of paper, as mandated by a judge last month.
From the beginning, Quinn and others who supported the call for a convention expressed concerns that the language was misleading, which was affirmed by two court decisions. He says if opponents can defeat this referendum, then opponents of future referenda could do the same.
“My major concern above all else is that this not become a precedent and a habit of the legislature when they hear about something they don’t like on the referendum ballot, that they put together an ‘explanation’ — in quote marks — to help the voters along, when, in fact, it’s designed to steer the voters against it,” Quinn says. “If that becomes a pattern of behavior in Illinois, then it really will be a blot on our democracy.”
The Chicago Bar Association, meanwhile, does not plan to file another lawsuit over the results of the referendum, says Steve Pflaum. He's the association’s general counsel and a partner with McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago. However, the association does plan to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review a lower court’s opinion to determine whether the ballot was unconstitutional and whether the remedy of a so-called corrective notice was inadequate.
The association, like Quinn, wants to clarify the process. “Our primary objective at this point would be to try to establish the legal principals that govern these Con-Con referenda so that when we do it again 20 years from now that we won’t have this kind of confusion and these kinds of problems,” he says. He adds a big however. “If the court agrees with us that the separate ballot requirement that is expressly contained in the Illinois Constitution was violated here, then it’s quite possible that the court would conclude that it would be necessary to redo this Con-Con referendum.”
Pflaum estimated that the association wouldn’t file the appeal with the Supreme Court for another month. And if the high court ruled that the referendum had to be redone, he says it most likely wouldn’t happen until the 2010 General Election.
The association also is asking voters who did not receive their blue notices with their ballots to fill out affidavit forms to help plaintiffs gather evidence.
The Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, which formed a well-funded campaign to defeat the referendum, issued this statement from its executive director, Nancy Kaszak, last night: “This campaign was a unique opportunity for organizations and individuals from across the political spectrum to come together and provide real leadership. Voters saw through the rhetoric and rejected opening up our state's foundational document to wholesale re-write. We look forward to working with leaders of every political persuasion to solve the challenges facing Illinois.”
Monday, October 27, 2008
Are pensions safe in a Con-Con?
Illinois voters have eight days to decide whether they want the state to call a constitutional convention. For those who want to know the pros, cons or the logistics, look at Illinois Issues magazine, which has published numerous articles in print and online throughout the past year (see the list below). But one specific question burning in the minds of many current state employees, a.k.a. voters, is whether a convention would rip away their pensions and retiree health benefits.
In fact, that fear will lead many of those employees to vote “no” on the referendum. People on both sides of the Con-Con debate agree that the state’s obligations to its existing employees, particularly those who are not fully vested in the pension system, is open to interpretation.
It’s generally agreed that the state’s future public employees would be vulnerable to change. Potential reforms include increasing the retirement age before a person could tap into his or her benefits, limiting automatic yearly pension increases and increasing the employee contribution rate by at least 1 percent. Again, these are for new hires only. See more here from a 2005 report by the Governor’s Pension Commission.
Existing employees are different. On one hand, courts have ruled — and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 declares — pensions are contractual relationships between the state and its employees. The state Constitution, Article 13, Section 5, reads:
Even if the state charter changed, legal challenges likely would cite protection under the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 (scroll down to see “Section 10”) that says states cannot breach contracts, including pension obligations.
Elena Kezelis, former chief counsel for then-Gov. Jim Edgar, says she interprets the Constitution as protecting those who are fully vested in the pension system as having unalterable rights. She points to the back of the state Constitution, where a “savings clause” would protect every contract in place if a new document were approved. If another convention were called and pension benefits were revised, then she says that provision would grandfather in the existing pension contracts. Prudent drafters would include that kind of language again, she says.
The question is, she says, how delegates and how courts would define the point at which current state employees are vested into a contractual right that cannot be taken away from them.
Bruno Behrend, co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition that supports a constitutional convention, says he agrees with the same interpretation: Pension benefits of vested employees could not be taken away. And he says he doesn’t think delegates would erase that constitutional guarantee because the goal of a convention would be to draft a new constitution that would win voter approval. Taking away benefits that have been promised to existing employees wouldn’t go over so well with voters, he says. Instead, he supports pension reforms aimed at making the state more accountable in chipping away at some $100 billion in pension debt.
One main force behind a campaign to oppose a convention disagrees with the interpretation that the pensions of active public employees are safe. Among the reasons the Illinois Federation of Teachers union opposes a convention is that there's no telling what would happen, according Steve Preckwinkle, IFT's political director. “Our belief is that if Article 13, Section 5 of the Constitution were to be either eliminated or modified in certain ways that the pension security of active government employees throughout the state at all levels of government could be jeopardized.”
The IFT also is the top donor to a statewide campaign to defeat the November 4 referendum. It and affiliate members have contributed $300,000 to the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, according to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a Chicago-based think tank that keeps track of campaign contributions. The second top donor is the Illinois Education Association, donating $225,000.
Ann Lousin, who opposes a convention, says pension reforms are a “perfect example of how a lack of political will on the part of officeholders can lead to a constitutional crisis.”
She is a former research assistant for the 1970 Con-Con, a former parliamentarian for the House in the 1970s, a former chair of the Illinois State Civil Service Commission and a current law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago. In a recent paper for the Social Science Research Network, Lousin points out that the intent of the 1970 Constitution, Article 13, Section 5, is unknown and that there’s little legislative or court record on the subject. She says case law from the New York Constitution of 1938, upon which the Illinois section is based, suggests that the contractual guarantee applies only to the pension, not to such companion benefits as health care. And, she says, because legislators lack political will, they fail to fully fund the five state pension systems. That will result in dire consequences in the not too distant future. “By most estimates, the crisis will come by 2020 or 2025 when an Illinois pensioner will not receive a pension check.”
It's easy to assume that with or without another constitutional convention, public employee pensions are at risk in the future.
If you want more information about a constitutional convention, consider these stories that have published on this blog or in Illinois Issues magazine in the past year:
In fact, that fear will lead many of those employees to vote “no” on the referendum. People on both sides of the Con-Con debate agree that the state’s obligations to its existing employees, particularly those who are not fully vested in the pension system, is open to interpretation.
It’s generally agreed that the state’s future public employees would be vulnerable to change. Potential reforms include increasing the retirement age before a person could tap into his or her benefits, limiting automatic yearly pension increases and increasing the employee contribution rate by at least 1 percent. Again, these are for new hires only. See more here from a 2005 report by the Governor’s Pension Commission.
Existing employees are different. On one hand, courts have ruled — and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 declares — pensions are contractual relationships between the state and its employees. The state Constitution, Article 13, Section 5, reads:
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the state, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency of instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.
Even if the state charter changed, legal challenges likely would cite protection under the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 (scroll down to see “Section 10”) that says states cannot breach contracts, including pension obligations.
Elena Kezelis, former chief counsel for then-Gov. Jim Edgar, says she interprets the Constitution as protecting those who are fully vested in the pension system as having unalterable rights. She points to the back of the state Constitution, where a “savings clause” would protect every contract in place if a new document were approved. If another convention were called and pension benefits were revised, then she says that provision would grandfather in the existing pension contracts. Prudent drafters would include that kind of language again, she says.
The question is, she says, how delegates and how courts would define the point at which current state employees are vested into a contractual right that cannot be taken away from them.
Bruno Behrend, co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition that supports a constitutional convention, says he agrees with the same interpretation: Pension benefits of vested employees could not be taken away. And he says he doesn’t think delegates would erase that constitutional guarantee because the goal of a convention would be to draft a new constitution that would win voter approval. Taking away benefits that have been promised to existing employees wouldn’t go over so well with voters, he says. Instead, he supports pension reforms aimed at making the state more accountable in chipping away at some $100 billion in pension debt.
One main force behind a campaign to oppose a convention disagrees with the interpretation that the pensions of active public employees are safe. Among the reasons the Illinois Federation of Teachers union opposes a convention is that there's no telling what would happen, according Steve Preckwinkle, IFT's political director. “Our belief is that if Article 13, Section 5 of the Constitution were to be either eliminated or modified in certain ways that the pension security of active government employees throughout the state at all levels of government could be jeopardized.”
The IFT also is the top donor to a statewide campaign to defeat the November 4 referendum. It and affiliate members have contributed $300,000 to the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, according to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a Chicago-based think tank that keeps track of campaign contributions. The second top donor is the Illinois Education Association, donating $225,000.
Ann Lousin, who opposes a convention, says pension reforms are a “perfect example of how a lack of political will on the part of officeholders can lead to a constitutional crisis.”
She is a former research assistant for the 1970 Con-Con, a former parliamentarian for the House in the 1970s, a former chair of the Illinois State Civil Service Commission and a current law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago. In a recent paper for the Social Science Research Network, Lousin points out that the intent of the 1970 Constitution, Article 13, Section 5, is unknown and that there’s little legislative or court record on the subject. She says case law from the New York Constitution of 1938, upon which the Illinois section is based, suggests that the contractual guarantee applies only to the pension, not to such companion benefits as health care. And, she says, because legislators lack political will, they fail to fully fund the five state pension systems. That will result in dire consequences in the not too distant future. “By most estimates, the crisis will come by 2020 or 2025 when an Illinois pensioner will not receive a pension check.”
It's easy to assume that with or without another constitutional convention, public employee pensions are at risk in the future.
If you want more information about a constitutional convention, consider these stories that have published on this blog or in Illinois Issues magazine in the past year:
- The language of the referendum resulted in the blue piece of paper voters will get on Election Day.
- How a 2010 convention could differ from the 1970 convention
- Pros and cons of a convention: Q&A with Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Dawn Clark Netsch
- Con-Con basics (PowerPoint presentation)
- Q&A with a 1970 delegate (print only; See Illinois Issues, January 2008, page 13)
- Separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches (print only; See Illinois Issues, January 2008, page 19)
- The revenue article and tax reforms (print only; See Illinois Issues, February 2008, page 27)
Monday, October 06, 2008
Blue notes
Voters can expect to receive a controversial blue piece of paper with their ballots next month. They also can expect to see special notices posted in the voting booths, absentee ballots, newspapers and on Web sites.
That is, unless things change -- again -- in the legal debate about a mandatory referendum asking voters whether Illinois should convene another constitutional convention to open the state charter.
As of today's court order, that blue notice will explain that the referendum contains what a Cook County judge deemed “inaccurate” and “misleading” information that a person who skips the question on the ballot counts as a “no” vote.
The Chicago Bar Association, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and other proponents of the commonly called Con-Con filed suit in Cook County also argued that the explanation of the November 4 referendum -- written by a committee of legislators and certified by state election officials and the secretary of state -- was biased against a convention because it included the fact that the 1988 referendum failed by a 3-1 margin.
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. ruled in their favor and, after multiple, day-long meetings with both sides, ordered local authorities to hand out and post notices to tell voters to disregard the inaccurate sentence.
David Orr, Cook County clerk, said it could have been worse, but the “mistake” is making it very difficult for everyone else in the state as elections near.
“That's life when it comes to elections, but it couldn't have come at a worse time for us in terms of preparations,” Orr said. “But at this point, I think it's done.”
Maybe not, Con-Con supporters said.
Bruno Behrend, cofounder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition that supports the call for a convention and who is involved in the case, said he's not satisfied.
“We just ask people to try and do the intellectual exercise: Read this language on the ballot, understand that it's wrong, and try to craft an order that ameliorates it. No matter what your view on the outcome of the election, you can't.”
He says the proponents could try one more time to rectify the situation through an appeal, asking the judge to require election authorities to print an entirely separate ballot for the Con-Con referendum. He says they acknowledge the cost, although undetermined.
“The only justification we can really say is, 'What is the cost of an unfair election?'” Bruno said.
We'll learn more Tuesday. In the meantime, check out these resources from Illinois Issues magazine about a constitutional convention:
- Pro vs. Con of a Con-Con. Listen here.
- Presentation of Con-Con basics
- Con-Con revisited by Patrick Guinane
- Con-Con separation of powers debate by Aaron Chambers (In Illinois Issues magazine print only, February 2008, page 27).
And one comprehensive resource is from the state's Legislative Research Unit.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The right thing, or the wrong way?
There is a process. And House Speaker Michael Madigan will never let this or any governor forget that. He believes in the legislature as an institution, and the he will not stand by if anyone tries to circumvent the legislative process. The House took action tonight that some believe could lead to another court challenge of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s executive authority. Others truly agree with the governor’s changes, which include expanding health insurance options to young adults and giving property tax breaks to injured veterans.
But the two changes, along with some of Blagojevich’s previous agenda items, bring to light two fundamental questions about the policymaking process and the legislative prerogative:
They’re both questions that have been asked since the adoption of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. My boss and executive editor of Illinois Issues magazine, Dana Heupel, asked, “How far can governors go with amendatory vetoes?” in 1999, when he wrote from the Statehouse for Copley News Service. In that article, he analyzes then-Gov. George Ryan’s use of the amendatory veto to change how generic drugs could be approved for use in Illinois.
The speaker’s position hasn’t changed.
That sets up this summer’s controversy. Blagojevich is embarking on what he calls a “rewrite to do right” campaign. He recently said he’ll change some 50 bills. See details of the first two amendatory vetoes at the bottom of this post.
The House tonight approved two of the governor’s amendatory vetoes, and some legislators supported because they agreed with the governor’s changes, while others — House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, among them — voted to accept the governor’s amendatory vetoes so that the issue could land in court.
Currie, a Chicago Democrat, chairs a special House Rules Committee that carries out Madigan’s longstanding process of determining whether the changes are germane to the original intent of the legislation. If the committee members think the change violates the intent, then the bill usually dies. On the other hand, if there’s a motion to override or to accept the governor’s changes, then the measure goes straight to the floor for a vote. It also needs approval by the Senate.
Tonight’s vote to accept the governor’s changes about health insurance and veterans’ property taxes, then, allows the separation of powers to be studied, again, Currie said on the House floor.
“I think that the lack of clarity from the court decisions may mean that it’s time for a second crack for the judicial branch. Maybe we ought to invite the question before the courts whether this particularly amendatory veto, for example, does go beyond the scope of that authority provided in the Constitution. For that reason, I would suggest that an eye vote may help us answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971.”
The intent of the delegates at the 1970 constitutional convention was to allow the governor to correct technical errors or minor drafting mistakes, not give him or her carte blanche to totally rewrite legislation, said Charlie Wheeler, longtime Statehouse reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and current director of the Public Affairs Reporting graduate program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
To this day, however, the state Constitution does not specify the scope of the amendatory veto power. Courts have ruled that the governor is limited in that he or she can’t completely rewrite legislation and can’t change the fundamental purpose of bills. But what qualifies as changing the purpose of legislation is open to interpretation, leading numerous governors to try to use the power as broadly as possible.
“There are bounds beyond which a governor can’t go, but this particular issue before us isn’t one of them,” Wheeler said.
Blagojevich said at a Statehouse press conference tonight that he believes the Constitution is very clear. “The governor has complete opportunity to be able to take bills like that and rewrite them, and in this particular case, expand them and widen them. And the General Assembly can then choose to approve or not approve or ignore what I did. To the credit of the House of Representatives, they acted on it. And they voted in favor of that [health insurance] expansion, and it’s pretty good.”
Wheeler, who spoke with me before the House accepted Blagojevich’s first two amendatory vetoes, referred to the governor’s “rewrite to do right” campaign as the “rewrite to screw things up campaign,” basically with the intent to make Madigan look like an obstructionist. But Wheeler stressed that the debate about Blagojevich’s amendatory vetoes is deeper than a manifestation of the personality battles and power struggles between Madigan and Blagojevich. It’s more of a constitutional question about the checks-and-balances system between the legislative and the executive branches.
“In my mind, I think Madigan has the better argument because Madigan has a long history as somebody who’s very concerned about legislative process,” Wheeler said. “He’s concerned about the institution. He cares about that stuff. And Blagojevich has sort of a shorter history of following the Constitution, the statutes, administrative regulations, when they’re convenient. And when they’re not convenient, ‘Hey, they’re advisory.’”
That’s exactly the argument Blagojevich used when a bipartisan panel of legislators rejected his previous health care expansions. The governor tried to use his executive authority to expand state-sponsored health care to middle-income adults, but the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules rejected the plan because members believed there was no money to cover the health care expansion and that the administration lacks authority to initiate the plan without going through the legislative process. The governor said he would expand the program anyway because the panel only served an advisory role. The expansions, however, landed in court and actually were stopped.
To send a message that the governor can’t enact such programs without legislative oversight, Madigan started attaching language to the end of bills that would require the administration’s proposed rules to come back before the General Assembly before they could be enacted.
While the Constitution is unclear about some executive powers and legislative oversight, it remains crystal clear that Madigan will do whatever necessary to preserve the legislative prerogative.
Here are the two amendatory vetoes Blagojevich so far has issued and that the House has accepted:
But the two changes, along with some of Blagojevich’s previous agenda items, bring to light two fundamental questions about the policymaking process and the legislative prerogative:
- What is the scope of the executive power to use an amendatory veto to change legislation other than for minor changes?
- And what is the rulemaking authority of the executive branch, and is that power limited by a legislative panel’s power to review the proposed rules?
They’re both questions that have been asked since the adoption of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. My boss and executive editor of Illinois Issues magazine, Dana Heupel, asked, “How far can governors go with amendatory vetoes?” in 1999, when he wrote from the Statehouse for Copley News Service. In that article, he analyzes then-Gov. George Ryan’s use of the amendatory veto to change how generic drugs could be approved for use in Illinois.
“His amendatory veto of the generic drug bill, along with others he has issued, will set in motion a process that House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, has followed for a decade because he believes governors sometimes abuse their authority in changing legislation. ‘What he’s concerned about is a preemptive strikes by the governor’s office on the work of the legislature,’ said Madigan’s spokesman, Steve Brown.”
The speaker’s position hasn’t changed.
That sets up this summer’s controversy. Blagojevich is embarking on what he calls a “rewrite to do right” campaign. He recently said he’ll change some 50 bills. See details of the first two amendatory vetoes at the bottom of this post.
The House tonight approved two of the governor’s amendatory vetoes, and some legislators supported because they agreed with the governor’s changes, while others — House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, among them — voted to accept the governor’s amendatory vetoes so that the issue could land in court.
Currie, a Chicago Democrat, chairs a special House Rules Committee that carries out Madigan’s longstanding process of determining whether the changes are germane to the original intent of the legislation. If the committee members think the change violates the intent, then the bill usually dies. On the other hand, if there’s a motion to override or to accept the governor’s changes, then the measure goes straight to the floor for a vote. It also needs approval by the Senate.
Tonight’s vote to accept the governor’s changes about health insurance and veterans’ property taxes, then, allows the separation of powers to be studied, again, Currie said on the House floor.
“I think that the lack of clarity from the court decisions may mean that it’s time for a second crack for the judicial branch. Maybe we ought to invite the question before the courts whether this particularly amendatory veto, for example, does go beyond the scope of that authority provided in the Constitution. For that reason, I would suggest that an eye vote may help us answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971.”
The intent of the delegates at the 1970 constitutional convention was to allow the governor to correct technical errors or minor drafting mistakes, not give him or her carte blanche to totally rewrite legislation, said Charlie Wheeler, longtime Statehouse reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and current director of the Public Affairs Reporting graduate program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
To this day, however, the state Constitution does not specify the scope of the amendatory veto power. Courts have ruled that the governor is limited in that he or she can’t completely rewrite legislation and can’t change the fundamental purpose of bills. But what qualifies as changing the purpose of legislation is open to interpretation, leading numerous governors to try to use the power as broadly as possible.
“There are bounds beyond which a governor can’t go, but this particular issue before us isn’t one of them,” Wheeler said.
Blagojevich said at a Statehouse press conference tonight that he believes the Constitution is very clear. “The governor has complete opportunity to be able to take bills like that and rewrite them, and in this particular case, expand them and widen them. And the General Assembly can then choose to approve or not approve or ignore what I did. To the credit of the House of Representatives, they acted on it. And they voted in favor of that [health insurance] expansion, and it’s pretty good.”
Wheeler, who spoke with me before the House accepted Blagojevich’s first two amendatory vetoes, referred to the governor’s “rewrite to do right” campaign as the “rewrite to screw things up campaign,” basically with the intent to make Madigan look like an obstructionist. But Wheeler stressed that the debate about Blagojevich’s amendatory vetoes is deeper than a manifestation of the personality battles and power struggles between Madigan and Blagojevich. It’s more of a constitutional question about the checks-and-balances system between the legislative and the executive branches.
“In my mind, I think Madigan has the better argument because Madigan has a long history as somebody who’s very concerned about legislative process,” Wheeler said. “He’s concerned about the institution. He cares about that stuff. And Blagojevich has sort of a shorter history of following the Constitution, the statutes, administrative regulations, when they’re convenient. And when they’re not convenient, ‘Hey, they’re advisory.’”
That’s exactly the argument Blagojevich used when a bipartisan panel of legislators rejected his previous health care expansions. The governor tried to use his executive authority to expand state-sponsored health care to middle-income adults, but the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules rejected the plan because members believed there was no money to cover the health care expansion and that the administration lacks authority to initiate the plan without going through the legislative process. The governor said he would expand the program anyway because the panel only served an advisory role. The expansions, however, landed in court and actually were stopped.
To send a message that the governor can’t enact such programs without legislative oversight, Madigan started attaching language to the end of bills that would require the administration’s proposed rules to come back before the General Assembly before they could be enacted.
While the Constitution is unclear about some executive powers and legislative oversight, it remains crystal clear that Madigan will do whatever necessary to preserve the legislative prerogative.
Here are the two amendatory vetoes Blagojevich so far has issued and that the House has accepted:
HB 5285, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Chuck Jefferson of Rockford and Sen. Rickey Hendon of Chicago.
Original intent: College students could stay on their parents’ health insurance plans for a year if they took a medical leave of absence or reduced their course loads to part time because of an illness or injury.
Governor’s AV: All parents could decide whether to extend their health insurance coverage to their children up to age 26. Veterans could stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 30.
HB 4201, sponsored by Republicans Rep. Keith Sommer of Morton and Sen. Dan Rutherford of Chenoa.
Original intent: Extended a tax increment-financing district in the Village of Downs.
Governor’s AV: Extend property tax exemptions to all veterans with a service-connected disability certified by the U. S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The more disabled they’re labeled by the federal system, the higher the property tax exemption.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Ethical attitudes
The legislature waited a full month to send to the governor unanimously approved ethics reforms contained in HB 824. They sent it to his desk June 30, starting the 60-day clock for the governor to amend it, veto it or sign it before it automatically becomes law. That gives Gov. Rod Blagojevich until August 29, and he’s vowed to “improve” the measure but has not indicated what those changes might be and when they would come down. The legislation as approved by the General Assembly is designed to deter so-called pay-to-play politics, where state contractors donate to lawmakers’ political campaigns in an attempt to curry favor with the people who hire them. Blagojevich’s office says that’s not enough.
“We are disappointed that legislators didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to pass real and comprehensive ethics reform that would put strong campaign finance restrictions in place and end conflicts of interest across the board,” said Brian Williamsen, a Blagojevich spokesman, in an e-mail Monday afternoon. “We’re reviewing the bill.”
Legislators will return to the Capitol Wednesday and Thursday to convene a special session, ordered by the governor, to consider revenue-enhancing ideas to plug what Blagojevich says is a $2 billion hole in the current state operating budget. They’re also scheduled to consider a controversial way to fund a long-awaited capital plan for construction projects. (Check back later because the governor’s negotiators are set to hold a telephone conference about that plan this morning.) But ethics reform won’t be part of this two-day session. It's simply up to the governor to make the next move.
In the meantime, Illinois residents increasingly feel frustrated with state government for its lack of progress on major issues that affect daily life. Illinoisans, as well as voters throughout the Midwest, are getting more skeptical and distrusting of their government, according to a June poll commissioned by the Midwest Democracy Network. The survey was funded by the Joyce Foundation and conducted by Belden Russonello & Steward, an independent research firm in Washington, D.C. The firm called 2,044 adults in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin between late April and early May. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percent.
The survey spells out three important trends, according to Kate Stewart, partner at Belden Russonello & Stewart, in a release: “First, Midwesterners distrust their state governments. Second, despite their distrust, they are hopeful for change and support a range of reforms, and third, the voters are beginning to understand the connection between state government reform and solving problems like improving education, creating jobs and having a fairer tax policy.”
One of the items in the survey relates to the limited scope of the Illinois legislation: Get money out of state politics. The survey said 88 percent of respondents said not allowing state contractors to make political contributions to elected officials who issue the contracts would “make a difference,” while 61 percent said it would make a “big difference.” About the same percentage thought it would help to require lobbyists to report all of their clients, the issues they’re working on and the money they spend to lobby lawmakers.
Illinois voters will have a chance to put their votes where their mouths are this November, and they might not realize that they have more than one option to indicate that they want state government to change. In addition to voting for or against their local legislators, voters will be able to cast a vote to show whether they think the state should convene a constitutional convention. If yes, then elected delegates would be able to rewrite the state charter to draw truly competitive legislative districts, which is the hope of Cynthia Canary. She’s the director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform based in Chicago and an advocate for reform of the state’s ethics and election codes. She answered the following questions by e-mail, as she’s currently out of the country:
Q: On which government officials do voters take out their frustrations: The governor, their state legislators or their local officials?
Q: The survey seems to indicate that the public thinks it would help to target lobbyists with more disclosure laws. Is that the next step for Illinois?
“We are disappointed that legislators didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to pass real and comprehensive ethics reform that would put strong campaign finance restrictions in place and end conflicts of interest across the board,” said Brian Williamsen, a Blagojevich spokesman, in an e-mail Monday afternoon. “We’re reviewing the bill.”
Legislators will return to the Capitol Wednesday and Thursday to convene a special session, ordered by the governor, to consider revenue-enhancing ideas to plug what Blagojevich says is a $2 billion hole in the current state operating budget. They’re also scheduled to consider a controversial way to fund a long-awaited capital plan for construction projects. (Check back later because the governor’s negotiators are set to hold a telephone conference about that plan this morning.) But ethics reform won’t be part of this two-day session. It's simply up to the governor to make the next move.
In the meantime, Illinois residents increasingly feel frustrated with state government for its lack of progress on major issues that affect daily life. Illinoisans, as well as voters throughout the Midwest, are getting more skeptical and distrusting of their government, according to a June poll commissioned by the Midwest Democracy Network. The survey was funded by the Joyce Foundation and conducted by Belden Russonello & Steward, an independent research firm in Washington, D.C. The firm called 2,044 adults in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin between late April and early May. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percent.
The survey spells out three important trends, according to Kate Stewart, partner at Belden Russonello & Stewart, in a release: “First, Midwesterners distrust their state governments. Second, despite their distrust, they are hopeful for change and support a range of reforms, and third, the voters are beginning to understand the connection between state government reform and solving problems like improving education, creating jobs and having a fairer tax policy.”
One of the items in the survey relates to the limited scope of the Illinois legislation: Get money out of state politics. The survey said 88 percent of respondents said not allowing state contractors to make political contributions to elected officials who issue the contracts would “make a difference,” while 61 percent said it would make a “big difference.” About the same percentage thought it would help to require lobbyists to report all of their clients, the issues they’re working on and the money they spend to lobby lawmakers.
Illinois voters will have a chance to put their votes where their mouths are this November, and they might not realize that they have more than one option to indicate that they want state government to change. In addition to voting for or against their local legislators, voters will be able to cast a vote to show whether they think the state should convene a constitutional convention. If yes, then elected delegates would be able to rewrite the state charter to draw truly competitive legislative districts, which is the hope of Cynthia Canary. She’s the director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform based in Chicago and an advocate for reform of the state’s ethics and election codes. She answered the following questions by e-mail, as she’s currently out of the country:
Q: On which government officials do voters take out their frustrations: The governor, their state legislators or their local officials?
With only 13 percent of respondents feeling the governor was doing a good job and 17 percent saying that of the legislature, the poll suggests that voters are frustrated with both the executive and legislative branches of government in Illinois. There is a frustration with the overall direction of state government (up to 68 percent wrong track from 42 percent in 2006) and a sense that no one is really at the helm. My sense is that the voters’ frustration is most likely to be aimed at the governor, as he is the one people believe should be steering the ship and he is the most visible embodiment of state government. Unfortunately for the governor, he is also the one most associated with ethical problems and scandal, and the poll very clearly indicated that Illinoisans are fed up with corruption and that honesty and accountability are the primary values they seek in state government.Q: Does that mean elections will be particularly interesting this fall, or do you think people who participated in the poll will put their vote where their mouths are?
We haven’t tested it, but my guess is that people's attitudes toward the [General Assembly] would mirror their feelings about Congress in that they may think that the institution and its members are dysfunctional, but they usually think their own representative is doing a fairly good job. In Illinois, voters have increasingly heard about the clashes between Blagojevich, [Senate President Emil] Jones and [House Speaker Michael] Madigan and about how the power struggles of these three have translated into broader gridlock in state government. Voters, en masse, may not have yet taken things one step forward to consider the role of rank and file legislators and evaluate whether their own representatives have displayed any leadership at the Capitol.
I think that the state elections will largely be overshadowed by the federal elections this fall. To have really lively state elections, we need more truly competitive districts. Given the current map, few voters will have the opportunity to put their vote where their mouth is.
The great unknown in all of this and the possible exception is the vote on Con-Con. At this point, it seems that voter discontent with elected officials, more than any issues of a truly constitutional nature, is driving momentum for a constitutional convention. I don’t think that most voters know that the Con-Con question will be on the ballot, yet, but if we continue to have infighting, stalemate over the budget and allegations of (or indictments for) corruption, the idea of a convention may build momentum as we move into the fall election season. Clearly, voters are frustrated. And the expression of this frustration may be expressed in the populist sentiment that the people should wrest control of government and build in mechanisms that ensure accountability and responsiveness through a convention.
Q: The survey seems to indicate that the public thinks it would help to target lobbyists with more disclosure laws. Is that the next step for Illinois?
Sixty-one percent of respondents felt that greater lobbyist disclosure would make a large difference, with an additional 27 percent believing it would make some difference. Throughout the poll, we saw a desire for greater transparency and the belief that this would heighten accountability. I think that those polled understand that the regulation of lobbyists is an important part of the equation. Currently the state requires less disclosure from lobbyists than either Chicago or Cook County. Strengthening the Lobbyist Disclosure Act and introducing some real enforcement of the law is a practical next step and one with deep public support.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Missed opportunities
Gov. Rod Blagojevich escaped what would have been a media frenzy today by sneaking around Springfield for the annual Governor’s Prayer Breakfast and, according to the first lines of his speech, holding another meeting in the governor’s mansion about a state capital plan. His office provided audio of the nine-minute speech, and spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said he then met with labor leaders about capital. He was back in Chicago by noon. The Statehouse press corps didn’t know about the events until after the fact. The quick in-and-out allowed him to avoid reporters who would have followed his every move to ask him to respond to Tuesday’s news — a political insider pleaded guilty and indicated that Blagojevich knew of an illegal deal to exchange a high-level state job for campaign contributions.
Ali Ata, former executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators and fudging his federal income tax return. The federal probe is separate from but related to the case called “Operation Board Games,” involving Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s alleged influence in state business and campaign fundraising. Here’s that indictment, again.
Ata’s plea agreement indicates Rezko was instrumental in hiring Ata as executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority in exchange for his hefty contributions to Blagojevich’s political campaign. The state agency formed in 2004 and finances about $3 billion in projects for economic development each year.
The plea agreement said Ata met with Rezko and “Public Official A,” identified as Blagojevich, before Blagojevich was elected governor in 2000 or 2001 to talk about supporting his political campaign. They later talked about granting a state position in return.
Donations came in chunks as large as $25,000, as seen in Illinois State Board of Elections records. You can search all of Ata’s campaign donations here. Type in his name and scroll down to see his July 25, 2005, donation of $25,000 to Friends of Blagojevich.
In one conversation, Ata said he would accept a position within the administration, and Blagojevich allegedly said it had “better be a job where [Ata] could make some money,” according to the plea agreement. Ata allegedly was told he could head the Illinois Finance Authority as long as he agreed to report to Rezko. He officially was appointed in January 2004.
The plea agreement says Ata believed that he needed to please Rezko to keep his job. That involved donating about $125,000 to Rezko between 2003 and 2004, while he led the state agency.
Ata faces up to eight years in federal prison and up to $500,000 in fines. He’s fully cooperating with federal authorities.
Public reaction
The more that unfolds in the federal investigations surrounding the Blagojevich Administration, the more ears might perk up at the sound of “recall.” That would allow voters to kick someone out of office, but it requires a change in the state Constitution, either through an individual amendment or through a constitutional convention. Support for both could be growing, according to a survey by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Springfield. A convention would allow elected delegates to rewrite the entire state Constitution. And a majority of the public would have to approve the new charter.
Debate within the Capitol includes whether such emotional voting would lead to undesirable consequences in the long run. Whether the public likes or dislikes Blagojevich, changing the state Constitution to allow a recall of constitutional officers or state lawmakers — or any elected official, as proposed in the state Senate — could forever change the way elected officials behave. Supporters say that change is good because it would remind public officials that they always are accountable to the people who elected them. Opponents argue that change is bad because it would make public officials even more paranoid about voter dissatisfaction and, in turn, lead them to do whatever it takes to ensure they’re reelected.
For more information about a constitutional convention, see previous Illinois Issues articles:
November 2007 feature about Con-Con logistics, by Pat Guinane
December 2007 Q&A with Wayne Whalen, a delegate in the 1969-1970 Con-Con
Illinois Issues Blog entries about Con-Con
See more in the upcoming Illinois Issues magazine in the first week of May.
Ali Ata, former executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators and fudging his federal income tax return. The federal probe is separate from but related to the case called “Operation Board Games,” involving Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s alleged influence in state business and campaign fundraising. Here’s that indictment, again.
Ata’s plea agreement indicates Rezko was instrumental in hiring Ata as executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority in exchange for his hefty contributions to Blagojevich’s political campaign. The state agency formed in 2004 and finances about $3 billion in projects for economic development each year.
The plea agreement said Ata met with Rezko and “Public Official A,” identified as Blagojevich, before Blagojevich was elected governor in 2000 or 2001 to talk about supporting his political campaign. They later talked about granting a state position in return.
Donations came in chunks as large as $25,000, as seen in Illinois State Board of Elections records. You can search all of Ata’s campaign donations here. Type in his name and scroll down to see his July 25, 2005, donation of $25,000 to Friends of Blagojevich.
In one conversation, Ata said he would accept a position within the administration, and Blagojevich allegedly said it had “better be a job where [Ata] could make some money,” according to the plea agreement. Ata allegedly was told he could head the Illinois Finance Authority as long as he agreed to report to Rezko. He officially was appointed in January 2004.
The plea agreement says Ata believed that he needed to please Rezko to keep his job. That involved donating about $125,000 to Rezko between 2003 and 2004, while he led the state agency.
Ata faces up to eight years in federal prison and up to $500,000 in fines. He’s fully cooperating with federal authorities.
Public reaction
The more that unfolds in the federal investigations surrounding the Blagojevich Administration, the more ears might perk up at the sound of “recall.” That would allow voters to kick someone out of office, but it requires a change in the state Constitution, either through an individual amendment or through a constitutional convention. Support for both could be growing, according to a survey by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Springfield. A convention would allow elected delegates to rewrite the entire state Constitution. And a majority of the public would have to approve the new charter.
Debate within the Capitol includes whether such emotional voting would lead to undesirable consequences in the long run. Whether the public likes or dislikes Blagojevich, changing the state Constitution to allow a recall of constitutional officers or state lawmakers — or any elected official, as proposed in the state Senate — could forever change the way elected officials behave. Supporters say that change is good because it would remind public officials that they always are accountable to the people who elected them. Opponents argue that change is bad because it would make public officials even more paranoid about voter dissatisfaction and, in turn, lead them to do whatever it takes to ensure they’re reelected.
For more information about a constitutional convention, see previous Illinois Issues articles:
November 2007 feature about Con-Con logistics, by Pat Guinane
December 2007 Q&A with Wayne Whalen, a delegate in the 1969-1970 Con-Con
Illinois Issues Blog entries about Con-Con
See more in the upcoming Illinois Issues magazine in the first week of May.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Hastert, Con-Con and prison
A powerful lobbyist
By Patrick O’Brien
The task of getting a capital bill passed in Illinois just got a powerful new ally Wednesday. Gov. Rod Blagojevich enlisted former speaker of the U.S. House Dennis Hastert, a Republican, to co-chair a bipartisan group to help pass the governor’s Illinois Works program.
The other co-chair is Southern Illinois University President and former gubernatorial Democratic candidate Glenn Poshard. Poshard and Hastert provide a geographical and political balance to the group, which includes a diverse group of union leaders and several presidents of chambers of commerce.
The strange political bedfellows on the committee highlight the breadth of support for a statewide plan that would fix crumbling bridges, schools and other infrastructure and presumably stabilize a troubled state economy.
The governor’s plan would lease a portion of the Illinois Lottery to fund 65 percent of the $25 billion program, while the other 35 percent would come from bond sales. The reliance on lottery funds has some worried the plan will fail, just as previous attempts to use gambling expansion to fund a capital bill also stalled.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross said he’s concerned about the partial lottery sale as a funding source, saying House Republicans are open to other ideas for financing the program. “No one is going to be open to an idea that takes away $700 million from a budget that’s there for general revenue and education. A [budget] hole like that makes it hard to consider.”
Cross also said gambling expansion is a possible funding idea for an infrastructure plan. He recently asked House Speaker Michael Madigan for a meeting of the full chamber to discuss the idea.
Hastert was in Springfield today to be honored with a resolution by the House for his six years of service in the state legislature and eight years as U.S. speaker, the longest term for a Republican in the post.
Con-Con considerations
By Bethany Jaeger
A few blocks north of the Capitol, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and former state comptroller and lawmaker Dawn Clark Netsch debated whether Illinois voters should call for a constitutional convention, which would allow delegates to rewrite the state charter. The question will be on the November 2008 ballot because, by law, the question has to be posed to voters every 20 years. The last convention was in 1969-1970. (See background in our November and December Illinois Issues magazine.)
Netsch warns against another Con-Con right now for two primary reasons (among others):
- Leadership, or lack thereof: "We don’t have constitutional crisis in the state of Illinois. We have a leadership crisis,” she said, adding: "There are no constitutional barriers to resolving the issues that have been plaguing us for the last couple of years. The only thing that is missing is the kind of leadership that brings those issues finally to bear.”
- Preparation, or lack thereof: The state has done nothing other than approve a non-binding resolution to prepare and educate voters for the decision (see our June 2007 blog for more). She described a two-year effort by a 50-member committee in preparation for the ballot question in 1988. Nine public hearings across the state and a series of research papers all contributed to discussion beforehand. There's nothing like that this year so far.
He said one of the provisions that would do just that would be to allow voters to recall elected public officials. Netsch agreed that the only way a recall provision would be added to the state Constitution is through a convention, considering lawmakers are unlikely to approve a measure by themselves.
Ironically Quinn helped draft recall legislation, which happened to received unanimous approval from a House committee later that afternoon. Sponsored by Democratic Rep. Jack Franks of Woodstock, it would amend the state Constitution to allow a recall similar to California’s provision. See a 2006 analysis of recall provisions in other states from the National Conference of State Legislatures.
We wrote about Franks' measure last November. He said it sets a high threshold to avoid rash, politically charged removal attempts. Even if the state Constitution were amended to include a recall provision, he said they would be rare.
Prison closing timeline
Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration proposed closing Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet as a way to save money. (See the Associated Press story here.) Closing a Vandalia prison sparked a session-long revolt a few years ago, and the prison stayed open. This one is bound to be controversial, too, given that the powerful American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees represents the 400 jobs that would be transferred to other prisons.
The Illinois Department of Corrections announced the Stateville plans at a Senate committee hearing last week, but the Illinois legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability could slow those plans per state law. (Lee Enterprises’ reporter Kurt Erickson wrote about it here.)
In a meeting Wednesday, the commission’s executive director, Dan Long, said he sent a letter to the corrections department spelling out the timeline for public hearings and a recommendation for how to proceed with closing of the prison under the state facilities’ closure act. The department said it doesn’t think the act applies because it would only close a portion, not all, of the prison. The bottom line is that if the act does apply to the partial closing of Stateville, then the clock started at the February 28 Senate committee. Public hearings would have to be held between April and June, and the commission would have to offer a non-binding recommendation to the department by the end of June.
Long said this is uncharted territory. If state lawmakers continue to disagree with the department over whether the Stateville idea falls under the state facilities’ closure act, Long said, “I’d venture to guess it’d be another lawsuit.”
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Recall the governor?
It’s no secret state Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat, often disagrees with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, also a Democrat. But Franks said Thursday that he’s been so disturbed by the governor’s actions in his first and second terms that he drafted legislation to change the state Constitution to allow voters the ability to recall an elected official after they voted him or her into office.
“I don’t think I would have written it but for what’s going on in Illinois this year,” Franks said at a Statehouse news conference. “You talk about the perfect storm. It’s like this governor is the poster child for recall.”
This comes after the Chicago Tribune asked readers whether they think Illinois voters should be able to remove a public official from office, Blagojevich specifically. The Tribune then published results that showed a majority of the 1,200 readers who responded did support a recall of Blagojevich.
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn stood by Franks Thursday but would not say he supports the legislation simply to get Blagojevich out of office. Rather, Quinn said he supports, and thinks voters support, the principle of recall as a tool for public accountability. And this year, being a “very disappointing year,” could serve as a vehicle for a grassroots campaign to put the question to voters in November 2008, he said, adding that it’s an ideal time because a presidential election year typically attracts a lot more voters.
In particular, Quinn said he was disappointed by the governor’s proposed gross receipts tax on businesses, the stalled ethics reform and the governor’s lack of leadership on skyrocketing electricity rates after a state law expired.
“This whole year has been so disappointing with the gridlock and the failure to respond to the public interest that I think it underlines the need for having extraordinary tools of democracy, direct democracy, like recall,” Quinn said.
In order for Quinn and Franks to secure a question on the November 2008 ballot, they would have to win approval from three-fifths of both legislative chambers. It also would require six months of public debate before being posed to voters. Three-fifths of voters then would have to say, "Yes, recall the official and elect this person in his or her place."
If it were posed to voters and approved in 2008, then it would take effect in the April 2009 elections. That would be the last year of Blagojevich’s second term. And the lieutenant governor would not necessarily be the person listed on the ballot as the candidate to replace the governor.
Franks said the recall provision would top his legislative agenda in January. “This is a perfect example, this session, why we need to have the ability to remember that the citizens control the government and that we are public servants and not their masters.”
“I don’t think I would have written it but for what’s going on in Illinois this year,” Franks said at a Statehouse news conference. “You talk about the perfect storm. It’s like this governor is the poster child for recall.”
This comes after the Chicago Tribune asked readers whether they think Illinois voters should be able to remove a public official from office, Blagojevich specifically. The Tribune then published results that showed a majority of the 1,200 readers who responded did support a recall of Blagojevich.
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn stood by Franks Thursday but would not say he supports the legislation simply to get Blagojevich out of office. Rather, Quinn said he supports, and thinks voters support, the principle of recall as a tool for public accountability. And this year, being a “very disappointing year,” could serve as a vehicle for a grassroots campaign to put the question to voters in November 2008, he said, adding that it’s an ideal time because a presidential election year typically attracts a lot more voters.
In particular, Quinn said he was disappointed by the governor’s proposed gross receipts tax on businesses, the stalled ethics reform and the governor’s lack of leadership on skyrocketing electricity rates after a state law expired.
“This whole year has been so disappointing with the gridlock and the failure to respond to the public interest that I think it underlines the need for having extraordinary tools of democracy, direct democracy, like recall,” Quinn said.
In order for Quinn and Franks to secure a question on the November 2008 ballot, they would have to win approval from three-fifths of both legislative chambers. It also would require six months of public debate before being posed to voters. Three-fifths of voters then would have to say, "Yes, recall the official and elect this person in his or her place."
If it were posed to voters and approved in 2008, then it would take effect in the April 2009 elections. That would be the last year of Blagojevich’s second term. And the lieutenant governor would not necessarily be the person listed on the ballot as the candidate to replace the governor.
Franks said the recall provision would top his legislative agenda in January. “This is a perfect example, this session, why we need to have the ability to remember that the citizens control the government and that we are public servants and not their masters.”
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Can, can you vote for a "Con Con" in 2008?
If the General Assembly can’t break the deadlock on education funding reform, ethics and property tax relief, then the Illinois voters should be encouraged to support the call for a constitutional convention, possibly changing the state document and making that reform happen. That’s what 48 representatives approved Thursday morning before the House and Senate finished their first, three-day week of overtime session. The House won’t be back in the Capitol until the June 12, the Senate June 14, much to the dismay of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. His administration repeated its belief that lawmakers should work all week every week until they agree on a state budget before the next fiscal year starts July 1.
The stalemate over the FY08 budget is just one example of the General Assembly’s inability to resolve some major policy issues.
In 2008, voters will be asked on the ballot whether Illinois should call another constitutional convention, last held in 1970. The existing state constitution requires the question to be on the ballot every 20 years. The last time was in 1988, when the call for a “con con” was soundly defeated by more than 1.8 million votes, said Cris Cray, legislative liaison with the Illinois State Board of Elections. Rep. John Fritchey hopes voters are frustrated enough to reconsider this time around.
His measure approved Thursday encourages Illinois voters to support the 2008 question and lists education funding, ethics and property taxes as issues unable to be resolved the General Assembly. The Chicago Democrat said during debate that a convention would allow the opportunity to reconsider whether the constitution should be changed to address those and other stubborn policy issues. “It’s about putting a room full of people in here that are going to put policy and intellect over election cycles, over politics, over campaign funding,” he said.
He gained support from Republicans, including his co-sponsor Rep. Bill Black of Danville, who said it’s time for the public to finally have a say in education funding reform. Because, he said, the other way to establish a major policy change, through legislation seeking a constitutional amendment, typically gets stuck in the legislative process.
Such opponents as House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie of Chicago and Assistant Majority Leader Lou Lang of Skokie don’t like the idea of opening up the entire state document to change. “I think there’s a big risk in saying, ‘Let’s throw the whole thing open. Let’s start from scratch,’” Currie said. “We don’t need to start from scratch” because the General Assembly has a “good, sound” document to guide its operations. Lang added that a convention would invite all types of groups with specific agendas to cause “mischief” in altering the framework of the constitution.
Forty-seven House members rejected Fritchey’s measure, but it had enough votes to be adopted.
Shortly after lawmakers left town for the weekend, the governor led the third overtime meeting with the four legislative leaders. But his “speechmaking” and “nebulous talking” isn’t getting them closer to a budget agreement, according to Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson per his spokeswoman, Patty Schuh.
Blagojevich sent out Deputy Gov. Sheila Nix to address reporters again after the meeting. She said he wants property tax relief, that he’s willing to consider different approaches and that he plans to bring in Cook County Assessor Jim Houlihan into next week’s leaders’ meeting.
The stalemate over the FY08 budget is just one example of the General Assembly’s inability to resolve some major policy issues.
In 2008, voters will be asked on the ballot whether Illinois should call another constitutional convention, last held in 1970. The existing state constitution requires the question to be on the ballot every 20 years. The last time was in 1988, when the call for a “con con” was soundly defeated by more than 1.8 million votes, said Cris Cray, legislative liaison with the Illinois State Board of Elections. Rep. John Fritchey hopes voters are frustrated enough to reconsider this time around.
His measure approved Thursday encourages Illinois voters to support the 2008 question and lists education funding, ethics and property taxes as issues unable to be resolved the General Assembly. The Chicago Democrat said during debate that a convention would allow the opportunity to reconsider whether the constitution should be changed to address those and other stubborn policy issues. “It’s about putting a room full of people in here that are going to put policy and intellect over election cycles, over politics, over campaign funding,” he said.
He gained support from Republicans, including his co-sponsor Rep. Bill Black of Danville, who said it’s time for the public to finally have a say in education funding reform. Because, he said, the other way to establish a major policy change, through legislation seeking a constitutional amendment, typically gets stuck in the legislative process.
Such opponents as House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie of Chicago and Assistant Majority Leader Lou Lang of Skokie don’t like the idea of opening up the entire state document to change. “I think there’s a big risk in saying, ‘Let’s throw the whole thing open. Let’s start from scratch,’” Currie said. “We don’t need to start from scratch” because the General Assembly has a “good, sound” document to guide its operations. Lang added that a convention would invite all types of groups with specific agendas to cause “mischief” in altering the framework of the constitution.
Forty-seven House members rejected Fritchey’s measure, but it had enough votes to be adopted.
Shortly after lawmakers left town for the weekend, the governor led the third overtime meeting with the four legislative leaders. But his “speechmaking” and “nebulous talking” isn’t getting them closer to a budget agreement, according to Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson per his spokeswoman, Patty Schuh.
Blagojevich sent out Deputy Gov. Sheila Nix to address reporters again after the meeting. She said he wants property tax relief, that he’s willing to consider different approaches and that he plans to bring in Cook County Assessor Jim Houlihan into next week’s leaders’ meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
