January 17th, 2008
Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, just blew his top on the House floor over a recent column by Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times.
Steinberg had this to say about downstaters resisting Chicago-led efforts to bail out Chicago-area mass transit agencies:
Chicago is the economic engine that drives Illinois, if not the entire Midwest, and the sooner the hicks in the hinterlands understand that, the better.
Sacia responded: “I’m proudly one of those hicks from the hinterland.”
He then read this passage from Steinberg’s column:
Beyond our own bickering leaders, one major reason our public transit system is again poised to collapse — and, as they say, the third time’s the charm — is that Downstate legislators, envious and resentful of the city, see no connection between Chicago’s economic future and their own, and can’t imagine funding public transportation in Sodom-on-the-Lake without first extorting a big slice of blueberry pie for themselves in Porktropolis. Each one has a pet project — new milking stools, a galvanized metal silo, whatever — they’re demanding as ransom for bailing out Chicago transit, and if it shuts the city down, well, so what? It’s just a bunch of sinners and minorities anyway.
And he responded: “What a damn insult! And the good part, the thing that makes me feel good, is I listen to people like Rep. (John) Fritchey stand on this floor and point out what a political charade this is. There isn’t anyone on on the other side of the aisle that I wouldn’t help with a bill if I possibly could. And I know in my heart of hearts the vast majority of you would help me with a bill. This is one that was a real tough struggle for me to get through. And I didn’t need my nose rubbed in it!”
Thereafter, other Republicans mocked Steinberg — and, by extension, the Chicago-centric air that pervades the Capitol — by referring to themselves on the House floor as hicks.
Even Rep. Lou Lang, a liberal Democrat from Skokie, proclaimed: “I’m a proud member of the hick caucus!”
January 17th, 2008
The Illinois governor is blessed with a broad array of veto options. In fact, Gov. Rod Blagojevich enjoys veto powers that are “among the most extensive in the nation,” according to an annotated state Constitution published by the state’s Legislative Research Unit.
Today, when lawmakers return to Springfield to respond to Blagojevich’s latest veto, we all may learn much more about the governor’s interplay with legislation — and just how well it’s going over with those folks who are actually supposed to craft the law.
Blagojevich used an amendatory veto to dramatically change a bill designed to bail out Chicago-area mass transit systems, primarily through an increase in the regional sales tax. Blagojevich indicated he would accept that sales tax hike, despite his pledge not to support any such tax hike, just so long as lawmakers embrace his plan to give seniors around Illinois a free ride on public trains and buses. (See below posts for more background.)
There is tremendous pressure on lawmakers to accept the governor’s change to the bill. If lawmakers in both the Senate and House cannot agree on whether to accept or reject the changes, then the entire bill dies and they all must start over with a fresh bill. Meanwhile, the Chicago-area transit agencies are threatening route cuts, fare hikes and layoffs if they all don’t soon get more state money.
Still, putting political consideration aside for a moment (is there any other consideration in Springfield?), there are significant questions about whether the governor’s amendatory veto goes beyond the scope of the power granted to him by the Illinois Constitution. In other words, is the veto unconstitutional?
I can’t answer that question directly. But I can tell you what I know.
The governor has four types of vetoes he may choose from:
1) A total veto, which may apply to any bill;
2) Line item vetoes, which apply only to spending bills;
3) Reduction vetoes, which also apply only to spending bills; and
4) The amendatory veto, which may apply to either spending or non-spending bills such the mass transit bill.
What distinguishes the total veto from the amendatory veto is this: In the case of the total veto, the governor simply sets forth his objection and returns the bill to lawmakers. In the case of the amendatory veto, he suggests how to change the bill and makes his approval contingent on that change. For more detail, see the state Constitution.
Lawmakers have one option for dealing with a total veto: They must decide whether to override the governor’s objection. If they wish to override, they need a three-fifths majority in both chambers to do so. Otherwise, the entire bill is dead.
In the case of the amendatory veto, lawmakers have two options. They may accept the change or reject it. If they wish to override, they need a three-fifths majority to do so. To accept the change, they need only a simple majority.
From the Constitution, regarding the amendatory veto:
The bill shall be considered in the same manner as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members elected to each house. Such bill shall be presented again to the Governor and if he certifies that such acceptance conforms to his specific recommendations, the bill shall become law. If he does not so certify, he shall return it as a vetoed bill to the house in which it originated.
Now, back to questions about constitutionality of the governor’s action. According to the annotated Constitution I mentioned above, the Illinois Supreme Court has described its own position on how far the governor’s might go.
As to the scope of amendatory vetoes, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated that an amendatory veto may not propose a completely new bill; change the fundamental purpose of a bill; or make “substantial or expansive changes” in it. However, the court has held that the Governor may make more than technical corrections. Indeed, the voters in 1974 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict the Governor’s amendatory veto power to technical corrections and matters of form.
On the other hand, the high court has backed governors in certain instances.
The court has upheld amendatory vetoes, agreed to by the General Assembly, that (1) reduced the rate of the additional corporate income tax that partially replaced the personal property tax from 2.85% to 2.5%; (2) made several changes in an urban renewal bill, which the court described as minor improvements dealing with the “clarity, fairness and practical requirements” of the bill; and (3) made many changes to a bill on labor relations for public employees, including extending it to cover a bi-state agency, restricting injunctions against strike-related activity, prohibiting mandatory “fair share” payments from going to political candidates, and adding two state department directors to the body that considers decisions by arbitrators following an impasse between unionized employees and a unit of government.
What does this all mean? Good question.
It’s unclear at this point whether the governor’s veto of this bill might somehow end up before the courts. If it doesn’t, then this whole discussion may amount to nothing more than a head-expanding exercise.
House Speaker Michael Madigan has historically taken a hard line on amendatory vetoes. He also happens to be the governor’s political nemesis. So expect to hear cries from House members that the governor stepped beyond his constitutional power by dramatically reshaping the bill.
As a practical matter, the more immediate concern is how lawmakers respond today. To accept the governor’s free-rides-for-seniors plan, they need only a simple majority. They had little more than a simple majority when they passed the original bill — the Senate approved the bill with 30 votes, the absolute minimum necessary, while the House approved it with 62 votes, just two more than necessary — so the vote today is expected to be close.
Might they attempt to override the governor, thereby restoring the bill to its original form? I don’t know, but it seems unlikely. Yesterday, a House committee voted overwhelmingly to accept the governor’s change, so that appears to be the direction in which the full chamber will head today. In any case, to override the governor, lawmakers would need more votes than they put up the first time around.
If lawmakers can’t, at the least, vote to accept the changes, the entire bills dies and they all start over.
UPDATE 1
ArchPundit has more.
