* If you were following the blog last night, you saw that the House voted to accept both of the governor’s recent amendatory vetoes…
The Illinois House on Wednesday approved new versions of legislation that Gov. Rod Blagojevich had rewritten to cut taxes for disabled veterans and lower insurance costs for college students. […]
Asked if approving the governor’s changes was meant as an olive branch, Madigan said, “You could take it that way, if you wish.”
* More…
House leaders originally indicated the governor was going too far in revising legislation, but they reversed course Wednesday. The House supported both amendatory vetoes, with leaders indicating it was possibly time for courts to weigh in on just how much authority the governor has to change legislation.
“It’s time to get more clarity from the court,” said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago.
Republicans criticized approval of the vetoes as setting the wrong precedent.
* The Senate now has fifteen calendar days to accept the AV. If not, then the entire bill dies…
Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, said before senators left town Wednesday night that he wasn’t sure they would come back to take up those vetoes. Blagojevich said he planned to talk to Jones today about bringing the Senate back soon.
* Madigan had been expected to kill off the AV’s as he has done in the recent and the distant past. Bethany Jaeger takes us back to a 1999 article…
[Gov. George Ryan’s] 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.
* Three things essentially happened last night. 1) Madigan tossed the AV hot potato into Jones’ court and avoided being tagged yet again as an obstructionist; 2) Jones may now be forced to call his members back to town - not a popular idea - or risk knocking out the first legs of the governor’s much-vaunted “Rewrite to Do Right” campaign, which would be a big embarrassment; 3) A lawsuit over the guv’s AV powers is pretty much certain, which is probably a good plan since the governor is expected to roll out 50 of these AVs in the coming days. Let’s get some clarity.
* More from Majority Leader Currie…
“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 aye vote may help us answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971.”
Thoughts?
LIVE session coverage...
- 2ConfusedCrew - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 9:49 am:
The AV move also brings the Senate back in regular session so they can have a real vote on the pay raise too. ( some Senators have been told the vote this week does not count because it occured in Special Session)
BTW please don’t start asking IDOT why it took three tries to get the Gov.’s Day banner right. And yes the vendor will be paid for all 3 verisons.
- Captain Flume - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 9:55 am:
From what I have read of judicial rulings on AVs, the court seems as baffled by the language in the constitution as everyone else. Maybe a lawsuit over these latest executive attempts to re-write legislation will elicit a more definitive interpretation of the limits of amendatory vetoes. Or, maybe we will see this as an AV by AV process, where each AV will have to pass muster on its own merits. The latter course could drag this process out for a long time. Another possibility is the injunction against enforcing any of the approved AVed until a court decision has been rendered.
- Captain Flume - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 9:57 am:
That should be “approved AVed bills”
- Commonsense in Illinois - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 9:59 am:
As Sneed would say…Helooooo Emil….
- Bookworm - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:01 am:
Let’s see, we have the current, ongoing lawsuit over JCAR and the HFS healthcare rules; we have a likely court battle in the works over COGFA and the IDOT move to Harrisburg; and now we have a potential court battle over the gov’s AV powers. All these matters involve the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, which urgently needs to be clarified. Con-con cannot arrive soon enough for me!
- Moderate Repub - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:01 am:
2ConfusedCrew - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 9:49 am:
The AV move also brings the Senate back in regular session so they can have a real vote on the pay raise too. ( some Senators have been told the vote this week does not count because it occured in Special Session)
The Senate was not in special session during the pay raise vote. They came into regualr session and put the Resolution on a supplemental calendar. In other words, they were in regualr session.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:02 am:
Couldn’t any “aye” vote be construed by the courts that the legislature did not think he AVs went beyond the constitution? Why would you approve something you thought unconstitutional?
- Captain Flume - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:05 am:
== Why would you approve something you thought unconstitutional? ==
You’d have to have an actual law on the books before you could decide on its constiutionality.
- Captain Flume - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:14 am:
At least I believe that is the way the court views it.
- Ghost - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:15 am:
Word along those lines I was thinking that the legislatures vote of approval may moot out the question. Since the legislature has the power to create and pass law, and voted in a manner that in essence creates the law, the acceptance vote by the legislature may effectively remove any unconstitutional taint.
There are similiar provions that the passage of a bill remove any procedural taint from the legislatures failure to follow required procuders in the passing of the legislation.
As I mentioned last night, the sport of politics in Illinois is not a game of inches or of miles, it is a game of hot potato and Madigan has just left Jones holding the spud.
Things are not going well for Jones, he is increasingly finding himnself in uncomfortable positions as he continues backing Illinois most unpoppular Gov. It will be interesting to see if the straw ever appears that breaks Jones support. Without Jones, Blago can do nothing.
- Capitol View - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:18 am:
the Constitution has veto actions go directly to the floor of the originating chamber. No committee hearing. This process suggests to me that the AV was only intended for technical changes, which would not require close review of the new provisions.
Debate on the House floor last night included many references such as “I wish we had an opportunity to study this matter in committee and get testimony from the insurance industry and others.” If the Con-Con members in 1969 had any idea of how the AV authority would be used by this governor, they would have allowed or directed committee review of AV actions.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:24 am:
===This process suggests to me that the AV was only intended for technical changes, which would not require close review of the new provisions.===
Not necessarily. Back then both chambers had floor amendments, which were debated not in committee but on the floor.
The problem is the framers screwed up the drafting of that provision. I don’t care what the “intent” of the framers were, they didn’t make it clear at all that this was a strictly limited power. The clear language of the Constitution looks practically unlimited.
- Captain Flume - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 11:05 am:
Kind of off subject, but it amazes me that after more than 200 years, a Civil War, and the addition of 37 states, that the U.S. Constitution still manages to live and breathe through its basic structure and the amendment process. Yet after only 38 years, the Illinois Constitution seems to have turned out to be such an albatross. With that in mind, the prospect of any new state constitution being created with the lasting power, and acceptance, of a document framed so long ago seems dismal. I think it says a lot about the (in)ability to debate, compromise, and plan for the future in this state.
- Captain America - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 11:41 am:
I’m not a lawyer, but common sense suggests that that the Governor has abused his amandatory veto power and is usurping the role intended for the legislature, not the executive. I think the courts will see the progre3ssive abuse of power by the Governor and seek to reign him in, nothwithstanding apparent constitutional ambiguity.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 12:18 pm:
The solution is to vote in favor of a Con-Con this November.
- Captain America - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 2:38 pm:
For once, I agree totally with Van Man. what choice does the average citizen have except to protest the complete breakdown of State government by voting for Con-Con?
The legislature refused to pass an executive recall amendment so we have no power to remove the Governor from office. Ordinary citizens have no say who legislators elect as Senate President and Speaker of the House. Legislators apparently are relatively powerless or lack the intestinal fortitude to prevent the abuses of power when the Speaker and the Senate President fail to perform their duties effectively, relative to the best interests of the citizens.
Voting for Con-Con seem like the only thing a rational citizen can do to protest the status quo of corruption and dysfunction in State government,no matter what the risks. Personally, I think the risks are mangageble.
Vote yes for Con-Con!
- Ghost - Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 10:23 pm:
We need a con-con.
This phrase could also be applied in history to describe Illinois two most recent governors.