* Speaker Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton have filed a response to Gov. Pat Quinn’s motion for direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court of the legislative pay case. The leaders want the court to take the case and then issue a summary judgement against Quinn…
1. The Governor’s constitutional argument in this case is contrived. He asks this Court to find that the drafters of the 1970 Constitution either did not know the meaning of the word “changes,” or intentionally misused that word when they prohibited mid-term “changes” in Article IV, Section I I , which provides that “changes in the salary of a member (of the General Assembly) shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” Specifically, he claims that when the drafters prohibited mid-term changes in legislative salaries, they did not mean “any change”, they only meant to prohibit an “increase”.
2. His second argument (and perhaps his principal one) is that the case is not “ripe” for review. This argument will be shown to be a transparent attempt to avoid an adverse ruling on his actions, which were in violation of the Constitution.
3. The Plaintiffs are reluctant to impose this appeal on this Court (in denying a stay, the trial court found it “totally meritless” (see Exhibit A to this Response, the circuit court’s ruling denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay, at p.2l)). But, regardless of its lack of merit, because it is a controversy between two branches of State government which has attracted some notoriety, we urge the Court to exercise Rule 302(b) jurisdiction over this appeal.