* From a press release…
Attorney General Lisa Madigan today filed a motion to intervene in Governor Bruce Rauner’s federal lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of “fair share” fees as allowed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. Madigan issued the following statement outlining her role in this litigation:
“Last month, Governor Rauner issued an Executive Order seeking to stop the payment of ‘fair share’ fees used to support non-political union activities such as contract administration and collective bargaining. On the same day, he also sued over two dozen unions in federal court in anticipation of a legal challenge to his Executive Order in state court.
Last week, the unions filed suit in state court seeking to prohibit Governor Rauner from implementing his Executive Order and breaching their contracts and to restore the ‘fair share’ fee payments.
Today, I filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of Illinois’ law. Along with the motion to intervene, I have submitted a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Governor does not have the legal authority to sue to challenge the law in federal court.
As Attorney General, it is my job to represent the state and defend our laws when their constitutionality is challenged in court. Because the Governor’s case questions the validity of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, I moved to intervene to provide the court with arguments regarding the law’s constitutionality.”
The motion is here. The accompanying memorandum is here.
*** UPDATE *** Lance Trover…
“As expected, the Attorney General filed a motion in federal court to defend so-called ‘fair share’ union dues in state government, which is why the Governor pro-actively asked the Attorney General’s office to allow the Governor’s office to use pro bono outside counsel. The Attorney General’s actions will have no impact on the Governor’s efforts to protect taxpayers and state employees who don’t want to pay forced union dues.”
…Adding… From AG Madigan’s memorandum…
[Madigan’s] motion emphasizes the following points. First, the Governor may not use this suit as a preemptive strike against an anticipated state court law suit against him for violating state law in which he could assert federal law only as a defense to the state-law claims. Second, the Governor is not complaining of any violation of his own First Amendment rights, but instead has claimed the ability to vindicate the First Amendment rights of other persons who are not before this Court. Third, the Governor is inappropriately asking a federal court to declare the scope of his authority to issue executive orders under state law.
.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:14 pm:
===Today, I filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of Illinois’ law. Along with the motion to intervene, I have submitted a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Governor does not have the legal authority to sue to challenge the law in federal court.===
There is the which court issue is rebuffed..
===Because the Governor’s case questions the validity of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, I moved to intervene to provide the court with arguments regarding the law’s constitutionality.”====
Here is where that IL constitutional part is taken to task.
Litigation. That ain’t governin’.
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:18 pm:
OW, and so it begins. This ain’t going to be pretty. The honeymoon is over and the tux ain’t even returned yet…
- Anonymous - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:19 pm:
A legitimate question is why she approved appointing a Special Assistant Attorney General to file the Governor’s suit in the first place. She could have blocked it from the beginning instead of giving Gov. Rauner a platform for his political agenda and could have saved taxpayer dollars.
- ABC Lawyer - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:19 pm:
Step in for the Government Union Bosses, sit on the sidelines while the feds weed out corruption in Illinois. (Predicted Rauner response)
- Amalia - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:29 pm:
welcome to your next four years with the Madigans!
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:32 pm:
=== She could have blocked it from the beginning===
I don’t think so.
- Sangamo Sam - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:34 pm:
Last week Rauner said he would “take the arrows.” It’s starting to look like the Roman Army out there!
- DuPage - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:37 pm:
So the bottom line is BOTH side’s lawyers are paid by the State of Illinois. The state is sort of fighting itself.
- Casual Observer - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:37 pm:
Mr Governor, this ain’t Wisconsin.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:38 pm:
If state employees shouldn’t have to pay “forced union dues,” why should I have to pay forced government taxes?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:41 pm:
Also, “Us v. Them”…”governin’…”
That isn’t governing too.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:42 pm:
==As Attorney General, it is my job to represent the state and defend our laws when their constitutionality is challenged in court.==
The many union members whose pension theft you are defending thank you.
- Macbeth - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:43 pm:
This all points to a government lockout.
It’ll take the courts to force the workers back. Rauner’s plan, as he’s said from the get-go, is to fire everybody and rewrite the contracts.
What a repugnant, repugnant man.
- Norseman - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:49 pm:
Yes, Lance you expected the AG to protect State law as is her job. Following the law is a unique concept to our new Gov.
- Nearly Normal - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:51 pm:
Governor, we have laws and a Constitution. Just because you want something your way does not mean that you will get it. Now, get off the floor and quit rolling around screaming, “Waaa! I want to be so it has to be!!”
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:52 pm:
Well said, Willy.
Governing is work. Lawsuits and ==my way== are often ==easier== for politicians than working to a compromise. More expensive too, but it’s not their money.
That goes for fair share fees, pension reductions, the budget and nearly everything else these days.
- Norseman - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:53 pm:
This kinda reinforces the fact that Rauner has no standing to file his lawsuit. Bets on when the Fed Court will toss it?
- Nearly Normal - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:53 pm:
Hey Rich, I think your blog needs a Daylight Savings Update. My post above was at 5:51 p.m. CDT
- New Guy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:56 pm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1gX0SxtidI
- Anon - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:05 pm:
Hahaha! Take that, BVR!
BVR: “This losin’ at the district court and court of appeals is all part of my master plan that y’all can’t figure out. I just like spendin’ other people’s money and wastin’ time. 46 months to go!”
- Juice - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:07 pm:
Nearly Normal, it’s Miller time!
- Anon - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:10 pm:
Macbeth, somebody here said every employee he locks out gets to collect unemployment. I guess he’s willing to run that bill up too.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:24 pm:
To the AG’s Memorandum update,
The Governor has his work cut out for his case.
Thanks - FKA -, I think we are at the point in this where Rauner isn’t making it about good government, but about Rauner trying to have the courts dictate a policy, in a court where the policy “case” has no standing(?)
- allknowingmasterofracoondom -, the courts are a weird place to end a honeymoon…
- Wensicia - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:26 pm:
Sorry, King Rauner. It ain’t workin’ out for you.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:31 pm:
“state employees who don’t want to pay forced union dues”
“Traditional” state employees (not home healthcare workers) had years to file a lawsuit against fair share fees but didn’t. That silence says they’re okay with fair share fees.
- DuPage Dave - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:41 pm:
It is rather difficult to imagine how Rauner recovers from these unforced errors. Every new governor gets a bagful of good will to start off with, and Rauner has pretty much emptied his out.
- pundent - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:49 pm:
@ Dupage Dave - Rauner doesn’t have a plan he has an agenda. At this point I don’t think he really concerns himself with the consequences of his actions.
- Indeterminate Sentence - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 5:56 pm:
Anon at 5:10. That money is paid by the employers of the State, not tax revenues from the fund. One of the biggest misconceptions in the history of State Government. You lay off like two people a year, you pay the highest rate. So what does he care about that? Probably nothing.
- Indeterminate Sentence - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 6:01 pm:
In other words, your share as an employer is in no way directly related to the amount of your gross payroll or whatever. Not a perfect system, but many IDES recipients think it is their “tax money anyway” and it is not.
- Anon - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 6:11 pm:
IS, I was talking about state employees. Since the state is the employer who pays the unemployment compensation?
- Indeterminate Sentence - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 6:23 pm:
I do not know if the State pays into the same insurance fund as all other employers. Good point. If it is separate, it’s on the taxpayers like everything else in Government. If it is combined with all other “premiums”, who knows? Pretty arcane stuff.
- Anonymous - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 7:56 pm:
As expected playing the victim card again ,if you could only use pro bono to fulfill your mandate.
- Salty - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 8:54 pm:
I’m pretty sure the state doesn’t pay into the unemployment trust fund and they just pay out benefits as they are due unlike traditional employers (similar to workers comp). The main reason is there is no fear that the state will go insolvent. At least that was the reasoning when the law was passed.
- Anonymous - Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 9:25 pm:
@Salty
The state unemployment compensation and work comp for employees self-insured
- Clodhopper - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:11 am:
I believe that all of the rules pertaining to eligibility for unemployment benefits are exactly the same for State of Illinois employees as any other person filing for benefits under the State of Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. When a former state employee files for benefits it goes thru the same process as any other individual. The state agency that the employee worked for would receive notice indicating the agency is charged with that claim. This notice also affords the agency the right to protest the claim. If the agency or any other employer protest the claim, the claim would go thru an adjudication process to resolve any issue on the claim.
The more important question, at least for me, IDES is a state agency as well, so who is going to be around to see that that benefits are paid if locked out? Yes much of the process is done online, but there still has to be some hands on……
And yes I believe that since it is charged to applicable state agency the taxpayers will be picking up the tab once again.
- Rod - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 4:59 am:
Governor Walker across the border yesterday signed into law the ban on private sector fair share agreements. This is the ultimate goal of Governor Rauner for Illinois. The litigation at hand is just part of a process to get to the larger objective.
Assuming the Supreme Court strikes down SB 1 pension reform the Governor will go on the offensive against all public sector unions as part of an austerity plan. The Governor will have the financial backing of right to work organizations and wealthy conservatives for a media campaign to convince the majority of voters of the need to lower the average wage of public sector workers. What we are seeing now is a low cost effort on the part of Rauner and his supporters, it is just the first shots of a war to come.
It will either work like it did in Wisconsin bringing with it a Republican majority in the legislature or it will fail. Only time will which way things will go.
- sparky791 - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 7:10 am:
-Rod-
Spot on analysis. Problem for Rauner. This ain’t Wisconsin
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 7:26 am:
= to Rich at 4:32 =
See the Motion to Intervene itself pointing to the AG common law powers as the one officer of the state that can represent the State. That includes reading those cases and some more.
While there is a long-standing courtesy that AG’s have let Governors hire lawyers for litigation, she did not have to allow it here.
The outcome is that even though Rauner has “pro bono” representation, the AG has had to devote a lot of time responding in court over the argument that the Governor does not have this power. Ms. Madigan could have refused to appoint the Special AAG and the political fight that is inevitable would play out in the public forum instead of an expensive judicial one.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 9:03 am:
test
- The Equalizer - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:14 am:
I realize the way to go these days in right wing politics is constant obsfucation and obstruction, but it usually harms the executive. The only thing he’s accomplishing is throwing a lot of he middle class and unions into the arms of the Madigans. It’s early, but geez if the election was Lisa vs Bruce tomorrow, it feels like it’d be a walk.