Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** State fire marshall backs down
Next Post: Rauner talks a bit about Rendell
Posted in:
* AP…
Gov. Pat Quinn says if lawmakers don’t like his decision to halt their pay they should take a vote instead of going to the courts.
The Chicago Democrat spoke to reporters Wednesday a day after House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton sued over Quinn’s decision to cut pay. Quinn says his authority is constitutional. He has said he took action because of lawmakers’ inaction on pension reform.
* Greg Hinz agrees there should be an override vote…
Mr. Quinn didn’t grab all of the money and stick it in his sock drawer. Rather, he used his line-item veto to block the appropriation for legislative salaries.
If lawmakers don’t like that, they have a solution well within the traditional separation of powers. It’s called a veto override. If they don’t like how Mr. Quinn used his amendatory veto, they can get together and override him by the required 60 percent vote of both legislative chambers.
From what I’m hearing, the votes are there to do just that. But neither the House nor the Senate has scheduled such a vote. […]
So call a vote, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President. If it passes, you get your money. If it doesn’t, maybe then you have something worth taking to the judge.
* Eric Zorn disagrees with the governor…
[An override vote] would legitimize the salary squeeze as a parliamentary trick, putting the power of precedent behind governors of the future who want to shake down the General Assembly on matters of less importance than pension reform, and to legislators who want to try to use the budget process to starve the governor financially into submission.
Imagine, say, a Republican governor refusing to pay members of a General Assembly narrowly controlled by Democrats until they OK his tax plan or abortion restriction. Or imagine that same General Assembly threatening not to appropriate a dime to a Republican governor’s salary until she signs off on gay marriage or gun-rights restrictions.
There would be no logical end to the nonsense. And Tuesday’s lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court by House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton, is the best way to put a stop to it
The suit envisions several of the above scenarios and complains, quite rightly, of Quinn’s brazen violation of the principle of separation of powers.
* The Question: Should the General Assembly’s leaders withdraw their lawsuit and attempt to override the governor’s veto of legislative pay? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:01 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** State fire marshall backs down
Next Post: Rauner talks a bit about Rendell
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I voted no. This was a terrible precedent and needs to be overturned legally, not legislatively. If governor’s can do this, when won’t they use it when they don’t get their way. Bad bad bad (despite it being smart politics).
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:07 pm
I voted no because I agree with Eric Zorn, Chicago Cynic and Speaker Madigan & President Cullerton.
Comment by Way South of I-80 Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:09 pm
absolutely not. quinn defends his action, basing it only on constitutional provisions allowing his line item veto. that ignores the precedent setting coercive nature of attempting to force a co-equal branch of government to bow to his demands. they cant vote to override without legitimizing the tactic, so a lawsuit is the best route to take. blago attempted to bully legislators w constant meaningless ineffective special session calls. doing it a couple times is annoying. doing it 17 or more times is an abuse of the process. this is worse.
Comment by langhorne Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:09 pm
I think not taking an override veto and filing the law suit to stop this is the right way to go. For one main reason, Quinn claims his veto is temporary until they pass pension reform. How is it temporary? Doesn’t the bill as vetoed become law unless overridden? How could Quinn on his own restore the vetoed line item appropriations? (I don’t think he could. Could he?)
I could be wrong, but that means without an override or another appropriations bill, Legislative salaries are permanently reduced for the fiscal year, which most likely violates the constitution.
Comment by KurtInSpringfield Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:12 pm
No, Hinz logic makes no sense.
If you believe the veto action is unconstitutional, than an override vote would only give it a legislative stamp of approval.
The courts need to weigh in so this tactic cannot be employed in the future.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Voted “No”, all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.
My thoughts are but a “search engine” search away, so I will leave this specific Post of mine “as-is”.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Zorn is right. I’m surprised at Greg Hinz.
Comment by LincolnLounger Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:14 pm
“I voted no because I agree with Eric Zorn, Chicago Cynic and Speaker Madigan & President Cullerton.”
Boy, now that’s a foursome I never thought I’d be part of. Maybe I need to rethink my logic…
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:15 pm
I voted no–Quinn’s action is cynical and demagogic, and needs to be shot down quickly and definitively. “I don’t like how you voted, so I’m going to hold your paycheck until you vote my way.” I am truly shocked that anyone responsible cannot see what a dangerous precedent this sets (shame on you, Tribune)
Comment by orzo Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:16 pm
I voted yes. Ideally, the courts are meant to be used as a last resort to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved by other methods. I say “ideally” because people don’t respect that principle much.
Comment by Foxfire Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:19 pm
If a governor can constitutionally line item an appropriation, then the legislative branch can take action by overriding the veto. I see no difference in this vs a regional superintendent salary veto. That problem was solved by a PPRT fund sweep which impacted local government funding streams. A veto is a veto, override it or don’t, the veto is legit.
Comment by Midstate Indy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:25 pm
I voted yes. Why not show the public that you can all gather for your own self-interest, but not for the public interest
Comment by Nonplussed Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:26 pm
No. A vote brings this down to Quinn’s level. That’s not to say the GA doesn’t sink low on occasion
Comment by Sir Reel Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:32 pm
No. This cannot be allowed to be a tactic. The potential issues are well outlined by Zorn. Illinois politics is disfunctional enough without this twist thrown in.
Comment by DeKalb Dragon Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:32 pm
I voted yes. I know of no authority that says a “salary squeeze” to be an inappropriate tactic.
A couple of politicians are screaming, yes, but there are many, many public bodies in Illinois where the members serve without pay. School boards are the first to come to mind. What makes legislators so special? The GA needs to step up to the plate and either override or respond in kind to the governor’s brazen attack.
While I’m at it, may I note that legislators, public officials and wannabes never tire of calling for general public salary squeezes, AKA tax increases. I don’t think the idea of the GA taking a hit is that far out of line. In fact, this kind of tit-for-tat between the governor and the legislature is the only type of fight where the taxpayer really stands any chance.
The essence of the GA lawsuit is this–the GA is asking the judicial branch to join them in bashing the Governor.
As much as I dislike Quinn, the judges should learn from Sheila Simon and think twice before jumping into the fray against the governor.
Comment by Hedley Lamarr Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:32 pm
This might be looking ahead too far, but imagine if the courts rule that the governor CAN veto (temporarily) the legislators paycheck (and the Treasurer doesn’t have to pay them anyway, etc). A proposed constitutional amendment to remove that power would be out in the open for all Illinois voters to see and would play well for Quinn to rail on during the election.
Comment by Timmeh Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:34 pm
LOL Chicago Cynic - how true is that!
Comment by Way South of I-80 Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:40 pm
I voted yes, although truthfully I could go either way on this question. While the Speaker and President have raised in their lawsuit a significant question, I also think past history reveals perhaps they protest too much. There have been ample occasions where the General Assembly has significantly cut appropriations to Constitutional Officers, the courts and the Governor’s Office itself. Did the General Assembly have the authority to do so…of course - it is part and parcel of the budget and appropriations process. Governor Quinn has taken that process one step further and used his item-veto powers as a tool of punishment for the General Assembly not taking action on pension reform. That expansion of constitutional authority is a precedent from which I would hope the Governor recedes, but to question whether or not the Governor has the authority to item-veto any line item he wishes is not debatable…I just think the framers of the 1970 Constitution, Speaker Madigan among them, never foresaw the possibility of a Governor using the authority granted him for petulant revenge.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:41 pm
No, Zorn is correct on the reasons why this needs to be challenged in court.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:43 pm
Someone with more judicial understanding help me out: should the GA override, they get the pay, should they vote & fail to override, haven’t they exercised their remedy, albeit unsuccessfully, causing the veto to stand without the appeal grounds for no remedy?
Comment by Midstate Indy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:43 pm
No. Zorn’s Absolutely spot on. To be honest what is most shameful here is that Quinn doesn’t realize the logical consequences of this action. Unless he assumes he will be the eternal Gov. of IL he should have realized by now that someday this will hurt his base as well as his party if not thrown out by courts.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:46 pm
===I know of no authority that says a “salary squeeze” to be an inappropriate tactic.===
Unless you think extorting a Co-Equal branch of government to do what you want is fine…
Other than that…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:49 pm
No, because of what word said and presidential nominee Willy.
on a side note, is it just me or does the name oswego willy remind you of the goonies…..
Comment by Ghost Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:51 pm
The court ruling will stop this type of stunt from happening again, while an override sets this up to be an annual event.
Comment by Jack Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:52 pm
No,
Because there is a constitutional and legal question I think needs to be answered and answered without a
‘we tried and failed to override’ hanging over the thing.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:55 pm
These legislators have never gone to court to get State vendors paid. Since when does anybody in Springfield deal with logic. Their first question is always where’s mine. And what do John and Mike want. Get together forget court get to work and pass reform.
Comment by Mokenavince Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:56 pm
I voted yes, I don’t think our state needs to be playing political games in the courts over silly matters that costs taxpayers money (we are funding the lawsuit on both ends).
I don’t know if it’s Constitutional or not, I guess that will now be decided in the courts, but it seems unnecessary.
Besides, wouldn’t it be more fun to block the governor’s pay by legislative power until he signs pension reform legislation? Would he veto it? I’m pretty sure the votes would be there to over-ride it.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 12:57 pm
===These legislators have never gone to court to get State vendors paid.===
State vendors … are NOT … a Co-Equal branch of the Illinois government being exrorted to do ar act in a way the other …Co-Equal … branc of government REQUIRES of the Co-Equal partner.
If the GA Overrode the Veto, then that is seen as an acceptable way to run a governemt, and it is … if you are a 3rd World, Banana Republic, swapping out “democratic” legislative bodies based on their voting record and the apporoval of the “Glorious Leader of the Revolution”…
Other than that, the General Assembly is exactly like a vendor.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:00 pm
===…I guess that will now be decided in the courts, but it seems unnecessary.===
Agreed, and let Populist Pat Quinn know to tell Governor Pat Quinn to stop playing games.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:02 pm
The Superintendents Veto, versus the GA situation we are in is not the same …
Quinn wants the GA to do something, a Co-Equal branch of government, and extoring them, telling them in no uncertain terms that PAY is only given after you, the GA, do as I want.
When the Superintendents become a Co-Equal branch of government, then they are the same in scope.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:05 pm
I voted no for the precedential reasons so adequately discussed by others. In addition, I see the legislator salary protection as an individual right in addition to an institutional right. The constitution states:
“SECTION 11. COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES
A MEMBER shall receive a salary and allowances as provided by law, but changes in the salary of A MEMBER shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” [Emphasis Added]
While you may argue that the institution can remedy the item veto with an override, the “member” cannot. There are many permutations where a leader or a sizable minority can deny the member’s right to his/her salary by not taking a vote or opposing an override motion.
The individual right requires court intervention.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:10 pm
I voted no and agree with most of the comments above about why.
Watching the DC Republicans use every dispicable tactic to thwart a twice-elected President tells me this sets a very bad precedent. I think Quinn’s move is scoring him some valuable political points that he desperately needs, and I’m kind of OK with that. But I’m partisan enough to realize that, when the shoe is on the other foot, and Governor Brady or someone is vetoing salaries pay to pass a restrictive abortion bill or to deny healthcare, and there are enough legislative supporters to make an override difficult, I’ll be mad as heck about this kind of illegal stunt.
Better to get the courts in now and get a clear ruling that prevents future Governors from even thinking about this tactic.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:11 pm
I thought Charlie Wheeler’s comments this afternoon on WUIS were tastefully well put, too.
I voted “No.”
Comment by Dirty Red Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:13 pm
This would set a legal precedent, and should go to the courts. Quinn’s veto was not a normal action and should not be treated as such. As much as I dislike what the legislature has been (not) doing, switching to authoritarian extra-legal actions to “solve” problems is a horrible path to take. The court needs to rule as to whether that is what happened.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:14 pm
===I think Quinn’s move is scoring him some valuable political points that he desperately needs, and I’m kind of OK with that.===
- 47th Ward -,
I pulled that out ONLY because you are SMART enough to realize that the Politcal aspects versus the Governmental ramifications are in such complete clonflict, that even liking the move as a political tact is something that can be seen even by someone like me who is a “No” as well.
Fantastic post showing how the conflicting views of the Political aspect, versus the Governmental ramifications stil shoulbe a “No”.
Well said.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Firm No.
Not much to add to the comments above.
Quinn needs a hard smack down here and the courts will deliver it much better than a veto will.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:17 pm
voted no-BLACKMAIL is illegal-jail time might be appropriate….
Comment by downstate commissioner Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:18 pm
This this is allowed it would set a bad precident. Any future governor could pull the same move in order to get an agenda passed, no matter what that agenda is.
Comment by MM Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:21 pm
I don’t consider it a co-equal concept, nor does it change the pay of legislators. This simply removes the appropriation from being payable. I think this.entire event is moronic, but I see the precedent of the governor of being able to line item. I dont see how it matters what, or who’s appropriation got vetoed.
Comment by Midstate Indy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:22 pm
Rich
I wonder what the results would be among the General Populace. then again maybe i don’t want to know.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:24 pm
I voted no because of the precedent. What if, in the year 2025, the then Governor and then Speaker were best buds and wanted to get legislation passed but the speaker couldn’t get enough votes? So the speaker tells the gov, just veto our salaries and I won’t call the over-ride for a vote until I have enough votes for “our” legislation. There are so many scary scenarios that the courts need to stop this now.
Comment by Casual Observer Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:25 pm
Not just no, but hell no. Zorn right, Hinz wrong.
Comment by Ray del Camino Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:33 pm
I think Gov. Quinn’s stunt is absurd and a bad precedent for democracy.
But the members of the Illinois General Assembly are completely feckless if they aren’t willing to take a vote on this.
They need to put on their big boy/big girl pants and vote to override the veto.
If they can’t do this, they are even more worthless and parasitic than I thought. And my opinion of them was really low already.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:36 pm
Thanks Willy. I’m an Illinoisan before I’m a Democrat.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:36 pm
What stops an independent from running for governor and saying, “I will veto the ILGA’s pay until they pass X, Y and Z”?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 1:38 pm
Voted no. How can I state my reasons and not sound like a broken record. To over-ride the veto is to create a precedent. A dangerous one at that. Agree with Z,H,OW,W,CC,SR,W,FW,N, & LMNOP,etc/etal.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:00 pm
Question - if the court says the Governor can’t veto legislative salary appropriations, does that mean legislators can appropriate themselves a 10 percent increase with another 10 percent for leaders and there’s nothing the Governor can do about it?
Comment by Casual Observer Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:02 pm
Casual Observer - a salary increase has to be done by substantive legislation. The governor can veto that legislation. That’s ok, because he’s not depriving them of their existing salary.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:06 pm
- Casual Observer -,
I think the point of this is that an “action”, being “required” to recieve pay is extorting one Co-Equal branch to gain something from another Co-Equal branch of our state government.
Preventing a raise on it’s own is different, be it for costs of whatever.
A raise denied until the IL Senate acts on Abortion to the way the Governor wants … is of the same cloth.
That is how I would see that. Fair?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:09 pm
That makes sense Norsemen, thanks. That shows why I should only “observe” here.
Comment by Casual Observer Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:10 pm
I voted Yes. Very selfishly I did so. I really want to see how my Rep and Senator vote on this. I think I know, but as they say “If your mother says she loves you….check it out!”
Comment by A guy... Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:16 pm
- Norseman -
That is what I get or being an “armchair lawyer”!
Make a note, the campaign needs “Counsel”, if you can get any of the “Big” ones, that would help, as you can read the Dopiness I post.
To the Post,
If the court rules in favor of Madigan and Cullerton, what exactly is the specific relief, and further, would the precedent than be set, period, or can they rule that this is a case not to be seen as setting a precedent?
Hate for the court to rule for MJM and Cullerton, but have to go through this over and over becuase of a stand-alone ruling.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:19 pm
The discussions around our founding fathers and the US Constitution I think provide important guidance.
One of the chief concerns in forming our government was fear of a leader or leaders misuing their power or position to establish themselves as a king. Taking lessons from the english system, the magan carta ect they very carefully established 3 seperate and equally powerful units of government.
The idea that one of those branches can act to cause harm to the other is they very antithesis of the founding principals of our governemnt. If it is allowed to stand then we have lost more then another solution to the pension problem.
WHat is particualry disturbing to me in this whole process is the claim it is about pension reform. Well we have(d) a solution! the Senate passed pension reform, and it looks like that bill would have passed the house. Madigan in an abuse of office refused to let that bill get voted upon. So what was the colution? Did Quinn lobby and push for the Senate bill to get a vote, did he demand that the shovel ready pension fix that had full support get voted upon… NO! Instead he refused to bring pressure onto the ready to go and supported solution, and instead used his position to direct that the parties go back to formula and write a new solution! And then, after he demands they start over instead of using the existing fix, he complains about speed and abuses his power to drive them to come up with some solution….when we already had a ready to go solution that he refused to get behind!
Where was Quinn and his salary threat when we needed somone to push the ready to go solution to a vote?
So Quinn, to avoid trying to get a real solution called for a vote pulls this stunt. And that is his idea of leadership.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:40 pm
Willy, sorry I don’t qualify. I’ve written laws but I’m not a lawyer.
It was easy to give Casual Observer an answer now because the GA abolished the Compensation Review Board. This put the process back to where the GA has to pass a substantive bill and the Governor gets an opportunity to veto or amendatory veto the bill. This would have been a little more complicated if the compensation board were still around. In fact, the case law being touted by Quinn to support his IV action, Quinn v. Donnewald, centered on the issue of the Governor lacking the ability to stop the raises under the compensation review board process. That’s when the court referenced the reduction veto process as an example of the Gov’s ability to affect the increase. Jorgensen turned that on it’s side - at least with respect to judges, when Blago IV’d the increases.
The current lawsuit will now get into the veto authority with respect to the G.A.
Of course, one of our expert real lawyers may want to add or correct my understanding of the issue.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 2:51 pm
Voted no. This is really a separation of power issue and is setting a terrible precedent. An override wouls seem to legitimize what Quinn did.
Comment by My Thoughts For Whatever Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 3:09 pm
no.
It is an attack on the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers, with a direct attack by the Executive on the Legislature. (Much more fundamental than the pension issue.)
There shouldn’t be a vote required to blow this away. It fails on its face.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 3:17 pm
I voted no. I think it violates separation of powers between the branches. I wouldn’t want to limit the future pool of potential candidates for office to those could afford to not get paid. Plus, I think it’s lazy from a leadership perspective. There are better ways to accomplish goals.
Comment by Earnest Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 3:59 pm
Voted yes.
The GA has the power to remedy the situation and are choosing not to use it. Overriding the veto is the obvious solution. As to precedent, if the fear is that strong, they have the power to change the laws so that this doesn’t come up again. They also have the power to remove the Governor from office if they feel really strongly about the situation.
I would prefer the GA to use or threaten to use the authority they’ve been given by the Constitution rather than go to the courts.
Comment by MikeMacD Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 4:02 pm
They need to vote. The court should not act when the power yo give the plaintiffs their remedy is in the plaintisd own hands. Furthermore, asking the third co-equal branch to get involved is not necessary when the legislature already possesses a remedy, but refuses to exercise it.
Comment by Northsider Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 4:10 pm
Voted no, for all the enumerated reasons. There needs to be a clear court precedent on this issue.
To all the commentators voting yes and saying the GA should just pass pension “reform”, the one “pension reform” action every agrees would be constitutional is raising the revenue to actually pay for the pensions.
There are several more chapters that could play out here. Here’s one possibility from a mind twisted by watching too much IL politics.
Since Quinn is (a) making the “full” pension fund payments which squeezes out the rest of the State budget and (b) demanding action on “pension reform”, maybe the GA should just pass a massive tax increase, call it “pension reform”, and say it was in response to Quinn’s demands. Wouldn’t be the first mis-named bill to be passed. Of course, Quinn would veto that, but the GA could say they had delivered a solution and Quinn reneged on his pledge to sign whatever the GA sent him. I can see the countercharges flying back and forth for the entire general election season.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 4:11 pm
To all the “yes” votes;
When extortion becomes part of Democracy … you don’t have … Democracy. You have a “banana republic” run by the whim of the “Glorious Leader” … if you still need the Grandstanding, then you don’t need Democracy, but sideshows.
Never override the Veto, do not give crediblity to the extortion.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 2, 13 @ 4:14 pm