* 12:30 pm - An appellate court has struck down the state’s capital construction program and all of its funding sources, claiming the legislation violated the constitution’s “Single Subject Rule.” Read the opinion by clicking here. A lawyer friend summarizes…
The unanimous court held that Public Act 96-34 (Video Poker, Capital Spending Accountability Law, Capital Projects Fund, taxes on beverages, candy, grooming and hygiene products, privatizing the Lottery, U of I study on effects of study of Lottery on families, increase in truck fees, and liquor tax increase) violated the single subject rule of the Illinois Constitution.
Public Acts 96-35 (clarifying changes to Public Act 96-34 and changes to River Edge Redevelopment Zone Act, Vehicle Code rental car provisions, an urban weatherization program, Gaming Board peace officers provisions, and CDB provisions), Public Act 96-36 (trailer bill amending Public Act 96-34), and Public Act 96-37 (appropriations for Capitol Projects) all fall since they by their terms were contingent on Public Act 96-34.
Public Act 96-38 was also nullified. That was the tax hike on candy and some trailer language on the video poker bill.
* This has to be, without a doubt, the biggest appellate court ruling on Illinois policy in decades. Everything, and I mean everything has to be redone if the capital projects are to be saved.
Oy.
* 12:42 pm - So much for that new $5 billion capital construction bond the state is about to sell. There’s no longer a funding source and the program itself is now declared unconstitutional. The Lottery privatization deal was just finalized, but that’s now out the window as well, pending appeal.
This is just unreal, campers. It’s beyond huge.
* 1:40 pm - Sun-Times…
A state appeals court Wednesday struck down Illinois’ $31 billion capital construction program, asserting that the legislation that authorized it was unconstitutional. The ruling invalidates the revenue streams for the borrowing that has funded the construction program, meaning that video poker, privatization of the lottery and higher liquor taxes are now on hold. The case was brought by W. Rockwell Wirtz, owner of the Chicago Blackhawks, and his liquor distributorship, Wirtz Beverage Illinois. The court found that the legislation that was the basis for the construction program violated the state Constitution’s single-subject requirement.
* 1:56 pm - Fox Chicago…
A spokesman for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan estimated that the ruling eliminated at least 40 percent of the funding sources devoted to the state’s giant capital construction program.
*** 2:22 pm *** From Gov. Pat Quinn’s office …
The administration intends to appeal the appellate court’s decision and to seek an immediate stay from the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Illinois Jobs Now! capital program is an important part of Governor Quinn’s plan to put Illinois back to work. Capital bill projects are putting thousands of people to work in every corner of the state, while supporting local businesses, improving our infrastructure and increasing energy efficiency.
While the administration’s request for a stay is pending with the Illinois Supreme Court, capital projects already in progress will continue as scheduled. We would expect the Supreme Court to rule on the request for a stay in the very near future.
* 12:57 pm - I meant to tell you about this earlier and forgot. Amanda Vinicky of Illinois Public Radio has the scoop…
Despite claims their nominations had expired, dozens of the Governor’s appointments to state agencies and commissions still stand.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan has sided with Governor Pat Quinn in a dispute between the administration and the Senate President’s office … a dispute that had temporarily put in limbo whether a major state agency, the State Police, still had a director.
In the ruling … Madigan says a governor’s nominations DO carry over into the next legislative session.
The Senate President had claimed 38 pending nominations … including that of the State Police Director Jonathon Monken … expired earlier this month because Senators hadn’t acted on them before adjourning. The President’s office claimed there wasn’t even the legal authority to keeping paying what it referred to as “former” nominees.
But Madigan’s opinion says the constitution is clear. And she backs it up with statements by the constitution’s authors. She says the Senate has 60 legislative days to act on nominees, and that clock carries over between Senates. After 60 days, an appointment’s automatic.
Which means the Senate’s time to act on Monken is just about up. He’s a controversial pick to head state troopers as he has no police background.
* 1:01 pm - Cullerton response…
Based on our concern that key state personnel would be making decisions and being paid with no legal authority, we alerted the Comptroller on the matter.
Our opinion was based on 40 years of precedent followed by the attorney general’s office, six prior governors, and 21 prior General Assemblies regarding executive appointments. We are assessing how this impacts the legislative process, but we will comply with the opinion.
We intend to schedule executive appointment committee hearings for each of the nominees in question when the Senate reconvenes next week.
- JN - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:36 pm:
Maybe the legislature should read the Constitution at the beginning of their sessions.
Seriously.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:37 pm:
Ruh ro.
Looks like we’re going to need some new bills passed asap to get the capital bill back on-line. A lot of work has already been done, and more projects are currently underway. Say what you want about pork, but if we don’t restart this bill with new (and legal) funding sources, a lot of people are going to be out of work tomorrow.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:41 pm:
Wow…
Wonder if this restarts the clock on everything (including the submission of names and applications for Video Gaming licenses)
Also even if the same law is passed as separate parts do the towns have to re-vote to ban?
Does this force all of video gaming standard stuff to be submitted for rebid.
It would be interesting if they used a different model for machine ownership
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:41 pm:
Hope we haven’t spent the check on privatizing the lottery yet.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:41 pm:
===Does this force all of video gaming standard stuff to be submitted for rebid.===
Pending a stay, there is no video gaming right now.
- Patrick McDonough - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:42 pm:
Oh darn, Harry Osterman is leaving another mess for someone else to clean up again. :0
- Irish - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
One bit of bright news - at least a third of the checks and balance system is working.
I guess we really can’t blame the other States for poking fun - I mean if it walks like a Keystone Cop…………………..
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
Even with a stay what are the odds anyone puts dollar 1 into machine deployment until the high court address it?
Also why do I suspect right now there are guys all over the state saying the same thing
“Call the lobbyist”
- Observing - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:59 pm:
The legislature has known about the same subject rule for years. There were statutes struck by the courts in the mid 90s.
- amalia - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
ugh. Single Subject. Again? and this time it’s about real money. you’d think the lawyers could their part right in the trio of lawyers, guns and money.
- Cassiopeia - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
There seems to be no end to the ongoing soap opera that is Illinois politics. There are a lot of ongoing work by well-meaning people that is now thrown into total disarray because our political leaders can’t seem to get things straight.
And we wonder why the citizens do not hold the political class in very high regard.
- Jo - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:02 pm:
So what… they just pass all the bills again one at a time instead of all in one.
They can do this in a couple of weeks.
Um…. theoretically.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:04 pm:
===So what… they just pass all the bills again one at a time instead of all in one.===
Yeah, OK. Pass tax hikes after passing the income tax hike? And, keep in mind that the House is a whole lot different since the election. This really puts the GOPs in a trick bag, especially since video poker was their idea.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:07 pm:
Here’s a tip that might move this forward: take the 65,000 video poker machines and instead divvy up 65,000 new gaming positions among the existing casinos and let tracks in on the fun by letting them have slots. We could bid the extra gaming positions too, generating some up front money.
Then, once and for all, stop all attempts to add more casinons in Illinois.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:08 pm:
Jo
I would think a separate vote on video poker might be tough. Also there are at least 25 new legislators who have different ideas on where their candy money should be spent in their district.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:11 pm:
Also folks may want to try and tweak everything. Be it the ownership of gaming machines to revenue splits (remember the whole ‘if you ban machines you shouldn’t get capital money’ thing.
- Jo - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:13 pm:
Yea, that’s why I said “Um… theoretically”
I think what this does do is allow for a thoughtful replacement of video poker in the bill. TC is going to have to get his caucus in line and be grown-ups on this one.
- Wondering... - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:13 pm:
“Can’t anybody here play this game?”
- Jo - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:16 pm:
I just noticed -
They left PA 96-39 untouched.
That was a pure appropriations bill, I believe. I think a lot of that stuff has been bonded, and the money flowing, so I guess those projects don’t stop. The GA might have to find a way to back fill those bond funds that they are drawing from, though, in order to keep those projects going.
That might be the compromise.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:18 pm:
Any idea what the conditions are on the bonds that have been sold for this already (if there are any) is non having video gaming an issue on these bonds?
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:19 pm:
The Appellate Court is have quite a week. I’m sure the State Supreme Court will rule on this as well. Could it be overturned?
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:21 pm:
Here’s the rub. We’ve issued bonds based on the revenue streams that were just taken off the table. Those bond holders just sat up real quick.
Expect those bond rating agencies to revisit putting us on a “stable” outlook.
- Chicago Bars - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:22 pm:
I think Rocky Wirtz’s lawyers just had an even better year than his Blackhawks.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:26 pm:
Jo, PA 96-39 included this language: “If and only if Senate Bill 1197 of the 96th General Assembly becomes law…”
SB1197 was successfully vetoed.
- WRMNpolitics - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:29 pm:
The ability of the court to declare these laws unconstitutional shows how inept and sloppy the Governor and legislature are in crafting and passing legislation. The potential of a “do over” and the inability of the state to borrow for capital expenditures will mean that scores of construction workers face the prospect of another construction season without work as our infrastructure continues to crumble.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:34 pm:
=== Here’s the rub. We’ve issued bonds based on the revenue streams that were just taken off the table. Those bond holders just sat up real quick. ==
Would be interesting to see the terms and prospectus on those bonds who would I file a FOIA with for that.
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:35 pm:
OneMan-
Governor’s OMB I would imagine.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:36 pm:
All the lobbyists get a do-over!
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:38 pm:
Quite true, YDD. I was just wondering whom I should call about a blog ad. lol
- ok - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:39 pm:
All your laws are belong to us!
- Been There - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:45 pm:
==I was just wondering whom I should call about a blog ad. lol===
I would start with the road builders and then the unions
- just sayin' - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:48 pm:
Wow, Tom Cross just can’t win. Lately he pretends to be against tax hikes, then gets called out for having no plan of his own.
Now we find out the tax increase he pushed through with Blago is unconstitutional.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:49 pm:
===pushed through with Blago===
Quinn.
- umm - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
Looks like Cullerton’s lawyer is having a BAD week!
- Bit out there - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:54 pm:
“Any idea what the conditions are on the bonds that have been sold for this already (if there are any) is non having video gaming an issue on these bonds?” Someone very smart once told me: “If it is not G.O. stay away”
- Just Because - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:01 pm:
I for one am glad this happen. It’s about time the legislators took their job seriously. This just shows me that they think they can do whatever they want and get away with it. A large number of them are lawyers. This is no little error.
- Secret Square - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:02 pm:
I guess all the chickens of state government decided to come home to roost at once!
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:14 pm:
Cullerton’s lawyer has rather thin experience for such an important position. But then he still insists eveyyone else is wtong lol.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:19 pm:
There are certainly more Public Acts out there that could be struck because of the single subject requirement. All it takes is someone with standing, and cash, to bring suit. It’s hard to believe that these bills were not vetted by staff yet moved forward with full knowledge that the single subject requirement was being violated. But lawmakers are elected to make laws, and by gosh, that’s just what they’ll do.
- amalia - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:20 pm:
who is Cullerton’s lawyer?
- Doug Dobmeyer - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:20 pm:
This is wonderful news! Throwing out the video poker is a godsend to the people of Illinois - perhaps this will be a major brick in getting Illinois off of the gambling jag.
U can all thank the efforts that have been made to reverse the negative politics of this state.
Doug Dobmeyer
- Bruno Behrend - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:26 pm:
Wonderful opportunity to defease all the bonds that have been issued, stop the issuance of any more, and cut the capitOl bill back to necessary projects (bridge repair?) only.
Let the taxpayers recover before another “Bilk Illinois” or “Illinois Fist” pork-fest.
CaptitOl Bill. It’s Republican for “Tax increase”
- GA Watcher - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:26 pm:
To the contrary, Doug Dobmeyer. This ruling probably gives Lou Lang’s casino/racino expansion ideas new life.
- Big D - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:34 pm:
- Anonymous @ 2:14 pm: “Cullerton’s lawyer has rather thin experience for such an important position. But then he still insists eveyyone (sic) else is wtong (sic) lol.”
I disagree…Cullerton’s lawyer is a very experienced attorney who has a strong grasp of the Constitution.
The legislation in question was vetted by the House GOP lawyers, the House DEM lawyers, and the Senate GOP lawyers. None of these lawyer brought up the potential “single subject” violation. If we were to follow your logic, then all of these lawyers have “thin experience” since they didn’t catch the single subject violation, which is definitely not the case.
- Jasper - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:38 pm:
And now the important questions: Who put those judges on the bench, and who REALLY is paying those lawyers?
Since, as we learned yesterday, judges only act at the behest of their political overlords, and who pays an attorney’s bill makes a huge difference.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:39 pm:
When the dust settles we might be able to reform those antiquated liquor laws.
Removing this useless layer of commerce could be an opportunity to create a tax for the state which would be equivalent of the distributor’s markup. The end user would not see a change, but large new revenues would become available to the state
- Lady GaGa - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:43 pm:
When will the Good Ole Boys get it right. We need more women in leadership to prevent this kind of stuff from happening in the future.
- Jasper - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:44 pm:
THIS IS A FIRST DISTRICT CASE! Couldn’t open the document at first.
Why does Alderman Burke hate road construction?
- Because I say so - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:46 pm:
=To the contrary, Doug Dobmeyer. This ruling probably gives Lou Lang’s casino/racino expansion ideas new life.=
I don’t think this will be referred to as Lou Lang’s bill in the future.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:48 pm:
I read the Opinion.
What a mess!
How in the world did this ever get passed?
It obviously is unconstitutional.
Is this how it is going to be with the GA? We have reached a point where no one realizes that a bill this ridiculously diverse and full of lame crap is unconstitutional?
Are there any lawyers over there?
Do you see why there is a battle over transparency? This horrible bill would not pass a student congress, let alone a body of professionals.
This is a fiasco because we got a bunch of people under the Dome that think they can do whatever they want if they keep enough citizens locked out of decision making.
Recall the ones who voted this piece of crap into law.
If these people were chefs, we would all have food poisoning.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:52 pm:
===None of these lawyer brought up the potential “single subject” violation.===
They knew about it and rolled the dice. I remember asking one of them how it was possible to wrap all this together. He said it happens all the time but since somebody would have to sue and spend a bunch on attorney fees laws like this usually stand. So they bet nobody with deep pockets would sue (and even if they did the they might still win in court). So they lost their bet when Rocky stepped up.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:57 pm:
About ten years of practice is very experienced?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:59 pm:
Big D, we were talking about the appointment issue, not single subject. Thanks for pointing out the typos.
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:02 pm:
And so Illinois’ strict single subject rule rears it’s head again.
Is this another thing that could have been fixed with a constitutional convention?
- Big D - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:04 pm:
Anonymous @ 2:59 pm, my bad. I thought you were referring to the single subject violation.
- Hon. John Fritchey - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:06 pm:
Um, have to say that I brought up the single-subject issue with respect to this legislation at the time and was rebuffed. (Just one of the reasons for my Present vote) Over the years, there was a growing mindset that single-subject was more of an abstract concept than a practical one. This was hardly the only law passed by the GA that would likely not withstand court scrutiny based upon lack of single-subject compliance.
- Ryan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:07 pm:
It seems that the focus of the IL Supreme Court, has been all on the Dem side. The Capital Works program was supported by the GOP correct?
- Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:08 pm:
Once again, we need a constitutional convention. But the special interests who feed off the public sector blocked it. Now they get an object lesson in the inadequacies of both our constitution and our politicians, while the rest of us get to sit in traffic.
- Big D - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:10 pm:
hisgirlfriday, yes, a Con-Con could do away with the single subject rule of the Illinois Constitution, but that would be ill-advised since it will make it far easier to hide things in proposed bills, similar to how it happens in Congress.
The single subject rule ensures that lawmakers are not forced to vote on something as important as gun regulation on a bill dealing with school funding or income taxes since these subject are unrelated.
Repealing the single subject rule could result in numerous hundred page bills dealing with any topic under the sun (criminal law, gaming, revenue, state government, education, etc.).
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:11 pm:
John is exactly right. If every law was genuinely subject to strict single subject scrutiny, an enormous number of bills would fail.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:15 pm:
Big D is correct. But, with a ConCon, it’s something that could actually have been strengthened.
- Big D - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:21 pm:
I am amazed at the speed with which everybody (media, pundits, residents) has been attacking State law (election statute re: Rahm Emanuel) and now even the State Constitution (re: single subject rule) when they do not like the outcome.
We have perfectly good laws and a good Constitution in this State that work just fine (and also make sense). Just because we are not happy with the result or outcome in a specific case does not mean that we should repeal our entire system of jurisprudence.
People who are implying that we should repeal the “single subject” rule will be back on this blog arguing that we should re-enact the “single subject” rule after a bill is passed that is contrary to their interests.
I can hear the arguments now: “how dare the GA bury a provision that [add position here - ie, bans assault weapons, raises taxes, abolishes the death penalty] in a 700 page bill that deals with Medicaid reform”. The single subject rule prevents against this.
- anon - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:23 pm:
i wish that the courts would strike down the ethics law so that people could talk to IDOT and the tollway again. seriously, what is going on at these agencies? How can they make reasoned decisions when they refuse to meet with or talk to the engineering firms bidding the work.
this whole situation is not bleeping golden.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:27 pm:
===a good Constitution in this State that work just fine===
Not.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:29 pm:
== We have perfectly good laws and a good Constitution in this State that work just fine (and also make sense). Just because we are not happy with the result or outcome in a specific case does not mean that we should repeal our entire system of jurisprudence. ==
Yes an election law that boots people off of the ballot because they use staples instead of paperclips works just fine.
Election law that has some of the toughest ballot access rules in the nation ‘works’
An elected judiciary where candidates change their names to improve their chances to get elected ‘works’
A government pension system that lets someone collect a huge pension from the government then work for the government via a temp firm for an extra 100K a year ‘works’
A system that lets the state get away with not paying folks for month (or even years) ‘works’
Sorry have to disagree with you
- Langhorne - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:30 pm:
uh-oh, spaghettio’s. what a week, and its only wednesday: rahm and the supremes; unconstitutional bill containing, um, almost everything–video poker, lottery privatization, taxes, fees; etc., etc. with several of those items already underway. how will jack franks get any followup pub on his pension proposals?
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:35 pm:
Our state constitution could be termed the “Mala Carta”. It is designed to empower government and ever level and disempower people. Think your vote matters when you show up on election day? Not with our ballot engineering laws and the fact that most legislative seats change hands NOT during an election, but during a party slating meeting.
Want me to count up the “void where prohibited by law” clauses in the state constitution?
- Duck Duck Goose - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:38 pm:
I’ve read the opinion a few times now, and I don’t see where the court invalidated P.A. 96-36 as reported in this story. That P.A. contained the bonding for the capital bill, but nothing is explicitly contingent on the passage of 96-34.
The court invalidated P.A. 96-34 (the video gamin/omnibus revenue bill), 96-35 (approp. bill), 96-37 (Capitol BIMP), and 96-38 (trailer bill). As far as I can tell, it left the bonding bill alone.
- erin 17 - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:43 pm:
the original tort reform bill in 1995 was struck down in part because of a violation of the single subject rule. the original sexual predator notification act was joined with LUST fund legislation and was found to be in violation as was the original truth in sentencing statute. this is not a new concept folks. For the record John Cullerton’s lawyer is one of the sharpest guys in the building regardless of the appointments issue.
- Jaded - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:50 pm:
I said a week ago that Cullerton and company were wrong on this issue, but I thought I read that Quinn re-appointed everybody that had an expired term including Monken (please correct me if I am wrong). If he did, then that starts the new 60 day clock, and the Senate can continue sitting on Monken (if they want).
- irisheyesrsmilin' - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:52 pm:
OneMan: I totally agree.
ladyGaGa: Absolutely.
- umm - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:53 pm:
== For the record John Cullerton’s lawyer is one of the sharpest guys in the building regardless of the appointments issue. ==
Absolutely agree!
- Walter Sobchak - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:53 pm:
I would hope this allows the legislature to redo the lottery privatization issue in a way that doesn’t allow an acting Superintendent and her staff to hijack the process to give the contract to their existing vendors. It’s obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of what went on that what went on did not serve the intent of the legislation nor the interests of the state of Illinois.
- BW - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:53 pm:
Feel bad for everyone that had an executed grant agreement from DCEO for a project that has no funding now.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:04 pm:
erin 17, agreed, but where this opinion goes goofy is when it claims that everything is supposedly connected to “revenue.” No, it’s all interconnected via the capital program. It truly is a willful ignorance of what the legislation is actually about.
- Walter Sobchak - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:09 pm:
Eric Madier is the kind of lawyer that most lawyers would want to be. He cares deeply about the law, about our state, and, most importantly, he always thinks about how best to use government in an ethical and caring manner to deal with the almost insoluble problems that face us. He represents the best of Illinois and will probably be Governor one day
- Fan of Cap Fax - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:26 pm:
Oh, Walter Sobchak, I hope and pray that one day Eric Madair would be Gov. He is an outstanding lawyer and individual.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:26 pm:
Rocky’s on a roll, I guess, what with the Blackhawks, and now this. The Wirtz’s clout in this state has been huge, if somewhat sub rosa, for decades.
Ask Mike McCaskey how it turned out when he went behind the Wirtz’s back and tried to get his own domed stadium at McCormick Place, after he had agreed to go in with them on a sports complex on the West Side.
Dollar Bill unleashed his lobsters on Springfield and had the United Center in a couple of years. McCaskey had to wait forever before finally getting his spaceship landed in Soldier Field.
This victory might be pyrrhic — inconveniencing too many people and a little too greedy, perhaps, when you depend on the state’s good graces for a virtual monopoly on a lot of booze sales.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:41 pm:
#
–Would be interesting to see the terms and prospectus on those bonds who would I file a FOIA with for that.–
You don’t need an FOIA request. The POS and OS have been out there, passed out to anyone who wanted to buy.
It might be somewhere on the Internet — whether from a state or investment source — if you hit the right search words.
The Bond Buyer archives preliminary offering and official statements, but that’ll cost you.
If you find them, look to see if there’s a little layer of “security” from the state if the proscribed revenue sources come up short. If so, there’s your story.
- Publius - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:46 pm:
There’s some sort of red thing at the top of the page. Is that new to the site Rich? Gave me a headache at first.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:48 pm:
Over the years, there was a growing mindset that single-subject was more of an abstract concept than a practical one.
I believe that. Courts have been rather liberal regarding enforcement. But it is just bad law and a bad precedent that has now caught us in a very bad situation.
I also believe you when you refer to other laws similar to this one waiting to be knocked off in the right court.
Sadly, I am not surprised by the lax concern over this issue previously, but am surprised that you could be rebuffed when mentioning it. The issues are important enough to have been legislated correctly. I am surprised that one of the many lawyers among the many staffs couldn’t have flagged this.
Honestly, this is just plain embarrassing because it is so just plain sloppy.
Abstract no more.
- bdogg - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:49 pm:
now we can legalize marijuana and tax it instead. their lobby/legal strategy won’t be near as organized as the legal drug pushers
- amalia - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:52 pm:
again, who is Cullerton’s lawyer? especially since some are praiseful.
bdogg is right…time to legalize and tax.
and another SC decision, non decision, so let’s appellate court decision stand….start tearing up the land near O’Hare, Rosie!
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:55 pm:
I hope folks are also realizing that this means an open season on all the other laws passed previously that could be found unconstitutional.
Someone get a team together and start reviewing our laws and start correcting the ones that will not past muster under our state constitution.
This could be even bigger.
It is kind of like a legislative recall for all the work done under the Dome to catch future unravelling.
Sloppy. So preventable. So utterly sloppy!
- never thought I'd say this, but - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:56 pm:
I find myself longing for the days when the Governor would wreak havoc on anybody who threw a monkey wrench this big into a project this important. Does anybody really think Governor Quinn will take revenge on Wirtz for this?
- Thoughts... - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:00 pm:
I’m just impressed with Rich’s Breaking News banner. Is that new or have I simply missed it before?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:06 pm:
VMan, get real. Single-subject court challenges are as old as the state constitution. Obvious — in layman’s terms — single-subject laws have been found to be constitutional again and again.
This ruling is big news because it’s an aberration out of left field.
Everyone’s dumb and sloppy but you? Get over yourself.
- Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:10 pm:
{I was just wondering whom I should call about a blog ad. lol}
The Cook County Assessor of course! Maybe when they pass the video poker bill the second time around, they will eliminate all together the ability of municipalities to opt out.
- Paging Steve Schnorf - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:17 pm:
So what happens to projects that have already been started/completed? And what happens to funds that have been distributed but not yet spent?
- Been There - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:28 pm:
===Someone get a team together and start reviewing our laws and start correcting the ones that will not past muster under our state constitution.===
As I said earlier, the GA knew this violated the single subject provision but rolled the dice. And lost. But it took lots of attorney fees to get this done. VM your “team” is going to want to be paid.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:30 pm:
===So utterly sloppy.===
Agreed VM. But one reason few share your outrage is because this sloppy legislation is almost always the result of bi-partisan negotiations. Since both parties are complicit, neither makes it an issue.
It’s also how things get done. But yes, in this case especially, it was sloppy. But that doesn’t mean it will be found unconstitutional though, so don’t get your hopes up too high.
- Honest Abe - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:35 pm:
Take a number, Pat! Rahm is standing ahead of you in the line outside of the Supreme Court.
- Richard - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 6:47 pm:
I was wondering. How was the United Center funded?
My money?
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 6:55 pm:
Paging, I’m too lazily retired to do any research, but it is my recollection that most of the bonding authorized for the new capital program was GO, in which case the buyers of the bonds already sold won’t lose much sleep.
As to the projects, it will take them a while to decide but I would GUESS that the administration will freeze everything until they get this sorted out.
- Richard - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 6:57 pm:
$10,000,000.00
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 7:28 pm:
–I was wondering. How was the United Center funded?
My money?–
Since your handle is Richard, I’m guessing you’re not the ghost of Bill Wirtz or Jerry Reinsdor. So, no, not your money.
I believe there were minor eminent domain and egress/ingress issues that required government assistance, but no real heavy lifting. Not like Soldier Field or new Cominskey.
- sylvia - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 7:40 pm:
Comparing a circus with Illinois government is inaccurate.A circus operation looks chaotic, but is highly coordinated,with everyone knowing their job function and their place in the total program….Illinois government has the chaotic element down pat.The rest they’re hopefully working on
- little mushroom - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 7:42 pm:
Well at least the drinks will be cheaper for those sitting in the penalty box.
- Richard - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 8:19 pm:
Somehow I got the impression that it cost taxpayers about 10 million. Why should taxpayers help fund these projects? I am sure most of us wouldn’t. I have no interest in hockey or basketball but that is irrelevant anyways.
- anonyMiss - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 8:22 pm:
“- Jaded - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:50 pm:
I said a week ago that Cullerton and company were wrong on this issue, but I thought I read that Quinn re-appointed everybody that had an expired term including Monken (please correct me if I am wrong). If he did, then that starts the new 60 day clock, and the Senate can continue sitting on Monken (if they want). ”
I believe he named them as “temporary” so they could continue to be paid.
- BF - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 8:46 pm:
If there is anything for Pat to be happy about in all of this, it is that this decision did not come down before Nov. 2nd.
- Living In Oklahoma - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 9:18 pm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTRxXvQY0s
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 9:23 pm:
Incompetence abounds and astounds.
- downstate hack - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:25 am:
Well at least the drinks will be cheaper for those sitting in the penalty box.
Do you really think Wirtz will pass on the savings to retailers and consumer? Highly unlikely
- Procurement Reporting Woes - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 7:34 am:
anon @ 3:23 IDOT concern is not from ethics legislation, but from the procurement oversight and reporting that resulted from Senate Bill 51. Every conversation (phone, meeting, e-mail) that may impact a procurement of any kind must be reported in an on-line reporting system. That may take up to 30 minutes of reporting for a 5 minute conversation. If the conversation is with a lobbyist, the lobbyist must submit a written report that is attached to the online report.
Like CDB, it has resulted in lots of time on-line doing the reporting.
- Richard - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:16 pm:
Was looking at the law—
“3. Rule requires only that all the provisions relate to a single subject, not that individual provisions “be related to each other.”
Doesn’t all the tentacles of the bill point back to funding construction?
- Richard - Thursday, Jan 27, 11 @ 8:17 pm:
Sorry—”of the law”.