* As you already know, the Illinois Supreme Court will issue a ruling today at 9 o’clock about the constitutionality of the capital construction bill. The Tribune has a good primer you can read while you wait…
The Illinois Supreme Court is expected to decide today the constitutionality of Gov. Pat Quinn’s showcase $31 billion public works program, with an adverse ruling likely to throw a state in financial turmoil into even deeper disarray.
Sinking in billions of dollars in red ink despite adopting a massive income-tax increase, Illinois government could face a tumultuous time resurrecting a funding scheme to pay for the “Illinois Jobs Now” program, begun in 2009 to help build the state out of the recession. […]
The state has borrowed roughly $4 billion to get the construction projects started, said Kelly Kraft, a spokeswoman for Quinn’s budget office. Kraft said $1.3 billion of that is left to spend.
Since the construction program began, the state has raked in more than $640 million from the increases in driver fees and additional taxes, according to documents on the state treasurer’s website.
Check the Supreme Court’s website both here and here. Their Twitter feed is here.
This post will be updated with the ruling.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The decision is here. They reversed the appellate court and upheld the law.
From the opinion…
The appellate court held that the single subject of Public Act 96–34 was revenue, based on its official title, “An Act concerning revenue.” However, defendants assert before this court that the single subject of Public Act 96–34 is capital projects. Defendants are not limited solely to the contents of the title of an act in offering a single subject rationale. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d at 109-10; see also Olender, 222 Ill. 2d at 140. Moreover, capital projects is a legitimate single subject, one which is not “so broad that the rule is evaded as ‘a meaningful constitutional check on the legislature’s actions.’ ”
Having determined that the subject of capital projects is legitimate, we must examine the provisions in Public Act 96–34 to discern whether they have a “natural and logical connection” to that subject. Sypien, 198 Ill. 2d at 338-39. In doing so, we find that the substantive provisions in Public Act 96–34 clearly are connected to capital projects in that they establish increased revenue sources to be deposited into the Capital Projects Fund. The few provisions that do not directly raise revenue are still related to the overall subject of the Act in that they help to implement the other provisions.
More…
According to plaintiffs, even assuming that the single subject of Public Act 96–34 is capital projects, several provisions in the Act bear no relation to that subject because they have the effect of allocating money to the General Revenue Fund rather than to the Capital Projects Fund. We do not find plaintiffs’ argument persuasive.
* The Court gave some examples of “real” violations of the Single Subject clause, including…
Finally, in Johnson v. Edgar, 176 Ill. 2d 499, 517 (1997), the enactment was held to be an “egregious example of the legislature
ignoring the single subject rule.” What started as an 8-page bill became a 200-page bill, encompassing such diverse topics as child sex offenders, employer eavesdropping, and environmental impact fees imposed on the sale of fuel. Rejecting the State’s suggestion that the subject of the bill was “public safety,” we held, “[w]ere we to conclude that the many obviously discordant provisions *** are nonetheless related because of a tortured connection to a vague notion of public safety, we would be essentially eliminating the single subject rule as a meaningful constitutional check on the legislature’s actions.”
And then concluded…
In contrast to the cases described above, there are no “smoking gun” provisions in Public Act 96–34 which clearly violate the intent and purpose of the single subject rule. On the Act’s face, all of the provisions have a natural and logical connection to the single subject
of capital projects.
Furthermore, a review of the extensive legislative debate preceding the enactment of Public Act 96–34 supports our conclusion that the Act does not violate the single subject clause. […]
In the debate on Public Act 96–34, although a few legislators remarked that they disliked some of the revenue sources, particularly video gaming, they also commented that the bill was reached through compromise and with the goals of putting people back to work and improving the state’s infrastructure. We interpret these remarks as legitimate compromise on a bill which comprised a single subject. Indeed, there is a difference between impermissible logrolling and the normal compromise which is inherent in the legislative process.
* The opponents also contended that the capital budget implementation bill was unconstitutional. Not so, say the Supremes…
Plaintiffs contend that Public Act 96–37 “creates entirely new acts, launches wholly new programs, and initiates laws that have nothing to do with implementation of the State budget.” However, there is no authority to support the proposition that a budget implementation bill may only makes changes to existing programs and may not create new programs. After much consideration, we find that all of the provisions in Public Act 96–37 bear a natural and logical connection to the single subject of implementation of the state’s capital budget.
* From Senate President John Cullerton’s office…
“The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the construction program affirms the bipartisan work done by the General Assembly. This ruling serves as a reminder of just how important the 2009 jobs program was and what the General Assembly can accomplish when politics is set aside and people participate.”
* The opinion knocked down every single objection brought by the plaintiffs, including this one…
In addition to previously existing taxes, the provision adds a new tax of 4.6 cents per gallon on distributors of beer, 66 cents per gallon on distributors of wine, and $4.05 per gallon on distributors of spirits. In count III of their complaint, plaintiffs contend that there is “no expressed or sustainable rationale whatsoever for the huge difference in the gallonage taxes as between the categories of beer, wine and spirits” and, therefore, the tax increases in article 900, section 945, violate the uniformity clause. We disagree.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that the percentage of alcohol is higher by volume in wine than in beer, and higher in spirits than in both beer and wine. It is well established that higher taxes may be constitutionally imposed on alcoholic beverages that have a higher alcohol content, based on the rationale that beverages with a higher alcohol content contribute to various societal ills and higher taxes on those beverages promotes temperance.
So much for Rocky Wirtz’s real reason for challenging the capital bill.
* News coverage so far…
* Sun-Times: Supreme Court upholds state construction bill funded by video poker
* Daily Herald: Illinois Supreme Court upholds video gaming
* Tribune: Illinois Supreme Court upholds construction plan, video poker law
*** UPDATE 2 *** The governor’s press conference this morning will be broadcast live on the Internet. It was supposed to start at 10, but it’s been delayed. Click here to watch or listen.
- just sayin' - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:02 am:
I thought the general assembly was already addressing this “single issue” problem when they went back for a half a day session a couple of weeks ago. Obviously I’m missing something. Someone please help me out.
- wndycty - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:06 am:
The Supremes have sung a tune favorable to Governor Quinn:
SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Supreme Court today gave a thumbs up to Gov. Pat Quinn’s showcase $31 billion public works program and the video poker that’s supposed to help pay for it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-illinois-supreme-court-ruling-video-poker-construction-plan-20110711,0,207774.story
- Small Town Liberal - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:12 am:
Thank goodness, I was getting worried cigs were going to be going up $1 a pack in the near future.
- OneMan - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:13 am:
Wow…
So now we begin the video gaming rush…..
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:13 am:
Sad day for the Lottery
- Liandro - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:16 am:
Most of the arguments I’ve seen, including many from the Attorney General’s office, are focused much more on how critically important this bill is, and how devastating undoing it would be, than on its actual legality. My question is how much did that play a role in the Supreme Court’s decision?
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:28 am:
Wow! The Supremes totally repudiate VanillaMan.
Who could forget his lengthy and repeated bloglectures on the legal and constitutional shortcomings of the capital bill to clearly doomed it.
There are about four pages worth but here’s a sample in case you forgot. Let’s hope his day job isn’t providing legal analysis to the Quinn administration.
(VM, I do enjoy the clever lyrics.)
- 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.
- Jim - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:31 am:
The court simply ignored the one-subject rule because the Legislature refuses to follow it and it’s too messy to enforce it. A reasonable provision in the Illinois Constitution that was designed to eliminate legislative mischief-making has been eviscerated. I can’t imagine an appellate court ever invoking single-subject again.
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:33 am:
Wow..The Tribbies will really be upset now.
Sux to be them.
And, more importantly some more people can go to work.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:35 am:
Jim, your blinders are showing. Read the opinion again. It’s pretty darned clear, and the law is a whole lot different than others which have been struck down. This was yet one more case of appellate court overreach.
- Jim - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:44 am:
I think I see fine. The high court basically concluded that it’s too much trouble to unwind all this nonsense so we’ll ignore the one-subject rule.
Further, quoting a few comment from the legislative debate as grounds for proving the difference between logrolling and compromise is hardly credible. Since when does one person’s comments or even a handful of persons’ comments automatically reflect the policy of the state of Illinois. You could pick and choose anything in the floor debate to justify all kinds of silly conclusions if that approach was legitimate.
This was a political decision, not a legal decision.
Further, of course the court is going to make distinctions that justify its decision. But those politically driven distinctions matter and now are precedent. what appellate court judge would go the other way not on one-subject?
I must admit to some surprise that this was 7-0. But this law was a collaboration between Dems and GOP in the legislature. Consequently, the court’s ruling also is a political collaboration between courts’ Dems and GOP.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:47 am:
===I think I see fine===
No, you really don’t. If you can’t see the difference between this bill and the three bills that were struck down and referenced in the opinion, then you’re just flat-out blind, man.
Also, they didn’t cherry pick the debate. That debate was pretty much all positive.
And the fact that it was 7-0 should clue you in on your very real sight problems. It’s pretty hard to get unanimity on such a grand conspiracy as you suggest. Like the Emanuel decision, this was simply a crazy ruling by an appellate court.
- Small Town Liberal - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:48 am:
- The high court basically concluded that it’s too much trouble to unwind all this nonsense so we’ll ignore the one-subject rule. -
Did you even read this example of a real violation:
“What started as an 8-page bill became a 200-page bill, encompassing such diverse topics as child sex offenders, employer eavesdropping, and environmental impact fees imposed on the sale of fuel.”
So they could unwind that one but not the capital bill? Yeah, your seeing 20-20 there, pal.
- Small Town Liberal - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:49 am:
*you’re not your. I really hate messing that one up.
- Back to Work Illinois - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:50 am:
Today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s 2009 capital plan and its funding plan will help put Illinois workers back to work, implement critical infrastructure projects and generate new revenues for local municipalities. Moving forward, it is imperative local municipalities take advantage of all revenue plans, like the Video Gaming Act, to ensure the capital bill is fully implemented. To learn more about the capital plan and its impact, please visit www.Backtoworkillinois.com.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:53 am:
Also, Jim, you predicted that the Democrats on the Supreme Court would ride to Emanuel’s rescue. That was unanimous as well. You’re not exactly an astute court watcher.
- Jim - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:02 am:
Interesting research there Rich.
As I recall it, the Supreme Court reinstated Rahm’s candidacy. Indeed, I think he’s the mayor of Chicago, right now. Just because the GOP joined the Dems doesn’t mean it was wrong. The supreme court reversed teh appellate court and put him on the ballot.
But I’ll concede I’m not right on everything, like Rich is. Otherwise, he’d resurrect his previous predictions and reveal those that are shaky. Since he hasn’t done that, obviously there haven’t been any
With respect to the 200-page sex offender bill comment, did that involve taxes that had been collected for two years and would have to be refunded or a a bipartisan spending plan for jobs all across the state in the middle of a crushing recession/weak recovery or just striking down legislation?
I’m surprised a couple of the posters get so personal. If you don’t agree with me, you’re blind?
Wow, that’s quite a charge. I’ll stand by my comments, as varied as they are. Just put them under the single category of “capital projects.”
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:08 am:
===Just because the GOP joined the Dems===
Actually, a Republican wrote the opinion.
===If you don’t agree with me, you’re blind?===
When you declare that the Illinois Supreme Court is engaged in a massive conspiracy to overlook the laws of the land, it deserves a sharp response.
- OneMan - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:16 am:
Is the Rahm eligibility going to become the Goodwin’s law of Illinois political discussion?
- radio guy - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:32 am:
Does this mean Rocky’s going to move the Blackhawks to NW Indiana?
- just sayin' - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:47 am:
I still have the same question I asked at the beginning of this thread. When they went back to Springfield for a special half day session a couple or three weeks ago, wasn’t that to address the concerns raised by this lawsuit? Or was that about something else? I suppose I could read the supremes’ decision, but I’m hoping some smart person on here can explain instead.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:51 am:
Obviously, JS, it was about something else. They came back to deal with this year’s reappropriation of capital projects.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:52 am:
Just sayin,
That action was something else, unrelated to the court decision. In late May, the GA adjourned without resolving a difference between the House and Senate that jeopardized the current capital budget. The Senate receded from its own amendment prior to the July 1st deadline and the issue was resolved.
- Jim - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:55 am:
Gee, don’t recall alleging any massive conspiracy. If that’s in there, my only defense is that my blindness let me down.
I sure would hate to be a straw man anywhere in the vicinity of Rich.
My suggestion is that they have agreed, en masse, to so broadly construe the single subject rule as to make it almost meaningless.
And that’s too bad because the single-subject rule is a good thing to have as a check on legislative power, particularly in a state as notoriously corrupt as Illinois.
One more thing re the legislative debate, which Rich finds persuasive. I hole to the view that hte statute should be judged solely by the language contained in it.
But given Rich’s view that legislative debate somehow should be used as a guide to the statute’s meaning, let me ask if House members are bound by the debate comments of members of the Senate.
Are legislators who are in their offices, their bathrooms or out soliciting bribes from lobbyists bound by a legislator’s floor comments.
Are those who simply not paying attention to comments from the floor bound by what is said simply because they chose not to respond and rebut a legislator’s comments.
Is silence assent?
I don’t think the argument that legislative debate is meaningful in terms of statutory interpretation holds water. The court was simply picking and choosing to shore up its argument.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:58 am:
I think it is the case that some on here simply do not understand the “single subject” provision in the state Constitution. As long as things are reasonably related in fits within the definition. The “single subject” clause is there to prevent the kinds of things the state Supreme Court has previously struck down, as well as the monster bills the federal Congress comes up with.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:02 am:
Jim,
You can hold to that view all you want but in reality legislative debate is often cited in Supreme opinions for purposes of determining intent.
Perhaps you and Nancy Grace could continue your moot court debate on the failures of the American judiciary elsewhere.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:03 am:
Jim,
Stop being so dense. Courts look to legislative intent all the time, which includes looking at debate. Apparently you have never done any research or taken any classes on how courts decide cases.
Your other arguments about legislator comments are sheer nonsense.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:05 am:
Now that the Illinois Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on this matter, does this decision give Quinn the opportunity to veto or issue an AV on the current gaming legislation?
- Loop Lady - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:06 am:
great news for IL and people who will be employed because of the courts’ ruling…Where are all the Quinn haters? Anyone? Hello?
- just sayin' - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:13 am:
Thank you for the answer to my question.
- Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:16 am:
OK, Loopy, you asked for it.
The capital bill was the piece of legislation Quinn said he wouldn’t sign unless and until lawmakers also approved a tax increase. That prompted Rep. Lou Lang to refuse to send it to the gov until he stopped playing games.
As expected, Quinn quickly folded.
Happy now?
- Loop Lady - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:24 am:
Michelle,
If Quinn is the only loser here, and all others affected by the ruling win, hasn’t Pat still won?
Yes, I’m very happy…thanks for asking…
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:30 am:
If each smaller piece of the capital bill was its own bill, as Jim would seem to prefer, then the voting would have been as follows:
Republicans vote yes on each bill that contains spending, and no on each bill that contains revenue to pay for the spending.
Does that sound about right?
- Voice of Experience - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:37 am:
FWIW, Several attorneys told me before the court ruling that if the court based their decision on the constitution, the law would be upheld.
This ruling seems to me to be a natural progression for the court as it further defines “single subject” to guide the legislature in the future.
Now, on to something more interesting: I predict that within a year or so of the video gaming going into effect (with real machines installed in real taverns and bars)most of the communities that have opted out, will be opting back in. They’ll get pressure from their bar owners who are losing business to their neighbors.
Maybe not Chicago, but most of the suburbs and downstate communities for sure. I believe those who are predicting that video gaming won’t generate the expected revenues will be proven wrong within a few years.
Not passing judgment on the morality of the legislation, just saying I think it will end up being a major money-maker for the state and for attracting patrons from neighboring states in border communities.
- Das Man - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 12:35 pm:
=This was a political decision, not a legal decision.=
I would add that it was the expedient (defined as convenient and practical, although possibly improper or immoral) decision.
And if there is a distinction as Jim suggests, I would also sense that there would seem to be more politics than law in it.
I guess now we are all condemned to be free to play video poker. But we will have smooth rides on capital plan improved roads to travel to the casino restaurant or rehab of our choice
- Lefty Lefty - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 12:35 pm:
Another FWIW–I remember that 1997 bill since it contained the fuel tax provision which directly related to my work at the time. Everyone watching that bill thought it was a stretch. Motor fuel taxes and sex offenders = public safety? No way.
- Little Lebowski - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 6:05 pm:
Jim-
“Since when does one person’s comments or even a handful of persons’ comments automatically reflect the policy of the state of Illinois.”
Uhhh, it’s called legislative intent and is one of the first things judge’s look to in determining statutory construction.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 6:23 pm:
When the Supremes telegraphed their announcement, I thought for sure they were softening the ground to overturn.
They sure have had some problems with their appellate courts recently.
- Just The Way It Is One - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 8:09 pm:
A great victory for creating and keeping good-paying jobs in Illinois, and especially for Gov. Quinn and his legal prowess…7-0 vote–Whoa!
- bullet53 - Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 10:10 pm:
thank you mr. wirtz your case cost the state 350 mil in tax money,as usual the only ones to make money were the lawyers, can’t beat city hall, unless you are city hall.
- Ruby - Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 7:19 am:
Gambling revenue is down in Illinois and Indiana. This may indicate that the gambling market in these areas are already saturated. Adding video gambling machines in local bars and restaurants will not necessarily increase the demand, but rather spread those declining dollars among competing gambling operations.