* From the emergency motion for direct appeal…
Movants ask this Court to resolve whether, and to what extent, the Illinois Constitution permits the payment of the state employee payroll when the General Assembly and Governor have failed to enact appropriations statutes. At the heart of the matter is the constitutional separation of powers under which the General Assembly and the Governor must take action to enact annual appropriations statutes. Although the appellate court had settled this issue in AFSCME v. Netsch, 216 Ill. App. 3d 566 (4th Dist. 1991), holding that the Appropriations Clause prohibits the payment of the state eniployee payroll without an appropriation, the Circuit Court of St. Clair County has declined to follow that precedent, necessitating this Court’s intervention. This Court should permit direct appeal pursuant to Rule 302(b) from the conflicting temporary restraining orders entered by two circuit courts in this matter of great public importance raising constitutional questions that affect the core of the government’s operation.
Click here to read it all.
*** UPDATE *** From the AG’s office…
“We absolutely want State employees to be paid their full wages. But we must follow the Illinois Constitution. The law is clear: the State cannot legally pay all employees their full paychecks without a budget. Because there are now conflicting court orders on this critical constitutional issue, we have asked the Illinois Supreme Court to take the appeals in the cases and resolve them. The Court can provide important guidance on what the Constitution allows when the Governor and Legislature have failed to act. Ultimately, as we have repeatedly said, the only way to fully resolve this unfortunate and damaging situation is for the Governor and the Legislature to do their jobs and enact a budget.”
* She also filed two other things today…
* Appeal of St. Clair County ruling to appellate court
* Request to assert validity of Cook County TRO with appellate court
- mcb - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:49 am:
“We absolutely want State employees to be paid their full wages.”
That’s why we are fighting in court to stop that from happening.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:50 am:
mcb: Yes, and I want to be paid, but the Constitution isn’t just a suggestion.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:52 am:
It’s important to get a ruling from the Supremes.
You wouldn’t want a situation in the future, however unlikely, in which a governor blows off his Constitutional duties, holds the budget for ransom in service of an unrelated, narrow ideological agenda and just decides to spend money on whatever he wants without legal authority.
That’s Banana Republic stuff.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:53 am:
The Supremes are going to order themselves a raise for all this extra work are dysfunctional government is requiring.
- Mouthy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:56 am:
It’s the ole’ “Do your job except when it affects me”…
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:56 am:
Agreed Word. It’s a shame the Supremes need to keep doing this though when street schmucks have a better understanding of the Constitution than the elected officials.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:02 am:
“- Skeptic - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:50 am:
mcb: Yes, and I want to be paid, but the Constitution isn’t just a suggestion.”
It is to Lisa Madigan. She picks and chooses which items that she finds worthily so don’t act like she needs to fight this fight. She does not need to do this.
- burbanite - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:04 am:
No Lisa Madigan does not need this fight, nor do I suspect did she want it. However, as politically unpopular as her actions are, she is doing the job she was elected and sworn to do, uphold the Constitution.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:05 am:
This will be the most important week so far in the Rauner Administration;
If/when the Supremes rule.
The owning of shutting things down, like the Illinois State Museum.
The one month budget and payroll fix, if passed, what does the Governor choose?
This is it. The Supremes may put more pressure on Bruce Rauner than MJM could ever place on his co-equal partner. Did the Superstars… not… factor in the Supremes in shutting down Illinois… by Rauner’s own choice?
It it “worth”… having the Supremes say, “Governor, you’re wrong.”?
By far, the most important week for Bruce Rauner. How it will go? The Supremes are the domino.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:13 am:
”
- burbanite - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:04 am:
No Lisa Madigan does not need this fight, nor do I suspect did she want it. However, as politically unpopular as her actions are, she is doing the job she was elected and sworn to do, uphold the Constitution.”
No, she is doing it because she wants to. The Constitution never concerned her before. She doesn’t have the track record of showing concern for the Constitution.
- Wow - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:14 am:
The constitution int just a suggestion
I guess the part about passing a balance budget doesn’t count as far as the AG and her fellow dems are concerned
- GA Watcher - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:16 am:
And let’s not forget what Governor Rauner had to say about the IL Supreme Court back in April:
“I don’t trust the Supreme Court to be rational in their decisions. I think they’re activist judges who want to be legislators.
We have a system where we elect our judges, and the trial lawyers who argue cases in front of those judges give campaign cash to those judges. It’s a corrupt system.”
- Bemused - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:22 am:
WOW
Here’s a crazy idea. How about the Governor and the GOP present a balanced budget bill to the GA and let them vote on it. Instead of that out of balance concept they had in February.
- GA Watcher - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:25 am:
Wow: When you get the chance, read Article VII, Section 2 of the State’s Constitution re State Finance. It clearly places the legal duty on the Governor to take the lead in the budgeting process. It is his/her job to first prepare and submit a balanced budget. We’re still waiting for this to occur.
Only after the Governor has fulfilled his constitutional duty does responsibility shift to the General Assembly to work with the balanced budget provided by the Governor and to make the appropriations.
- GA Watcher - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:26 am:
Should be Article VIII, Section 2, not Article VII.
- Common sense - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:38 am:
Politicians like Madagan that intentionally disrupt the finances of working people’s families will be remembered at the ballot box with the next election.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:40 am:
===with the next election. ===
She’s not up in the next election.
Take a breath already.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:42 am:
===Politicians like Madagan that intentionally disrupt the finances of working people’s families===
Interesting that you didn’t deem noteworthy the governor’s total budget vetoes.
- Former Merit Comp Slave - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:45 am:
Wow the AG mentioned more than once the fact that the legislature (both Dems and Republicans) failed to pass a budget which was why she filed her suits. The Constitution clearly states no budget, no paying bill or salaries.
- Just a lawyer ... - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:47 am:
Ever notice how some people invoke the constitution when they don’t like something, but are able to ignore the constitution when it’s politically expedient?
Let us not forget that the Illinois Appellate court lifted the order prohibiting payment of State employees. Yet, the action of this constitutional body (along with the circuit judge from St. Clare county) are convienently “overlooked” by the anti-Rauner minions. Hummm….
- Wow - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:48 am:
So I guess when Pat Quinn and previous to him Blogo submitted an unconstitutional unbalanced budget that was passes by the dems in the GA then signed by the Dem gov the AG viewed the constitution as only a suggestion or I simply missed her lawsuit seeking to overturn an unconstitutional budget(s)
- Stuck on the 3rd Floor - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:49 am:
If nothing else, after this we’ll know whether no budget=shutdown, for the current debacle and going forward.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:55 am:
===convienently “overlooked”===
Didja miss something else?
- ryan - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:56 am:
@Willy - Well said. I completely agree that the ISC is the domino that determines the play calling during the next set of downs.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:02 am:
So a question. Assuming the temp budget passes senate and lands on Rauners desk if he line item vetoes all but employee payroll what does that do to the ag’s case? I assume a budget or continuing approp would render the issue moot. Granted it’s a one month budget but?
- ryan - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:11 am:
@Mason born - IANAL, but I think that’s correct. If that’s the case, BVR can buy some time (and some goodwill with employees) with the line item veto. But I’m not convinced that’s what he really wants. He may be expecting (and hoping) the ISC does the dirty work while the AG wears the hat.
- Pete - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:17 am:
Can the Governor file a counter suit that the Legislature failed to pass a ‘BALANCED’ budget?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:18 am:
Pete, on what planet do you live?
- burbanite - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:36 am:
Just a lawyer, it would be politically convenient for the AG to ignore the Constitution right now, but she isn’t, yet you seem to continue to criticize her for it. I believe she is doing what the Constitution provides, which is to go the S.Ct. I don’t know of any specifics where she had standing to go into court on a Constitutional issue and refused to do so. Oh and BTW, Rauner is not a big fan of lawyers either.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:40 am:
=== Assuming the temp budget passes senate and lands on Rauners desk if he line item vetoes all but employee payroll what does that do to the ag’s case? ===
With the caveat that I’m not a lawyer, I’d say it doesn’t affect it at all. The one-month temp budget expires by the time the decision is made to take the case and all the required briefs can be prepared. I suspect it’s a moot point since Munger has the political (er judicial) cover to pay the employees for July anyway - or at least a good portion of the employees.
- Austin Blvd - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:44 am:
The Tea Party and GOP right wingers should be going BALLISTIC by now.
First, the state is paying money despite a constitution that calls for an appropriation before money can be spent.
And secondly, state employees are not losing their jobs.
Where is Sen. Duffy when you need him?
- Neophyte - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:46 am:
Per GA Watcher @ 9:25
Rich,
Is it really this simple regarding Article VIII, Section 2 (a)b) or is wiggle room provided elsewhere in the Constitution for Beaver? If that’s the bottom line, why didn’t MJM and company just sit back and wait for Beaver’s Constitutionally mandated budget submission?
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:01 am:
- Neophyte -
When it comes to “balanced budgets”, in the past the various parties have agreed that the budgets were “balanced” through various games, including overly optimistic revenue and savings projections. So the constitutional mandate for a “balanced budget” was met, at least on paper; so sorry if it turns out later we were wrong about the numbers.
Today, it’s easier to see in the budget proposals where “misleading” estimates unbalance them, but there are still ways to “balance” them.
For example, in Rauner’s proposed budget that is about $3B out of whack, he claims it is balanced because of about $2.3B of unspecified “pension savings” and about $0.7B of yet to be negotiated “health insurance” savings. While the “savings” are demonstratively false, that claim allows Rauner’s proposed budget to be declared (with a more or less straight face) “balanced”. Rauner could have just as easily said “we’re going to have to short the pension fund payments $3B in order to balance the budget this year”.
The difference this year is nobody is winking at the obvious fibs in the proposed budgets.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:03 am:
“- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:18 am:
Pete, on what planet do you live?”
There are plenty of good Pete’s who live on this planet. Pete Townshend, me but I can’t use Pete since it is already taken.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:04 am:
“- burbanite - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:36 am:”
Use Google
- Sue - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:15 am:
When did Lisa Madigan become chief counsel to the Speaker?
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:16 am:
* Appeal of St. Clair County ruling to appellate court
* Request to assert validity of Cook County TRO with appellate court
Tell us how you really feel, AG Madigan? /s
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:22 am:
===When did Lisa Madigan become chief counsel to the Speaker?===
What does the Constitution say are the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General?
Not what you think, or want, or “believe”… what are the duties and responsibilities, - Sue -?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:26 am:
“- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:22 am:”
She has not been consistent in the past.
To use the Constitution as an excuse when she did not do her constitutional duties in the past does not hold up. Besides, she did fight against giving State employees their pay. She did not need to go to this extreme.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:27 am:
Um, ” - Anonymous -”
Rauner vetoed paying state workers. Rauner did not have to choose that.
Thoughts?
- Future of Illinois - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:28 am:
Be careful Lisa, if you try too hard to help your father, you may get caught up in a bad situation. Tread carefully, your future awaits.
- Anonymous Retiree - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:28 am:
If she is trying so hard to prevent people from getting paid, why did she submit her staff payroll. AG office getting paid on Wednesday
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:31 am:
- FOI -
How John Kass-ian of you.
It’s 2015, lots of time for Kass Konspriacies, pace yourself.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:33 am:
“- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:27 am:
Um, ” - Anonymous -”
Rauner vetoed paying state workers. Rauner did not have to choose that.
Thoughts?”
I agree with you 100%. I voted against Rauner and for Dillard in the primary. I voted against Rauner in the General Election. I can sleep at night knowing that I did not put this guy in office.
Unfortunately, there are very few politicians that I can point to as real nice people.
I apologize but I forget that Democratic legislator that has cancer who almost never misses a vote. I like and admire him.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:33 am:
==She has not been consistent in the past.==
Her own prior actions have opened the door to this line of questioning and these doubts.
Same as any of those State’s Attorneys who were selectively enforcing concealed carry laws awhile ago. When anyone speaks up so quickly and aggressively on something like this, but sits silently during something like the plainly unconstitutional pension theft attempt, it is natural to examine their motives.
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:33 am:
State government can’t spend money without an appropriation: that’s pretty basic.
Actions have consequences, and stripping actions of their consequences encourages actors to become bad actors.
Conservatives used to believe that actions should have consequences anyway.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:38 am:
If Rauner and Madigan met each other in the middle on a temporary budget extension, a temporary appropriation paying state employees, or the budget itself, none of this would be occurring.
Blame should rest with those causing this situation to begin with.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:40 am:
===but sits silently during something like the plainly unconstitutional pension theft attempt===
Just because you (and I) thought it was unconstitutional, doesn’t mean the AG was required to think so.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:56 am:
Will those blaming Lisa Madigan for stopping pay make the case Gov. Rauner, by his own vetoes, made this discussion and the constitutional question. It’s Rauner’s own making.
(Tips cap to - ryan -)
- Austin Blvd - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:07 pm:
What OW just said.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:58 pm:
“- Formerly Known As… - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:33 am:”
I agree 100%
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 1:03 pm:
This administration is driving the state of Illinois off a cliff and the attempts to prevent this from happening seem to frustrate some folks?
If our constitution does not work, then we will do what we need to do to fix the constitution. There has never been a time when a government shut down and went out of business because their constitution demanded it. If we have to go off the constitution to keep people fed and alive until it gets fixed - so be it. Any government willing to shut itself down over its constitution should step aside and let citizens fix it.
How many people do you want to see harmed in order to keep your constitutional purity?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 3:25 pm:
“- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 1:03 pm:”
Thank you
Also, Lisa doesn’t have Constitutional purity.
- thoughts matter - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:39 pm:
I understand why Ms. Madigan is doing this. I don’t blame or resent her. This could have all been dealt with by line item vetoes of the budget that was sent to the governor. He felt it wasn’t worth his time - which tells you exactly how much he values and appreciates state employees. If he thinks he couldn’t hire quality staffers for his office without increasing their salaries, wonder what will happen when THEY don’t get paid?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 7:19 pm:
“- thoughts matter - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 6:39 pm:”
Thank you