Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

A look ahead

Posted in:

Illinois

Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office has asked the Illinois Supreme Court for an expedited hearing of her appeal of a lower court’s declaration the state’s pension overhaul is unconstitutional.

Madigan announced the motion Thursday. It says issues raised are of “widespread public importance'’ to state government and seeks a ruling in advance of lawmakers’ May 31 budget approval deadline.

Madigan’s office had already filed the appeal concerning the 2013 law designed to reduce roughly $100 billion in unfunded liability.

Court spokesman Joe Tybor says the court must first decide whether to expedite the motion before setting a schedule on the appeal.

Madigan’s motion is here.

* Kurt Erickson looks at what happens if Madigan’s motion fails to persuade the Supremes…

Madigan suggested the court schedule oral arguments for as early as Jan. 22, or no later than mid-March.

Attorneys for the retirees have until Tuesday to file their objections.

Without the expedited schedule, the deadline for filing the first significant set of records in the case wouldn’t occur until the final week of January.

After that, the typical court schedule calls for both sides to trade paperwork for nearly three months. Once that is completed, the high court would schedule oral arguments.

Under that scenario, the court could hear the case as early as May. If they miss the May docket, the next time the judges are scheduled to hear oral arguments is September.

Following the argument phase, the court could take months to issue a ruling.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:07 am

Comments

What is Lisa doubleparked?

Comment by howard Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:12 am
You can ask, but courts set their own schedules. It’s good to be the judge.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:13 am
Plenty of time for Bruce to raise income taxes so the state can pay its bills. Regardless of if/when the Supremes hear the case, the outcome looks bleak for the pension theft law.

Comment by PublicServant Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:15 am
So essentially the legislature will need to deal with the budget with no consideration of alternate changes to pension funding.

Comment by Cassidy Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:19 am
Springfield already needs all the time they can get to work out the upcoming budget and related tax and other spending issues.

Approval of an expedited timeline on the pension bill would greatly increase the pressure and stress on our state leaders, assuming the ruling shooting down this egregious legislation comes before July.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:21 am
If not expedited by the court, will the legislature submit a budget that assumes that the court will rule the pension bill constitutional? lol

Comment by Soccertease Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:28 am
The legislature will likely do the exact same thing as they did last year. Assume ZERO savings from the unconstitutional pension reform bill until the courts issue a final ruling.

Comment by AlabamaShake Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:34 am
L. Madigan’s motion for an expedited hearing included the words:
“A prompt resolution of those issues is critical because the state must either implement the act, or, in the alternative, significantly reduce spending and/or raise taxes”
This seems like a complete abandonment of the ‘police powers’ argument. It acknowledges that the state can pay the bill that it has incurred for pensions by cutting spending and/or raising taxes.

Comment by UIC Guy Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:34 am
what day do you think Rauner asks for a recount??

Comment by Not Rich Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:40 am
Is it in anyone’s interest to slow walk this? Is there any reason for the lawyers for the retirees not to support Lisa Madigan’s motion?

Comment by walker Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:53 am
@public:
What is the pension theft law?

Comment by Del Clinkton Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:55 am
Formerly Known As… - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:21 am:

Springfield already needs all the time they can get to work out the upcoming budget and related tax and other spending issues.
There is plenty of time to work on the budget and work on the expedited timeline for the pension decision. As to the “pressure and stress on our state leaders” the decision will be made by the Court. The “leaders” have been under more pressure in the past. Failure to act will be unthinkable.

Comment by John Parnell Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:55 am
I have little hope for an expedited schedule.

The state and GA (surprisingly) lost on the health care issue. They are supposed to pay it back from escrowed funds. Yet they are saying it will take months to figure out how to do it. It’s simple–you took 2% from me–give it back.

This decision seems straightforward, but the ramifications are huge. I don’t see the SCt moving things along to satisfy the wishes of others, even if they should.

Comment by Langhorne Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:57 am
The ISC should take its time to consider the case. The outcome with respect to allowing the lower court ruling to stand is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether the ISC will now own up to its past errors and acknowledge that the severe underfunding of the pensions, which they have permitted to go on far too long, has reached the point where the pensions have become impaired. To me, the very passage of SB1 in the first place, combined with calls by prominent national Republicans to change the Federal bankruptcy code and allow states to declare bankruptcy, are strong indications that my pension is, in fact, impaired. One can only hope that the attorneys for the retirees have enough basic financial knowledge to ask the court to at least consider the impairment/funding issue.

Comment by Andy S. Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:00 am
@Del Clinkton10:55=What is the pension theft law?=

Pension theft law is the nickname of SB1, which has been declared unconstitutional.

Comment by DuPage Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:00 am
It is my impression that U.S. and state Supreme Courts can decide to not even hear a case - and do so on a regular basis. Is there any chance the Illinois Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal? Could they just deny hearing the appeal, because they were fine with the lower court’s decision. Just wondering.

Comment by Joe M Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:10 am
== The “leaders” have been under more pressure in the past. Failure to act will be unthinkable. ==

John Parnell - well said. Their previous performance under pressure, however, is the concerning part.

Very little indicates the ILGA is capable of simultaneously addressing one of the most challenging budgets in years, the roll back of the tax increase and a new pension bill during the same spring session with effective results. They had a hard enough time with just the pension bill, and that was before blowing a massive hole in next year’s budget or dealing with an expiring tax increase. Maybe they will offer well-considered, comprehensive alternatives that have been in development for the past few years, but it seems unlikely.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:27 am
=== walker - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:53 am:

Is it in anyone’s interest to slow walk this? Is there any reason for the lawyers for the retirees not to support Lisa Madigan’s motion?===

I agree Walk. I think it would be in everyone’s best interest to keep the system moving. I think an appeal from the AG probably means something to the ISC.

Comment by A guy... Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:31 am
I still believe the Supreme Ct will decide not to hear the appeal.

Comment by Wensicia Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:12 pm
As a supplement to my earlier post, here is a link to an op ed in the L.A. Times by Newt Gingrich and Jeb Bush advocating for a change in the law that would permit states to declare voluntary bankruptcy, with the explicit purpose of abrogating their union contracts and pension obligations.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/27/opinion/la-oe-gingrich-bankruptcy-20110127

Note that Jeb Bush is considered to be among the most moderate of Republicans, and is rumored to be a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2016. Come on, ISC: in light of this, can you seriously tell me that a funding ratio below 45% does not impair my pension?

Comment by Andy S. Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:16 pm
It is in the best interests of the annuitants and members of the pension systems for the courts to take their time, as a permanent injunction is in place. Once ruled unconstitutional, who knows what shenanigans the GA and the Gov-Elect will come up with?

Comment by Bobbysox Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:19 pm
She lost my VOTE for GOV. in four years

Comment by quincy Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:22 pm
@Langhorne - Monday, Dec 8, 2014 10:57 am:

I wish it were that straightforward…unfortunately, the attorneys for the pensioners will be paid from the escrowed funds…so, the pensioners will not get back all that was taken from them. Figuring out the amount and the logistics of exactly how it will be paid out from the escrowed funds is the reason for the delay. IMHO, since the State forced the pensioners to defend themselves against a clearly frivolous bill, the State should pay the attorney cost for the defense.

Comment by Sam Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:22 pm
This is just a sideshow now. We’ll see new proposals from the Gov and two leaders to try and deal with the pensions.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:24 pm
=== Is there any reason for the lawyers for the retirees not to support Lisa Madigan’s motion? ===

Absolutely.

You want any subsequent changes to the budget arising from the pension ruling to be distinct and separate from the regular budget negotiations.

If you are AFSCME, you don’t want Rauner threatening to slash payroll to make pension payments.

You also don’t want Rauner to blame the pension system for a tax increase.

In fact, the more closely revenue is linked to pension payments, the harder it will be to pass.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:36 pm
There is more noise than clear signal in this story. There are good chances of an expedited briefing because the record is just the pleadings. That said, legal briefs are unlikely to be all finished earlier than late January with argument before the court in February or March. That is what can be accelerated. Writing a decision still takes time to circulate among 7 justices and to reach a final opinion that is ready for signature. If that is done in only 3 months, the opinion may be released as early as May. That leaves no time for the General Assembly and Governor to come to any agreement on budget fixes (given the easy prediction is that the ruling will be affirmed). Everyone knows that the hole in the budget just got bigger after the Kanerva case. Rauner is wrong to think that the Opinion will give any glimpse at a fix that would pass muster. All that is happening is that hand-wringers are able to keep saying that they are waiting to see what the decision will be.

Comment by SkeptiCal Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:10 pm
== Langhorne - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:57 am: ==
You will not get back the full 2% you paid in. They will reduce the 2% for attorney fees and taxes, and who knows what else.

Comment by Mama Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:12 pm
Is it in anyone’s interest to slow walk this? Is there any reason for the lawyers for the retirees not to support Lisa Madigan’s motion? If your position is that there is no crisis sufficient to warrant an extraordinary exercise of police powers, it is consistent to take the position that there is no crisis sufficient to warrant expedited review.

Because the lower court held the statute unconstitutional, the Illinois Supreme Court will hear the case. The court rules provide for automatic and not discretionary review when a state statute is found to be unconstitutional.

Comment by anon Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:15 pm
= Yellow Dog =

It is a no brainer that governor-elect Rauner has and will continue to blame the state workers and the teachers for all of the state’s financial problems (pension payments). There are not enough expenses to cut to fix the big revenue whole. I believe Rauner & the leaders are waiting for the feds to pass a new law allowing the states to file bankruptcy.

Comment by Mama Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:25 pm
Re expidited hearings, I can just hear them:

“Mismanagement on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part …”

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:40 pm
And how exactly will allowing states to declare Federal bankruptcy permit them to only target union contracts and pensions ? Wont bonds also be repudiated at some rate (70 cents per dollar ?)
On the subject of paying out of the escrow account, there is the question of who gets the money if the person has died ? The estate ? Or, if there is a survivor do they automatically get it ? I know someone in this situation. The estate is already closed.

Comment by Anotherretiree Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:42 pm
RE Kanerva and the refunds, it is a bit more complicated still. Only the SERS retiree payments were escrowed; yes, they are over half but there are (some) members of SURS and GARS whose payments went into state coffers and those monies have to be “retrieved” somehow. Remember, at the end it was a consolidated class action suit based (primarily) on the Kanerva filings. The other question to be resolved is since the Kanerva attorneys worked (initially) for about a dozen individual (RSEA member) retirees on a contigency basis and were then certified as class action representatives of all SERS retirees, exactly whose refunds is the contigency based on? And then there is the issue of who receives the refunds for since deceased members of the systems. It’s grinding along; we (or a least SERS retirees for sure) will probably see refunds about March is my guess.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:55 pm
- Anotherretiree - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:42 pm:

A while back, I had a short conversation with John Myers (Kanerva attorney) at an RSEA meeting where he provided an update; it wasn’t a done deal but it is likely the simplest method would be for the refund to be issued to the beneficiary(s) as listed on the state paid life insurance policy.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 2:01 pm
YDD: Excellent thinking on why unions might want not to support expedited ISC decision — assuming it is “no.” I honestly didn’t have a clue.

Comment by walker Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 2:50 pm
Mama: “You will not get back the full 2% you paid in.”
Doug Finke Column: Lawyers for the state and retirees groups agreed to a schedule that will put in motion a process to return premium money to those entitled to it. Further in article: During Fridays hearing (Nov. 21st) the state agreed to develop a plan in three weeks that will identify who is owed how much money. Another hearing is scheduled for Dec. 18.

Comment by John Parnell Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 4:05 pm
Everything about this attack on public pensions/retirees spells targeting a specific population within the state (I’m thinking of above comment about bondholders, whom no one would consider touching). A particular group of people has been selected to bear the cost of paying down the debt others have created and the masses of population have enjoyed the fruits of (their “missing” money in the funds). I’m still amazed that this brazen attempt has gotten this far.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 5:44 pm
@ Andy S: Your “impaired” pension would suddenly be “unimpaired if the legislature/governor decides to fund it to an acceptable level. How? Probably by raising taxes. Popular? No. But the state has the power and ability to generate revenue whenever it wants to-unlike the private sector. The ISC knows this too.

Comment by Soccertease Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 7:16 pm
Mama:

It is much harder to blame the public employees if Rauner is raising taxes before the pension law is declared unconstitutional by the court.

If the court rules before the tax hike, you can bet that someone will try to blame the Court for the tax hike. “The Supreme Court made us do it.”

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 7:31 pm
Underfunding pensions in Illinois since 1917…and now they are in a hurray…LOL!

Comment by Cliff Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 10:18 pm