Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Social service providers claim administration has “unchecked discretion” over paying off old contracts
Next Post: Rauner vetoes several union-backed bills
Posted in:
* 3:34 pm - That was fast…
The complete document is here.
* 3:53 pm - From Dave Mellet at Independent Maps…
“We’re very excited that the Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to immediately review our case on an expedited schedule. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on a citizen initiative since 1994, but they will now have the opportunity to preserve this important constitutional right of Illinois voters. The lower court ruling - which agreed that redistricting reform is an acceptable subject for citizen initiative - left Illinois voters with no opportunity to make the changes needed to stop politicians from drawing their own legislative maps.”
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:34 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Social service providers claim administration has “unchecked discretion” over paying off old contracts
Next Post: Rauner vetoes several union-backed bills
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Please, please, please, please, please.
Comment by Rhino Slider Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:39 pm
If they rule in Bruce’s favor does that mean they are not corrupt anymore?
Comment by Saluki Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:43 pm
They don’t take a case out of order like this just to affirm.
Mesns there are 3 or 4 votes likely to reverse.
Comment by Realist Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:45 pm
I think it just means they don’t want to be accused of sitting on the case.
=== They don’t take a case out of order like this just to affirm ===
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:49 pm
Good. you know, maybe.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:50 pm
Madigan and the Supreme Court he controls!
Comment by There They're Their Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:58 pm
Can they make Texas do it too?
Comment by JackD Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:58 pm
The Supremes must think this issue is more important than the other issues facing the courts at this time. I think they know this issue needs to be settled before the general election.
Comment by Mama Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 3:59 pm
==They don’t take a case out of order like this just to affirm.
Mesns there are 3 or 4 votes likely to reverse.==
So, “3 or 4″ justices got together and decided they would reverse the lower court ruling before even hearing arguments in their own court? Interesting theory…
Comment by Jake Brigance Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:00 pm
It seemed to me that the original ruling was pretty clear that the proposed amendment was unconstitutional. A direct appeal makes sense because of the time line for printing ballots etc. The ILSC can shoot down the suit in a timely manner.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:01 pm
What Juvenal said. My prediction is that they’ll affirm (hope not but I think partisanship will lead majority to take narrow construction), but lay out clearer guidelines for future initiatives.
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:05 pm
Don’t get too excited about the expedited timing.
Election cases are given priority due to tight deadlines for printing ballots and forms.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:14 pm
@Realist: “They don’t take a case out of order like this just to affirm.
Mesns there are 3 or 4 votes likely to reverse. ”
That’s not what it means at all.
Go read Supreme Court Rule 302(b), referenced in the order.
Here, I’ll make it easy for you: “(b) Cases in Which the Public Interest Requires Expeditious Determination. After the filing of the notice of appeal to the Appellate Court in a case in which the public interest requires prompt adjudication by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court or a justice thereof may order that the appeal be taken directly to it.”
Comment by JoanP Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:17 pm
Good move due to the timing and importance. Might as well cut out the middle man, er court.
I wouldn’t read too much into this as far as the ultimate decision goes.
As a former young law firm associate, though, what I would read into this is that some weekends are getting ruined.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:19 pm
Just means the court recognizes the timeliness of the issue. Needs to be decided before the ballots get printed.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jul 22, 16 @ 4:43 pm