Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Crosstabs
Next Post: Second thoughts
Posted in:
* Dave Ormsby quoted Gov. Pat Quinn’s spokesperson Brooke Anderson last night on the constitutionality of yesterday’s line item-veto of legislative salaries…
“Article IV, Section 9(d) of the Illinois Constitution authorizes the Governor to reduce or veto any item of appropriations in a bill presented to him. Quinn v. Donnewald confirms that such authority extends to the line item veto of the salaries of State officials, including legislators.
“Like other State expenditures, the payment of the General Assembly is subject to appropriation. The governor has a constitutional right to apply his line-item veto to appropriation bills, and that’s exactly what he did today.”
The Quinn v. Donnewald decision is here.
* I’ve also been told that since the General Assembly has the option and the power to override the veto, then this case would be unlike Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, which found that eliminating judicial cost of living increases was unconstitutional.
And since the General Assembly has not yet attempted to override the veto, there’s also, I’m told, an issue of ripeness.
* As we discussed yesterday, the attorney general’s office is looking into the matter…
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said no one has formally sought an opinion on Quinn’s move yet, though a spokeswoman acknowledged late Wednesday that her office had “talked informally with the Comptroller’s office about questions pertaining to today’s actions.”
Topinka spokesman Brad Hahn told the Chicago Sun-Times the review would be undertaken by lawyers within Topinka’s office.
In a statement Lisa Madigan issued Wednesday the three-term attorney general echoed Topinka’s qualms about the constitutionality of Quinn’s move.
“The Governor’s actions raise a series of constitutional and procedural issues that have never been resolved by the courts,” said spokeswoman Natalie Bauer. “We’re looking closely at them.”
* Sen. Raoul wants to see a court challenge, but it won’t be him…
State Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), who leads a 10-member conference committee sought by Quinn to draw up a pension compromise, also said he would like to see someone in the Legislature go to court to challenge Quinn’s “illegal” maneuver in “punishing folks, who may well have supported what he supported.” […]
But Raoul, a potential candidate for attorney general if Attorney General Lisa Madigan runs against Quinn, said it would not be him doing it. “I don’t want to give his action any more visibility and credence than it deserves,” he said.
Obviously, suing over this would be a political hot potato for the plaintiff. Former Sen. Denny Jacobs probably would’ve had the guts to do it, but he was infamous for that stuff and untouchable back home.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Crosstabs
Next Post: Second thoughts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Whatever populist bounce Quinn may get out of his actions in vetoing legislative pay will fade as his opponents begin focusing on his incompetence and ineffectiveness as a Governor. The comparisons between him and Blago will only grow sharper and more biting as the campaigns move forward.
Other than the Chicago Tribune I don’t think many editorial boards will see his continued stunts as anything other then grandstanding.
Quinn must be challenged on this or a dangerous precedent will be established. This is clearly a constitutional issue which the AG must clearly weigh in on.
Comment by Cassiopeia Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:12 am
Rep. Roth would be the perfect plaintiff
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:15 am
Going to sound silly, but would it have to be a legislator at all?
Couldn’t one or more citizens sue under the idea that not paying my legislator is impacting their representation? Not an attorney, but it would seem that any citizen of Illinois (even my 12 year old who is not one of Pat Quinn’s taxpayers) should have standing in that case.
Again I might be all wet.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:18 am
I believe this will fall under the “political infighting between the executive and legisaltive” branches that courts are naturally relectant to rule on.
That said i wouldnt be surprised if a member challenged this. There are some very safe members including some who can claim they voted on SB1 to solve the problem.
Comment by Abe the Babe Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:20 am
Not only is it a childish stunt, but an abuse of power, motivated to boost his re-election campaign, not influence legislation.
It’s Quinn following his worst self-interested instincts, with no one on his crew reigning him in. Too bad, because when the guy hunkers down and focuses, he can get it right sometimes.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:22 am
If this latest stunt of quinns is found unconstitutional I think its time for impeachment proceedings to begin…what he did in Chicago to write his own conceal carry bill and his incompetence and ineffectiveness as a leader would warrant such a proceeding….impeachment doesn’t have to be because of a criminal act like the last two gov but can begin because of abuses of power and Quinn def. fits that’s one along with his ineffectiveness as a governor…let the process begin!!!
Comment by concern1 Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:23 am
The opening sentence from the Jorgensen case:
=== The issue before us is whether the General Assembly and the Governor violated the Illinois Constitution when they attempted to eliminate the cost-of-living adjustments to judicial salaries provided by law for the 2003 and 2004 fiscal years. The circuit court declared that they did. In addition, it ordered the Comptroller to include the cost-of-living adjustments for the 2004 fiscal year in the judges’ paychecks. The Governor and Comptroller have appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. ===
Supporters of Michael Madigan’s version of SB1 might actually want Pat Quinn to WIN this battle as that would strengthen their argument that the General Assembly can diminish accrued pension benefits.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:23 am
Not exactly on point; it’s barely on the same playing field.
The case cited was not about reducing or eliminating GA salaries but increasing them, and specifically whether or not the GA could delegate salary setting authority to a committee.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:24 am
Maybe Scott Drury could pursue the case. Are you aware he’s a former federal prosecutor?
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:25 am
Actually, wordslinger, Pat Quinn’s action demonstrates what else can happen if the General Assembly and Governor are allowed to avoid the Constitution when following it is inconvenient.
While there are distinguishing factors between Quinn’s veto and the proposed diminishing of retiree pensions, there also are a number of parallel themes and how IL SCOTUS rules on this will offer tea leaves as to how they might rule on SB1.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:27 am
In the court of public opinion, Quinn has already won.
Any lawmaker who truly relishes extending the life of their pay check would be foolish to sue. The direct mail would write itself.
Comment by David Ormsby Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:28 am
- not influence legislation -
Word, I have to disagree. The Governor has been pounding the pension issue for 2 years now, and the GA has been dragging their feet. They’ve had ample time to toughen up and pass something, since they couldn’t muster the courage now they have another reason.
As to an abuse of power, I don’t really see how, the GA could easily override him.
And if Rauol feels so strongly that this is an unfair stunt, why not go to court? Politics? Well, two can play that game.
The GA has been denouncing Quinn over every cut, every closure, every unpopular decision he’s made that they would have to explain to their constituents. They don’t hesitate to embarass him publicly, so I see no reason why he shouldn’t use the same approach.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:31 am
- Michelle Flaherty -
Well played! If there was a ripe candidate, Roth would be it.
This is grandstanding, Constitutional or not, and it puts the governor in the light of looking like heis grasping at straws to seem relevent.
I was watching Quinn on Fox Local this morning and every question was, “I have been there since ‘Day 1′ …”
Governor, if that WAS the case, why the grandstanding instead of working with the legislature (especially Madigan and Cullerton) since “Day 1″ to get to where it can be aggred to, and be Constitutional?
In the long run, in the not too distant short run, it is not the “lever” a governor uses who has been there …”since ‘Day 1′ …”
You are in the “discussion” Governor Quinn, congratulations, but being in the discussion, does not make you relevent, even by default.
Last point - Quinn also stated he wanted somethng to “sign”. Ok. You want something to sign. Anything to sign? It’s rhetorical, sorry, leaders usually are involved in the aspects of what is IN a bill, not just in the end when it needs a signature.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:32 am
Derrick Smith should sue. If his constituents aren’t going to throw him out for getting indicted for accepting bribes, Im sure they won’t mind him suing to get his paycheck.
Comment by Fred's Mustache Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:32 am
Whether it’s constitutional or not, this is al a huge waste of time and money. We all know everyone will eventually be paid (with interest?).
Comment by Soccertease Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:33 am
Why are my comments not showing up?
Comment by Fred's Mustache Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:33 am
==I’ve also been told that since the General Assembly has the option and the power to override the veto, then this case would be unlike Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, which found that eliminating judicial cost of living increases was unconstitutional.==
Whoever told you that should consider reading the case (again?). The specific action that was at issue was Blago’s reduction veto of the appropriation for judges’ salaries, which prevented payment of the cost of living increase. The ILSCt charaterized this as an “indirect” method of reducing judicial salaries, and unconstitutional.
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:33 am
I gotta say, there is no person that pays taxes in Illinois who understands the danger of this unfunded pension liability that isn’t proud of this move. It highlights the fact that we need to enable our legislators to make a tough decision. We aren’t used to accountability, but this is what it looks like. It doesn’t matter who the next governor is: Daley, Madigan, Quinn, Rauner or other, the pension issue still needs a fix, and as long as the legislature wants to punt on it, they literally don’t deserve a salary. It’s the one job they need to get done to maintain the solvency of the state. And since it is such a dire situation, it doesn’t set a precedent to use this power for any old issue de jour.
If Lisa has time to look into the constitutionality of a pay freeze, she can certainly advise on the pension plans currently being considered. And if Daley is serious about being a pension crusader, he should welcome this. Quinn is a political animal like any other candidate for governor, so he has his reasons for doing this. But if a legislator wants to say they can’t do anything without their leadership’s say-so, then lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Comment by Biker Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:34 am
=== And since it is such a dire situation, it doesn’t set a precedent to use this power for any old issue de jour. ===
Eh, the pension crisis is indeed serious, but it is not quite as dire as the Tribbies and IL Policy Institute like to tell us it is.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:37 am
We have had many crises in our state’s history that have required action. I would argue that the pension crisis is not a crisis at all but something that has been building over a number of years that has now become a political hot potato. Using the term crisis implies circumstances that have recently developed that require immediate action. Yea, it’s a big black hole in the budget but this was foreseen years ago, not an immediate crisis by definition.
If the Governor eliminated legislators pay every time we had a “crisis” by that definition we ought not to be paying the GA at all.
Comment by Stones Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:37 am
I’m amazed when Quinn stopped the salaries and stipends of the legislators and it was immediately called as unconstitutional but yet when madigan wants to take all what he wants from public employees and teachers I don’t hear those immediate cries…why is that?
Comment by concern1 Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:38 am
I think it’s way too soon to say anything definitive about yesterday’s actions by the Governor. See the Tribune Editorial page for their slice of reality…just one of the two opposing views on events yesterday…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:39 am
–I gotta say, there is no person that pays taxes in Illinois who understands the danger of this unfunded pension liability that isn’t proud of this move.–
LOL, well that settles that!
Speak for yourself, dude.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:39 am
- instead of working with the legislature -
OW, Quinn has worked with the legislature, including all 4 leaders, and many individual members. The endlessly repeated talking point that he hasn’t is just completely false.
I have to admit I enjoy seeing how upset all the inside basebally types are over this. What’s the matter, did PQ put your friends in the GA in a tough spot? It’s about time.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:41 am
Q: Why do we have a pension crisis?
A: Because General Assembly repeatedly and continually refused to appropriate the necessary money to deposit into the pension funds.
If a “crisis” created by the General Assembly’s failure / refusal to appropriate sufficient funds to satisfy an obligation can justify negating the IL Constitution, then why isn’t Pat Quinn’s veto of the appropriations justified by that very same reason?
If the pension crisis is indeed so overwhelmingly dire than we need to circumvent or negate the IL Constitution, then why doesn’t that reason justify Quinn’s action?
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:44 am
===I gotta say, there is no person that pays taxes in Illinois who understands the danger of this unfunded pension liability that isn’t proud of this move.===
Yikes!
It’s a Populist’s move, not a move a Governor, who has been there since “Day 1″ makes, or a Governor who is engaged in the process to finding a solution.
Am I proud? Nope. Embarrassed? Yeah, but embarrassed because watching Governor Quinn uses the machinery that IS the Executive, reminds me how much Quinn doesn’t understand the powers and influence a goveror can have, when doing something gubernatorial.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:44 am
=== Supporters of Michael Madigan’s version of SB1 might actually want Pat Quinn to WIN this battle as that would strengthen their argument that the General Assembly can diminish accrued pension benefits ===
Madigan has signalled that he won’t try to override the veto. Someone has to in order for the case to be heard. Seems chancy to do this as a way to secure some type of precedent ahead of the ILSC hearing a challenge to any pension bill. Attractive thought, tho.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:45 am
If I can’t have competent, responsible and honest government in Illinois, at least I want entertainment for my tax dollars. Was Gov Quinn’s move foolish? Yes. But an entertaining move. Knowing how my state Rep relishes money in his pocket, he’s hopping mad. But he’s also one of Spkr Madigan’s deputies, and I understand Spkr Madigan is in no hurry to over-ride the budget action. I couldn’t ask for better soap opera.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:45 am
This seems pretty straightforward to me, and perfectly legal.
While this has been portrayed as Quinn cutting legislator paychecks in the media and PR — the fact is that Quinn did not reduce anyones salary. He simply line item vetoed an appropriation. The result of that action is to remove the legal authority to write checks from those budgetary lines.
And as the post above indicates, there are constitutional remedies. The legislature can certainly override his veto, or it could be subjected to a court challenge. But until those path’s have been taken,
I don’t see where Topinka would have the authority to write checks from a budget line where there is no legal appropriation.
My prediction: This will ultimately require either a court intervention, or the passage of pension reform (and subsequent veto override), to get checks written.
Comment by ILPundit Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:46 am
if Quinn wants to recover his reformer mojo, he should not stay in the constitutional weeds too long. it’s legal, the more pressing question is why is the legislature not doing something? if he keeps at that point, it’s popular with the public. constitutionality on paying legislators who are doing nothing does not sound like it would poll well….for Topinka, Raoul,……
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:47 am
Upholding the constitution of Illinois and the United States of America? Or threatening those that choose to do so?
Is that an impeachable offense?
Comment by Madison Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:47 am
Biker @ 9:34am,
You do understand that the unfunded liability can’t be LEGALLY negated? Under both federal and state contract law, and the IL Constitution’s Pension Clause plus the various IL SC rulings since 1970, the pensions have to be paid under the current rules. The GA can’t retroactively change contracts.
Yes, this publicity stunt plays well to the legally uninformed voter, but that’s all it is … a stunt.
Whoever gets elected will have to pay the pensions and will have to raise taxes and futher cut spending … its the math.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:49 am
“Someone has to in order for the case to be heard.” I don’t see why. That’s just spin by Quinn’s folks.
Any legislator who isn’t being paid could bring a suit whether or not there was an override attempt. It’s likely that any legislator who was in danger of not being paid could bring a suit for declaratory relief. Any comptroller or treasurer who wanted guidance could bring a suit. Any comptroller or treasurer who decided they were under a legal obligation to pay could proceed and a suit could then be brought against the payments. (And that’s not even considering whether the Supreme Court would decide to permit a taxpayer suit.)
Comment by Keyrock Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:51 am
@ Biker: “We aren’t used to accountability, but this is what it looks like.”
Legislators are supposed to be held accountable by their constituents, at the ballot box. Not by an arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent governor.
Comment by Joan P. Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:53 am
@RNUG
I agree.
That said, I betcha Pat Quinn knows full well that his line item veto of these appropriations cannot survive legal challenge. However, if IL SCOTUS overturns Quinn’s actions whatever language they use in their opinion will be quoted right back at them when SB1 is challenged.
Conversely, if IL SCOTUS upholds SB1, whatever language IL SCOTUS uses in that opinion will be quoted right back at them in some future “Jorgensen-2″ appellate case.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:00 am
I hope this doesn’t force the pension committee into making a rushed proposal that won’t pass the the constitutional muster, and be tied up in court for month or years, just to satisfy Quinn.
I read somewhere that the legislators (and Quinn) have already received their July paychecks. Any truth to that? I won’t get my paycheck for the first half of July until the 30th! Apparently, the GA will still be getting their $111/day per diem.
Comment by Rusty618 Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:01 am
He won with public but not with the people he is going to need to help win a primary. While the voters may love populist rhetoric it is the “elite” group of power brokers with their lieutenants and foot soldiers that win elections. I would assume some of the full time legislators who were on the fence about PQ are off and those against are hardened in their stance. All though this is a popular move I doubt that this will move numbers in his primary.
Comment by Come on man! Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:03 am
More for RNUG
=== Yes, this publicity stunt plays well to the legally uninformed voter, but that’s all it is … a stunt. ===
The audience also is the IL Supreme Court. Can they strike down these vetoes while also sustaining SB1?
Cullerton & Raoul would want Quinn to lose in the courts. The Tribune & Ty Fahner will want Quinn to win in the courts.
What does Pat Quinn truly want? I dunno, my Magic 8 ball is busted.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:04 am
Stones, you make a lot of sense. If pension funding today is a “crisis” requiring “police powers,” than the state has been in a crisis since about the 1950s.
Today’s pension hysteria has been provoked by actually appropriating reasonable contributions to the pension funds a few years in a row, rather than shorting them.
That’s like having a monthly pay-your-mortgage “crisis.”
STL, sorry dude, Quinn’s action is all about the election and has nothing to do with influencing legislation.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:09 am
concern1@9:23 —abuses of power and […]ineffectiveness as a governor—
Which is it?
Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:11 am
I wonder how long it will take for the Legislature to get their backpay? Some state employees have been waiting for a couple of years…
Comment by Ronbo Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:12 am
It is absolutely a populist stunt, but I’m not sure if it is a bad or good thing to get movement on pension reform.
1) It’s a bad thing: why unnecessarily antagonize the people who have to pass pension reform? Moves like this can cause people to dig their heels in even more.
2) It’s a good thing: even if the legislative pay move is thrown out by a court of law, it sure made the mainstream news; people know about it, which increases public pressure on the legislature to come to agreement on pension reform.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:12 am
@ RNUG: “Whoever gets elected will have to pay the pensions and will have to raise taxes and futher cut spending … its the math.”
I agree that there does not appear to be a constitutional avenue to diminish vested pensions. However, I wonder if the IL state, county and local governments “have to raise taxes and further cut spending” to pay pensions. At some point politicians will face an angry private sector electorate if they do so, one which may overpower the present ballot box power of the public sector. Ultimately, the issue may become whether the courts can order a co-equal branch of government to raise taxes and cut spending in order to fund public sector pensions. But, that’s a few yearsd away. By that time, it may be a moot point because the argument that the state is in such a dire fiscal emergency that it may be allowed to violate contracts will have real legs. Just a thought.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:13 am
All the react from the Joes on the street and at the local corner coffee shop has been over the top positive for Quinn on this, and I agree. It was a brilliant political move and shrewd negotiating tactic. This plays into Quinn’s whole it’s me and you against all those politicians background. That works very well when you are a candidate which is why Quinn has been able to win several elections to different offices. However, once you are elected to government, you need to govern, and this is where Quinn has largely failed. I’m not sure I can see Quinn doing anything at this point to change that.
Comment by Niles Township Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:13 am
Keyrock,
+++ Madigan has signalled that he won’t try to override the veto. Someone has to in order for the case to be heard +++
I erred in that sentence. Trying to say 2 things at once. I meant that if Madigan doesn’t try to overturn the veto, the only other way for the issue to be addressed is if some legislator filed a suit. Thanks for pointing it out.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:15 am
===OW, Quinn has worked with the legislature, including all 4 leaders, and many individual members. The endlessly repeated talking point that he hasn’t is just completely false.===
Understand where you are coming from, I get it, but as I read that, all these “meetings” or “invitations” or “one-on-ones” have been quite fruitless.
My point;
“Never mistake activity for achievement.” - John Wooden.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:16 am
- nothing to do with influencing legislation. -
Agree to disagree, just have to wait and see what happens.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:19 am
- have been quite fruitless. -
You seem to assume this is all on Quinn. As I’ve said before, no one has ever tackled this problem, because it’s a very hard problem. We’re closer than ever, do you contend that’s in spite of the Governor?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:21 am
@Cook County Commmoner
If we look at URBAN states, Illinois’ aggregate state and local taxation ranks among the lowest in the nation.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:25 am
I wondered about whether the courts would be eager to act in this case when it is clear the General Assembly has its own remedy already available. I think that will mean that the courts will kick this back to the General Assembly, which has the power to override the veto. The fact that the Speaker might not even call that vote shouldn’t force the courts to step into this.
If the General Assembly fails to override, then perhaps the courts would be willing to examine the issue if a legislator files suit. But likely not until then.
And thanks for the poll today Rich. It backed up everything I’ve been hearing on the El and around the office. People love this move by the Governor. We’ll see how long it lasts, but for Quinn and Company, it’s Game On.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:25 am
@Cook County Commmoner
Also too, even if Illinois abandoned any pretense of resolving its unfunded pension liability and switched to “pay as you go” the numbers are not as dire as the astro-turfers like to claim.
I do not recommend or support doing that, however that is what the numbers reveal.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:27 am
Funniest part is Bruce Rauner calling this a “stunt.”
So credible coming from Chicago hedge fund billionaire in barn jacket who does eblasts notes about his Wisconsin farmer grandfather.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:29 am
Bill White - Exactly! Can someone please answer this question? Why is it unconstitutional to veto appropriations for legislative salaries, but not for any other appropriation? When the GA didn’t appropriate enough money to the personnel lines of certain agencies, forcing layoffs, etc, it wasn’t unconstitutional. What’s the difference? We are talking appropriation, not legislation. Huge difference. I am asking a serious question, here. I’m just a lowly front line worker, not like most of you who are “in the know”. Please tell me why legislative salaries being unappropriated (or whatever the correct term is)is any different from any other employee salaries being unappropriated? Why would it be unconstitutional for the legislative salary line, and not others, to be cut through lack of appropriations?
Can anyone answer that?
Comment by lincolnlover Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:34 am
Niles Township is spot on. The Sunday press conferences, the cutback amendment, CUB, Tollway reform, all intended to show him a man of the people. It also ‘ticked’ off the GOP AND Democrat regulars. Now he needs to work with them and either he doesn’t know how or they have long memories.
Comment by Darienite Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:42 am
Lincoln - I believe the issue is that the legislature and executive are separate, co-equal branches of government, and the governor’s veto of the legislative salary appropriation is an unconstitutional infringement by the executive affecting the independence of the legislative branch. Vetoing other appropriations, unfortunately, doesn’t raise the same constitutional issues, I’m afraid.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:48 am
==Why would it be unconstitutional for the legislative salary line, and not others, to be cut through lack of appropriations?==
Because the constitution prohibits changing a legislator’s pay in the middle of his or her term, but doesn’t prohibit cutting salaries of state workers. The contract clause would prohibit failing to appropriate money to pay contractual obligations, but if the contract allows layoffs, the contract clause won’t protect against appropriating at a level that requires layoffs.
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:50 am
===We’re closer than ever, do you contend that’s in spite of the Governor?===
With respect, doing the “Rod” idea of cutting slaries, even his own is not leading…
Further, its like when someone can’t figure out why they are not married, “it must be ‘them’ not ‘me’, I am perfect”.
Quinn can’t find a partner to get anything done with this? Pat Quinn has been working since “Day 1″, yet no one seems to have a working model with Pat Quinn’s fingerprints on it?
Is there … a “Pat Quinn Plan”, that you can specifically point to that has Quinn completely championing the plan, pushing for it, very specifically? Governor Quinn today said on Fox Local he was looking forward to something to sign.
Looking forward to something to sign?
That does not sound like someone engaged in the process.
- STL -, as always, with respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:55 am
–Please tell me why legislative salaries being unappropriated (or whatever the correct term is)is any different from any other employee salaries being unappropriated?–
I think that peoples’ hatred for the General Assembly is clouding their thinking on this issue. Legislators are not the same as front-line state employees. Regardless of how you feel about the Legislature or your legislator, he or she is still YOUR representative in the General Assembly, like it or not. Quinn has said that he disagrees with your voice in the General Assembly, and he is taking retaliatory action. It’s the same principle behind the legislative immunity clause in the Illinois Constitution. Legislators should be free to represent their constituents without fear of retaliation from the chief executive. It’s basic civics. Every citizen of Illinois should be outraged, but, alas, they are not.
Comment by Old Shepherd Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:57 am
Rich’s additional post adds clarity to my point, and I just want to add the Sen. Raoul quote as some context;
===“[Quinn] knows [the conference committee] very well may come up with a product the General Assembly could take up this summer. What it can be made to look like is we failed his deadline until he took this action to suspend our pay and because he took this action, we got it done,” Raoul said.
“It’s made to look like he merits some credit for getting it done, when in fact he’s not rolling his sleeves up and getting it to the table. He ought not get credit for the work that we’re doing,” Raoul said.===
Going the Populist route is great for polling, but to say Quinn is getting his hands dirty, been there since “Day 1″, and looking forward to signing something, that sounds like someone disengaged in the process on many levels.
Great 2nd post, Rich, BTW…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:59 am
Populist appeals and stunts have their place in politics — so I’m not sure why there’s so much outrage about this particular move. Is it weird and aggressive? Yeah — especially if you’re a legislator working behind scenes honestly and authentically to arrive at a constitutional solution. I understand that — and I understand why this would certainly tick me off.
However, this particular populist approach — like it or loathe it — resonates more deeply than the populist misfire of Squeezy. I think that’s the point of any kind of gratuitous populism — that it makes an attempt at movement through polarization.
Squeezy was inept on every level. This one, however, is more selectively — and therefore (IMHO) probably more effective. At least in the short-term.
Long-term — who knows.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:03 am
Whoops — I mean to say “This one, however, is more selectively inept …”
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:04 am
It might be a great political move, and it might appeal to the avg joe today, but wait until they have a little time to think about it. If the Gov can cut off the pay of the legislative branch whenever he wants, where does it end? Could Rod have cut off the GA’s pay in an attempt to stop impeachment? What if Quinn had cut off pay because his AV on the gun bill was overridden?
Someone needs to put out the suggestion that Quinn’s pay should be cut off until he comes to a meeting on pension reform. Rather ironic that earlier in the week Quinn was a no-show during a session he called.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:06 am
Brilliant political stunt, for now.
Minimal impact on fixing the pension mess.
Kwame’s probably right — the CC will have a bill shortly despite PQ, but now PQ can take some credit for it.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:18 am
–
Someone needs to put out the suggestion that Quinn’s pay should be cut off until he comes to a meeting on pension reform.
–
It would seem to me that this “I’ll cut your pay” stuff (especially if it starts to happen with more frequency or is used as a rhetorical argument to gauge the seriousness of any politician) is about as crass as it gets. It’s a stunt — but if it’s used as a “tool” — or as a more normal way of doing business — is lower than low.
Even the most hardened Illinois politico has to have some semblance of a soul. A political soul — at some point in his or her career — has to aspire to more than just cash. If it’s all about cash — and I’m sensing that it really is about cash — then we’re in a lot more trouble than just pensions.
I mean, isn’t that why one governor is behind bars at the moment? Golden cash?
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:19 am
==I’m amazed when Quinn stopped the salaries and stipends of the legislators and it was immediately called as unconstitutional but yet when madigan wants to take all what he wants from public employees and teachers I don’t hear those immediate cries…why is that? ==
Where have you been? Under a rock?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:28 am
If Quinn’s move is constitutional, does it set the stage for the GA to cut or eliminate a Gov’s salary and benefits mid-term if he or she fails to do accomplish a governmental task or participate in discussions?
Comment by Jimmy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:30 am
This certainly opens up a can of worms. I have to give it to Quinn that he has made a defensible argument supporting his Item Veto. I find it amusing that a court decision that Quinn lost is now being used to support his position today. Also, it’s ironic that a case involving the eagerness of the members of the General Assembly to enhance their salaries in manner to deflect political heat could come back to hurt future members’ pocketbooks in a far more egregious manner.
Folks can read the following excerpts from Quinn v. Donnewald and Jorgensen v. Blagojevich and make their own judgments on the judgments. I’m of the opinion that the Supreme Court will have to find Quinn’s actions violate the IL Constitution - using similar logic to that used in Jorgensen. To do otherwise would nullify the principle of separation of powers in the State of IL.
Here are my humble opinions as a non-lawyer with 33 years of government experience regarding some of the other issues that have been raided on challenging Quinn’s action.
Standing - I see at least 120 people having standing to ask for court intervention: the 118 members who lose their paychecks, the Comptroller who has to make a decision on issuing checks, and the Attorney General who serves as the State’s chief legal counsel. Many have made a valid issue questioning whether anyone would take the political risk of filing the lawsuit. As have been noted so many times on this blog, there are members who are a virtual lock for re-election - many who are “full-time” legislators. I see one of them as a plaintiff. I could also see Judy doing the right thing and challenge the IV. If I recall correctly, there is some precedence for the Comptroller to seek court sanction to issue checks to public aid recipients during the Blago war years.
Ripeness - the issue becomes ripe the minute the first check is missed; which is coming up at the beginning of August. We’re not talking about a long time away. Also, the processing of those checks need to take place earlier so throwing out a challenge on a timeliness basis seems to be a stretch.
Yes, the General Assembly as an institution has the ability to remedy the situation, but we now see how the power assumed by the leaders lends itself to the abuse of process. Madigan, evidently for political purpose, appears to be willing to allow this infringement upon the rights of the legislature. I think this is short-sighted and could lead to a repeated process where the executive with one friendly leader extorts the members of the General Assembly to enact his legislative agenda under penalty of not being paid. This whole process could lead to our own version of the Cold War strategy of MAD, only this would be MAB - Mutually Assured Bankruptcy, with the Governor depriving the Solons of their pay with them returning the favor.
Don’t get me wrong, I would enjoy watching the Solons suffer a little financial pain. They want to inflict financial damage on my family and I for their failure to act responsibly and it’s been a stressful time for us and I’m beyond angry about it. But this is wrong, and I believe the courts need to rule quickly to overturn Quinn’s action.
Pertinent Excerpt from Quinn v. Donnewald
“The plaintiffs say that the recommendations’ [recommendations of the Compensation Review Board] taking effect upon the legislature’s decision not to reject the report violates these provisions, because, they assert, there is no provision for approval by both houses and a presentment to the Governor. As we observed above, the Act established the procedure followed here. The Act itself was, of course, passed by a majority of both houses of the General Assembly and was presented to the Governor for his possible veto. Too, the appropriation bill was passed by a majority of both houses and presented to and approved by the Governor. Thus, the requirements of article IV, section 8(c), and article IV, sections 9(a) and (b), have been satisfied. The defendants observe further that the effect of any recommendation the Board may make is restricted by article IV, section 9(d), which gives the Governor the “item-reduction veto,” whereby the Governor may reduce or veto any single item within an appropriation bill, subject, of course, to an override by the legislature:
“The Governor may reduce or veto any item of appropriations in a bill presented to him. Portions of a bill not reduced or vetoed shall become law. An item vetoed shall be returned to the house in which it originated and may become law in the same manner as a vetoed bill. An item reduced in amount shall be returned to the house in which it originated and may be restored to its original amount in the same manner as a vetoed bill except that the required record vote shall be a majority of the members elected to each house. If a reduced item is not so restored, it shall become law in the reduced amount.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, sec. 9(d).”
Pertinent Excerpt from Jorgensen v. Blagojevich
“In urging us to reverse the circuit court’s judgment, the Governor cites Quinn v. Donnewald, 107 Ill. 2d 179 (1985). That case addressed the constitutionality of the Compensation Review Act. The Governor reads the decision as suggesting that salary changes recommended by the Compensation Review Board can subsequently be overridden by the Governor and the legislature through the appropriations process. The Judges take strenuous objection to that interpretation, arguing that passages cited by the Governor are mere dicta, were characterized by the Governor incorrectly, and did not reflect what actually happened in that case.
We shall not address the specific details of the Judges’ arguments because we find the case inapposite for other reasons. First, Quinn involved conventional salary changes, not cost-of-living adjustments. It was decided five years before the provisions governing cost-of-living adjustments were established by the Compensation Review Board and adopted by the General Assembly pursuant to SJR 192. Those COLA provisions operate and were intended to operate in a fundamentally different way than standard raises. Second, as we have discussed, the prohibition against diminishment of judicial salaries and the doctrine of separation of powers place judicial salaries in a qualitatively different legal posture than salaries paid to other state officers and employees. The unique constitutional limitations governing changes in judicial salaries were not considered by the court when it decided Quinn. That decision therefore cannot be invoked by the Governor in support of his position.”
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 12:57 pm
As crazy as this sounds, I think Quinn is within the Law. He is not ‘changing the salary’. He is using what the GA did to the Unions against them. If the money is not appropriated, he cannot pay them. The only difference here is that Quinn took the money away instead of the GA.
A bigger issue for me is that now the Governor can put undue pressure on the GA. Do what I want or I won’t pay you. SCARY!!!
Comment by New Thought Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 1:01 pm
Maybe the GA should consider zeroing out the Governor’s salary if he doesn’t sign the pension bill that they send to him.
Comment by N'ville Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 1:12 pm
So, if this works for Quinn, is the next step witholding the IlSC salaries until they rule in his favor in the inevitable lawsuit?
Comment by trooper Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 1:53 pm
==He is not ‘changing the salary’. He is using what the GA did to the Unions against them.==
The Jorgenson case addresses this. In that case, the GA and Gov acted together to remove COLAs for judges in the budget bill. They removed the spending authority, as the Gov is doing in the present case. The case says there is a legal obligation to pay salaries of constitutional positions so as to not dilute the separation of powers of the three branches.
The issue is that one branch cannot unilaterally de-fund the salaries of another. The GA can de-fund positions and departments which it created (e.g. Sec. of IDOT, IDOT employees, etc.) but it cannot de-fund the salaries of constitutional officers (Gov, Lite Gov, SOS, Comp, Treas) or judges. So if the GA cannot remove the line-item for the Gov’s salary, why should he be able to AV the GA’s salary?
The constitution creates a requirement that positions created by it be paid and for that payment to be free from the political reprisals of the other branches.
Comment by Tasty Grouper Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 1:54 pm
Well since we have a crisis I am sure Quinn can justify this move by using police powers…seems fitting for those that supported SB1. After all legislaturs, who knows how courts will rule… just accept that your pay is cut and let the courts decide. Now people are worried about the Constiution…are you kidding. This goes to show that the only answer for pensions is pay the benifits that have been earned and ajust the kinds of things that are legal such as tier II for example. Oh when we disregard the “rule of law” how tricky things become.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 2:51 pm
The GA will have to override this to get paid next year, right? As I read the state constitution, they have 15 days to override or the amended bill becomes law. So that means they have less than two weeks to pass a new pension bill and to round up a three-fifths majority to override. Seems like this could create some perverse incentives for bad legislative behavior…
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 2:57 pm
===So that means they have less than two weeks===
Clock doesn’t start until the AV has been journalized.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:01 pm
Cook County Commoner @ 10:13 am
You don’t have to agree with Martire’s proposals, but his math on the State’s current revenue and expenses is dead on. It was all developed using IDOR information and is probably the most accurrate data available. Either programs will have to be cut or additional revenue will have to be raised, or some combination including natural revenue growth as this country slowly recovers economically.
From a legal perspective, taxes can always be raised. The fact Illinois is a relatively speaking low tax state just bolsters that position. There might be a political price to pay … but raising revenue is well within the scope of the GA’s authority.
Take time to read some of the previous IL SC pension case decisions; the languaged used made it very clear in different decisions that political concerns of the GA or other elected officials is not the court’s problem.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:05 pm
Soccermom @ 2:57 pm:
The other alternative action by the GA is a new supplemental appropriations bill covering just their salaries. Theoretically possible but won’t happen for the reasons others have listed.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:11 pm
- Norseman -
Do I have you sign my “Audit” slip for the class, or my Counselor?
Well done. I always learn here.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:23 pm
Quinn’s move is illegal… let’s see if the same legislatures that are so willing to disregard the IL constitution to diminish pensions fight Quinn on legal constitutional grounds. MJM where are you? You should be defending your branch of power. The rule of law is so important and yet when it suites some they are so willing to throw it out, but it will always come back to bight them and all of us.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:28 pm
I see this action as a serious abuse of power. The constitutional provision prevents changing, up or down, the pay of legislators during there term. Another provision provides essentially the same for judges. I believes this is to prevents threats or rewards unless a legislator or judge acts in a desired matter. People who support this should consider the effect this could have on future issues where they do not agree with the person making the threat or offering the reward, not just the current issue.
Comment by Bigtwich Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:34 pm
If Quinn hadn’t demanded a conference committee, would the legislature be meeting and actively trying to resolve the pension issue today? I think not.
Or would they be home in their districts, waiting for the fall session? I think so.
Now some are in conference committee, complaining about Quinn–he won’t appear, he’s abusing his power. Why don’t they just agree on some language and stop complaining? Quinn doesn’t have his own plan to present. He’s on record supporting the Madigan bill. This is entirely between the two houses. Since they can’t agree, they point fingers at the easiest target–the guy that came in and inherited the problem they created.
It’s never us, is it, it’s always someone else’s fault.
Quinn is doing the best thing he can do to move the issue: stop asking politely, turn up the heat on their collective backsides.
Comment by Rudy Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 4:33 pm
Thank you Willy.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:00 pm
I don’t know about constitutional, but I’m pretty sure the Dept. of Labor (or whatever it’s called, both federal and state) takes a dim view of people’s paychecks being messed with by management.
Comment by Cheswick Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:17 pm
(820 ILCS 115/14) (from Ch. 48, par. 39m-14)
Sec. 14. (a) Any employee not timely paid wages, final compensation, or wage supplements by his or her employer as required by this Act shall be entitled to recover through a claim filed with the Department of Labor or in a civil action, but not both, the amount of any such underpayments and damages of 2% of the amount of any such underpayments for each month following the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid. In a civil action, such employee shall also recover costs and all reasonable attorney’s fees.
Also, misdemeanor.
Comment by Cheswick Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:29 pm
Rudy is spot-on.
Comment by chubs mahoney Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 7:37 am
Cheswick @ 11:29 pm:
I understand what you are citing but quite often the State, as an employer, is immune from federal laws. State employees actually have less protection than the average private employee in a number of situations.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 7:37 am
@Norseman
I agree with this:
=== I’m of the opinion that the Supreme Court will have to find Quinn’s actions violate the IL Constitution - using similar logic to that used in Jorgensen. ===
Or at least they “should” reach that conclusion.
Therefore, the “audience” for Quinn’s stunt wasn’t the General Assembly. It was the public, of course, and the Supreme Court.
In light of Jorgensen, the answer is obvious (as Norseman says) however in light of some future case upholding SB1, the answer becomes less obvious.
= = =
Also too, there is a distinction between saying that it was unconstitutional for Quinn to issue the line item veto and saying that Quinn’s line item veto cannot have the effect of law.
Quinn has every right to flip that switch, but that doesn’t mean the switch is connected to anything.
If the courts rule consistently with Quinn v. Donnewald, they will tell the Treasurer to issue those checks, but they won;t say Quinn had no legal right to sign that veto.
= = =
I find the image of Pat Quinn vigorously flipping light switches unattached to the wiring to be laugh out loud funny.
Others may find that their mileage varies.
Comment by Bill White Friday, Jul 12, 13 @ 9:51 am