Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Readers’ guide to the latest car-sharing stories
Posted in:
* Sen. Sam McCann sued when the Senate Republicans stripped him of all services provided to caucus members after he filed to run as a third-party candidate for governor. The 7th US Appellate Circuit has bad news for McCann today…
This case takes us deep into the internal workings of the Illinois State Senate. After Senate Minority Leader William E. Brady (a Republican) decided to oust William (“Sam”) McCann from the Illinois Senate Republican Caucus and thereby to deny certain resources to McCann, McCann and one of his constituents, Bruce Mcdaniel, sued Brady under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of their rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution. Brady responded with a motion to dismiss on the basis of legislative immunity. The district court agreed that this doctrine blocks all of McCann and Mcdaniels’s theories and dismissed the case. We affirm. […]
The question here is whether Minority Leader Brady’s decisions about who is included within the Minority or Republican Caucus, and how to allocate resources to those people, are protected by the privilege. We conclude that they are. Simply to list the resources is to show how intimately they are tied to the legislative process. Recalling from Gravel that aides are protected by the privilege, we conclude that the minority staff analyses of bills are a valuable input into the legislative process. As Minority Leader, Senator Brady was attempting to use his party’s resources as effectively as possible in furthering the party’s legislative agenda. Setting legislative priorities for the minority party, including when to schedule bills, how to ensure that senators are ready to vote on them, is also quintessentially legislative activity. Drafting assistance is likewise legislative. […]
Extra help in the form of staff resources is part of the leader’s toolkit for managing his troops. We see no objective standard that we could use to second-guess the leadership’s judgment about how and to whom those resources should be distributed. […]
Imagining what would happen if we were to adopt McCann’s position demonstrates why legislative immunity must apply here. McCann would have the federal courts micro-manage exactly which resources, and in what amount, the legislative leaders of the two major political parties dole out to their members. This is emphatically not our job.
Agreed.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 11:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Readers’ guide to the latest car-sharing stories
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
–McCann would have the federal courts micro-manage exactly which resources, and in what amount, the legislative leaders of the two major political parties dole out to their members. –
Another alleged conservative at work.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 12:07 pm
Sam just waiting by the phone for the plum job in the JB admin.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 12:16 pm
Other than McCann, has a legislative leader ever punished a caucus member by denying them staff resources on the government side? I can’t think of any, but my career in state government is only about 15 years.
Comment by Just Me Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 12:29 pm
Did they send you too appellate court?
Comment by Ouch Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 12:41 pm
Let’s take the other side of the coin. A new Senator gets seated, and because he/she does not meet the high standards of Brady, they can be denied access to the things a Senator needs to do their job? It seems to me, by trying to close the vial of worms, they have kicked over the can.
Comment by Retired Educator Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 1:15 pm
Whether you agree or not with the Court in this particular instance, the effects of this decision could be pretty wide-ranging; particularly by emboldening Party leaders to levy political retribution, and creating yet another roadblock for new parties by making access to taxpayer funded resources conditional, subject to the good graces of Party leadership. No matter how you slice it, this decision is going to have a discernible negative impact on the growth of third parties in Illinois.
Comment by Lt. Turmoil Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 1:20 pm
=Sam just waiting by the phone for the plum job in the JB admin.=
Why? JB didn’t need Sam’s 4 percent. JB doesn’t need to reward someone that didn’t serve a necessary purpose.
Comment by Iggy Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 1:22 pm
It is refreshing when a court comes right out and in plain English states that the matter before it is not the court’s job. So much better than micro managing the world
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 1:24 pm
Expected result, but I think the issue is more one of separation of powers argument than legislative immunity. Brady’s action didn’t impinge McCann’s First Amendment nor was he denied equal protection. He still had an office, his allowance for staff etc. and access to legislative services from the support agencies.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 1:47 pm
==Sam just waiting by the phone for the plum job in the JB admin.==
Does the Local 150 need another business representative?
Comment by City Zen Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 4:14 pm
=Sam just waiting by the phone for the plum job in the JB admin.=
Why? JB didn’t need Sam’s 4 percent.–
No, he did not. 2.4 million votes in a mid-term. The next highest total for governor since the state moved to mid-terms i 1978 was Edgar, who didn’t break 2 million.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 26, 18 @ 8:11 pm