A look at the lawsuit challenging the governor's 'stop order' on legislators' pay
After Governor Quinn vetoed the appropriation for lawmakers' salaries until they fix the pension system, they responded with a lawsuit challenging his constitutional authority to do so. In the new issue of The Public Servant, newsletter of ISBA's Standing Committee on Government Lawyers, Tiffany Elking looks at the lawsuit and the reasoning behind it.
The plaintiffs make several arguments. The most technical is that the actual line-item veto didn't go far enough, striking only the itemized compensation for members and not the total for their salaries (Elking nicely illustrates this by showing the Governor's strikethroughs). Consequently, "the lump sum for the base salaries [and] additional salary to party leaders" leaves money in the pot that must be used to pay legislators.
And even if the veto passes that test, the plaintiff's argue, it violates Article IV, Section 11 the Illinois Constitution by making salary changes midterm ("changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected").
But the most compelling argument is an appeal to common sense. "If one branch is able to unilaterally have so much power over another, where would it stop?" Elking asks. "[I]t does not seem to make sense to allow any Governor the ability to suddenly withhold the pay of the legislators based on a single legislative issue....[E]very single issue the legislature deals with is important to someone or some constituent."
Read her article here.
Member Comments (1)
We should recognize the lawsuit as simply a political question that the courts have often left alone. The Illinois Constitution provides BOTH the line item veto power as well as the protection against pay cuts. This veto, however did not reduce salaries; it just is not funding the obligation. That happens to State employees often. Recall the 3% AFSCME pay raise that the Governor negotiated and then refused to fund. Legislators are no more sacred nor is their salary protection more important than the protection against impairment of contract.
We should recognize this for the political issue that it is and the legal question that it is not. True, it is a silly fight. The GA could have simply overridden the veto with no problem. That tool was in their hands and they wanted the political headlines instead. They will be paid soon. This is a lawsuit looking for an issue.