 For the first time since the state adopted its constitution in 1970,
one party controls all the branches of government needed to create a
new legislative district map based on U.S. census population
figures.One tool created in that constitution was the amendatory
-- or corrective -- veto. In an age without computers, it allowed
governors to correct technical problems with legislation. Over time,
however, governors have wielded their amendatory veto pen with more
and more power.
Could Quinn use this power to make changes to any political map
that the Democratically-controlled General Assembly sent him?
According to several state constitutional experts, the answer is
yes.
There was talk of this exact scenario during the 1970
Constitutional Convention, said Ann Lousin, a professor at the John
Marshall Law School, who was involved in the convention.
"I remember there (were) informal discussions -- no great big
fuss, let me tell you -- about the fact that since (redistricting)
would be a bill as opposed to a joint resolution, that it would go
to the governor and this would give the governor whatever his veto
powers were," Lousin said.
Dawn Clark Netsch was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention
and is a professor at Northwestern Law School. She said the
constitution doesn't give Quinn the ability to simply swap the
legislature's map with his own under the guise of an amendatory
veto.
"We know by court decision that it is more than technical changes
or correcting errors, but it is not rewriting a bill or totally
changing the purpose," Netsch said.
While Quinn could reject a map outright with a veto or tweak it
with an amendatory veto, Lousin and others said that is extremely
unlikely. Lousin even went as far as to call that move political
suicide.
Kent Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University
of Illinois at Springfield, said that Quinn could use his signature
on a new map as leverage for some of his legislative priorities.
But, Redfield added, because the political lives of so many are
tangled up in the redistricting process, any map that actually makes
it out of the legislature is fragile at best.
[to top of second column] |
"It certainly does give the governor kind of the ultimate
doomsday weapon, which is to scuttle a map that (Senate President
John) Cullerton and (Speaker of the House Michael) Madigan put
together," Redfield said. "I think that's a pretty dangerous game of
chicken."
It's a dangerous game at least for Democrats because it would
take the process out of their hands. Overturning a gubernatorial
veto would require Republican votes, something unlikely to happen.
In 1991, then-Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican, vetoed a
redistricting map passed by the General Assembly. Like the two times
before and the time after, the redistricting commission was made up
of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, and they couldn't
come up with an agreement. That gridlock forced a lottery to see who
would get the tie-breaking vote. In Edgar's case, he and the
Republicans got lucky and won.
Another reason Quinn is unlikely to use the threat of a veto as
leverage is because of what has been accomplished in the past
several months, Lousin said.
"Here is a guy who has made some bold decisions, whether you like
them or not -- civil unions, abolishing the death penalty, asking
for an increase in the income tax and is talking about worker comp
reform. If that's all true, he cannot afford to alienate his own
party, can he? And that's what he's going to do, he's going to
alienate people if he starts using an amendatory veto," she said.
[Illinois
Statehouse News; By ANDREW THOMASON]
 |
