 And while this summer's projects are guaranteed, the Illinois
Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday that could put the rest of the
projects on hold.The court heard arguments on the scope and focus
of the state's capital construction program. State lawyers were
appealing a lawsuit filed by W. Rockwell Wirtz, president of
Illinois' largest liquor distributor, and the company Wirtz Beverage
of Illinois LLC.
Public Act 96-34 increased taxes on items such as liquor and
candy, allowed for the privatization of the state's lottery, and
legalized video gaming in order to pay for road, school and bridge
construction.
Lawyers for Wirtz argued that the law violated the Illinois
Constitution's single-subject clause, which requires that any laws
dealing with appropriations be limited to one subject.
"Doing studies on the fairness of taxes, the appropriateness of
taxes, … it's not an amendment directly connected to the question of
a capital project," said Sam Vinson, Wirtz's lawyer.
In addition to raising revenue, the law also requires the
University of Illinois to study the effect of buying lottery tickets
on Illinois families.
Assistant Attorney General Richard Huszagh insisted that the
study "thematically" correlated with the goal of raising revenue to
fund capital projects. He said it makes sense to study the effects
of the lottery tax on those who will be affected by the hike.
"(The Wirtz lawyers) have sort of taken a myopic view. They look
at one part of the provision in isolation and focus on it exclusive
of the rest of the enactment and claim that it cannot possibly have
a natural and logical relationship with the rest of the statutory
program. But we disagree," Huszagh said.
Although she couldn't predict how the judges would rule, Dawn
Netsch, a law professor at Northwestern University Law School, said
the courts have become stricter with cases concerning the definition
of single-subject clause.
"The primary purpose (of single-subject) always was to prevent
the ... overloading (of) a single piece of legislation with all
kinds of different things (and have lawmakers) get one provision
passed that might not be able to stand on its own," Netsch said.
The state's 1st District Appellate Court issued a stay on the
capital plan in January, citing that no "natural and logical
connection" existed between the construction and the taxes to pay
for them.
The state of Illinois disagreed with that ruling.
"Our position is that ... the permissible single subject of
(Public Act) 96-34 and all these other bills is the capital program.
The fact that all of these bills do have provisions that relate to
the same subject (makes them valid)," Huszagh said.
[to top of second column] |
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Bob Thomas pushed Wirtz's legal
team to provide the "smoking gun" that would prove their case.
"This is a once-in-a-decade capital works bill. By its very
nature, it's going to be enormous. ... It contains a lot of creative
means to finance it. So why would the financial part not be a
necessary element of the capital projects bill?" Thomas asked.
Lawmakers could vote for the entire measure -- even if they
disagreed with portions of the law -- to keep capital projects they
supported, Vinson said.
"It means that every legislator who has a project in the
appropriations bill or who has something in the revenue bill -- if
he cares about that, he's compelled to vote for both bills. ... We
don't think that should be done," Vinson said.
Justice Rita Garman questioned Vinson further on what would
happen if the entire law was thrown out.
"You submit that if there is a single-subject violation with
regards to any of these bills, they all go down?" Garman asked.
Vinson concurred, and he said the state would no longer be
authorized to spend that amount on construction plans.
Even without the decision, the state expects to spend billions of
dollars this summer on construction, which transportation officials
insist they will have enough money to fund either way the court
decides.
"We appreciate the court hearing this important matter on an
expedited basis and look forward to its decision," said Brie
Callahan, spokeswoman for Gov. Pat Quinn.
The Illinois Supreme Court has not announced when it will rule on
the case.
[Illinois
Statehouse News; By MELISSA LEU]
ISN Bureau Chief Benjamin Yount
contributed to this report.
 |
