Another Illinois General Assembly has wrapped up by
delivering a surprise package: a $46.5 billion state budget passed at the last
minute that the public and most state lawmakers have had little time to
scrutinize in its nearly 3,300-page final form.
And again, many lawmakers were likely not fully informed when it came to their
vote on the state budget. That’s because the budget bill’s substance at the last
minute was placed in an insignificant bill to get around the Illinois
Constitution’s mandate that no bill get shoved through, but rather be read into
the record on three separate days.
Illinois Policy Institute research shows the practice goes far beyond budget
bills. Members of the Illinois General Assembly voted on nearly 300 bills that
had been amended the same day or the day before in the 2019-2020 session alone.
And hundreds of bills were voted on within one day of being gutted and replaced
in each of the past five General Assemblies.
Short-circuiting the bill reading process
The Illinois Constitution has provisions to prevent rushed legislation. Article
IV, Section 8 of the constitution requires each bill be read on three separate
days before it can be passed into law so lawmakers can know what they are voting
for. Bills filed are read aloud “by title,” meaning the name of the bill must be
read into the record. However, the full text of the bill need not be.
The purpose of this provision is to give all lawmakers a chance to know the
substance of the bills before they take a vote. But the spirit of this provision
is often subverted through the practice of gutting and replacing legislation,
often through the use of shell bills that contain no real substance.
For example, Illinois’ entire fiscal year 2022 budget was originally introduced
as a shell bill that read as follows: “The amount of $2, or so much of that
amount as may be necessary, is appropriated from the General Revenue Fund to the
Office of the State Appellate Defender for its FY 22 ordinary and contingent
expenses.”
Lawmakers passed the bill in the Senate and went through two readings in the
House before gutting and replacing it with all 3,088 pages of the budget at the
third and final reading – leaving lawmakers with zero chance of reading, much
less comprehending, the language they were expected to vote on.
That bill ended up riddled with errors, one of which would have prevented
appropriations from being spent until a month before the fiscal year would end.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker was forced to issue an amendatory veto to correct the error.
It was much the same with the operating appropriation bills during the past five
years. With thousands of pages of budget bills being passed without lawmakers
having the opportunity to read them, is it any wonder the state has not passed a
balanced budget since 2001?
Budgets are typically hundreds – and sometimes thousands – of pages, and
lawmakers should respect taxpayers enough to know exactly where the money will
be spent before agreeing to appropriate state funds. But the ability to read
bills before they are passed is just as important to everyday citizens, if not
moreso.
Hundreds of bills got a vote within one day of being amended in the 101st
General Assembly
According to an Illinois Policy Institute survey of bills introduced in the
101st Illinois General Assembly spanning 2019 and 2020, nearly 300 bills were
amended on the floor – gutted and replaced with new language – on the same day
or the day before the bill had a vote on the floor of the chamber. Although
those bills did not all become public acts, it means the practice was so
prevalent that it impacted nearly half as many bills as were passed into law.
This same trend has occurred in the past five General Assemblies, i.e., the past
10 years. Each General Assembly, hundreds of bills are gutted and replaced the
day before a vote in the same chamber.
Other states prohibit gut-and-replace legislation
The Illinois legislature’s evasion of its bill-reading duty should end; it is
not the norm in every state. For example, New York explicitly requires bills to
be read in their final form in order to comply with its reading requirement.
Idaho’s supreme court ruled their three-day reading provision implied a
requirement that a whole bill as amended must be read on three separate days.
Pennsylvania’s supreme court ruled shell bills cannot be used to circumvent its
constitutional reading requirement. And Alaska requires the three readings
starts over if an amendment changes the subject of the bill.
[to top of second column] |
In 2021 the good government groups League of Women Voters and Common Cause
successfully litigated against the use of gut-and-replace legislation in Hawaii.
In its decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court held the state constitution’s
three-day reading requirement “necessitates that the substance of a bill must
bear some resemblance to earlier versions in order to constitutionally pass the
third and final reading.”
A real 3-day reading requirement would help the public hold lawmakers
accountable
Illinois, on the other hand, has no real protections against lawmakers voting on
bills where they have a conflict of interest, and voters are reliant on
lawmakers’ own statements of economic interest and on journalists and good
government advocates to hold legislators accountable for their votes. Part of
holding lawmakers accountable should be the ability to highlight conflicts of
interest before a law is passed.
Activists can highlight ethical lapses after a bill is passed, and there is
often some period between passage in one chamber of the General Assembly and
passage in the other chamber and delivery to the governor. But legislative
momentum is a real phenomenon, and when bills are rushed through, watchdogs are
given no opportunity to provide critiques to bills before they gain that
momentum.
For example, a telecommunications bill that would allow telephone companies to
discontinue landline service in Illinois was rushed through the General Assembly
in 2017. The bill was originally a one-line amendment to the Regulatory Sunset
Act, but that one-page bill was gutted and replaced with the 369-page
telecommunications bill and then passed the state Senate in the same day.
Federal prosecutors are considering charging AT&T’s Illinois subsidiary with
crimes involving “a single, nine-month consulting contract in 2017.” According
to the Chicago Tribune, investigators are focused on alleged payments to former
state Rep. Edward Acevedo made between AT&T and Thomas Cullen, a former staffer
of then-Speaker of the Illinois House Michael Madigan. Madigan is currently
under indictment for federal racketeering charges involving an alleged bribery
scheme with the Commonwealth Edison utility company, wherein the company would
hire people close to Madigan in exchange for action on legislation favorable to
ComEd.
If AT&T had taken part in a similar scheme, the rushed passage of the
telecommunications bill could be seen as the fruits of Madigan’s corrupt
dealings. But that bill is only one such example of laws rushed through the
General Assembly without giving lawmakers time to read them. The 22-count
indictment against Madigan points to his using his powers as speaker to
manipulate the legislative process in favor of those special interests taking
part in the “Madigan Enterprise.” Rushing a bill through while exchanging
favorable legislative action for personal favors appears to have been part of
that scheme.
The use of sleight of hand to pass corrupt legislation should be prevented
wherever possible, which is another reason Illinois should reexamine the rules
for passing legislation in the state.
Illinois should follow the lead of states such as Hawaii and New York. The
legislative process should reflect the spirit of the Illinois Constitution and
provide lawmakers and voters the opportunity to review the bills that will be
voted into law before they pass. Voters deserved the three-day period to read
the budget bill before it was passed into law, but again they were denied that
opportunity.
The intent of the constitution should be reflected in the law. This could mean a
constitutional amendment that forestalls the possibility of a rushed vote on a
bill that has been gutted-and-replaced without the approval of a supermajority
of members of the chamber. This requirement could also be encoded in statute, or
even the House and Senate rules.
However it is done, Illinois voters deserve legislation that has been thoroughly
vetted by the members they elect to represent their interests. |