Issues and compromises of the fall session"LIKE an unruly, overcrowded classroom," someone remarked from the house visitors' gallery. The reference was to the proceedings of an "ordinary" day in this fall's special and veto override sessions. The Senate floor atmosphere was not much different, except that the "classroom" was smaller. The purpose of the fall session was not only to make laws that would meet the needs of Illinois citizens, but also to test the political power of the Democratic-controlled legislature and that of first-term Republican governor, James R. Thompson. But not all of the major issues considered during the session were political and problematic. One issue resolved with comparative simplicity was the governor's veto of the bill legalizing production and sale of Laetrile. The legislature overrode the veto. Not all legislators who voted to override, however, considered the drug to be useful. They said their votes merely reflected their constituents' wishes. Gov. Thompson's opposition to legalizing the drug was based on expert medical opinions holding Laetrile medically worthless. Thus, while the governor's veto was intended to protect the people, the legislators acted in accord with the literal interpretation of their role as servants of the people's will. On the controversial abortion bill, the governor and the legislators appeared to be communicating on different levels. The legislature, apparently persuaded more by moral arguments, overrode the governor's veto of the bill that prohibits Medicaid payments for abortions not performed to save the mother's life. On the other hand, Thompson's veto message argued that from a social justice standpoint the law would discriminate against poor women. The two positions do not have much in common, except that both were sure to please some voters and anger others. One item on the agenda of the second special session was to get the state's unemployment insurance laws to comply with federal requirements in order to avoid losing millions of dollars from the trust fund tax credit. One of the required changes called for inclusion of local government and school employees in the unemployment insurance program. The governor and Republican legislators disagreed with the Democrats as to who should pay for the cost of the program. Republicans wanted local governments to foot their own bill; Democrats wanted the state to cover the local governments' costs. The result was a compromise which provides for the state to share approximately half of the cost of the program with the local governments and schools. The fear of incurring even greater costs — if no bill was passed — was a powerful incentive to both sides. Not all the compromises were that easy. The "Class X" crime legislation wasn't just a matter of coming to an agreement about eliminating parole and adding determinate sentencing; it was also a matter of deciding who would choose the law's name. The governor gave up one provision he wanted — a life imprisonment penalty for certain serious crimes — in return for use of his "Class X" title. According to comments made by some, the "Class X" label was important to Gov. Thompson and his political future. The trade did not please everyone and drew disparaging remarks about "playing political football." Two state Supreme Court rulings prompted legislators to deal with welfare fraud and to create a new Board of Elections to replace the current unconstitutional one. The first assignment, though not without heated debates, was accomplished with considerable swiftness. Because of the court's ruling this fall that the Department of Public Aid did not have legal authority to impose sanctions on people accused or suspected of welfare fraud, the legislature enacted a law giving the department that statutory power. Like the stone rolled endlessly up the hill by Sisyphus, the new Board of Elections ordered by the court still remains to be created. After months of work and six extensions granted by the Supreme Court, the compromise bill, H.B. 26, was met with amendatory veto by the governor. Thompson rejected the bill's provision for shared appointment powers between the governor and the top elected official of the opposing party. His objection to that arrangement is based on principle — it would weaken the governor's office, he said. In his amendatory veto message he also called the bill an "unwarranted, unwise, and mischievous dilution of the executive power of the governor." This hint that the legislature was playing games was countered by a comment made by House Speaker William A. Redmond (D., Bensenville) who suggested that the governor was interested in more than principle. Redmond said that he did not want the board to become "a handy tool for shoring up a political edifice already under construction." The Democratic legislative leaders called a special session for December 16 to consider the veto. They needed three-fifths to override but realized that procedural Constitutional provisions worked to their advantage if action came before January 1, because the Republicans would also need a three-fifths vote to accept the amendatory changes. After January 1, the Republicans could have accepted the governor's changes with a majority. This was because the bill had an effective date of April 1978 and therefore required a three-fifths vote instead of the usual majority to accept an amendatory veto. (The Constitutional provision on effective date of laws says that a bill passed after June 30 shall not become effective prior to July 1 of the next calendar year unless the General; Assembly, by a three-fifths vote, provides for an earlier effective date.)
When the legislators convened December
16, the motion to override failed and the motion to accept the changes
failed. H.B. 26 was thereby killed. 28 / February 1978 / Illinois Issues
|
|||||||||||||||
