Executive
Report

By JOHN G. MARTIN

Two court battles on Initiative Amendment

AS THE summer begins, the fight over whether the Illinois Initiative will be on the November 2 ballot is heating up; it may well continue through the seasonal swelter. The initiative would amend the 1970 Constitution's legislative article to allow voters to propose legislation on all topics (see "Should Illinois take the initiative?" 1 April). Since May 2, when the leader of the initiative drive, Pat Quinn and his Coalition for Political Honesty, filed petitions proposing the initiative, petition signatures have been disallowed, hearings have been held and court suits filed.

In the confusing swirl of arguments around the initiative, the main battlefield has become the state and federal courts. On May 6, the State Board of Elections (SBE) disallowed more than 16,000 signatures from the initiative petitions. To counter that action, Quinn filed suit in Chicago's U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the statute the SBE cited in throwing out the signatures.

On the second front of the battle, opponents of the initiative have filed a suit challenging its constitutionality in Cook County Circuit Court. Filing their suit as citizen taxpayers, the group believes the proposal does not meet the test of Article XIV, section 7 of the 1970 Constitution which limits the right of initiative to "structural and procedural subjects" of the legislature. "We feel the initiative does more than that," said Ann Lousin, professor at John Marshall Law School and a plaintiff in the suit. "It goes beyond, to a question of power rather than of structures and procedures. For example, the legislature must have a three-fifths majority to preempt a home rule power. With the initiative, people would be able to preempt a home rule power by bypassing the legislature with a simple majority (of those voting on the initiative). The power to pass laws is a legislative power and should remain one."

Quinn does not agree that the initiative would do more than amend structural and procedural subjects. "Supreme courts around the country have held that the initiative power is a structural change. I think the other side is well aware of that, because the brief they filed reads more like a polemic against the initiative than an argument against its constitutionality. They are just against it. That's their right, but the place to argue their case is before the voters, not in the courts. If the voters get the opportunity to decide, we think we'll win."

Quinn is also optimistic that his federal court suit to overturn the statute by which the SBE disallowed those 16,000 petition signatures will succeed, and his optimism has some foundation: The courts have already ruled two other provisions of the law unconstitutional. One required that if signatures from two election jurisdictions were present on a petition sheet, the whole sheet had to be thrown out. (This law was overturned two years ago during the Quinn-led petition drive for the cutback amendment to reduce the size of the Illinois House by a third.) The provision most recently struck down required that a petition circulator reside in the jurisdiction in which he passed the petition. The law Quinn is presently contesting requires that all signers of a petition sheet must reside in the same election jurisdiction. If more than one jurisdiction appears on the sheet, the jurisdiction with the least number of signatures is eliminated from that sheet.

The purpose of the law is to make it easier for the SBE to verify petition signatures, but the problem, Quinn said, is that a county may have two election jurisdictions: the county itself and the municipal board of election commissioners of the large city within the county. (There are nine such counties in the state, including Cook, and most of the disallowed signatures were in those counties.) Quinn maintains that to keep county and city jurisdictions separate in petition-gathering is "the most ridiculous thing that ever hit Illinois. It's like saying that petition circulators and the people who sign them must have the same blood type. The courts have said that any restriction on petition-gathering must survive strict scrutiny."

Although Quinn's court case is still pending, on May 24 the SBE heard coalition arguments and tentatively allowed approximately 3,000 signatures to be added to the petition total, bringing it up to 250,000, tantalizingly close to the 252,008, or 8 percent of the voters in the last gubernatorial race, needed to place the initiative on the ballot. The SBE also voted to conduct the random sample necessary to verify the accepted petitions, as well as a sample of the disputed petitions — just in case.

But even if the disputed signatures are allowed, Jerry Owens, public information officer for the SBE, is not at all sure the coalition will have the necessary number to place the initiative on the ballot. "During our random sample of the petition signatures for the cutback amendment, we found 19 percent to be in error," he said. "Then, Quinn had a big enough cushion to overcome that 19 percent, but in this case I think it's highly questionable that he does."

As of this writing on June 1, both major court cases had barely begun, and by law, the secretary of state must have the wording of the initiative to publish it three months before the November 2 election. Whether that August deadline is met may depend on the courts. But as the SBE's Owens said of the initiative battle, "It looks like an all-summer thing, doesn't it?"

Attorney General Opinions

Aiding indigent veterans

If an indigent veteran and his family meet the eligibility requirements provided in article VI of the Illinois Public Aid Code, the Veterans Assistance Commission may not automatically terminate assistance after a set period of time. In order for veterans or their families to qualify for assistance, their income, when added to contributions in money, substance or services from other sources, including contributions from legally responsible relatives, must be insufficient to equal the grant amount established by the Department of Public Aid. The code also requires that to qualify for veterans' assistance, the recipient must be ineligible for aid under article III (aid to the aged, blind or disabled), IV (aid to families with dependent children) or V (medical assistance). (File No. 82-006)

Property tax abatement for industries

The power of taxing districts to abate taxes for industries under Section 162 of the Revenue Code as amended by Public Act 82-316 effective January 1, 1982, has been interpreted by the attorney general. The power is permitted for the property of industrial firms which are 1) locating within the taxing district from another state, territory or country, 2) formed in Illinois, or 3) expanding facilities during the calendar year immediately preceding the determination of assessed valuation. In this context the term "industrial firm" refers only to a business or entity engaged in production, manufacture or assembly of goods, or similar operations. The total aggregate amount of taxes that each individual taxing district can abate is limited to $1 million. (File No. 82-010)

July 1982 | Illinois Issues | 37