Legislative Action

Fiscal strings on amendments

By PORTER McNEIL

THE NOVEMBER ballot will include two constitutional amendments put there by the 84th General Assembly. One would grant judges increased authority to deny bail to persons accused of certain felonies and who pose a threat to society, and the other would allow tax exemptions for property owned and used by veterans' organizations. In a new twist for proposed amendments, both call for the state to reimburse units of local government for revenue lost as a result of the amendments. No one by May 6 had any idea of total costs to the state treasury.

The proposed bail amendment this year will further amend the "Bail and Habeas Corpus" section of the Illinois Bill of Rights (Article 1), which originally guaranteed all persons the right to bail except if they committed a capital offense. It was amended in 1982 by expanding the exceptions to those who had committed crimes that carried a sentence of life imprisonment. This year's proposal, passed by the legislature as Senate Joint Resolution, Constitutional Amendment, No. 22, would further expand the exceptions to the guarantee of bail. The proof must be evident or the presumption great before a judge could deny bail, but under the new proposal, the judge may use that discretion to deny bail to those people waiting trial on charges of committing "felony offenses for which a sentence of imprisonment, without conditional and revocable release, shall be imposed by law as a consequence of conviction, when the court, after a hearing, determines that release of the offender would pose a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person." This additional category of offenses proposed in the amendment includes such Class X felonies established by statute as armed robbery, aggravated criminal sexual assault and home invasion.

Gov. James R. Thompson strongly backed the bail denial amendment, which had 39 sponsors, as it moved through the legislature. "I think someone charged with a Class X offense who also presents a threat to the health and safety of the citizens of a community should be in jail awaiting trial," said Thompson. "That defendant should not be free on the streets to murder witnesses or to strike again .... The courts . . . must be allowed more discretion in granting bail."

Opposing the amendment are groups such as the Illinois State Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the John Howard Association, a criminal justice watchdog group, which contend that state laws currently allow judges the authority to keep potentially dangerous defendants in jail by imposing bail at unaffordable levels, and that passage of this amendment would result in an erosion of the constitutional "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Opponents to the amendment in the Senate warned that the amendment would increase the problem of overcrowded jails around the state, and that the amendment was little more than "preventive detention" which would be used most frequently against nonwhites and the poor.

The House added the state reimbursement requirement onto this proposed amendment and onto the other one exempting veterans' organizations' property from taxes. Obvious related costs to the bail amendment would be county costs for jailing those denied bail while waiting for trial. If the amendment is ratified, the state must reimburse those costs. Counties also fund the circuit court system in Illinois and perhaps would seek reimbursement for costs related to court administration of the broadened amendment.

Although no one knew in early May how much the amendments would cost the state treasury, Rep. John J. Cullerton (D-7, Chicago), sponsor of the reimbursement provision in the bail amendment, said that the costs could involve as little as paying for court recorders to as much as paying for new jails to make room for additional inmates. Cullerton and others said that if judges used discretion in exercizing their expanded power, the costs could be minimal. Cullerton added, "The governor agreed to it because the governor knows that any costs will be incurred after the election."

Veterans try again

It would be strike three for the amendment to exempt veterans' organizations from local property taxation if it fails this November. Two similar referenda passed by previous General Assemblies and placed on the ballot for statewide approval have failed, in 1978 and 1984. To be ratified, constitutional amendments require either that three-fifths of those voting on the separate amendment ballot approve the amendment or that 50 percent of all voters in the general election approve the amendment.

The new fiscal twist to the 1986 version of the veterans amendment (Senate Joint Resolution, Constitutional Amendment, No. 11) is designed to meet the concerns of local government officials about lost revenues. The House added the following language: "The loss in revenue incurred by a unit of local government as a result of the exemption from taxation of property used exclusively for veterans' organizations shall be reimbursed by the State to the unit of local government." However estimates are made for these potential losses and subsequent state reimbursement, it should be noted that the definition of "units of local government" in the Illinois Constitution explicitly excludes school districts.

Veterans' groups are going to have to wage a campaign to inform the public about the amendment, according to House sponsor Rep. Charles Pangle (D-86, Kankakee). He said a lackluster campaign by such groups was the main cause for the previous defeats. State Sen. LeRoy Lemke (D-24, Chicago), current sponsor and long-time backer of the veterans' exemption, said the amendment is needed to keep veterans' posts from shutting down. "In my area, veterans' posts are having a hard time. . . . The taxes keep going up and up and up," said Lemke.

30/June 1986/Illinois Issues

Amendatory veto safe

On the losing side of proposed amendments was one sponsored by House Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-30, Chicago) to reduce the scope of the governor's amendatory veto power. Madigan failed to muster the votes in the House for the amendment (House Joint Resolution, Constitutional Amendment, No. 1). It was proposed by Madigan's ad hoc amendatory veto task force formed in 1983 and would have reduced the number of votes needed in the General Assembly to override a governor's amendatory veto. Instead of the current three-fifths vote to override, a simple majority (50 percent plus one vote) would have been required. Some legislators have become upset when the governor has returned their bills with substantive changes that dramatically alter their effect.

The constitutional record

In all, the 84th General Assembly considered 40 proposed amendments, and the 2 for 40 ratio is about average since the new Constitution went into effect. In fact, only eight out of nearly 400 proposed amendments have been put to the voters by the legislature since 1972. Only two have been ratified: one to reduce the redemption period on certain types of property sold for nonpayment of taxes and the other to broaden the category of accused persons who may be denied bail. The third amendment added to the 1970 Constitution arrived on the ballot via the initiative process after the legislative pay raise; that was the famous Cutback Amendment proposed and passed by citizens to trim the House by one-third and to establish single-member districts for electing members of the House.

For the two amendments approved for November, the next step is for the Secretary of State's Office to prepare information on the required separate ballots, including arguments for and against each. At least 40 days before the general election, county clerks must mail this information with sample ballots to all registered voters.

June 1986/Illinois Issues/31