The General Assembly and the 1970 Constitution
The General Assembly has implemented the new Constitution, but not without some opposition to the 1970 charter. Three vital items include the Board of Elections, Board of Education and auditor general
SOME OBSERVERS, chiefly legislators, think the title should be, "How the General Assembly fulfilled its solemn responsibility by implementing the 1970 Constitution." Others, chiefly delegates to the Constitutional Convention, think a better title would be, "The General Assembly versus the 1970 Constitution." The truth lies between these two extreme views. When the 1970 Constitution went into effect on July 1, 1971, the 77th General Assembly had been sitting for six months. This was the transition legislature, which recessed in June under the old Constitution and convened in the fall under the new. From the very beginning legislators distrusted, even disdained, anything or anyone connected with the new Constitution. Why?
One reason was the natural inertia of a large group of people. The legislators, like everyone else, had become used to the Constitution of 1870. After a century the archaic constitutional language had a familiar, even comforting, ring to it. The courts had eliminated most of the ambiguities of the old charter. Indeed, by 1970 little of the old Constitutional was open to debate.
The comfortable situation had produced, at least in the legislative branch, a general tendency to ignore the state Constitution. When the Illinois Supreme Court finally interpreted the restrictive revenue article to allow imposition of a state income tax, the last serious constitutional obstacle to legislative action fell. A century of coping with the 1870 Constitution had enabled Illinois to live with the restrictions (which were often couched in clearly prohibito.y language) by either ignoring the restriction or by circumventing it.
For example, the old Constitution required that each bill be read "at large" three different days before final passage. This requirement had come to be understood as requiring that a bill be read "in full," but this was never done except at the insistence of members of a minority who used it as a delaying tactic. Whatever the justification for such delays, the Illinois Supreme Court finally relegated reading at large to the parliamentary dustbin in 1956. In that year, the court said it would not question the accuracy of the official journal; if the journal said a bill had been read at large, it had been (Sangamon County Fair & Agricultural Association v. Stanard, 9 111. 2d 267). Thereafter any member who asked that a bill be read at large was hooted down by his colleagues. By this and other fictions, the pattern was set: Legislators could ignore the Constitution if it really got in their way. Many veteran legislators saw no reason to stop doing this when the new Constitution replaced the old.
Dislike for 'Con Con'
A second reason for legislators' distrust of the new Constitution was their dislike of the Constitutional Convention. Delegates to the convention were often perceived by legislators as rivals. The convention was a quasi-legislative body, but few people who served in it as delegates and staff had ever served in the legislature. Although the delegates could be as partisan and "political" as legislators sometimes are, the public viewed "Con Con" delegates as generally superior people men and women far more intelligent and honest than "those politicians" in the State House. Legislators were jealous of the favorable publicity given the convention, both during and after the convention. Many legislators still feel that the news media have exaggerated the virtues of the delegates.
The legislative reaction usually took the form of sniping comments in legislative debate. During 1971 many senators and representatives referred to
May 1975/Illinois Issues/131
'The task of implementing a new Constitution has been found complex and laborious. Readjusting a process of government set in a century of constitutional history subjected the legislative process to a difficult test'
the delegates as "amateurs," "do-gooders" and "upstarts" who were "politically naive" about the realities of Illinois government. One senior senator usually called the "rival" body "that old men's convention." Members of the 77th General Assembly who had been "Con Con" delegates sometimes found themselves bearing the brunt of the criticismeven taking blame for provisions they had opposed.
A third reason for legislators' distrust of the new document was that some new provisions caused a drastic shift in power. The most wrenching of these constitutional innovations is the home rule section. Under the old Constitution, cities and counties generally had no power to actto pass ordinances, raise taxes or even reorganize their governmentsunless the legislature specifically authorized them to do so by statute. Section 6 of Article VII of the 1970 Constitution turned this situation upside down. The larger cities, including Chicago, could now govern themselves to a great extent; so could Cook County. Their home rule power extends to police powers, licensing, taxation and incurrence of debts.
The shift dramatically changed the legislative picture. Chicago (and the other home rule cities) no longer needed to ask the legislature for everything, including the authority to change the color of the lights on squad cars. Down-state legislators quickly perceived that they had lost a bargaining point to use in negotiations with the Chicago delegation.
Objections to new veto power
The fourth reason for legislative objection to the new Constitution was Article IV, The Legislature. This article has great effect on the daily life of each legislator. After four years of working with the entire new Constitution, the
last two as parliamentarian of the House, I think it is the least satisfactory article. It is the most ambiguous, the least realistic, the most confusing and generally most frustrating part of the document. Many members of the 77th Genera] Assembly formed their first real idea of the workability of the new document from this article. One provision, in particular, made an early and unfavorable impression. An innovation in the veto provision the amendatory veto allows the governor to return a bill to the legislature "with specific recommendations for change."
Among the very first vetoes were two such "amendatory vetoes" of bills providing for aid to nonpublic schools (the "parochiaid" bill) and reducing penalties for possession of marijuana. In both instances Gov. Richard B. Ogilvie recommended fairly substantial changes in the bills, and in the case of the parochiaid bill, he even suggested changing its title. Since most legislators favored the governor's recommendations, both chambers adopted his changes, but only after a lengthy, acrimonious tirade against the new veto power.
Legislators saw the amendatory veto as a powerful gubernatorial device for strengthening the chief executive's hand in the legislative process. As with home rule, members of the General Assembly resented this diminution of their constitutional power. It is significant that the only constitutional amendment submitted by the legislature to the electorate so far has proposed restriction of the amendatory veto power. (The amendment failed at the November 1974 election; see Illinois Issues, Jan. 1975, p. 18.)
Of course, some hew provisions pleased most legislators. No one lamented the deletion of the three readings "at large" rule and other restrictions on the legislative process. The disappearance of the prohibition on paying expenses other than travel expense between the legislator's residence and Springfield caused no tears. And eventually the legislators had to acknowledge that the new Constitution was here to stay and had to be implemented.
This was fortunate, because the members of the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention had wanted to write a "nonrestrictive" Constitution which would allow Illinois to meet unforeseeable challenges in the 20th and ' 21st centuries, and so they drafted a "loose" charter with many gaps to be filled in by legislative action.
New committees and task force The three most important and cotroversial innovations of the new Constitution were the creation of a State Board of Education, the creation of a State Board of Elections and the election by the legislature of an auditor
Both the House and Senate of the 77th General Assembly created new committees to oversee implementation of the new Constitution. The House included such a committee among its list of standing committees in a resolution adopted February 2, 1971, amending the rules of the previous session (House Resolution 31). The Senate created such a committee on March 17 (Senate Resolution 32). In addition, Gov. Ogilvie on January 21 created by executive order a "Citizens Task Force on , Constitutional Implementation" to , work with the General Assembly and its agencies in preparing legislation to implement the new Constitution. This group issued checklists dated April 12, June 16, and September 14 noting what needed to be done and what had been' accomplished. In its third and final report, the task force noted that "the' new Constitution is far from being fully' implemented .... several of the most controversial sections still must receive final action. The task of implementing new Constitution has been found cornplex and laborious. Readjusting a process of government set in a century of constitutional history subjected the legislative process to a difficult test. The results are not yet in."
May 1975/Illinois Issues/132
When the 78th General Assembly convened in January 1973, legislative attitudes toward the 1970 Constitution had markedly improved. The major reason was reapportionment. Because of reapportionment, the 1972 election produced more urban and suburban legislators than ever before. There was also a substantial turnover in membership. The new members gave the impression of being younger, brighter and more idealistic than the old ones.
In any event, the new legislators had never served under the old Constitution and therefore had no commitment to old habits. Although neither house eslablished a second committee on constitutional implementation, all the major provisions were implemented by the end of the 78th General Assembly. Each of the three most significant provisions illustrates a different approach to implementation.
State Board of Education The debate on the Board of Education in the 77th General Assembly, revolved around one question: Who would control the board? If the members were elected on a partisan basis, the political parties would control them; if on a nonpartisan basis, their campaign supporters would conthem. The alternative was an
The State Board of Education (Art. X, sec. 2) was designed to be the basic governing body of the state educational system. It replaced a statewide elected officer, the superintendent of public instruction. Since the superintendent. Dr. Michael Bakalis, had been elected in November 1970, a month before adop of the new Constitution, the Constitution's transition schedule
provided that the board would not appoint a chief state educational officer until Dr. Bakalis' term expired in January 1975.
State Board of Elections
Compared with the battle over the Board of Elections, the creation of the Board of Education was the result of civilized and reasonable compromise. But since winning elections is the primary concern of politicians and political parties, the creation of a State Board of Elections was more controversial. The constitutional provision creating that board (Art. Ill, sec. 5) had specifically forbidden any political party to have a majority of the board. The problem was obvious to the legislature:
If there were an even number of Republicans and Democrats on the board, the board would almost always be deadlocked, since they would vote on any important decision along party lines. If the board had an odd number of members, the "odd man out" would be a nonparty person constantly pressured by either side. An honest, conscientious "odd" member would get an ulcer. After considerable wrangling, the legislature arrived at a novel solution:
the board consists of two Republicans and two Democrats. When they deadlock, one member, chosen by lot, abstains from voting.
A second problem with the Board of Elections was the familiar question of selection and control. Since there seemed to be no way that the board could be elected, the appointment process was divided between the legislative and executive branches. Each of the four legislative leaders nominates two people, and the governor appoints one of each pair. That insures that both branches have input into the selection process and that the nominees are "true Republicans" and "true Democrats" (Public Act 78-918, effective 10/22/73).
One of the difficulties with implementation of the board provision was the uncertainty about the date when the board became effective. Unlike the Board of Education, which had a delayed but specific effective date, the Board of Elections was included in the "general" effective date, July 1, 1971. Once it became clear that the board would not be operative by then, the question arose whether any election held without the board was constitutional. In the end, the consensus was that the judiciary would give the legislature a reasonable period of time to create a board. As it worked out, the question did not arise in the courts.
Office of Auditor General
The last major section to be implemented was the creation of the Office of the Auditor General and the election of the first auditor general (Art. VIII, sec. 3). This crucial officer is elected by the General Assembly for a 10-year term to be the legislative postauditor. He is thus a creature of the legislature. He can be as great a help to it as the U.S. comptroller general is to Congress.
Since the legislators frequently complained that they were completely at the mercy of the executive branch in obtaining fiscal information, perhaps it is surprising that they delayed electing the new auditor general until June 1974. The chief problem was deciding the type of auditor general wanted. He has to serve both parties and both houses; hence, a man with one strong party affiliation was out of the question. But a nonpartisan auditor or a non-Illinoisan might not be able to comprehend the intricacies of state government. Finally, after considering candidates with different party backgrounds, the choice fell on Robert G. Cronson, Chicago, an attorney and accountant with a long career of serving elected state officers of both parties.
The decision to elect a bipartisan,
133/Illinois Issues/May 1975
Many decisions on implementation were made clearly with one eye on dividing up power and the other eye on the Constitution
rather than a nonpartisan, officer was undoubtedly tied to resolution of the other major problem whether to give the auditor general strong investigatory powers into governmental operations. It is significant that implementation came when the Watergate scandal had brought to everyone's consciousness the power of the legislative branch to investigate the executive (Public Act 78-884, effective 9/20/73). By giving an auditor general reasonably strong powers, the legislature really opted for an activist officer. Such a person is likely to have had a history of party involvement on one or both sides of the aisle.
Antagonism to change
In retrospect the Illinois General Assembly implemented the 1970 Constitution within a reasonably short timethree years. The two main obstacles to earlier and smoother implementation were the loosely drawn nature of the constitution and the legislature's early antagonism to constitutional change. Certainly the convention could have made the job easier by setting delayed but specific effective dates for the most crucial provisions, as it did for the State Board of Education. Some of the looser language, especially in the legislative article, demonstrates a lack of insight into the legislative process. The convention's delegates should have realized that legislative decisionssuch as those on vetoesare made in the political arena, not in the constitutional law seminars. On the other hand, the General Assembly found it difficult to regard the Constitution as a special assgnment which could be approached on a bipartisan "good government" basis. Many decisions on implementation were made clearly with one eye on dividing up power and the other eye on the Constitution.
In a way, implementation is not over. A constitution must be constantly reexamined, redefined and, in a sense, reimplemented by the legislature every generation.
The Illinois Papers
A GROUP of approximately eight essays entitled The Illinois Papers will trace the reciprocal influence of the land and the people in Illinois and the Midwest. The current project of The Center for Illinois Studies, Inc., each essay will focus on one area of Illinois life its historical development and its present and future significance for the state.
As a group, the essays will uncover the development of the present complex issues and the consequences of the interdependence of the Midwest with both national and global societies. The core of topics includes the environment, transportation, agriculture, work, education, the arts, and justice.
Not all of the Papers have yet been commissioned by The Center, which welcomes inquiries from persons interested in writing a paper. Inquiries should be sent to The Center for Illinois Studies, Inc., 8 South Michigan Ave., Room 2006, Chicago, III. 60603.
Lobbyists registered
MORE THAN 260 lobbyists had registered with the Secretary of State's Index Division by late February. Lobbyists are required to report expenditures made in promoting or opposing the passage of legislation (III. Rev. Stat., ch. 63, par. 171 ff). A person who for compensation or on behalf of other persons undertakes to promote or oppose legislation must register; exceptions are made for those who appear as witnesses before committees without compensation, the media and their representatives, state employees, and certain others.
The power often
In 1965, 117 Democrats elected John Touhy, speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, by a vote of 117 to 58, in one ballot; straight party line voting.
In 1975, 107 Democrats could not in 93 ballots muster 89 Democratic votes to elect a speaker. William A. Redmond was elected speaker with 7 Republican votes and 82 Democratic votes.
Do 10 Democrats make that much difference?
By ARVID HAMMERS
A research associate for (the Legislative Council, he also served on the staffs of the Constitutional Convention and the Council of State Government .
How to buy state surplus property
TWICE A YEAR, once in July and again in November or December, the public is given an opportunity to purchase surplus state property at an auction held at the State Fairgrounds in Springfield. In the main, this surplus property consists of such items as obsolete office furniture and business machines. Other items occasionally available include household goods, plumbing fixtures and automobile parts. Prior to the public auctions, other state agencies are given an opportunity to inspect the property and to obtain any needed items.
Used state-owned motor vehicles are also available to the public on an intermittent basis usually five or six times during a year at auctions generally held in Springfield.
Surplus state property is collected in the following manner. State agencies notify the Property Control Division, Department of General Services, whenever any of their personal property becomes obsolete. The property is then surveyed by inspectors from the Property Control Division; usable items are taken to a warehouse on the State Fairgrounds.
Individuals interested in purchasing surplus property must register, free of charge, about two hours before the auction. All items are sold on a cash and carry basis. The exact time and place of the auctions is advertised in the classified section of the Springfield newspaper, the Illinois State Journal Register, once during the week and on the Sunday prior to the auction. The auctions are held on Saturday for the convenience of the public. Attendance at the auctions ranges from 200 to 400 people. Motor vehicle auctions are held on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
Persons outside the Springfield area or those interested in further information about surplus state property should contact Joe McCue, Supervisor. Property Control Division, Department of General Services, 4390 South Jeffory, Springfield, 111. 62705, phone (217) 786-6839.
134 /Illinois Issues/May1975