THERE are several ways to look at the 1975 fall session of the 79th General Assembly which adjourned on November 21. In quantitative terms it appears that Gov. Dan Walker came out well ahead with only 22 of his 365 vetoes being overturned. In terms of the issues that were hotly contested, the results were mixed. The governor won on such issues as the reduction of appropriations to the State Board of Education but lost on the fight over the State Fair Board.
Trying to fully understand what happened on veto action can be confusing because of the wide range of veto power granted to the governor in the 1970 Illinois Constitution and the differing votes required in order to overturn different veto actions. Furthermore, the number of vetoes was swollen by veto reductions in appropriations which had been promised by the governor June 11 when he issued the reassessment of his original budget requests with only three weeks remaining in the regular session which ended July 2. Since the General Assembly did not make Walker's reductions, during the regular session, the governor made them through his constitutional veto power.
There are four different types of vetoes available to the governor under Article IV. section 9 of the 1970 Constitution: 1. Total veto of an entire bill. In order to override this action, the General Assembly must obtain a three-fifths majority in each chamber (107 votes in the House and 36 in the Senate). 2. Item vetoes where the governor strikes out a specific item in an appropriations bill. This also requires a three- fifths majority in each house in order to be overridden. 3. The reduction veto where the amount of an appropriation is reduced by the governor without striking out entire items. In this case, the money can be restored through a constitutional majority in each chamber (89 in the House, 30 in the Senate). 4. Finally, there is the amendatory veto where the governor makes specific recommendations for change in a bill passed by the General Assembly. In order for the bill to become law with the recommendations incorporated into the original bill, a majority of each house must vote to accept them. If the legislature fails to do so, it is as if the bill were totally vetoed; but if each house casts a three-fifths vote to override the governor's recommendations, the bill becomes law.
The amendatory veto can become much more confusing than the others. For example, H.B. 709 (see Bill Summaries below) would have legalized gambling on card games played at a residence. The governor recommended that the bill be amended to contain an automatic repealer clause in it. First, the House of Representatives voted to accept the governor's recommendation, but the vote failed since only 62 members concurred and 89 were necessary. Then, the House voted on a separate override motion which carried 109-42, two above the required three-fifths vote. However, the Senate override motion failed since it only received support from 29 members when 36 were necessary. Therefore, even though the governor was only recommending what appeared to be a minor change in a bill which had earlier been passed by the General Assembly, the entire legislation was lost because a majority would not support the recommendation nor would three-fifths in both houses vote for override.
Clearly the most heated action during the veto session came on the attempts to override Gov. Walker's reduction of the appropriations to fund the school aid formula and to provide grants-in-aid. Mayor Daley made a rare visit to Springfield to address a joint session of the General Assembly to call for the restoration of funds. The first vote taken in the House on October 23 fell three votes short of the necessary majority, and the motion was placed on "consideration postponed." Two weeks later, on November 5, the bare majority required of 89 votes in the House carried the motion for restoration of these funds. In the Senate on November 19, a test vote was held, but consideration was postponed when the motion to override (restore funds) fell four votes shy of the 30 required. When the final Senate vote was taken two days later, no additional support had been found for restoration of the funds for the school aid formula. Those opposing the governor promised that they would take additional action during the 1976 session in their hope of appropriating additional funds for local school districts during the current fiscal year. But the veto battle had been won by Walker.
On the other hand, the governor suffered a defeat at the hands of the General Assembly when his veto of the bill to create a State Fair Board (H.B. 3028. see Bill Summaries and Roll Calls) was successfully overridden. This override action, aimed at taking direct control of the Fair out of the governor's hands, received substantial margins in both chambers. The House override received 117 yes votes, 10 over the required three-fifths majority; and the Senate override vote received 45, nine more than necessary. While it is true that the override in the Senate received eight more votes than the bill did when originally passed June 21, there were 10 more Senators voting when the issue came up for override in November.
One bill that was overridden was the subject of court action within a week of the final action. H.B. 1851 (see Bill Summaries and Roll Calls) would place limitations on abortions by requiring that married women receive the consent of their husbands and that single minor women have parental or guardian consent before an abortion could be performed. The governor had vetoed the legislation on grounds that it violated a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but the General Assembly voided his action. The provisions of the bill have had their implementation delayed while the courts decide on their constitutionality.
24/February 1976/Illinois Issues
Three special sessions were also held concurrently with the fall legislative session. Session No. 1 was aimed at approving a formula to guarantee that no school district would receive less state aid in fiscal year 1976 than it had in fiscal 1975. Without legislative action, and with the governor's reduction vetoes being upheld, many districts outside Chicago will fall below the dollar amount of fiscal 1975 funding from the state. However, even with assurances from Walker that the necessary $20 million was available, the enabling legislation could not receive enough votes in the House Elementary & Secondary Committee to reach the floor for a vote.
Special Session No. 2 was called to
consider bills restructuring the State
Board of Elections which has been the
subject of much court action concerning
the constitutionality of its makeup (see
December, page 380). No action was
completed although one bill introduced
at this special session and sponsored by
Sen. Daniel Dougherty (D., Chicago)
passed the Senate, and a package of
(Continued on page 27)
25/February 1976/Illinois Issues