Try, try again
The General Assembly's attempt to set up
a new State Fair Board to replace the present
State Fair Agency was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The law (Public Act 79-1129) establishing the new board would have had the legislature, in
effect, appointing members of an executive
agency, which is not allowed by Section 9 (a)
or Article V of the 1970 Constitution: "The
General Assembly shall have no power to
elect or appoint officers of the Executive Branch." The law in question, which the General
Assembly passed over Gov. Dan Walker's
veto, provided for an interim board of 15
members with 12 of them appointed by the
four top legislative leaders, and the other 3 by the governor. Even though legislative leaders, and not
the General Assembly, would have made the
appointments, the court said, "We cannot
allow the General Assembly to do indirectly
through its officers that which the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly." The interim board would have been
replaced by 1978 with a 15-member board.
One of the interim board's duties was to
establish selection procedures for members
of the permanent board. Ten State Fair
Districts were to be set up with each district
to nominate one board member to be
appointed by the governor, and five others
were to be appointed by the governor with
the consent of the Senate. Although the
interim board would have had this legislative
duty, its primary duty — running the state
fair — was still executive. The opinion, delivered by Justice Ryan,
reversed the decision of the Sangamon
County Circuit Court.
Paul H. King. Superintendent of the Illinois
State Fair Agency, v. George W. Lindberg,
Comptroller, decided March 29, 1976
Regional versus home rule
Home rule municipalities do not have the
power to regulate regional or statewide
environmental problems, according to the
Illinois Supreme Court. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago wants
to build a regional sewage treatment plant in
the City of Des Plaines, and the court held
that the city could not require the district to
obtain a city permit or to comply with a city
health ordinance. The district already had
met state environment regulations. Justice Underwood pointed out that this
was the third time in 10 years the controversy
between the two parties had come before the
court. This time, the city had tried to stop the
construction of the sewage plant under the
contention that its home rule powers
included regulation of its environment. The
court held that "the application of the Des
Plaines ordinance does not pertain to its
'government and affairs' within the meaning
of section 6(a)" Article VII of the 1970
Constitution. The court explained that the
ordinance "imposes environmental regulation upon an essential function of a regional
District's ability to perform. The sewage
treatment plant the District proposes to
locate in Des Plaines would also serve six
other municipalities, some of which are
themselves home rule units and all of which
could become so." The court's opinion cited the report of the
General Government Committee of the
Constitutional Convention to clarify the
intent of "the public policy of the State to
maintain a healthful environment": "The use of the word 'State' is meant to
include political subdivisions of duplication
of efforts by the State and its local governments. It is intended that the issue be left to the General Assembly for resolution" (Proceedings, Vol. 6, p. 698). "There are myriad problems which must
be overcome in this effort to preserve our
environment. Not least among these is the
problem of duplication of our efforts. It is
essential to the cause that the inter and intra governmental efforts complement one
another, that there will be a coordinated
plan of action with uniform standard"
(Proceedings, Vol. VI, p. 700).
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago v. City of Des Plaines, decided
March 29, 1976
Uphold inheritance law
The constitutionality of the Illinois
inheritance tax was upheld by the court, and
Atty. Gen. William J. Scott has claimed a
major victory with the decision. Under question was section 11 of the act
(Illinois Revised Statutes, 1973, ch. 120, sec.
385) which had not been tested under the
1970 Constitution. In reversing the appellate court decision
on the case, the Supreme Court said that a
circuit court's duty to assess the property
was an administrative or non-judicial function and not a violation of the separation of
powers of section 1 of Article II of the 1970
Constitution. The Supreme Court noted
that section 4(d) of the Transition Schedule of the 1970 Constitution provides for the
circuit court to continue exercising non-judicial functions granted former county
courts under laws passed as of December 31,
1963, unless the General Assembly changes
the laws. The validity of county judges
assessing the inheritance taxes under the
Constitution of 1870 had been established.
and when the county courts were abolished
and circuit courts established in 1962, the
assessment of inheritance taxes was passed
on to the circuit judges. The high court also upheld the constitutionality of the provision for appeals from an assessment order within 60 days to the
circuit court as provided in the same section 11. The question here concerned the fact that an appeal of a circuit judge's assessment order must be made to the same circuit
judge. The Supreme Court, with Justice Underwood dissenting, said the first assessment order entered by a judge is an administrative action, subject to the 60-day period for appeal; the second order by the judge reviewing his first action is the final judicial order subject to the regular 30-day Supreme Court rule for an appeal. The attorney general had filed an appeal
in this case within 30 days after the circuit
judge's second order, and the Supreme
Court said the appellate court had erred in
dismissing the case on the grounds that the
appeal had not been filed within 60 days of
the first order by the circuit judge. Justice
Underwood also dissented on this point.
Justice Crebs did not participate in the case. Chief Justice Ward delivered the opinion
and stated, "We consider the legislature
should provide for the assessment to be
made by an administrative body or person
and for a right of review in the circuit court." When the court's decision came down, the
attorney general said "$75,000,000 a year in
state revenue would have been in jeopardy,
had we lost the case." It is the attorney
general, as printed in Section 11, who does
appeal the administrative order of the circuit
judge in assessments for inheritance taxes. The original question in the appeal of this
case by the attorney general centered on
reporting Treasury bonds in valuing an
estate. The circuit court's decision to assess
Treasury bonds at their fair market value
was judged as correct by the appellate court,
and so noted by the Supreme Court.
People of the Stale of Illinois v. Ernestine
G. Barker, Executor of the Estate of Zulena
M. Barker, decided March 29, 1976
CORRECTION:
Kerner carried Sangamon
Gov. Otto Kerner carried Sangamon County in the 1964 general election. An article in
the May magazine ("Sangamon County
politics: Area's Number 1 industry") said
that Richard B. Ogilvie in 1972 was the only
incumbent governor in 30 years to carry this
county in a reelection bid.
32 / June 1976 / Illinois Issues