By DWIGHT P. FRIEDRICH
A Republican state representative of 55th district, he has served in both the Senate and House and as a delegate to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention.

Should the amendatory veto power be curbed?
Yes



ii7709101.jpg

OUR founding fathers, men of great wisdom, designed and organized a government of the people after much prayer and meditation. Their design included three distinct branches of government: the legislative to make the laws, the executive to administer the laws and assume responsibility for government operation, and the judicial to interpret laws and render judgments in specific cases. In Illinois, that separation of powers has been the cornerstone in the perpetuation of our state which also has three distinct branches. That very separation has been usurped by an erroneous interpretation of the 1970 Constitution.

The Committee on Exectuive of the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention, of which I was a member, debated for many hours over whether or not to include a provision for an amendatory veto in the new constitution. Prior to that time, the governor was permitted to veto a bill in total, or line item veto portions of bills. He could not change the wording, even if it did not change the intent of the bill. There were many instances when he had no choice but to veto a bill because of a simple technical error. Often the error was typographical or a transposition of words or letters.

Although few states provided the alternative of the amendatory veto to their governors, the Committee on Executive, after extensive hearings and discussion, recommended to the convention that the governor be empowered to make technical changes, eliminating the necessity of a total veto and subsequent reintroduction of a bill.

The committee had some difficulty in arriving at its recommendation. There was considerable reluctance to give the governor any amendatory power. At no time was it ever considered the governor should be empowered to make changes that would alter the meaning of a bill. The sole factor in bringing the committee into argreement on the recommendation was that technical changes could be made by amendment without damage to the intent of the legislation and eliminate the necessity of introducing a new bill.

Both Govs. Daniel Walker and Richard Ogilvie used the amendatory veto to change the will of the legislature on certain bills. The separation of powers was invaded, giving the governor the power to write legislation without benefit of months of deliberation by
legislators, testimony from proponents and opponents, and roll call votes by elected representatives of the people from every walk of life and every section of the state. The governor, with the stroke of a pen and his single judgment or that of a staff member, could literally rewrite a bill and return it to the legislature with a "take it or leave it" choice.

Although transcripts of debate in the committee and on the convention floor clearly indicate the intention was to use amendatory veto only for technical errors, the Illinois Supreme Court determined, from one single, incorrect answer given by one delegate to another on the convention floor, that the amendatory veto was not necessarily limited to technical errors alone. Although the court noted that terms like "corrections," "precise corrections," "technical flaws," "simple deletions," and "to clean up language" were used to describe the kinds of "specific recommendations for change contemplated," it appeared to place heavy weight on an erroneous answer given by an Executive Committee member. When Delegate Dawn Clark Netsch (now a state senator) asked, "Then it was the committee's thought that the conditional [amendatory] veto be available only to correct technical errors?" Then Delegate Frank Orlando answered, "No, ma'am," and the court used this single, incorrect answer to authorize the governor to make substantive changes in legislation.

It should be noted that transcripts of the Committee of the Whole hearings on this matter contained other statements clearly illustrating the intent of the convention. Delegate Ronald Smith stated: "We had testimony to the effect that many of the bills that are returned are returned for corrections or for simple deletions — simply to clean up the language. If the legislature can, instead of sending something back into committee, take care of that kind of problem in one day, we feel that would be a substantial progressive move."

The report of the Committee on Executive also leaves no doubt as to the intent. "This proposed section, which has no counterpart in the existing Illinois constitution, offers an alternative to the veto which will be especially helpful when the Governor finds reason to object to portions of a bill whose general merit he recognizes. For exam-

Continued at top of page 12.

The Constitution states
"The Governor may return a bill together with specific recommendations for change to the house in which it originated. The bill shall be considered in the same manner as a vetoed bill but the specific recommendations may be accepted by a record vote of a majority of the members elected to each house. Such bill shall be presented again to the Governor and if he certifies that such acceptance conforms to his specific recommendations, the bill shall become law. If he does not so certify, he shall return it as a vetoed bill to the house in which it originated."
-Illinois Constitution, Article IV, Section 9, paragraph (e)

10 / September 1977 / Illinois Issues


Continued from page 10.

Yes:
Eliminate or limit the amendatory veto to protect the balance of powers

ple, he is now with some degree of regularity compelled to veto some measures merely because of a technical flaw in their wording."

The above language clearly indicates the committee intended this power to be used for technical errors only, not for substantive changes. Similarly, the debates of the convention had the same intent, with the one exception which the court cited.

It is ironic that the controversy over the amendatory veto can be traced to one single erroneous answer made by one delegate on the convention floor. As a result, the governor, using the amendatory veto power, can exercise legislative powers delegated to elected representatives of the people, without deliberate consideration in open debate in a public forum, with all sides of the issues presented.

The amendatory veto must either be eliminated or confined to the purpose for which it was intended — that of making simple changes without changing the meaning of a bill. It is clearly the governor's responsibility to administer the laws, not write them. His intrusion into the legislative branch is a step toward total power in one single office — a step we cannot afford.

I have introduced two resolutions for constitutional change in this area. One would eliminate the amendatory veto entirely; the other would prevent the governor from tampering with the meaning or intent of a bill passed by the elected representative of the people. It is time for the legislature and the people to act favorably on one of these resolutions to protect the balance of powers. 

11 / September 1977 / Illinois Issues


Home |Back to Periodicals Available| |Table of Contents| |Back to Illinois Issues 1977|