After Governor Quinn vetoed the appropriation for lawmakers' salaries until they fix the pension system, they responded with a lawsuit challenging his constitutional authority to do so. In the new issue of The Public Servant, newsletter of ISBA's Standing Committee on Government Lawyers, Tiffany Elking looks at the lawsuit and the reasoning behind it.
The plaintiffs make several arguments. The most technical is that the actual line-item veto didn't go far enough, striking only the itemized compensation for members and not the total for their salaries (Elking nicely illustrates this by showing the Governor's strikethroughs). Consequently, "the lump sum for the base salaries [and] additional salary to party leaders" leaves money in the pot that must be used to pay legislators.
And even if the veto passes that test, the plaintiff's argue, it violates Article IV, Section 11 the Illinois Constitution by making salary changes midterm ("changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected").
But the most compelling argument is an appeal to common sense. "If one branch is able to unilaterally have so much power over another, where would it stop?" Elking asks. "[I]t does not seem to make sense to allow any Governor the ability to suddenly withhold the pay of the legislators based on a single legislative issue....[E]very single issue the legislature deals with is important to someone or some constituent."