Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: * LIVE COVERAGE *
Posted in:
* Illinois Policy Institute…
A lawsuit challenging a proposed state constitutional amendment on the November general election ballot saw its first hurdle. Plaintiffs argue the amendment violates federal law governing labor relations and the U.S. Constitution.
Sangamon County Circuit Judge Raylene Grischow denied the petition brought by the plaintiffs in Sachen v. the Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. The Chicago parents and teachers bringing the legal challenge to remove Amendment 1 from the ballot are represented by attorneys at the Liberty Justice Center and Illinois Policy Institute. Attorneys plan to appeal the decision.
Statement from Jacob Huebert, president of the Liberty Justice Center, a national nonprofit law firm:
“The state is asking voters to consider an amendment that contradicts federal law and is therefore unconstitutional. The parents and teachers bringing this legal challenge have the right to block the state from using public funds to promote an unconstitutional ballot measure. We will make this argument on appeal and continue to work toward removing this unlawful measure from the ballot.”
Statement from Mailee Smith, director of labor policy and staff attorney at the Illinois Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization:
“We are committed to pursuing our claims in court and ensuring Illinois voters are not forced to vote on an unconstitutional amendment. The law is clear that Amendment 1 would do more than the state is allowed to do. Illinoisans deserve to have this addressed now. Not later. Not after their tax dollars have been wasted putting an unconstitutional measure on the ballot. We look forward to our next opportunity to argue on behalf of taxpayers.”
The lawsuit was filed on April 21, 2022, in the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in Sangamon County.
* From the order…
Even accepting as true all of Petitioners’ allegations, there are no reasonable grounds to permit suit. Petitioner’s claims fail as a matter of law, and impermissibly seek an advisory opinion as to “constitutional issues … [which] may never progress beyond the realm of the hypothetical.” Slack v. Salem, 31 Ill. 2d 174, 178 (1964).
First, under Article XIV, section 2 of the Illinois Constitution, “[a]mendments approved by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house shall be submitted to the electors at the general election next occurring at least six months after such legislative approval, unless withdrawn by a vote of a majority of the members elected to each house.” Ill. Const. art. XIV, § 2(a). The requirements of section 2 are plainly met, and the constitutional command is clear. The proposal must be submitted to the voters for adoption or rejection. […]
Second, the Court has no power to restrain a referendum on the grounds that, if the proposed law were enacted, its enforcement would be unconstitutional. […]
Third, even if the Court had power to offer an opinion as to the prospective validity of an enacted Workers’ Rights Amendment, and even if Petitioners are correct that application of an enacted Workers’ Rights Amendment to private employees would be preempted by the NLRA, Petitioners plainly concede the Amendment would have valid applications, specifically application to public employees. … The Amendment would also prohibit the passage of laws restricting union security agreements, a subject about which “Congress …. left the states free to legislate.” These are plainly substantial applications of the Amendment. Petitioners offer no basis for preventing the Amendment’s submission to the voters merely because some anticipated applications may be preempted by federal law. The rule is exactly the opposite. […]
At most, federal preemption would merely render the Workers’ Rights Amendment dormant, not invalid, because it would still apply to situations not covered by the NLRA and would become enforceable even as to preempted applications in the event the NLRA were ever repealed. […]
Thus, the proposed Amendment would serve at least three permissible purposes. First, it would create rights for public employees, which Petitioners concede is not preempted by the NLRA. Second, it would restrain the power of the General Assembly to pass laws restricting union security agreements, a subject left open to the states. Third, it would act as a state-law failsafe to preserve rights for private-sector employees in the event the federal government ever decided to abandon the NLRA. There are no grounds for denying the voters the opportunity to decide whether to add the Workers’ Rights Amendment to the Illinois constitution.
Accordingly, the Petition states no reasonable grounds for filing suit. The Court has no power to pass on the validity of the proposed Amendment unless and until it is adopted by the voters. To do so would constitute an improper advisory opinion. … Moreover, even if the Court could entertain Petitioners’ challenges to the anticipated enforcement of the proposed Amendment, Petitioners plainly concede it has substantial applications unaffected by any federal preemption. Petitioners are therefore not entitled to an order prohibiting the placement of the proposed Amendment on the ballot. The Petition is denied.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 5:19 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: * LIVE COVERAGE *
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“a nonpartisan research organization”
c’mon man.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 5:39 pm
The IPI’s war on workers continues.
Comment by Real Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 5:43 pm
This is a totally needless amendment which has no impact but will only further convince prospective companies to stay away from Illinois when contemplating where to build new facilities. And we wonder why our neighboring states continue to extract job opportunities away from Illinois
Comment by Sue Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 6:12 pm
=== a nonpartisan research organization ===
[Insert crowd laughing hysterically GIF.]
Those droplets you’re feeling came from all the IPI crying.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 6:13 pm
Nice try, IPI. It’s almost as if the drafters considered the preemption issue ahead of time…
Comment by The Fifth Deputy Governor Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 6:23 pm
Hilarious how all the double masked, triple boosted libs who wanted to crucify this judge not so long ago now nod approvingly at her eminently reasonable, wise ruling. Hypocrites of the worst order.
Comment by ESR Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 7:31 pm
The IPI is partly responsible for the need for the amendment, called the “Worker’s Rights Amendment”. Their legal wing represented Mark Janus pro bono. They keep saying “It’s unconstitutional because workers already have the right to unionize.” What they want to sweep under the rug is this amendment allows workers the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to form a union, elect representatives of their own choosing, and negotiate over matters that pertain to them in the workplace, without government interference.
Had there not been Bruce Rauner and the IPI interfering with union rights in the workplace, the “Worker’s Rights Amendment” wouldn’t be necessary.
Comment by Fivegreenleaves Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 7:34 pm
**Hilarious how all the double masked, triple boosted libs who wanted to crucify this judge not so long ago now nod approvingly at her eminently reasonable, wise ruling. Hypocrites of the worst order.**
Literally no one on this thread has said anything about the judge but you. Valiant effort though.
But, no, it isn’t hypocrisy to disagree with one decision and agree with a separate, totally unrelated decision.
Comment by SaulGoodman Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 7:44 pm
IPI can vow to appeal all they want, but Grischow was just about the best draw they could get and they couldn’t even convince her to actually let them sue, much less reach the merits of the case.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 8:47 pm
to all you so-called union supporters. if you don’t buy union made goods and services, all the laws in the world will do nothing.
Comment by Blue Dog Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 10:29 pm
” … to all you so-called union supporters. if you don’t buy union made goods and services, all the laws in the world will do nothing.”
Which is why, here in Springfield, I buy my groceries at Schnucks, not WalMart.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jun 2, 22 @ 10:42 pm
What’s the point is desperately trying to distract from the billions in profit going to investors who are just accumulating wealth and not adding to the local economy. Well… maybe some of that money is going into campaigns of politicians so maybe some of that goes to staff. I guess there’s that.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 3, 22 @ 8:01 am
“Hilarious how all the double masked, triple boosted libs who wanted to crucify this judge”
Dude, it’s called an appellate court.
Comment by Juice Friday, Jun 3, 22 @ 9:41 am
=Hypocrites of the worst order.=
You sound like you need a hug.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jun 3, 22 @ 10:15 am
==What they want to sweep under the rug is this amendment allows workers the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to form a union==
As long as you’re cool with, for example, STEM teachers forming their own union separate from the other teachers in their bargaining unit. Because forcing workers into a singular bargaining unit actually limits their ability to organize freely.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 3, 22 @ 11:07 am
@CZ- what you describe would actually weaken their bargaining power not increase it.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jun 3, 22 @ 11:34 am
@JS - Can you run the school without them? Are they easier to replace? The number is irrelevant. It’s the skillset that matters.
I suppose those points are moot anyway as the amendment allows individuals unlimited collective bargaining options. Whatever they feel works best for them is all that matters.
BTW, have you decided which Teamsters local you’re going to join?
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 3, 22 @ 11:49 am
==STEM teachers forming their own union separate from the other teachers==
To paraphrase Orwell “Some teachers are more equal than others. /S
Comment by Jocko Friday, Jun 3, 22 @ 11:50 am