Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Brady wishes Bailey would tone down the rhetoric, but says “both sides have a problem”
Next Post: Opt-out battles rage over state sex ed law, which impacts a minority of school districts
Posted in:
* Friday press release…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued the following statement in response to an opinion by the 4th District Appellate Court in Sarah Sachen v. Illinois State Board of Elections. The opinion affirmed a lower court’s decision rejecting a lawsuit that sought to remove a proposed constitutional amendment from the November 2022 ballot.
“I am pleased with the 4th District’s decision, which will allow voters to decide whether Illinois’ constitution should be amended to include a ‘Workers’ Rights Amendment.’ We argued that the plaintiffs’ claims failed because the decision of whether to amend the constitution should be made by the voters, not the courts. I am happy the court agreed.
“Voters should decide whether workers’ rights to organize and collectively bargain should be enshrined in our constitution. This opinion means that, in a few short months, voters will have the ultimate say.”
That lawsuit, backed by the Liberty Justice Center and the Illinois Policy Institute, was iffy from the get-go, to say the least.
* From the opinion…
Petitioners asked the trial court to find that there was a reasonable ground for the filing of their complaint and to order it filed. They attached a copy of their complaint to their petition, alleging Amendment 1 was preempted by the [National Labor Relations Act] and in violation of the supremacy clause and seeking both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. Specifically, petitioners asked the court to (1) declare that Amendment 1 was preempted by the NLRA and in violation of the supremacy clause and (2) preliminarily and permanently enjoin respondents from disbursing or using public funds to place Amendment 1 on the November 2022 general election ballot. […]
Following a hearing the same month, the trial court entered a written order denying petitioners leave to file their complaint and agreeing with respondents that reasonable grounds did not exist for the filing of their proposed action. […]
On appeal, petitioners challenge the trial court’s denial of their petition for leave to file a taxpayer action. They argue that as taxpayers, they have standing to seek to enjoin the use of public funds for any unconstitutional purpose, including the placement of a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot when the amendment itself is unconstitutional. Further, they contend that, even if they are not entitled to injunctive relief, they still have standing to obtain declaratory relief with respect to the constitutionality of the proposed amendment. Finally, petitioners maintain the court erred in finding their constitutional claim—that Amendment 1 violates the supremacy clause because it is preempted by the NLRA—lacked merit. […]
Here, because petitioners do not claim a violation of article XIV, their proposed action would seek judicial interference with a legislative process that is constitutionally authorized. Such interference is improper as expressed in Fletcher, and ultimately, there is no waste of public funds caused by the carrying out of an election that conforms to constitutional requirements. Further, petitioners’ challenge to the validity of Amendment 1 is premature until such time as it becomes effective. We note petitioners argue on appeal that even if their claim for injunctive relief may not be maintained, they could still successfully pursue declaratory relief. However, as respondents point out, Slack specifically applied its holding to a request for a declaratory judgment. Thus, like petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief, their request for declaratory relief is also premature.
For the reasons stated, we find the trial court was correct in finding petitioners’ claims failed as a matter of law. The court’s determination that reasonable grounds did not exist for the filing of petitioners’ taxpayer action was not an abuse of discretion.
C. Preemption
As stated, the trial court further found that no reasonable grounds existed for the proposed taxpayer action because (1) Amendment 1 could have some valid applications that would not be subject to preemption and (2) preemption could only render Amendment 1 “dormant, not invalid.” Given our holding above, we find it unnecessary to address this additional basis for denying petitioners leave to file their action.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Brady wishes Bailey would tone down the rhetoric, but says “both sides have a problem”
Next Post: Opt-out battles rage over state sex ed law, which impacts a minority of school districts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Liberty Justice was basically asking the appellate court to overrule the Illinois Supreme Court.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:33 am
Waiting for IPI and Liberty Justice to admit their mistake in filing this frivolous lawsuit…or are they arrogant?
Comment by PublicServant Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:51 am
Noted “as a white male” writer Diana Rickert is currently at Liberty Justice, after a stint with the Illinois Policy Institute…
Rickert and her cup of coffee she enjoyed working for Bruce Rauner is not mentioned in any of her work history.
Why is this important?
The Liberty Justice / IPI connection isn’t accidental, it’s forged.
The connection also means looking at either as thoughtful to governing or law… and without an agenda that would like to short cut legalities in the courts… is foolish.
They don’t advocate for the state or the peoples best interests, they both merely claim they do.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:56 am
Hmmm. This seems well over my head. Can someone translate? Unbiasedly would be preferred.
Comment by Lurker Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 12:03 pm
I am glad this will be on the ballot. At the same time, I wonder if the plaintiffs mistake was in declaring that they had legal standing to bring this case because they are taxpayers. Why taxpayers? why not just citizens? Are they of the opinion that only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote? We tried that once. I was called Jim Crow/Apartheid. If we wish to amend the constitution, then citizenship is the foundational claim, not taxpayer.
Then again, I have critiqued (elsewhere) the flaw of the IPI argument that Amendment 1 will raise taxes. IF that is the model the offered, then it becomes easy for the court to say, “you do not have standing, because taxes have not changed.”
Comment by H-W Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 12:09 pm
Glad this made it on the ballot.
Comment by (618) Democrat Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:51 pm
The so-called, “Workers’ Rights Amendment” which should more aptly be titled the “Never Right to Work Amendment “. The fundamental right language would give unions and their organizing efforts equal footing with the freedom of expression, voting, decisions about reproduction, and interstate travel. A gift to a huge minority of the state. Currently, 750,000, or 15.2% of the total population are unionized. This will result in higher property taxes as the public sector workforce will be the target of a massive collective bargaining effort.
https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/news-release/unionmembership_illinois.htm#:~:text=Illinois%20had%20752%2C000%20union%20members%20in%202021.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 2:35 pm
==This seems well over my head. Can someone translate? Unbiasedly would be preferred. ==
The General Assembly put a referendum on the ballot that would, if enacted, add an amendment to the IL Constitution protecting the right to collectively bargain. Plaintiffs said that such an amendment would violate federal law, so it shouldn’t even be on the ballot. The courts disagree, saying it’s not even clear if it does violate federal law, and even if it does, it can just be dormant, we don’t have to actively disallow the voters to vote on it.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 2:39 pm
===The fundamental right language would give unions and their organizing efforts equal footing with the freedom of expression, voting, decisions about reproduction, and interstate travel===
So you’re against equality? That’s an odd take.
===the “Never Right to Work Amendment “. ===
“And?”
Again, an odd take. Your what is the ability to limit workers’ rights. Huh.
Prolly, not probably, exactly… prolly why this amendment *needs* to pass, to protect workers from folks stripping rights.
Great comment. Appreciate it.
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 2:55 pm
The workers rights amendment is so important. My fiancée works for the County. With a far right county board chairman and trending to the right, it’s not inconceivable that they could strip away collective bargaining from county workers.
This amendment would stop any state government body from taking away collective bargaining.
And it’s a total farce that it would raise property taxes. It totally wouldn’t.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 3:29 pm
@Donnie Elgin
The argument that this only benefits current union members is totally baseless - it equally benefits people who have not yet unionized but are seeking to, since it protects the right to organize.
Most people are workers, and every worker in Illinois could benefit from unionizing, since union workers make more money and have better benefits and job security than their nonunion counterparts.
Comment by Actual Red Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 5:50 pm
This shows the Illinois Policy Institute isn’t really about getting government off the backs of people. They only want that when it suits their agenda. They want government intervention when it comes to issues they oppose. Heck, they’re one of the reasons the Worker’s Rights Amendment exists because they were instrumental in promoting the Rauner agenda, then they were hired by his administration and didn’t realize government has to actually govern, and it’s more than just political punditry.
Comment by Fivegreenleaves Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 8:20 pm