Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, please
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* Capitol News Illinois on August 11…
The bill would have allowed for the construction of reactors that meet the federal government’s definitionof “advanced reactor,” which require that fission reactors have “significant improvements” to things such as safety features and waste yields.
Rezin, in a phone interview with Capitol News Illinois, said Pritzker’s characterization of the bill allowing construction of traditional reactors is “just not true.”
“This is a pattern of a governor that is bending to special interests,” Rezin said.
Rezin also noted the limitation in the bill to only apply to advanced reactors came out of bipartisan negotiations.
Subsequent press release from Sen. Rezin…
Senate Bill 76 passed out of the General Assembly with veto-proof rollcalls because the members of the General Assembly who live and work in our communities know that it is our constituents, and not special interests and political ambitions we are here to serve. That’s why I have immediately filed paperwork to override this veto during our upcoming Veto Session this fall.
Sen. Rezin eventually introduced a proposal that only allowed small-scale reactors. Capitol News Illinois…
Lawmakers on Thursday approved a proposal that would allow companies to develop new nuclear power generation in Illinois for the first time since 1987.
House Bill 2473 does not entirely lift the 36-year-old moratorium on nuclear construction. Instead, it creates a regulatory structure for the construction of small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs. […]
Gov. JB Pritzker said in a statement Thursday that he would sign the bill. He worked with lawmakers on the new language of the new bill after vetoing a broader measure this summer.
* Capitol News Illinois back in August…
Gov. JB Pritzker on Wednesday vetoed a measure that would have granted existing utilities in downstate Illinois, notably Ameren Illinois, the “right of first refusal” for transmission line construction. [….]
The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Larry Walsh, D-Elwood, told Capitol News Illinois that he stands by the policy and will try to pass the bill over the governor’s objection during the legislature’s veto session, which begins in October.
“I’m gonna work my bill. I know how the vote went, I know the nuts and bolts of it,” Walsh said.“I’m filing for an override. I went down there to protect Illinois workers. That’s what I’m going to do.”
Walsh stressed that he sees the bill as being beneficial to laborers. In his view, the competitive bid process opens up transmission line construction to out-of-state companies, over which the state has less oversight.
Two months later in Capitol News Illinois…
At a news conference last week, Rep. Larry Walsh Jr., D-Elwood — the chair of the House Public Utilities Committee and sponsor of the vetoed bill — conceded the fight over House Bill 3445.
“We’re not going to carry or try to override the veto,” Walsh told reporters.
A high-stakes lobbying battle has broken out in Springfield over whether to sustain or override Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s amendatory veto of a little-noticed but impactful bill that would slash property taxes by nearly two-thirds for hundreds of nursing homes located in Cook County.
If enacted into law, the measure would shift tens of millions of dollars “and maybe more” in annual property taxes from nursing facilities to homeowners and other businesses, according to Cook County Assessor Fritz Kaegi’s office. Some south suburban communities would be particularly affected. […]
Any action on an override will have to begin in the Illinois House. The main sponsor of the property-tax bill, Rep. Stephanie Kifowit, D-Aurora, said she will push for an override to keep homes from closing, but will allow the nursing home clause to be removed if that’s needed to save the underlying bill and its other provisions.
No action was taken during session either way on that particular bill. The House passed a bill without the nursing home exemption, but it stalled in the Senate.
* Both chambers of the General Assembly voted to accept the governor’s amendatory veto of our next bill, HB2878. WGN in August…
Pritzker said House Bill 2878 addresses procurement issues important to his administration, but because the bill allows for the creation of public private partnerships (P3) with counties, municipalities and any other unit of local government without proper oversight in place, the governor issued an amendatory veto. The governor removed the provision that creates a local pathway for private industry to enter P3 agreements that he says skirts transparency and anti-corruption requirements established in state statute.
“The potential in this bill for opacity and corruption is too great,” Pritzker wrote in his message. “In addition, the bill as written puts the state at greater risk of project failure because it decreases competition and reduces the opportunity for public input into project planning and implementation currently required for other P3 developments under state law.”
* The governor’s veto stands on this bill as well. From WGEM in October…
As Illinois lawmakers return to Springfield for veto session on Oct. 24, one thing likely on this year’s agenda may impact menus at schools across the state. […]
A bill passed during the regular session, but Gov. JB Pritzker vetoed it citing technical issues. […]
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ram Villivalam, D-Chicago, said it’s important kids don’t have to choose between their religion and not going hungry.
“Not being able to have the culturally-appropriate meals is a challenge, and the last thing that anyone wants is a student that is not having a meal,” Villivalam said. “We know that that impacts their ability to learn and be educated and be health and safe and so much more.”
Pritzker said Thursday he thinks the technical issues have been worked out with lawmakers. He’s hopeful a similar bill mandating halal and kosher menu options reaches his desk during veto session.
The Senate passed a compromise bill, but it was never taken up in the House.
posted by Isabel Miller
Tuesday, Nov 14, 23 @ 1:35 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, please
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The governor flexed his muscle and that muscle is respected. You would need a majority of Ds to tell the D gov to go pound sand. Increasingly, they are loathe to do that.
Also, some of these bills had their own issues. The ROFR bill had very strong opposition and the override wasn’t going to happen and there had already been an agreement on a new nuke bill.
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Nov 14, 23 @ 1:57 pm
== You would need a majority of Ds ==
Actually, if the Speaker sticks to his 71-Dem votes threshold during future veto sessions, you’ll need a heck of a lot more than a mere majority of Ds.
That threshold is another reminder of how different things are in Springfield post-Madigan. I’m not sure Welch realizes how much his 60-in-the-spring/71-in-the-fall Dem vote standard empowers the governor and diminishes the strength of the legislature and his own hand as Speaker. I suppose if he’s always aligned with the governor he doesn’t care.
Comment by Three branches Tuesday, Nov 14, 23 @ 2:27 pm