A state appeals panel won’t stand in the way of a statewide referendum to amend the Illinois state constitution to enshrine enhanced powers for labor unions in the state constitution, despite plaintiffs' arguments that the proposed amendment's changes would conflict with federal law and are themselves blatantly unconstitutional.
In an opinion filed Aug. 26, a three-justice panel of the Fourth District Illinois Appellate Court upheld a ruling from Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Raylene Grischow, who determined the four residents seeking to block the referendum had no grounds to bring their challenge to the upcoming statewide vote on the amendment.
The appellate justices said the court could not block a vote on the measure and could not declare the measure unconstitutional before it takes effect.
Jacob Huebert
| Liberty Justice Center
They argued the proposed Amendment 1 would unconstitutionally limit the power of lawmakers to curb union powers, while giving contracts negotiated by public employee unions, like the Chicago Teachers Union, more legal weight than state laws enacted by democratically elected lawmakers and governors.
The complaint named as defendants Secretary of State Jesse White, Comptroller Susana Mendoza and the State Board of Elections, seeking to bar them from using public money to put the question on the Nov. 8 general election ballot.
Justice Thomas Harris wrote the opinion affirming Judge Grischow’s June dismissal; Justices John Turner and Eugene Doherty concurred.
In response, attorneys for the plaintiffs from the Liberty Justice Center said they intend to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to hear the case.
In a prepared statement, attorney Jacob Huebert, president of the Liberty Justice Center, said: “This deceptive amendment violates the U.S. Constitution and should not appear on the November ballot. We remain confident in our legal arguments and will continue to represent Illinois taxpayers’ interests against this illegal amendment."
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued they have standing as taxpayers to challenge spending public funds on a purpose they allege is unconstitutional. They also said that even if the panel denied their request for an injunction, they should at least be able to pursue a declaration on whether the amendment passes constitutional muster. They said Grischow erred by determining their claim Amendment 1 is pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act lacks merit.
The panel pointed to a 1941 Illinois Supreme Court opinion in Fletcher v. City of Paris establishing taxpayers weren’t entitled to stop a vote on an ordinance and invoking a long-settled precedent that Illinois “courts have no jurisdiction to enjoin the holding of an election.”
Interfering with the election, the Fletcher opinion explained, would be the same as a court order preventing a city council from adopting an ordinance directly. The panel further examined case law built on that precedent and determined the courts could not grant plaintiffs’ request concerning the union rights proposal.
“Like in Fletcher, petitioners’ challenge in this case is to the validity of Amendment 1,” Harris wrote. “They seek a finding that the amendment is unconstitutional and unenforceable before it becomes effective. However, before the amendment process has been completed, their challenge is premature and not ripe for consideration. Amendment 1 may never be finally approved.”
The panel further said the plaintiffs didn’t challenge the process by which the General Assembly placed the referendum on the November ballot. They said other successful challenges to potentil constitutional amendment votes were based on accusations the supporters of those referendums failed to follow the Illinois Constitution’s rules for ballot placement.
Harris also explained why the panel rejected arguments about the injury to every resident when even small amounts of public money are misapplied.
“Even assuming the correctness of petitioners’ argument, we note that the clear import of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fletcher was not the insignificance of the financial injury to the taxpayers,” Harris wrote. “Instead, the court spoke at length about the danger of judicial interference with a valid election or legislative process.”
Regarding pe-emption, the panel repeated Judge Grischow’s determination Amendment 1 could have applications beyond what the NLRA might pre-empt. They said this could mean they may be unable to invalidate the amendment's entire scope. Because of this, they said they would not address that basis for rejecting the taxpayers’ petition.