|
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) filed an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 15, on behalf of Gov. Pat Quinn (D) and others requesting that the high court rule that the State’s $31 billion construction program, passed in 2009, did so in a constitutional manner. Meanwhile, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) officials indicated that they were proceeding as planned with all IDOT projects funded by the capital bill until the Supreme Court ruled on the case.
The State Supreme Court will now take up the case, either during its two-week term beginning March 14 or during its May term. Court decisions are typically issued by the following term, though some take longer. It is possible, therefore, that the case will be resolved by May.
Since the Court had previously granted a “stay” on the appellate court’s ruling at A.G. Madigan’s request (effectively putting the lower court’s finding on hold) IDOT has indicated to LiUNA that it will continue to let and award capital bill-funded projects on schedule. Projects from the January letting are being awarded. The March 11 letting and the February 25 special letting will proceed as planned.
That means the State’s $3.2 billion road program for the fiscal year that ends in June will continue unless and until the Supreme Court strikes the capital bill down. If the Court issues a negative decision by May, the legislature would have time to re-enact the construction program before its scheduled May 31 adjournment. And, of course, if the high court upholds the law construction plan would also proceed on schedule.
A Cook County appellate court panel ruled in late January that the legislature violated “single subject clause” of the Illinois Constitution when it passed the package of bills making up the “Illinois Jobs Now!” construction program by putting different subject matters together in the same bill. A.G. Madigan indicated in a previous filing and again in her appeal that all of the provisions in HB 255 were related to State construction and, therefore, constitutional.
|
