CHAPTER III

The pay raise and the petitions: Catalyst for the cutback

In September 1973, the Committee for Legislative Reform announced a statewide campaign to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 1974. The amendment would have reduced the membership of the Illinois House by one-third and abolished cumulative voting. This nonpartisan, independent committee was headed by Robert W. Bergstrom, a "gaunt Norseman with piercing gray eyes" and "one of the Democratic machine's least favorite lawyers in Chicago."¹ Bergstrom stated that "nothing less than an all-out effort in every county of the state will be required to achieve this sweeping reform."² The committee needed 400,000 signatures (8 percent of votes cast in preceding gubernatorial election) by May 3, 1974, to place the proposed amendment on the ballot.

Volunteers throughout the state began circulating petitions in January 1974. Many former Con-Con delegates worked with the committee, and President Samuel W. Witwer was named counselor to the committee. Among the interest groups which joined the campaign were the American Association of University Women, the Illinois Small Businessmen's Association and the League of Women Voters of Illinois, which had reaffirmed its support of single member districts in December 1973.

The Committee for Legislative Reform circulated sophisticated printed materials explaining the purpose of the proposed amendment. Editorials supporting the reform amendment appeared in, among others, the Chicago Tribune, the Southern Illinoisan and the 10 newspapers of the Star Publications in Chicago's south suburbs. Jaycees from all parts of Illinois set a goal of 50,000 signatures. But in the end, the effort failed.

On May 3, 1974, Bergstrom announced that not enough signatures had been collected. He said, "We are grateful for, and proud of, the great outpouring of dedicated effort by thousands of individual citizens over the entire state. . . . The prospect of 59 representatives losing their jobs so panicked our representatives in the House that they voted by a sweeping 140 to 9 that even if the people vote to reduce the size of the House immediately, any reduction in legislative jobs must be delayed for 8 years — a reprehensible and self-seeking action of doubtful legality which points up the need for reform of our House of Representatives."³

There are two reasons why Bergstrom's effort failed. First, it came shortly after the voters' 1970 rejection of the proposal to eliminate multi-member districts and cumulative voting. Second, no single dramatic event sparked citizen interest in the issue. Such was not the case the next time the issue arose.

A series of events not directly related to the question rekindled the effort to get rid of cumulative voting.⁴ On February 8, 1978, the Governor's Salary Study Commission recommended substantial pay raises for Illinois judges, legislators and 87 members of the executive branch (see table). The 28-member commission, chaired by former Democratic Gov. Samuel Shapiro, had been appointed by Gov. James R. Thompson to study state salary levels and to make recommendations to the legislature. The preceding legislative pay raise had come in 1975.

The commission held three public hearings. Among those who testified at the final hearing on February 7 was House Speaker William Redmond (D., Bensenville), who favored the legislative pay raise. He commented, "I just know the $20,000-a-year figure we have now is not realistic. . . . [I]t seems to restrict the kinds of members we have. Unless they belong to a large law firm, or a large insurance firm, or a big company, it's pretty difficult to maintain yourself on that amount."⁵

The belief that first-rate legislators can only be attracted by first-rate salaries was discussed and rejected in a

14 | Illinois Issues Special Report

Chicago Tribune editorial:

Since the 1970 state constitution was adopted, the Illinois legislature has been meeting annually instead of biennially, as it formerly did. . . . many capable people in business or the professions decide they cannot run for the legislature because they literally cannot spare the time that job demands. More and more commonly, candidates tend to be people who, for one reason or another, can spare the time; and the long-range effect is to give us a legislature made up of professional lawmakers. . . . [W]e lose sight of the original idea of state assemblies: that they should be made up of "citizen legislators". . . . We'd like to see the amount of these raises held down, if only as an incentive to consider going back to biennial sessions. . . .⁶

Commission member Patrick Quinn had proposed that the increases be tied to a recommendation for more stringent ethics laws for state officials. Quinn was an official in the Coalition for Political Honesty, which, according to its own news releases, was "a nonpartisan, volunteer organization dedicated to the principle that vigorous citizen activity insures the public interest in Illinois politics and government. Membership is open to anyone who believes in the power of grassroots democracy through petition and referundum." (See "Patrick Quinn" on p. 20.) In 1976 the coalition had adhered 635,158 signatures on petitions for a series of initiatives on legislative ethics. Eventually the changes proposed by these initiatives were thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court.⁷ But the coalition did claim responsibility for indirectly forcing Illinois legislators to give up the century-old practice of collecting their entire annual salary on the first day of the legislative term. Eventually, Quinn Ied the fight against legislative pay raises and became chief spokesman against cumulative voting and multi-member districts.

A hint of future events came in Quinn's letter to the Chicago Tribune:

The Illinois General Assembly in the 1970s has utterly failed to keep its own operating costs within the reasonable limits. . . . I submit that the General Assembly has not been fiscally responsible in overseeing its operating costs for legislative staff, equipment, supplies, and printing. Members of the General Assembly should get their own house in order before asking the taxpayers for a pay raise.⁸

On February 13, 1978, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Michael J. Bakalis entered the fray. With Gov. Thompson's position clearly in mind, he declared: "I'm not enthusiastic about pay raises. . . . People are concerned about the quality of government and don't like to see public officials raising their own salaries."⁹

Photo courtesy of the State of Journal-Register Patrick Quinn (at left) filing petitions for the cutback amendment at the State Board of Elections on May 2, 1980.

The issue smoldered for several months. Then in May 1978 Gov. Thompson said that he would veto any pay raises for himself, legislators, judges or other state officials. He announced his decision at a series of "fly-around" press conferences in Springfield, Peoria, Rockford and Chicago. By reversing his earlier position in favor of salary increases for public officials, Thompson served notice to the General Assembly that he did not support the recommendations of the commission he had appointed.

The pay raise issue was largely ignored during the final months of the 1978 campaign, and James R. Thompson was reelected governor by a landslide on November 7. But when the legislature met on November 29 as part of a post-election, lame-duck veto session, the issue returned dramatically. On that day the General Assembly passed the pay raise and sent it to the governor. The provision for the state pay raises was in a Senate amendment to an innocuous bill on mileage compensation, which had passed the House on May 19. Within the space of a few frenzied hours this "vehicle bill," H.B. 255, was amended and passed by the Senate, concurred in by the House, sent to the governor, vetoed by the governor, sent back to the House for a successful override and sent to the Senate for its override. The pay raises were less than those originally recommended by the commission, but they were nonetheless substantial (see table on p. 14 for the new salary schedule).

Although Gov. Thompson had honored his public pledge to veto the pay raises, he was bitterly criticized for the way he did it. Vacationing at a South Carolina resort, Thompson dictated his veto message over the phone and ordered his name signed to the decree by his automatic signature pen. Thompson's swift action permitted a speedy legislative override and stifled any possibility of an outcry by the public. There was no time for news reports or editorials between the veto and the override vote. Predictably, Thompson denied that he had made a deal. He defended his action by stating, "If I had pocket-vetoed that bill [delayed the veto], any chance of having a good working relationship with the General Assembly in either party would have been seriously damaged."¹⁰

Public outrage, encouraged by media attacks on the legislature, followed. A Chicago Tribune editorial observed sarcastically that:

Illinois legislators do not often resemble a well-disciplined cavalry charge. This seems to happen, in fact, only when they vote themselves a pay raise, as they did Wednesday. Having galloped through with a bill giving $8,000-a-year raises to themselves, the governor, and various other state officers, they wheeled smartly and rode down Governor Thompson's veto like a troop of Bengal lancers riding down an enemy cannon.

On second thought, it looked more like an enemy popgun. Mr. Thompson's

Illinois Issues Special Report | 15

promised veto never did seem very threatening, and the way he presented it amounted to a virtual surrender."¹¹

In Chicago, the reaction against the legislative pay raises was aggravated by similar actions taken by the Cook County Board and the Chicago City Council. Board members granted themselves an additional $7,500 a year (from $25,000 to $32,500) and gave other county officials salary raises ranging from $7,500 to $17,800 a year. Council members' annual salaries rose from $17,000 to $28,000.

Next, federal officials intervened. Alfred Kahn, chairman of the Council on Wage and Price Stability, asked the council for an official probe of the city, county and state pay raises and appealed to officials for a rollback. While addressing a group of Ohio editors, President Carter denounced the Illinois pay raises, which violated his 7 percent wage guidelines. Carter said, "I would hope that legislators around the country would join in with us in exercising restraint during these times when inflation ought to be in the forefront and when elected officials ought to set an example."¹²

The Coalition for Political Honesty immediately moved into high gear. In a letter to potential supporters, Quinn said:

[W]e are organizing a citizens' campaign to establish the recall power in Illinois and also to force a rollback in the politicians' incredibly selfish pay raises. As part of our campaign we are organizing an Illinois Tea Party to urge Governor Thompson to call a special session of the General Assembly to reconsider all political pay raises. We are urging every Illinois citizen who's fed up with the skyrocketing salaries of politicians to drop a tea bag in an envelope and mail it immediately to Governor Thompson. This is a direct way for citizens to express their frustration — the same type of frustration that led our forefathers to dump tea in Boston Harbor 204 years ago this week (December 15, 1776)."¹³

The politicians defended themselves and stated that they had been misunderstood. Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D., Chicago) said: "There's been a misunderstanding here. If we hadn't done something before January 10, we'd have gone another four years without a pay raise." Rep. Roman

16 | Illinois Issues Special Report

Kosinski (D., Chicago) asked: they know the Illinois Constitution? It would have been another eight years before we got a raise. I hesitate to say the President is being unfair, but there's certainly been a lack of communication."¹⁴

The Peoria Journal Star led the downstate fight against the pay raise. In a December 17, 1978, editorial it published a chart of legislative salaries in all 50 states. Citing the previous legislative salary of $20,000, the Journal Star commented: "New Hampshire could pay off its entire House of Representatives with the money we paid just the four local people who represent one home district in Illinois. . . . They could pay off all the senators in the New Hampshire Senate with the salary of one Illinois Senator." The editorial ended with a call to reduce the membership of the House: "Single representation started as one thing we can do as people by ourselves — and it looks better and better."¹⁵

Protestors of the legislative pay raise demonstrating in the Rotunda of the Capitol on January 5, 1979.

A stream of protest letters was published on the op-ed pages of newspapers throughout the state (see sample letters on p. 16). On December 13 a delegation of Peoria residents spilled used tea bags and corn labeled "hogs in Springfield" on a table in the governor's office.¹⁶ Reacting to the intense public pressure, Thompson proposed a three-year phase-in of pay raises. This proposal was rejected by party caucuses in the House. A few legislators, notably Rep. Samuel McGrew (D., Galesburg) and Rep. Gerald Bradley (D., Bloomington), made belated attempts to roll back or lower the salary increases. But the fall veto session adjourned on December 11, 1978, with the pay raises intact.

Little of the public outcry was directed at the members of the judicial and the executive branches. Yet they also received raises, although the legislators' pay raise was larger, a 40 percent increase (see table on p. 14). The judicial raises had, in fact, gone into effect on December 1, when the new judicial terms of office had begun. The executive personnel receiving salary raises included such diverse officers as all code department directors (each of whom received an $8,000 per year increase), members of the Pollution Control Board (up $7,000 per year) and the State Fire Marshal (up $2,500 per year). But the public was less concerned with these raises; its ire was directed at state legislators.

Governor backs off

Apparently the 32,000 tea bags that Thompson received made their point, because he called the General Assembly into special session on January 5, 1979, to consider a compromise rollback of the pay raises with a phase-in of salary increases over four years. Thompson said, "I am convinced that an overwhelming majority of the people of Illinois favor a rollback and phase-in of salary increases for the executive and legislative branches of state government."¹⁷

Thompson's proposal, which he claimed met federal anti-inflation guidelines, would have allowed legislators to receive salaries of $24,000 in 1979, $26,000 in 1980 and $28,000 in 1981 and subsequent years. The governor's salary would have been $55,000 in 1979 and $58,000 in 1980 and subsequent years.

The media speculated that legislators would not show up for the special session, but it was well-attended despite bad weather. For 18 consecutive hours members of both houses engaged in intensive parliamentary maneuvers and closed-door caucuses. They were also subjected to pressure from the governor. At one point Thompson threatened to let the legislature be stuck with the $1 pay raise originally specified in the vehicle bill to which the pay raise amendment had been attached. The legislative maneuvering was intensified by a Catch-22 situation for some legislators. Those members of the General Assembly who had originally voted "no" on the pay raises found themselves in the peculiar situation of restoring the original raises if they voted "no" on the Thompson compromise.

When the marathon session ended a pay raise plan had been adopted, but it was neither the original package nor the Thompson plan. Legislators had passed their own "rollback" and "phase-in." Members of the General Assembly would receive $25,000 in 1979 and $28,000 in 1980 and thereafter; the governor's salary would be $55,000 in 1979 and $58,000 in 1980 and thereafter. On January 7, 1979, Thompson signed the compromise bill (Public Act 80-1470), which was effective immediately. In his inaugural address the next day, the governor apologized to Illinois citizens for his

Illinois Issues Special Report | 19

handling of the controversial pay raises and then discussed the many angry protests which he had received. He said: "But in the end, it was not the size [of the protest], nor the temper, nor the duration, nor the tea that compelled me to bring the assembly back. ... It was a single letter from a woman who enclosed my campaign button. She said she couldn't wear it anymore. And that is when I knew that the matter had to be set right."¹⁸ Thompson's inaugural comments prompted a number of responses in the media, not all of them favorable, some of them humorous (see "Governor Shocked the Lobbyists" at right).

Citizens' drive

On December 1, 1978, immediately after the enactment of the pay raise, Robert W. Bergstrom, counsel to the Committee for Legislative Reform and a leader in the 1974 petition drive, made a statement before the Federation of Republican Women which marks the beginning of the drive to cut back the size of the General Assembly. The Chicago Tribune printed a summary of Bergstrom's statement:

No other government in the world is elected by this device [cumulative voting]. Cities in Pennsylvania and North Carolina that tried it out during the 19th century promptly rejected it. It confuses Illinois voters, so that only a third of them know that we have cumulative voting and less than two percent know the names of all three of their representatives.

The Committee for Legislative Reform proposes a constitutional amendment which would abolish cumulative voting, reduce the size of the House by one-third, and elect representatives on a one person-one vote basis. . . ."¹⁹

The summary continues with a description of the plan for a reduction to 118 single member districts and concludes: "The amendment . . . could go on the ballot on November 4, 1980, if 252,000 signatures are secured on petitions by May 4, 1980. . . . Events have now shown clearly that if others fail to accept their share of responsibility for seizing this opportunity, they will have acquiesced in the progressive deterioration and dismantling of representative and accountable government in Illinois."²⁰

In mid-January 1979 the Coalition for Political Honesty began its petition drive to put the same cutback amendment on the November 4, 1980 ballot (see '"Cutback amendment' to Article IV" on p. 19 for wording). Citing the "sneaky and selfish way" in which Illinois legislators received their pay raises, Quinn called for structural reform in the General Assembly as a method of eliminating waste in Springfield. The coalition's slogan was: "It's time to cut Illinois politicians down to size."

During the next 15 months, Quinn's Coalition for Political Honesty led the petition drive to place the amendment on the ballot. But the coalition was joined by other citizens' groups; the petitions which they circulated contained the same wording as those prepared by the coalition. In Lincoln, for example, Joseph DiLillo, a Lincoln College professor, organized a group called Concerned Citizens for Constitutional Action. This organization received local editorial support from the Lincoln Courier: "Joe DiLillo, you deserve a round of applause. And, you need a lot of active people on your side."²¹

The League of Women Voters of Illinois had long advocated the abolition of cumulative voting and the establishment of single member districts. In 1969, the league worked for separate consideration of these questions during constitutional ratification, and in 1973, its members assisted in the unsuccessful attempt to place them on the ballot.

However, because of the intense interest of members and the fear of some of them that many women and independent legislators would not be reelected from single member districts, the league decided at its April 1979 state convention to reconsider its position. Consequently, it did not immediately take an active part in the petition drive.

In November 1979, after reaching member consensus, the league announced its position in favor of the proposed amendment:

[T]here was a very strong consensus opposing the present method of election of Illinois representatives by cumulative voting from multi-member districts. There was substantial consensus supporting election from single member districts and for supporting reduction in the size of the legislature. The League of Women Voters of Illinois, therefore, will participate in the current petition drive which seeks to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November, 1980."²²

The league belatedly joined the coalition's drive and urged its members to collect as many signatures as possible by April 15, 1980. In the end, the league added a substantial number of signatures to the total collected. (Because local leagues were encouraged to work with local citizens' groups, the exact number cannot be determined.) But many of the league's members were never entirely comfortable with Quinn's emphasis on the money to be saved by reducing the size of the legislature. Instead, the league stressed the "good government" aspect of the

18 | Illinois Issues Special Report

cutback attempt. For example, the league emphasized accountability and voter understanding to be gained with single member districts.

On the first anniversary of the legislative pay raise (November 1979) Quinn pledged that the coalition would continue its signature collection. During the winter months this effort was aided by local groups circulating petitions in towns throughout the state. But Quinn remained the prime coordinator of the statewide effort, and his coalition continued to be the repository for the signed petitions. In April 1980 he announced that 231,000 signatures had been collected and predicted that a statewide petition blitz the following weekend would yield the remaining number of necessary signatures. That same weekend, state Rep. Giddy Dyer (R., Hinsdale), one of the co-chairmen of the Committee for Representative Government (see Chapter IV, p. 24 for description of committee) and a leader of the legislators opposed to the cutback, denounced the petition drive. Rep. Dyer

'Cutback amendment' to Article IV Section 1. Legislature — Power and Structure The legislative power is vested in a General Assembly consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives elected by the electors from 59 Legislative Districts and 118 Representative Districts. Section 2. Legislative Composition (b) Each Legislative District shall be divided into two Representative Districts. In 1982 and every two years thereafter one Representative shall be elected from each Representative District for a term of two years. TRANSITION SCHEDULE This Amendment shall take effect the day following its passage and shall govern the Primaries and the General Election to be held in 1982 and thereafter. Explanation of Proposed Amendment The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce the size of the House of Representatives from 177 to 118 members and to provide for the election of one Representative from each of 118 districts. Illinois, Secretary of State, Amendments to the Constitution of Illinois that will be Submitted to the Voters November 4, 1980, pp. 3-4, 8.

commented, "Some of the best people in the legislature would be purged if this measure passes. . . . No Republicans would be elected in Chicago, and Democrats would be shut out in many areas outside Chicago."²³

Election Code amended

Before and during the petition drive, the General Assembly took action which would ultimately lead to a court decision on whether the cutback amendment would be on the November 1980 ballot."²⁴ In June 1979 the General Assembly passed legislation making significant changes in the law governing the circulating, challenging and verification of petitions for statewide referenda. These changes to the Election Code became entangled in the legal snarl over the validity of the cutback amendment petitions. To understand this situation, it is necessary to go back to 1978.

In 1978 tax revolt fever was running high. The specter of California's Proposition 13 loomed over state capitols throughout the country. In June 1978 the Illinois General Assembly, controlled by the Democrats, passed a tax rebate program, which was embraced by Michael J. Bakalis, the Democratic candidate for governor. Gov. Thompson, running for his second term, promised and delivered a veto. At the same time, the governor was being criticized for not supporting a constitutional amendment proposed by a fellow Republican, state Rep. Donald Totten (R., Hoffman Estates), which would have placed a limit on state and local government spending and taxes.

The pressure was building on Thompson for action on the tax relief front from both the Democrats and Republicans. In early July, Thompson unveiled the "Thompson Proposition," a nonbinding statewide referendum calling for limits to state and local taxes and spending. Under the Election Code, to get it on the November ballot the governor needed to collect about 589,000 signatures on petitions by August 21, five weeks away. The effort necessary to carry out a petition drive of such magnitude in such a short time is hard to overstate. But it was done. Over 607,000 signatures were filed with the State Board of Elections on the deadline date.

Rumors that all was not right with the Thompson petition drive started circulating in Springfield in August. Considerable publicity was given to the governor's plan to pay petition circulators on a per name basis. Allegations were made that the governor's people were pressuring local party officials to meet signature quotas. Substantial grounds appeared to exist at the time for challenging the petitions. During the following two years there were grand jury investigations, indictments and convictions resulting from fraudulent practices in the collection and notarizing of these petitions' signatures.

A formal challenge to the signatures on the petitions for the Thompson Proposition was brought by Rep. David Robinson (D., Springfield), the Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization and the Illinois Education Association. Among those helping to check the petitions were volunteers from the Coalition for Political Honesty.²⁵ Under existing law the burden of proof was on the challengers. From the time the petitions were filed the challengers had only five days to file specific challenges. They objected to 26,000 signatures before the State Board of Elections. Following a controversial set of hearings, the Thompson Proposition was certified by the board on September 8, 1978, for inclusion on the November ballot. Reaction to the board's action included calls for reforms of the election laws governing petitions for statewide referenda. Quinn was quoted as favoring an automatic, random sample check of 5 percent of signatures on any referendum petition.²⁶ It was a foregone conclusion that the Democratic-controlled legislature would consider such changes in 1979.

In the late winter of 1979 two related bills, H.B.570 covering nonbinding referenda and H.B. 822 covering binding initiatives affecting the legislative article of the 1970 Constitution, were introduced in the General Assembly.²⁷ These bills would change rules for collecting, notarizing, filing, verifying and challenging petition signatures. Two changes were critical in the legal

Illinois Issues Special Report | 19

battle which followed over the cutback amendment petition. First, an automatic, random sampling procedure for verifying 10 percent of the signatures was adopted: petition sheets would be sent by the State Board of Elections to local election authorities which would then draw a sample and verify the signatures. Second, provisions were adopted that required signers, circulators and notaries of a petition to reside in the same election district. If the residency requirements were not met, the entire petition sheet would be invalid.

The bills were, in part, a response to the experience of the State Board of Elections with the Thompson Proposition. But it was also noted that the bill concerning constitutional initiatives could affect the coalition's petition drive, because while verification was made easier, collecting signatures (and ensuring their validity) was made more difficult. The floor debates, however, do not reveal any intent beyond rectifying the signature and verification problems raised by the Thompson Proposition. Both bills passed in the House and Senate by substantial margins with minimal debate. H.B. 822, covering initiatives, was amended in the House to include the residency requirements.

On August 11, 1979, Gov. Thompson signed these bills into law (Public Acts 81-0162 and 81-0163). The latter concerning constitutional initiatives would later become critical in the challenges to the cutback amendment before the State Board of Elections and the Illinois Supreme Court.

It is easy to understand why much of the media and a substantial proportion of the public believed these laws were directed against the cutback drive, given the nature and timing of the legislation. This perception was reinforced just after the legislation became law when a group of legislators began organizing to challenge the petition drive. As noted in the State Journal-Register, "The committee, in fact, was created two days after Gov. James Thompson signed into law a bill which hampered those citizens attempting to reduce the size of the House. . . . [T]he committee argued hundreds of thousands of signatures collected after that August 11 date were not legal."28 Whether or not these Election Code changes were merely a response to the Thompson Proposition, it seems clear that more than one motive was involved in the legislative action.

Election Code amended

On May 2, 1980, members of the Coalition for Political Honesty filed petitions with the State Board of Elections which called for placing the cutback amendment (see box on p. 19 for wording of proposed amendment) on the November 4 ballot. The coalition claimed it had collected and filed 477,112 signatures; the board cited a figure of 475,811. On May 5 the board made a preliminary ruling that approximately 365,000 signatures were probably not in compliance with the Election Code. Staff members of the board estimated that approximately 95 percent of the invalid signatures were on sheets containing signers from more than one election jurisdiction and were therefore not in compliance with P.A. 81-0163, which required a petition's circulators, signers and notaries to be from the same election jurisdiction. Quinn argued that it was unfair to change the rules in the middle of the petition drive and charged that the newly enacted law had created "public confusion." He said that he "had no way to communicate with the people circulating the petitions directly to tell them what was required. . . . [T]hat we had 111,622 signatures in compliance with this burdensome law shows our attempts to comply. We made a good faith effort."²⁹

At its next meeting on May 12 the board decided to approve a random sample validity test of the approximately 475,000 petition signatures. The simple validity test requires county clerks or city election commissioners to examine 500 signatures from their jurisdictions and to verify the signers as registered voters. The board took this action on advice from its special counsel, Saul Morse, who said that past court decisions indicated that election laws "should be liberally construed to include people in the electoral process and that the least restrictive interpretation should be used."³⁰ In taking this action the board reserved the right to rule later on compliance with the new law, which required signers and circulators to be from the same election jurisdiction.

In the first stage of the random

Patrick Quinn The Coalition for Political Honesty was organized by Patrick Quinn in 1975. The formation and direction of this grassroots "reform" group was a different kind of project for Quinn. Previously he had campaigned for former Illinois Congressman Abner Mikva (D., Evanston), Sen. Vince DeMuzio (D., Carlinville) and state Rep. Harold Byers (D., Highland). He also worked in the administration of Gov. Daniel Walker (1973-1977). Quinn graduated from George Washington University's School of Foreign Service in Washington, D.C., and received his law degree from Northwestern University Law School. In 1971, he was recruited for Walker's gubernatorial campaign. The Walker Report criticizing the Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention had just been released, and Mayor Richard J. Daley was losing friends. Walker's campaign carried a theme of "honesty," and Quinn felt at home in the center of all this. According to his co-workers, Quinn was dedicated and energetic. Throughout the Walker campaign he continued work on his law degree. He began his actual work in the Walker administration in 1973 as the "governor's citizen ombudsman." From January to July 1975, he worked for the Illinois Industrial Commission. He was accused at the time of being a "ghost payroller," defined as a member of the governor's personal staff who was on the payroll of a state agency. Quinn argued that he spent these months transferring the programs of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the federal government.

20 | Illinois Issues Special Report

sampling test 500 signatures or 10 percent gathered (whichever was larger) from each election jurisdiction were sent to county clerks and election clerks on or about May 28. The board also decided to sample 10 percent of the remaining signatures in a second stage of testing in June and July.

On July 30, the board held a public hearing in Springfield on the matter. William Barker, attorney for the coalition and its supporters, stated that P.A. 81-0163 was inapplicable to this drive and that the legislature had not addressed itself to those petitions already in circulation. The key issue, he said, was whether an invalid 25th signature could invalidate a whole petition sheet which had 24 conforming signatures. Barker claimed that interpretation would be unconstitutional.

Andrew Raucci, lawyer for those opposing the petitions, claimed that the legislature did intend the new law to apply to this particular petition drive and that Quinn and his supporters had ignored the law. Raucci said, "His [Quinn's] approach to the law was the approach of the ostrich . . . putting his head in the sand and hoping that it goes away."³¹

During its deliberations that afternoon, some board members noted that the board's role was administrative; it was not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of the law. The board then decided that only 100,883 of the signatures on the petitions met the requirements of the new law. Board members voted twice in 5-3 votes to reject the petitions. (One Republican, John Lanigan, voted with the four Democrats on both votes.)

The petitions were rejected by the board for two reasons. First, whole sheets were thrown out if valid signatures appeared on the same page as invalid signatures. In defending this strict interpretation of the law, board Chairman Michael Hamblett stated that there would have been sufficient valid signatures if petition circulators or coalition members had crossed out the known invalid signatures before the petitions were filed."³²

Second, the board ruled that the wording of the proposition included more than one question, thus violating the constitutional interpretation that a proposed constitutional amendment must be a single question. Hamblett cited three questions that the cutback amendment included: Should the size of the House be reduced? Should cumulative voting be eliminated? Should single member districts replace multi-member districts?³³ The board action prompted State Journal-Register columnist Al Manning to conclude: "Not unexpectedly, the Board of Elections — a body always more responsive to the legislature than to the public — ruled in favor of the lawmakers."³⁴

Cutback in court

Quinn appealed the board's decision directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Board of Elections to certify the proposed amendment for submission at the November 4, 1980, general election. The coalition argued that the application of the new election law on petitions violated Article XIV, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution, the provision for citizen-initiated amendments to the legislative article, and that entire sheets of signatures could not be excluded because a few did not conform to the requirements.

The high court considered two issues which stemmed from the board ruling:

1. Did the disqualification of entire sheets violate the right of initiative in Article XIV?
2. Did the proposition consist of separate questions in violation of Article III, Section 3 which states: "All elections shall be free and equal"? (The court had previously ruled that propositions which concerned more than one issue denied the "equal" provision of the article because citizens with mixed views on the issues were denied a choice. For example, a voter could favor eliminating cumulative voting without favoring a reduction in the size of the General Assembly.)

Although the court could have reasonably decided either way on these points it took a view opposite that of the board and chose to accept the coalition's argument that the new law on petitions be applied broadly. It was widely speculated that public dissatisfaction with political leaders both nationally and locally influenced the court's decision.

In a 5-2 decision September 2, 1980, the Supreme Court ordered that the cutback amendment be put to the electorate and directed the board to certify

Illinois Issues Special Report | 21

the proposition for the November ballot. It would be the first time a citizen initiative would be voted on in Illinois. An editorial in the Chicago Tribune stated:

[The] finding validated a part of the 1970 Illinois State Constitution that had never before been used: the provision granting voters the right of initiative in seeking to change their own legislature. As the framers of the constitution reasoned, the lawmakers themselves would never try to change the system that gave them their jobs, so it was clearly sensible to invest this power with the only ones who might make use of it — the voters at large.³⁵

The court decision was announced in time to meet the ballot certification deadline, although the formal written opinion was filed later.³⁶ In that opinion of December 1, 1980, the court stated that the disqualification of entire sheets of signatures was "too harsh." In the words of the court, "Respondents have not demonstrated that the State's interest in integrity could not be served by the less drastic penalty of disqualification of signatures of those from jurisdictions other than that of the circulator." The court reasoned that the legislature could not unnecessarily restrict the initiative process. In response to the second issue, the court ruled that abolishing cumulative voting and multi-member districts were not separate and unrelated questions. The court said, "The respondents had argued that . . . proponents may propose a multi-part proposition only if a voter may not reasonably be expected to oppose one part and favor another." According to the court, the questions were related enough that they did not fall under the prohibition. The court held that the amendment was qualified for submission to the electorate and awarded the writ.

Chief Justice Joseph Goldenhersh and Justice Howard Ryan dissented. Goldenhersh objected to the "less drastic means test." He argued that the test has been applied to the right of suffrage, but a constitutional amendment by initiative cannot be equated with the right of suffrage. He also differed on the interpretation of Article XIV, Section 3, stating that the intent of that article and section of the Illinois Constitution was to limit the use of the initiative and prevent its abuse.

Justice Ryan argued that the question of size and the question of cumulative voting are two separate questions: "The size of the House can be reduced without abolishing cumulative voting by reducing the number of House districts to a number which when multiplied by three, gives the desired number of members. . . . Also, cumulative voting can be abolished without reducing the size of the House of Representatives or changing the number of districts from which the members are elected by simply electing three representatives from each district without the benefit of the cumulative vote."

The effect of the court's decision, even though there were dissenting opinions, was to place the issue before the public. In that sense, the intent of the 1970 Constitutional Convention was achieved. Now the voters of the state would have the opportunity to decide again the fate of the unique system of cumulative voting devised in 1870 and reaffirmed in 1970.

22 | Illinois Issues Special Report