Opinion ID: 1998222
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Partial Exclusion or Conformity

Text: If the Code of Corrections does not totally exclude or preempt the City's home rule power to establish a mandatory minimum sentence for an ordinance violation, then does the Code at least limit or partially exclude such power to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Code? It does not. The General Assembly can not only specifically declare the state's exercise of power to be exclusive, but it can also specifically limit by law the home rule unit's concurrent exercise of power. Ill. Const.1970, art. VII, § 6(i). The Committee on Local Government explained that the legislature can permit concurrent local legislation, but only within limits that are consistent with the state statutory scheme. Surely if the state is permitted to exclude local governments from areas where the state has acted, it also should be able to restrict the nature and extent of concurrent local activity. 7 Proceedings at 1644; accord 1972 U. Ill. L.F. at 574. Again, however, the General Assembly must specifically so limit a home rule unit's concurrent exercise of power. Accord Citizens Utilities, 158 Ill.2d at 138, 198 Ill.Dec. 389, 632 N.E.2d 1000. Again, the General Assembly knows how to accomplish this, and has done so countless times, expressly stating that, pursuant to article VII, section 6(i), of the Illinois Constitution, a statute constitutes a limitation on the power of home rule units to enact ordinances that are contrary to or inconsistent with the statute. E.g., 605 ILCS 5/5-919 (West 1992) (Illinois Highway Code); 510 ILCS 45/8 (West 1992) (Carrier and Racing Pigeon Act of 1984). Again, in the present case, the Corrections Code, although quite comprehensive, does not expressly limit the concurrent exercise of the City's home rule power or require such exercise to conform to or be consistent with the Code. We repeat that `[t]he Illinois approach [to home rule] places almost exclusive reliance on the legislature rather than the courts to keep home rule units in line.' 1972 U. Ill. L.F. at 579. Scadron, 153 Ill.2d at 188, 180 Ill.Dec. 77, 606 N.E.2d 1154. We hold that the Unified Code of Corrections does not partially preempt Chicago Municipal Code section 8-4-080 or require that the ordinance conform to the Code.