Court Opinion

ID: 9719780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:03:24.367842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.877427
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER, dissenting: The critical sentence in section 3 of article XIV of the Constitution says: “Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.” The majority has rewritten this sentence to make it read: “Every' amendment shall include both structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.” It has done so, apparently, because it has concentrated upon the conjunctive aspect of the word “and,” to the exclusion of another, more natural meaning in this context. The artificial quality of the result reached by the majority becomes apparent from a consideration of comparable sentence structures: First year students are limited to mathematics and foreign language courses. The menus will be limited to beef and chicken dishes. It seems plain that the first illustration does not mean that both mathematics and a foreign language must be taught in a single course, and that the second illustration does not mean that every dish must contain both beef and chicken. This customary usage of the word “and” not only makes sense; it is recognized in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: “reference to either or both of two alternatives (choose between him and me) esp. in legal language when also plainly intended to mean or (bequeathed to a person and her bodily issue) (property taxable for state and county purposes).” In both of the illustrations in Webster, the word “and” clearly means “or,” just as it does, in my opinion, in the critical sentence used in the Constitution. I do not find anything in the proceedings of the constitutional convention which suggests that no change in any of the numerous procedural provisions of article IV can be brought about by initiative unless the same amendment brings about a change in the structure of the legislative body. The majority also concludes that any change in the legislative article “would be either structural or procedural in character.” (65 Ill. 2d at 466.) This is by no means a necessary conclusion, and I think it is erroneous. It deprives the words “structural and procedural” of all significance, for the sentence would have the same meaning if they were omitted. It would then read: “Amendments shall be limited to subjects contained in Article IV.” It is true that the conclusion of the majority finds some support in the Report of the Legislative Committee, but it is also true that other parts of that same committee report point in the other direction: “The subject matter contained in the proposed Article pertains only to the basic qualities of the legislative branch — namely structure, size, organization, procedures, etc.” (6 Proceedings 1401.) Some of the provisions of article IV plainly do not relate to either procedural or structural matters. For example: “(e) No member of the General Assembly shall receive compensation as a public officer or employee from any other governmental entity for time during which he is in attendance as a member of the General Assembly. No member of the General Assembly during the term for which he was elected or appointed shall be appointed to- a public office which shall have been created or the compensation for which shall have been increased by the General Assembly during that term.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, sec. 2(e).) The basic grant of legislative power in section 1, and the grant of legislative immunity in section 12 of article IV, are neither “procedural” nor “structural,” and there are other provisions in article IV which would not fit comfortably in either of those categories. What the constitutional convention feared was that the initiative procedure which it was authorizing might be misused to accomplish “substantive changes.” For example, amendments reading: “The General Assembly shall never pass a law abolishing the death penalty” or “The General Assembly shall enact legislation which will prohibit abortions” could arguably be regarded as amendments to the legislative article since they bear directly upon the power of the legislature. It was to avoid that kind of amendment that the convention decided to limit the subject matter of amendments proposed by popular initiative. The words used to accomplish that result effectively cut off amendments which would affect the power of the General Assembly, but I find no intention either in the reports of the committee or in the debates to require that an amendment by initiative to the legislative article must deal simultaneously with both procedural and structural subjects. The fact is that the constitutional convention had presented to it, but failed to adopt, a revision of the sentence in question which would have expressed the construction now adopted by the majority of this court. Just before the final vote on the adoption of article XIV the following occurred: “MR. LEWIS: I have a question of Delegate Whalen, and perhaps Delegate Tomei could also give his opinion. On page 69 of section 3, we state: ‘Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects.’ There was some feeling by some of the staff that perhaps those things ought to be itemized. Do either or both of them feel that those words are sufficiently descriptive to restrain constitutional initiative to the matter of function and not to the matter of substance or change in other articles? PRESIDENT WITWER: May we come to order, please? Do you care to answer, Mr. Whalen? MR. WHALEN: I think so. We had a proposed recommendation, if you recall, on second reading that wasn’t adopted, that would further limit this, but I think this still accomplishes the result. PRESIDENT WITWER: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: Peter, do you also agree? MR. TOMEI: Yes, I don’t think this extends to substantive legislation. I think that’s your question. MR. LEWIS: That is my question, I wanted it on the record. Thank you. Mr. President.” (5 Proceedings 4547.) The amendment referred to in this passage would have changed the critical sentence to read: “Amendments proposed by petition shall be limited to the structure of the General Assembly and to procedural provisions affected by changes in structure.” (6 Proceedings 1561.) That amendment, which the constitutional convention did not adopt, is now adopted by the majority opinion of this court. Because of the way in which it rewrote the key sentence, the majority apparently felt that it was unnecessary to consider whether the specific amendments involved in this case relate to structural or procedural subjects. In my view of the meaning of the constitutional provision, it is necessary to do so. In my opinion, neither Proposal No. 1 nor Proposal No. 3 (65 Ill. 2d at 458) relates to a structural or procedural subject. Proposal No. 2, however, does in my judgment certainly relate to a matter of procedure, and since it affects the composition of the General Assembly in those situations to which it would apply, it involves a structural subject also. Obviously, my views on this matter are quite unrelated to my opinion as to the desirability or undesirability of any of these proposals.