To watch the debate slowly developing in Illinois over the Nov. 6th vote on Constitutional Amendment 49 is to gain a lesson in how not to amend your constitution. Amendment 49, put before the voters by the Illinois legislature, seems to propose reforms to help solve the state's pension crisis by making it harder for legislative bodies in the state to increase worker pensions. But pension reformers in the state, led by the folks at the Illinois Policy Institute, argue that the amendment does little to address the state's real retirement debt problems, while public employee unions and their supporters claim that the amendment could undermine pension protections by doing away with the Illinois constitution's contract clause. The muddled language of the amendment might have something to do with the lack of clarity about its true nature.
The amendment, cooked up by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a long time supporter of union initiatives, seems to say that all future pension changes by the state or Illinois localities will require a 60 percent vote of the corresponding legislative body. That should be popular with Illinois voters, who have grown frustrated with the lack of pension reform in the state.
But the Illinois Policy Institute and others note that the amendment would have done little to restrain the growth of the state's pension problems if it had been in force previously. Many pension enhancements in the state have passed with virtually no opposition in the state legislature, where Madigan is a power broker who often gets his way. Moreover, Illinois' biggest problem has been that the state legislature has consistently ducked its funding obligations to the pension system, using the money elsewhere in its budget. The amendment says nothing that would force the legislature to be more responsible.
Still, despite these weaknesses, the amendment has public employee unions and their supporters in a frenzy. That's because the 700 word amendment (containing, as one critic notes, more words then the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution combined) contains some murky language that opponents fear would allow reformers to take away benefits from current workers by invalidating a clause in the constitution which says that membership in a state pension system "shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."
Here's the muddled language of the amendment provoking union fears:
Unions might simply be worried that sooner or later someone will challenge the interpretation of the contract clause in the Illinois constitution anyway, and they don't want any new language in the constitution giving a court more reason to rule against them. Earlier this year, for instance, law firm Sidley Austin, studied the clause and said that it only protects benefits already earned by current employees not their right to continue earning those benefits at the same rate for their entire careers. Some legislators have urged Illinois to pass pension reform and let the courts decide the issue.
Perhaps everyone is just suspicious because this is Illinois, the third most corrupt state in the nation, at least according to one study.
But the Illinois Policy Institute and others note that the amendment would have done little to restrain the growth of the state's pension problems if it had been in force previously. Many pension enhancements in the state have passed with virtually no opposition in the state legislature, where Madigan is a power broker who often gets his way. Moreover, Illinois' biggest problem has been that the state legislature has consistently ducked its funding obligations to the pension system, using the money elsewhere in its budget. The amendment says nothing that would force the legislature to be more responsible.
Still, despite these weaknesses, the amendment has public employee unions and their supporters in a frenzy. That's because the 700 word amendment (containing, as one critic notes, more words then the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution combined) contains some murky language that opponents fear would allow reformers to take away benefits from current workers by invalidating a clause in the constitution which says that membership in a state pension system "shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."
Here's the muddled language of the amendment provoking union fears:
Nothing in this section shall prevent the passage or adoption of any law, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy or practice that further restricts the ability to provide a 'benefit increase,' 'emolument increase,' or 'beneficial determination,' as those terms are used under this section.Even opponents admit that this language is so muddled that it's hard to say exactly what it means, but they fear some court would use it to invalidate protections against current pensions, though Madigan denies that's the intention of the language.
Unions might simply be worried that sooner or later someone will challenge the interpretation of the contract clause in the Illinois constitution anyway, and they don't want any new language in the constitution giving a court more reason to rule against them. Earlier this year, for instance, law firm Sidley Austin, studied the clause and said that it only protects benefits already earned by current employees not their right to continue earning those benefits at the same rate for their entire careers. Some legislators have urged Illinois to pass pension reform and let the courts decide the issue.
Perhaps everyone is just suspicious because this is Illinois, the third most corrupt state in the nation, at least according to one study.
Join the conversation