Is coming under a lot of flak right now, and Eric Zorn makes the most complete argument about the issue:
What makes him think he can do that?
A: A passage in Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 allows a governor to make “specific recommendations for change” to any piece of legislation, then send it back to be OK’d. The informal name for this is an amendatory veto.
Q: Can the legislators reject such changes and pass a bill in its previous form?
A: They can. But they need a three-fifths vote in both houses to do so. To accept the changes, however, they need only a majority vote.
Q: Do all U.S. governors hold such a mighty club?
A: No. Illinois is one of seven states where the governor has amendatory veto powers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Q: Whose idea was that?
A: “It was mine, I’m almost embarrassed to say,” said former state Comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, now a Northwestern University law professor. She was a delegate to the 1969-70 Constitutional Convention and wrote the proposal that advanced the amendatory veto.
Q: What was she thinking?
A: That it was an efficient way for the governor and part-time legislators to tweak bills as needed and speed them along. “A governor can use the power with discretion and in appropriate circumstances and not abuse it,” Netsch said, and then she laughed merrily.
Dawn Clark Netsch is smarter than she is giving herself credit for. This is a bad use of the power, but it is often small changes that are essential for good government that get caught in the amendatory vetoes.
Some of the best examples actually come out of the controversy over Obama’s present votes. In one particular case, the juvenile justice bill passed under Edgar had nearly unanimous support in the Senate with the two exceptions being Barack Obama and Ricky Hendon. Close pals those two from what I here.
The point they were making was to point out that making it too easy to try an adolescent as an adult severely harmed an otherwise decent bill, but their colleagues were too afraid to vote against it. So the Governor took the heat and everyone went along happy and a better bill was composed.
It worked just as Dawn Clark Netsch wanted and it still can.
I’m not one to say that better people can fix government in general, but when you have someone so craven and awful as the current Governor, we have a tool to deal with him. Impeachment. Apparently no one has the balls to do it in Springfield and that’s a shame. There is a cure to the problem, however.
Most of the Governors since 1970 have used the power responsibly since the 1972 court ruling and as such there’s no need to throw out that part of the Constitution. There is good reason to throw out the Governor.
ArchPundit