Court Finds that Home Rule Units Are Not Bound by the Safe Roads Amendment
Do
home rule units have to comply with the Illinois Constitution? That question was raised in a recent
decision by a Cook County circuit court in the case of Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association v. County ofCook.
In
2016, Illinois voters approved the Safe Roads Amendment to the Illinois
Constitution. The Safe Roads Amendment
requires that revenues derived from transportation taxes only be spent on
transportation related expenses. The Safe Roads Amendment was added as Section
11 of Article IX of the Illinois Constitution.
Cook
County, a home rule unit, has been diverting several taxes relating to
transportation (gasoline tax, wheel tax, etc.) towards non-transportation
related expenses. Instead of using those revenues for transportation purposes,
as required by the Safe Roads Amendment, Cook County had been diverting those
revenues to its Public Safety Fund. Several
road contractor associations filed suit, alleging that Cook County was
violating the Safe Roads Amendment by diverting these revenues to its Public
Safety Fund. The associations sought to
enjoin the County from spending transportation revenues on any non-transportation
related purpose.
The
County moved to dismiss the lawsuit, alleging, among other arguments, that the
Safe Roads Amendment did not limit its home rule powers, and therefore the
County was not bound to follow the Amendment. The County relied on the language of Article VII, Section 6(a) of the
Illinois Constitution which governs the powers of home rule units. Section 6(a) states as follows:
Except as limited by this
Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function
pertaining to its government and affairs, including, but not limited to, the
power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and
welfare, to license; to tax; and to incur debt.
The
County claimed that because the Safe Roads Amendment did not specifically
limit home rule powers under Section 6(a), the County was not bound to comply
with the Safe Roads Amendment.
The
Court agreed, noting that the language of Section 6(a) of Article VII
specifically states that home rule powers can only be limited “by this
Section.” The Court found that a provision contained in another section of the
Constitution, such as the Safe Roads Amendment contained in Article IX, cannot
limit home rule powers, as only Section 6(a) of Article VII can do so. Following that logic, the Court noted that
the drafters of the Safe Roads Amendment had “a ready, straightforward,
specifically prescribed means” to limit home rule powers (i.e., under Section
6(a) of Article VII), but the drafters chose not to use those means. So, Cook
County’s home rule powers are not constrained by the Safe Roads Amendment. The Court also cited the fact that the ballot
summary for the Safe Roads Amendment prepared by the Secretary of State
specifically disclaimed any limitation or alteration of home rule powers.
While
an appeal of this decision is almost certain, the central holding of the case
could have significant implications for home rule units. If the decision is upheld, there would be
precedent for home rule units to enact policies that conflict with the Illinois
Constitution, unless such powers are expressly limited in Article VII, Section
6.
Post Authored by Kurt Asprooth, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment