Illinois Public Pension Amendment, HJRCA 49 (2012)
|Public Pension Amendment|
|Referred by:||Illinois State Legislature|
|Status:||On the ballot|
The Illinois Public Pension Amendment will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Illinois as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. If passed, the measure would require a three-fifths approval by the General Assembly, city councils, and school districts that wish to increase the pension benefits of their employees. The measure is sponsored by Representative Michael Madigan.
Text of measure
The official ballot text reads as follows:
Proposed Amendment to the 1970 Illinois Constitution
Explanation of Amendment
Upon approval by the voters, the proposed amendment, which takes effect on January 9, 2013, adds a new section to the General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. The new section would require a three-fifths majority vote of each chamber of the General Assembly or the governing body of a unit of local government, school district, or pension or retirement system, in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system. At the general election to be held on November 6, 2012, you will be called upon to decide whether the proposed amendment should become part of the Illinois Constitution.
If you believe the Illinois Constitution should be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system, you should vote YES on the question. If you believe the Illinois Constitution should not be amended to require a three-fifths majority vote in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system, you should vote NO on the question. Three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election must vote "YES" in order for the amendment to become effective on January 9, 2013.
For the proposed addition of Section 5.1 to Article XIII of the Illinois Constitution.NO
The following are arguments in favor of the measure, found in the official state "Explanation of the Proposed Amendment":
- "A higher vote requirement would help prevent unfunded future liability for pension benefits."
- "Requiring a three-fifths vote would provide better accountability."
- "A three-fifths vote requires greater consensus among parties."
- "The proposed amendment provides more accountability in the legislative process by requiring more votes to pass a pension benefit increase. Since the cost of benefit increases comes at a later date, the price to the taxpayers is not always noticed immediately. A higher vote requirement will signify to the governing body that they are taking a serious action and will encourage greater in-depth thought before passage."
- "A three-fifths vote requirement means the members of the governing body, regardless of political affiliation, will need to work together to reach an agreement. A greater consensus would provide for better decisions and more serious deliberation. Given the importance of pension benefit Increases and their subsequent impact on taxpayers, greater agreement would be beneficial."
- "Currently, the public retirement system is not financially stable and is significantly underfunded. A higher vote requirement to enact pension benefit increases will help to maintain fiscal responsibility and make it more difficult to further burden the public retirement system."
- Opponents argue that, if enacted, the amendment in reality would do nothing to solve problems facing the state’s pension system, which, they claim, is currently more than $200 billion in debt and growing.
- Opponents also claim history shows that a supermajority voting requirement would have made virtually no difference in preventing the pension benefit increases approved by the legislature during recent decades. They say that such measures have passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of the legislature, far surpassing the supermajority mark.
- Opponents also argue that the ballot measure deceives voters by making them think they are doing something to solve pension issues by supporting the amendment, while to opposing it may send the message to state and local decision makers that continued pension increases are okay with taxpayers.
The following are arguments in opposition of the measure, found in the official state "Explanation of the Proposed Amendment":
- "Many government employees are represented by labor unions that bargain on their behalf for particular benefits. This constitutional amendment may make it more difficult for unions to bargain for certain increased benefits for their employees. In addition, many government employers may prefer to bargain over these benefits to give incentives to employees to do their jobs well. This constitutional amendment could remove bargaining power from both the government employer and government employee."
- "The proposed amendment creates new definitions for the terms "benefit increase," "emolument increase," and "beneficial determination," which are not defined in other statutes or in existing case law. These definitions could generate litigation, resulting in additional costs. There may also be disagreement amongst the governing body on whether a bill, resolution or other action constitutes a "benefit increase," "emolument increase," or "beneficial determination.""
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Illinois Constitution
- Springfield Bureau "House OKs pension amendment making ‘sweetening’ more difficult," April 18, 2012
- Illinois State Board of Elections,"Proposed Amendment," retrieved September 27, 2012
- Illinois.gov, "Explanation of the Proposed Amendment", Retrieved October 18, 2012
- "Constitutional Amendment #49: The “do nothing” amendment", October 3, 2012
- "Constitutional Amendment #49: The 'do nothing' amendment", October 3, 2012
- "Pension debt more than doubles under new rules", August 16, 2012
- The State Journal-Register "Constitutional amendment on pension benefits going to Illinois voters," May 3, 2012