*1 (No. 48746 .
(Nо. 48758 . al., et THE FOR POLITICAL HONESTY COALITION Plaintiffs, et v. THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS al., al., GERTZ et v. Defendants. — ELMER Appellees, al., OF ELECTIONS et THE STATE BOARD Appel lants. Aug. Opinion
Announced 1976. Dec. filed 1976 . Rehearing denied Jan. *3 SCHAEFER, J., dissenting. Levin,
Kenneth F. of & Levin Holland, Beatty, of for Chicago, plaintiffs. H. Stern, of Jr., & and Bickley, Bickley Franklin
John and Lavelle, Michael E. of Landing, Jr., all for Chicago, J. defendants.
William Scott, General, of Attorney Chicago (Her- J. bert Lee General, of Assistant Caplan, Attorney counsel), for State Board of et al. appellants Elections Meites,
Thomas R. of for Coali- Chicago, appellants for tion Political et al. Honesty
Ancel, Clink, O’Keefe, Diamond & Ashenden Murphy, Witwer, Moran, Atkinson, all of & and 8c Lyons, Burlage Diamond, Ancel, H. Gordon V. Stewart Chicago (Louis Witwer, Levine, W. Thomas G. Samuel Lyons, counsel), appellees. involve an cases These consolidated
PER CURIAM: article three initiative petition proposing Illinois Constitution IV, artiсle legislative are citizens No. 48758 the who In cause plaintiffs, in the circuit Illinois, an action filed taxpayers Board of the State to enjoin court of Cook County seeking from officials State and county Elections and other $1,750,000 funds to in public expending approximately of the initiative and sufficiency determine validity conduct an election on for and to arrange petition Gertz, are Elmer The amendments. plaintiffs Reum, Perona, McCracken, Louis Lucy Thomas J. J. Smith, served as Elbert S. who Maurice W. Scott and and Ann convention 1970 constitutional delegates of the research staff of Lousin, as a member M. served who Perona served as the Louis Plaintiff the convention. J. at the on the for the Committee Legislature spokesman at the constitu- debates сoncerning constitu- tional convention. president Witwer, convention, W. represents Samuel tional who was a Thomas G. Lyons, His co-counsel plaintiffs. of the constitutional the vice president delegate he served as the to the convention Prior convention. Commission, which Study the Constitution chairman of to do the General Assembly preparatory created The Coalition the convention. in the work organization an associ- For Political (hereafter, Coalition), Honesty *4 the the initiative throughout ation circulated petition aas in the to intervene State, proceeding allowed the issued holding The circuit court injunction, defendant. the Constitu- to meet failed the amendments proposed uncon also the tion’s petitions holding requirements constitu United States under the Illinois and stitutional motion to the defendants’ tions. This court allowed court to us under the transfer their from appellate appeal R. Rule 58 Ill. our 2d 302(b). 302(b). action 48746 was an
Cause No. original brought this court R. by 381) petitioner, (58 Coalition, of mandamus a writ seeking directing members, of Elections and its the State Board respondents, by certify 2, 1976. We consolidated on or before petition September the two cases for oral was heard on argument, 31, 1976, announced our 1976. On we August August in cause affirmance of the circuit court’s No. judgment we for and that were dismissing petition mandamus This state the in cause No. 48746. will opinion reasons for our holdings. XIV of our of 1970
Article constitution provides methods which the Constitution be revised. may by here, Section which is relevant provides: FOR “CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE may
Amendments to Article IV of this Constitution proposed by petition signed by a number of electors equal eight percent in number to at least of the total votes guberna- cast for candidates preceding Governor in the torial limited to election. Amendments shall be structural contained in Article IV. A petition shall contain the text of the amend- general ment and the date of the election at which the submitted, shall have proposed amendment is to be been by twenty- more than signed petitioning electors not four election and shall preceding general months Secretary filed with the of State at least six months for deter- general procedure before election. validity petition of a shall be mining sufficiency sufficient, If valid and provided petition law. at
proposed amendment shall be submitted electors effective if general election and shall become of those on the approved voting either three-fifths *5 or majority voting amendment a of those in the election.” XIV, Ill. Const. art. sec. 3.
The initiative thus is limited to the article. legislative The amendments would have been to three IV, sections of article article. 1 would amend section of article IV as
Proposal 2(e) follows to be added under the amendment (the language italics, and the to be deleted is lined language through):
“No Assembly member of the General shall receive compensation as~*--pabtíe--ofík«r--or--em-pleye« any from governmental entity fer-time-dur-ieg-whic-h-he-is-^n during his term as a member оf the General attendance Assembly.” would amend section of article IV
Proposal as 8(c) follows added is in (the language italics):
“No bill shall become a without the concurrence law of a majority of the elected members to each house. Final passage of a bill shall be record vote. In the at Senate members, of request two and in the at the House members, request of five may a record vote be taken on any other occasion. A record vote is a yeas vote A member who has a conflict nays journal. on the entered family, personal, interest as result of of financial interest in a shall that interest to the house bill disclose of member, A which he is a and shall not vote thereon. precluded voting member shall be counted as so from ” an elected member on that vote. 3 would 11 of article IV as follows amend section Proposal addition is (the italicized): salary “A member shall receive a as allowances except that no shall law, member receive
provided by payments salary in duties as performance advance of Assembly, a member the General Changes but- in the salary during of a take effect the term member shall not for which he has been elected.” The that none of the plaintiffs’ complaint alleged three conformed proposals provisions of constitu- Constitution which restrict matter the second tional amendments. The noted complaint sentence of section 3 of article XIV states: “Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.” Const. art. sec. (Ill. that this limitation 3.) plaintiffs argued requires amendments under section 3 any must be to effect in both the structure and changes procedure IV, in article article, and existing legislative that none of the satisfied this proposals requirement. They contended that section 3 contemplated only such as from converting multiple- single-member legisla districts, tive for cumulative to changing provisions ones *6 for normal members, for house or from a voting bicameral to a unicameral legislature which changes —structural would additional necessarily require procedural changes. The contended further that plaintiffs 1 and propositions violated the due and process clauses of equаl protection the constitutions of Illinois and the United States. Ill. 1970, Const. 1, 2; Const., art. sec. U.S. XIV, amend. sec. 1.
The circuit court motion for granted plaintiffs’ It summary held that judgment. with the comply of section 3 amendments requirements under the intitiative must be both “structural and procedural.” court considered that while each of the three proposals could relate to matters, arguably none of them conformed to the combined It further held requirement. proposal a member of the preclude from legislature from another receiving compensation office, his governmental term of entity violated the during due clauses process and that equal protection proposal interest, to conflicts of relating was so vague indefinite as to violate the due clauses of both process constitutions.
The defendants make several contentions on this the circuit court’s appeal, challenging They say holding. first the court took improperly jurisdiction “abstract,” rendered an since the contro- opinion was not for decision. contend that if the versy “ripe” They form, initiative as to for petition proper having, number of valid example, proper signatures, must be submitted to electorate and then proposals the electorate before a approved by justiciable controversy exists. To this contention cite decisions to support they the effect that courts will not of an enjoin holding 174; Salem, election. Slack v. 31 Ill. ex City People 2d Board, 504; rel. Schlaman v. Eleсtoral 4 Ill. Fletcher v. Paris, City
We do not consider those are We holdings controlling. are ndt concerned with an election or a legislative referendum, rather, but with whether question pro amendments to our posed constitution the Consti satisfy tution’s own for its amendment. requirements Article section of the Constitution provides specific require ments of amendments under proposing The Constitution procedure. has an express limitation as to the matter of a “Amend proposal: ments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.” offered amendment under Any the initiative must with the obviously comply procedure and the limitations on amendment set out in section 3 before it can be submitted to the electorate. As this court has observed: “The law, constitution is the supreme *7 citizen is to bound it and court every is bound obey every to enforce its It is a most provisions. extraordinary doctrine that the court has a discretion to enforce or not enforce a of the constitution to its provision according as to its wisdom or whether judgment will public good be subserved it.” ex rel. Miller v. People disregarding by Hotz, 433, Ill. 327 too,
This was Constitutional expressed, Cooley’s Limitations, where it was said:
“But the of the win to this end can people be in the modes only expressed legitimate by act, which such a can and which body politic must either the constitution by prescribed
461 revision or amendment is or an whose sought, by State, of the act of department would to for the which alone be authorized speak this ***.” 1 Consti- people upon Cooley’s Limitations, tutional 84-85 ed. 1927). (8th suit, here, A as was to taxpayer’s brought enjoin disbursement of Rev. Stat. ch. moneys public (Ill. 11 is an through 18) pars. appropriate proceeding determine whether proposed 3. In Allen v. section
meet of article requirements Powell, 66, 68, court stated: “It has been Ill. this 42 relief will be prevent granted held injunctive under of an election funds holding waste public v. Bowley, election statute. an unconstitutional (Moran Moline, Ill. It 8 148; v. Town 2d 11.) Ill. Niebling 347 violation called in election follows that any an action for restrained and likewise may constitution v. See also McAlpine remedy.” relief is a proper injunctive Dimick, 250-51. $1,750,000 stipulated approximately parties determine the suffic- funds would be spent public on the the elеction to conduct
iency petition its Had this court amendments. postponed three proposed here until presented consideration question determined that and then been submitted had proposals in section meet the did not requirements proposals funds would amendment, million in almost public $2 Further, if it could be said that even have been wasted. of due constitutional process substantive questions amendments were under protection equal Annot., 19 A.L.R.2d for determination (see ripe amend- of whether (1951)), question under our the initiative ments met the requirements us. No future events before were constitution directly define this or better would or could consideration sharpen our decision. issue for have held
We observe that jurisdictions *8 462 citizens’ referenda on of
proper
enjoin
holding
did not
with
amendments which
аmend
comply
proposed
See McFadden v.
of their constitutions.
ing provisions
787;
330, 196
Mathews v.
Cal.
P.2d
32
(1948),
Jordan
412; Cohen v.
424,
N.W.
Turner
Iowa
236
212
(1931),
657;
General
354 Mass.
237 N.E.2d
Attorney
(1968),
657;
Moore v. Brown
350 Mo.
165 S.W.2d
(1942),
1, 3
Brown
Ohio St.
Ohio
Leach v.
Op. 2d
(1957),
346,
It appears plain, that the courts were deter- constitutional convention whether constitutional for mine requirements proposed Louis Perona was the amendment were satisfied. Delegate on the on the Committee for the spokesman majority the initiative for amend- Legislature, concerning process article. In ments discussing legislative permis- he was sible of questioned scope abuse of the David Connor Delegate concerning possible initiative There was this procedure. colloquy: *** Somebody by peti-
“MR. CONNOR: describes article; tion that this is an amendment says who it isn’t?
[*] [*] [*] *** MR. PERONA: I could iron think the courts questions protect against (4 out those abuse.” Record Proceedings, Constitutional Convention Sixth Illinois (hereafter Proceedings).) cited as Later Dawn Netsch Mr. Perona as to Delegate questioned section which of article portion provides validity sufficiency procedure determining shall law. petition provided *** pro- If we
“MRS. NETSCH: assume petitions would be that these will be vision law authority, or if presented to some state election there’s be, board, may electoral or whatever it determine state validity sufficiency, their I wonder whether petition validity sufficiency determination also, right, to make a give agency not the amend- as to determination whether section; within the context of this mеnt was substantive fact, words, was, in other one that dealt whether *9 subjects of procedural with the structural and the *** legislative article. question. the MR. PERONA: I think I understand We didn’t intend that.
[*] [*] [*] by Then agency MRS. NETSCH: whatever is created those, authority law with the to test it would be limited that, then, mean requirements; technical any proposed that into whether or not inquiry amendment subject was within the matter of the constitu- is, tional one dealing initiative —that with structural and determinable, all, procedural requirements if at —would only by the courts? It could not be determined an agency. election Is that correct? intention, PERONA: my yes.”
MR. That was 4 Proceedings 2712.
We believe that what have said above we answers defendants’ other contention that should plaintiffs have under either section of the Election proceeded 23—24 Cоde or 1975, section of the Code Rev. Stat. 28—1.2 (Ill. 46, ch. determination of 23 — 24 pars. 1.2). 28 — whether a meets the Constitution’s amendment proposed courts, for amendment is a requirements question for an In event section is not agency. any 23—24 here. It to contests results of of pertinent pertains public referenda on constitutional amendments were submitted to the electorate. has This court held that under the to Rev. section Ill. Stat. predecessor 23—24 (see 1941, 46, ch. the result anof election as par. 120), “only ballots, determined the returns or count of the and not election, be contested.” Sanders v. validity may Salem, 362, 364; accord, 385 Ill. v. Township Mayes Albion, 374 Ill. City The defendants next circuit court argue an erroneous placed construction on the second sentence of section 3 “Amendments shaU provides: limited to structural and contained in procedural subjects article IV.” The circuit court this sentence as interpreted
464 amendment must be effect any requiring in both the structure procedures changes that section 3 The defendants contend General Assembly. to either structural or permits IV, article. set out in article which is now within article IV matter any pertains They say the General and is structure or Assembly procedures to amendment initiative. by popular intention and the In under purpose determining used should constitutional language lying provision understood commonly its be given plain it is unless evident contrary meaning clearly Education, Ill. v. Board intended. 2d (Hamer Rose, 486; v. Locust Grove Association Ill. Cemetery Co., 139; Central R.R. v. Illinois People *10 Huck, 385, 223; 220, Law v. ex rel. 87 Ill. People 393.) to the rules of construction Generally, statutory apply v. construction constitutional provisions. (Johnson Board, 256, Ill. One State Electoral 53 2d 258-59.) that its natural should contending language given it has burden why showing meaning understandably not. states: should Sutherland a of an act
“One contends that who provision natural or must not be according applied of its must show customary language purport section the act either that some other expands is that the itself restricts or its meaning, provision act, or of the to the general purview repugnant with other the act materia that considered pari acts, of the or with the subject legislative history If matter, different imports meaning. uncontrolled unambiguous language plain, or other acts of the act upon parts a different cannot it same the court give of words But the customary meaning meaning. it is from obvious will when disregarded 465 that it be intended that the act itself legislature than its common in a different sense used Sutherland, Construction Statutory 2A meaning.” 49 ed. 1973). (4th course, “and” expresses
Of conjunction International Third New relation of addition. (Webster’s Kostka, v. 190 Ill. LaSalle 80 City Dictionary (1961); have us read “and” as 130, The defendants would 137.) 3. There is no doubt section “or” in construing use of “and” there will have been sometimes Slawko, v. 64 Ill. when “or” was intended. 2d (Pechous unusual. This court 576, But this occurrence is 588.) v. Ill. Creek District stated Gar 256 Drainage Wagner, ‘and’ is sometimes 338, 345: “It is true that the word of statutes or for ‘or’ in the construction substituted or wills to effectuate the intention contracts рarties, the intention is in cases where clearly but is only and it to construe the word manifested is apparent would involve an to its real absurdity according Accord, v. an unreasonable result.” Campbell produce 311; Co., 308, ex Prudential Insurance 15 Ill. People Ill. Northwestern rel. Fix v. Trustees College, Com., 124; v. Industrial Ill. Voight This is a difficult burden for one who says should not be its common but it is language given meaning, bodies, it should be difficult. Individuals and as a proper convention aor can be said to intend legislature, hardly use is to be an they language given opposite meaning. Emmerson, In ex rel. Watseka Co. v. People Telephone XI, this court asked to construe article section *11 3, of the Constitution of and read “or” “and.” 1870 as The court in stated: refusing
“While courts of will justice transpose ‘or,’ and use or clause the word ‘and’ for ‘or’ for ‘and,’ in cases where it is so absolutely necessary *** do, we can in this case say [citations] 466
it is unreasonable to that the convention argue ” intended the word ‘and’ instead of ‘or.’ Ill. 300, 306.
The constitutional convention used “and” to limit under proposals article section 3. As understood, the word commonly “and” would thus limit initiatives to amendments whose would be subjects both structural such as a procedural, for the proposal conversion from a bicameral to a unicameral or legislature for the conversion from multiple- single-member legisla- tive districts. effect to the Giving section 3 language no produce absurdity unreasonable result. This court is without to substitute “or” for the authority “and” the constitutional cоnvention used in “structural stating unless a procedural” intention is contrary clearly manifested. We intention is not judge contrary clearly manifested. observe,
We would too, if one were to read section 3 as if it contained the “or” disjunctive instead of “and” the effect would be the same as if the section read: *** “Amendments shall be limited to contained in article IV.” The drafters of Constitution, if the defendants’ construction of the section were adopted, would have used the words unnecessarily “structural and procedural,” in the article would be either any change structural or in character. This unnecessary would have to considered language How surplusage. ever, the of the drafters cannot be so language facilely Barrett, This court said v. disrеgarded. Hirschfield however, “The 230: is not presence surplusage, to be or constitutional construction presumed statutory word, and the fundamental rule that each [citations], must, clause or sentence if some possible, given reasonable especially apropos [citations] constitutional See also Oak Park Federal interpretation.” Park, and Loan Association v. Oak Savings Village of Ill. 2d
467 the of of The have cited portions proceedings parties the conten convention support the 1970 constitutional of the intention the as to what was tion of each in constru this “While drafters on Constitution’s question. concerns the under the the true constitution ing inquiry voters its the by of the of who standing provisions meaning the debates of it, still the of cоnsulting adopted practice of the framed constitu members convention which in in has courts tion been by determining long indulged are doubtful.” of which provisions thought McGuane, 520, 527, rel. Keenan v. 13 Ill. ex People 2d denied, 46; 828, 67, 3 S. Ct. cert. 358 U.S. L. Ed. 2d accord, v. 57 Ill. Co. City Paper Supply Chicago, of 553. a constitution of Illinois
There has been prior for of its amendment form by any popular provided have been initiative. The methods of amendment by only General Assembly proposals originating 1818, VII, 1; calls. See Ill. art. sec. Ill. convention Const. 2; XII, Const. art. secs. Const. art. XIV, 1 and secs. 2. the Commit
At the 1970 convention the majority tee on Constitutional Amendments declined Suffrage have initiative which would allowed propose general the amendments of Constitution any part initiative. that it consid The committee’s indicated report since that a initiative ered was unnecessary general were to be the Constitution procedures amending liberalized, automatic, submission to periodic including a constitutional the electorate calling question art. sec. convention. Ill. Const. 1.) (See that a initiative further concern report expressed general interest to abuse by provision subject special and ill-conceived result might hasty attempts groups have been the to write what should ordinary into Constitution. 7 Proceedings legislation its did A the committee through report minority initiative, but it was propose general rejected by convention. At that time (2 Proceedings 587.) delegates the same concerns that expressed have led may of the Committee on and Constitutional majority Suffrage Amendments to initiative reject general proposal. 2 581-82. Proceedings the debates on the
During general proposal, *13 Perona stated he that it Delegate considered important that some form of constitutional initiative be to developed amend the article, since self-interest legislative make might it that the itself unlikely would legislature propose He said: f we are changes. an dependent upon “[I] amendment the to reduce its size suggested by legislature or to abolish cumulative to to a voting possibly change unicameral I don’t think we are to legislature, it going get done.” 583. 2 Proceedings
Article section as originally proposed section 15 of the article the Committee legislative on the The committee’s which Lеgislature. ac- explanation the made it clear that it was companied intended proposal the Constitution’s initiative of amendment process could not be used as a substitute for action. legislative stated: report amendment, “Any proposed, so would required to be
(cid:127) Article, limited to contained in the Legislative namely procedure matters of structure and and not matters of policy. substantive
[*] [*] [*] Debate in this Convention on the Constitutional Initiative revealed two serious in weaknesses the Constitu- tional process Initiative found in several (1) states: it amendment; permits legislation by constitutional (2) it amending process allows the constitutional to become in highly complex embroiled emotional and issues which often adequately сlearly explained cannot be to the voters.
Neither of these two serious weaknesses can be to proposed attributed the Constitutional Initiative for Legislative proposed Article. All Constitutional this through proposal use of amendments submitted specifically to matter expressly subject would be limited subject in matter Legislative contained Article. The pertains only contained in Article proposed structure, namely qualities legislative of the basic branch — size, organization, (6 Proceedings etc.” procedures, 1400-01.) it was said:
And of there particular significance specifically “Section limits amendments ‘struc- Clearly subject subject procedural’ tural matter. article not be proposed matter could construed statutory permit initiative of a nature. Clearly, matter of article is not complex the highly emotion-charged laden with issues process have plagued constitutional Proceedings states.” The committee’s was presented proposal convention Perona. Illustrating Delegate to be limited initiative was “We it’s he feel could effect changes explained: an amendment unlikely legislature propose or in from the number of legislators reducing changing *14 to as we have cumulative today single-member voting continued, He districts.” saying (4 Proceedings 2710.) the defect in the would avoid shown proposal major it has abused initiative in other States where been general used to into and introduce emotion-provoking which should have been introduced Constitution through Delegate legislative Proceedings 2710.) process. (4 this Connor then presented question: Perona, Delegate “MR. CONNOR: first few say, legislative words ‘Amendments to the article.’ How does one what an amendment to legislative describe sections, article is? Additions would amendments —new by and so do limit can be amended you on —how what is an Somebody by petition this route? describes this article; says it amendment who isn’t? legislative question. MR. That’s We at- good PERONA: you have seen tempted legislative to limit article —as preceded that have this by now fourteen sections itself, structure, one —to the legislature to makeup, its and organization, concerning you it. Are specifi- details cally referring possibility adding to the sections similar in the those 1870? Well,
MR. CONNOR: things lots of have sailed аdditions, under being legislative-article the colors of I just say, wonder what then has to ‘additions legislative article.’ Well,
MR. PERONA: report indicates that we intend to limit this to the sections —to the sections presently type of presently sections in the legislative —the ***” article. (4 Proceedings 2711.) There then between Perona and colloquy Delegates Tomei which indicated that amending process structure, allow cumula- changes legislative composition, tive even a to a unicameral voting change legislature. Perona later (4 Proceedings 2711-12.) Delegate explained amendments would be limited in He nature. said in part: provision
“This has been structured to apply only to the article and to be limited to the area of government which it is likely most will not bе changed in constitution The legislature, amendment. being composed of beings, human will reluctant change the provisions of the constitution that govern its structure members, and makeup, the number of its and those sort provisions. [*] [*] [*] remarks, I preliminarily my As indicated I think the limitation on this initiative eliminates the abuse which has been made of the initiative in some states. The attempt has been made here prevent it being applied to ordinary legislation or to changes which do not attack or do not concern the actual structure or makeup of the legislature (4 Proceedings itself.” 2911.) was then the convention at proposal approved by first and submitted to the Committee on reading Style, Submission. 4 Drafting Proceedings The initiative as it was the convention at approved *15 first 6 at volume and at reading appears page page the is or of it report “explanation” While the and Submission. Committee on Style, Drafting one could is not unambiguous, committee’s entirely report read to section was from that the initiative conclude as to structural be amendments mean there could made Comments or as to subjects. Whalen, chairman,
committee’s Wayne appear Delegate However, view. express Proceedings 4547.) (5 committee, even if were the view of that considering all of to the intendment the circumstances relating on this we underlying language question disputed consider on balance that the intendment towas limit affect amendments to those would both structure which The Committee on Style, procedure. Drafting was Submission substantive committee convention; it one of constitutional was three procedural committees. others were Public Information and (The Rules and The Com- Credentials Committees.) Legislative mittee, initiative, was a substantive viii, committee. Committee on Proceedings (6 ix.) indicates, Submission, its name as Style, Drafting concerned with matters of and form style (e.g2 rather of substance. This of than Proceedings 394-396), course is in no meant as a depreciation way on function of the Committee important Style, Drafting It intended out Submission. only point did not the function or committee have responsibility inclusion in the substantive matters for Consti- proposing tution.
We add if taken in the would the view apparently on and Submis- Committee report Style, Drafting sion were it would broaden the accepted enormously read initiative. To “structural and as “struc- procedural” tural allow submission of procedural” amendments to the electorate whenever pro- related to the General were posals procedure Such a construction would allow Assembly. amending to be to introduce used ordinary legislative process *16 472 There would be amendments of a “initiative
subjects. nature,” on Committee statutory Legisla- ture, earlier, as not we have noted said would be clearly possible because “Section 15 [3] specifically limits amend- ments to ‘structural and matter.” 6 procedural’ subject Proceedings
The defendants do not to attempt argue meet these dual The proposals requirements. amendments did not meet constitutional prescriptions, and the circuit court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
It is to obvious, not that it is observe inappropriate course, that one can read “structural and so as procedural” to “and” effect. as But this court give disjunctive held, has the circumstances under which a unreasonably court is in not its justified giving language ordinary are limited. Creek District v. (Gar Drainage 338, The who 256 Wagner (1912), 345.) plaintiffs, of the were members constitutional convention and in a convention, of the know mind declare that position be “and” was not to given disjunctive meaning. Brandéis is to have observed reported Justice decided, can if not some even questions completely he decision, said, answered. The does not process view demand one as point acсepted entirely as It right rejected entirely wrong. sufficient that the scale of We judgment tips. judge the scale has in favor of the plaintiffs’ tipped position.
Because of our cause No. that the holding initiative amendments did not meet the require- ments of and, article therefore, section not be may submitted to the electorate for we dismissed the approval, for mandamus in petition cause No. compel State Board of Elections to the initiative certify petitions.
For the reasons given, circuit judgment court in affirmed, cause No. 48758 was and in cause No. 48746 the for a writ of mandamus petition dismissed. — Petition dismissed. — Judgment affirmed. SCHAEFER, dissenting: MR. JUSTICE XIV of the of article in section 3 The sentence critical limited struc- shall be “Amendments Constitution says: IV.” in Article containеd tural and subjects procedural it read: to make this sentence has rewritten The majority both structural shall include amendment “Every' done It has in Article IV.” contained concentrated it has so, because upon apparently, the exclusion “and,” to of the word conjunctive aspect in this context. another, more natural meaning reached by majority of the result artificial quality *17 from a consideration becomes comparable apparent sentence structures: to mathematics year are limited
First students foreign language courses. and chicken dishes. be limited to beef
The menus will not does mean It that the first illustration seems plain in and a must taught both mathematics language foreign illustration does course, and that the second singlе chicken. both beef and mean that dish must contain every “and” not of the word only This customary usage sense; Webster’s Third New in makes is recognized to either or both of “reference International Dictionary: in legal between him two alternatives me) esp. (choose or to mean intended when also language plainly her to a bodily issue) (property person (bequeathed In both of the state and taxable for county purposes).” “and” means Webster, the word clearly in illustrations in the critical sentence does, in “or,” as it my opinion, just in the find I do not in the Constitution. anything used the constitutional convention which proceedings that no in of the numerous suggests change any procedural of article IV can be about brought by provisions about a in unless the sаme amendment brings change structure of the legislative body.
The also concludes that in the majority any change article “would be either or structural legislative procedural in character.” at This is no means a (65 466.) conclusion, and I think it It erroneous. necessary the words “structural and of all deprives procedural” for significance, sentence would have the same if were omitted. It would then they read: “Amendments shall be limited to contained Article IV.” It is true conclusion the majority finds some in the of the support Report Legislative Committee, but it is also true that other of that same parts committee in the direction: other “The report point matter contained in the Article pertains basic only qualities namely branch — structure, size, etc.” orgаnization, Proceed- procedures, (6 Some of ings of article IV 1401.) do provisions plainly not relate to either or structural matters. For example: Assembly No the General member of shall
“(e) compensation public employee receive officer or as any entity from time governmental during which he is in attendance as a member of General Assembly. Assembly during member of the the term
No General he appointed appointed for which was elected shall public to- a office which shall have been created or the compensation for which have been increased shall Assembly (Ill. General term.” Const. during IV, 2(e).) art. sec. basic section grant legislative power *18 IV, in section article
grant immunity legislative “structural,” are neither nor and there are “procedural” IV article which fit provisions in either of those comfortably categories.
What the constitutional convention feared was that the initiative which it was procedure authorizing might misused to “substantive For accomplish changes.” amendments “The General example, reading: Assembly shall death or never law pass abolishing penalty” “The General shall enact which will legislation Assembly abortions” as could prohibit arguably regarded to since amendments article bear legislative they to avoid It was of the legislature. the power directly upon to decided the convention that of amendment that kind by matter limit used to The words initiative. accomplish popular affect which would cut off amendments result effectively no but I find the General Assembly, power in the committee or of the intention either in reports amendment to that an by debates require with both deal article must simultaneously and structural subjects. procedural convention had constitutional The fact is that to revision it, to but failed adopt, presented would have expressed sentence question of this court. construction now majority adopted of article XIV on the before the final vote adoption Just occurred: following Whalen, Delegate “MR. I have a question LEWIS: his perhaps Delegate give opinion. Tomei could also shall be page On of section we state: ‘Amendments subjects.’ There limited to structural and perhaps those feeling some some of the staff Do either or both of them things ought to be itеmized. descriptive to sufficiently are feel those words matter of function constitutional initiative to the restrain in other change and not to the matter of substance articles? order, May we come PRESIDENT WITWER: answer, you Do care to Mr. Whalen? please? We had a
MR. WHALEN: I think so. recommendation, recall, reading on second you if this, I think limit but adopted, that would further wasn’t accomplishes still the result. this you. WITWER: Thank
PRESIDENT Peter, agree? also you do MR. LEWIS: Yes, think this extends MR. I don’t TOMEI: your question. I think that’s legislation. substantive I it on the my question, wanted MR. LEWIS: That is Proceedings 4547.) (5 you. record. Thank Mr. President.” would have in this referred to The amendment passage read: “Amendments the critical sentence changed *19 shall be limited to petition structure of the General and to Assembly procedural provisions affected in structure.” by changes (6 Proceedings 1561.) amendment, That which the constitutional convention did is now adopt, of this adopted by majority opinion court.
Because of in which it rewrote way key sentence, felt it was majority apparently to consider whether unnecessary specific involved in this case relate to structural or procedural In view of subjects. my constitu tional it is to do In provision, so. necessary my opinion, neither No. 1 nor No. 3 Proposal Proposal (65 at relates to a structural or 458) subject. 2, however, No. does in Proposal my judgment certainly relate to a matter of since affects the procedure, of the General composition those situations Assembly to which it would it involves a structural apply, also. are views on this matter quite
Obviously, my as to the unrelated desirability my opinion of these undesirability any proposals.