It will be interesting to watch how the Supremes handle the Cities arguement that thier is no city duty to capitalize into the fund. The trial court Judge did not take the bait here but sidestepped it in dicta. Allot rides on the viability for a city or municipality to be able to dry up a fund, and walk away, and start up a new fund with new rules and qualifications. Or weather the Constitution and the impairment clause mandates the duty to a city or municipality to appropriate into the fund. This issue, I expect, will have Wirepoints attention.
Pam, you are exactly right. We’ve written about that before and that issue is far more important than the validity of the reforms. I suspect they won’t address the issue, and will, instead, simply rule that it makes no difference — that the reforms are invalid under their previous SB-1 ruling.
A largely unasked question is becoming glaring: Is Illinois doing all it should to use artificial intelligence to make government cost less and work better? So far, the evidence says no.
I’d give about 7:1 that they uphold the trial court and invalidate the reforms.
Mark what are the odds the Supremes over turn the lower courts decision?
It will be interesting to watch how the Supremes handle the Cities arguement that thier is no city duty to capitalize into the fund. The trial court Judge did not take the bait here but sidestepped it in dicta. Allot rides on the viability for a city or municipality to be able to dry up a fund, and walk away, and start up a new fund with new rules and qualifications. Or weather the Constitution and the impairment clause mandates the duty to a city or municipality to appropriate into the fund. This issue, I expect, will have Wirepoints attention.
Pam, you are exactly right. We’ve written about that before and that issue is far more important than the validity of the reforms. I suspect they won’t address the issue, and will, instead, simply rule that it makes no difference — that the reforms are invalid under their previous SB-1 ruling.