“The Arizona Supreme Court says the Legislature can’t cut cost-of-living increases promised to state retirees. The ruling released Thursday [February 20] comes in a case brought after the Legislature cut the increases in 2011 for retirees in the state plan for judges and elected officials. A Superior Court judge ruled in favor of retired judges after they sued, but the state appealed. The Legislature cut the cost-of-living increases after the judges’ retirement system lost money in the Great Recession and became badly underfunded. The retired judges argued the increases were a promised benefit and lower courts agreed. The high court agreed the increases are part of a promised retirement benefit and are protected by the pension clause of the state Constitution. That clause bars ‘diminishing or impairing’ public retirement benefits” (Arizona high court to rule on judges’ pensions).
What does the Arizona ruling perhaps mean for public employees and retirees in Illinois? A hope that justice will prevail, though the judgment in Arizona is for judges (and Arizona is not governed by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Coincidentally, Arizona’s House Speaker, Andy Tobin, will be exiting soon because of Term Limits).
Don’t forget, Madigan omitted Illinois judges from Senate Bill 1, and he stated “at least four members of the Illinois Supreme Court will approve [his] bill.”
Madigan also said: “Judges were excluded as a practical decision. We anticipate this matter will be before the Illinois court system and Illinois Supreme Court, and the absence of the judicial pension system in the bill will relieve them of the burden of dealing with a conflict of interest.”
Of course, Madigan would have us believe Illinois Supreme Court judges are incapable of ignoring their own self-regard and, thus, they had to be excluded. Madigan must also believe Illinois Supreme Court judges are capable of thievery like the political opportunists who voted for breaking a constitutional contract.
There are seven states that have their constitution as the legal basis for protection of public pension rights under state laws. They are Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, and New York. The strongest constitutional language (which includes past and future accrual protected) can be found in the state constitutions of Alaska, Illinois, and New York.
Read the entire article here.
Fred Klonsky 
Fred, I am definitely not an “expert on pension law.” However, I do have a profound interest in this significant legal and moral issue.
Point well taken–AZ does not have Mike Madigan who in turn does is not subject to term limits. As much as I want state employees to prevail in their lawsuits, I am mindful of who really governs IL, how far his tentacles may extend, and his vengeful agenda against the public sector, as well as, working class state employees. People need to hope for the best and plan for the worst, just in case the wheels of IL justice grind state employees into the ground and into poverty.
I think the timetable can give us a guideline. The Arizona legislature passed their legislation in 2011 and their supreme court has only now made a ruling. That’s about 3 years to get through the process. Accordingly, we might expect some sort of ruling here by about late 2016 (if a similar timeline can be assumed). In the meantime, we can hope for a “stay” that will allow us to continue receiving our annual increases per the previous law.
Another indicator of a timetable would be the Kanerva v. Weems case, which the SC heard back in September, but still hasn’t ruled on. That case was brought against the 2012 law regarding retiree health insurance. It was fast-tracked to the SC, bypassing the appeals level, and we’re still going on 2 years since the law was passed. Reasonably, it seems, then, that we won’t hear anything from the SC on SB1 until the late 2015-early 2016 time frame even if it gets fast-tracked to the SC after the circuit court rules on it.
“I think we, in the Senate, can take the initiative to pass constitutional laws, not something that will be unconstitutional and only cost legal fees, and not do anything to strengthen the systems” -Senate President Cullerton.
HUH????
ElaineNutkritz–I LOVE it! I don’t know if it was from comic relief after all this pension stress or from the hysteria of the moment, but this name made me laugh SO hard for about 10 minutes (& this while watching Jimmy Fallon & Justin Timberlake acting like goofs)!
I hope that you write more comments (& in more blogs) with this clever name.
And then, of course, I laughed again upon reading John Cullerton’s nonsensical rambling.
“HUH????” indeed!
Patty,
Further pension “hope”.
Marianne
Oh, judges only. Well, that makes sense. Our only hope here is there is a stay so we can get a few more years of COLA
I still think Madigans mouth may have helped us . With AZ any decision that goes against the plain language would have a taint. I would then ask the NSA for the phone metadata on Madigan the ILSC and their staffs. Madigan doesn’t use a cell phone . He is still playing 1990 mobster I guess
Perhaps this is too cynical, but the point of passing unconstitutional laws may be to help the finances of select law firms.
How dare they endorse Klickna!