Eye On Illinois: Lack of clarity in state, federal legislation cedes power to judicial, executive branches

There are not many state government jobs I find appealing, but perhaps the lowest rung of the ladder is justice on the state Supreme Court.

It’s like the ultimate in middle management: there is a heavy load of responsibility with an expectation to make difficult decisions but no firm sense of authority because everything is subject to change based on whims further up the ladder.

Though many topics convey this feeling, perhaps none better crystalizes the sentiment than gun regulations. Every time local officials or state lawmakers enact policy or legislation, it seems destined for the Illinois Supreme Court. Any time that body renders an opinion, it inevitably will land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Then there is the perpetual possibility Congress might act. However slight the odds, such an outcome must be considered because of its potential to upend everything considered to be established.

For example, in 2012, the Cook County Board enacted a $25 fee on gun purchases. Three years later, it taxed ammunition sales. In 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the taxes, ruling the county never sufficiently detailed its claims of using the system to fund gun safety or violence prevention efforts. The issue was still kicking around circuit court until a Jan. 10 ruling and may yet return to the top. If so, it will be just one of many pressing Second Amendment questions.

Capitol News Illinois reported on Jan. 14 hearings regarding the constitutionality of open and concealed carry regulations, proceeding in light of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court opinion emanating from New York. Meanwhile, the General Assembly just passed a law regarding gun possession by people made subject to an order of protection. That bill is certainly headed for litigation to resolve questions about due process and illegal seizure rights.

It’s not just guns. Challenges to state and federal rules about voting rights, environmental policies and myriad other topics bounce from court to court and chamber to chamber all in the name of seeking the ideal balance between the rights of local governance and federally enshrined protections.

Ambiguity might decrease if lawmakers were more explicitly prescriptive when establishing policy, but that’s often politically unpleasant compared to taking credit for at least passing something and then waiting it out for years while jurists finalize checks and balances. And nothing is really final because court compositions eventually evolve.

It’s perhaps not the ideal government model. Effective leaders learn to work within and in spite of the challenging framework, but sometimes that surfaces in exercises of executive power that also subvert expectations of coequal branches and only survive until the next turnover election.

It remains unclear how this approach serves the public taxed with its sustenance.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. Follow him on X @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.