Daily Herald opinion: Make a statement, Governor: Last-minute law expanding jurisdiction for lawsuits demands thorough review

There are many compelling reasons for Gov. JB Pritzker to veto a bill sitting on his desk that would open the door for out-of-state litigants to sue Illinois businesses with allegations of toxic exposure. But one in particular will define his leadership and his party’s commitment to good government.

Ethics.

The legislation in question is Senate Bill 328, a proposed law that would enable someone claiming injury from toxic exposure to sue in Illinois regardless of where or how the exposure occurred. Currently such cases are required to be filed in the locale where the defendant company or corporation is headquartered. See if you agree that anyone, whether an opponent or a supporter, believes it has the ability to withstand scrutiny on its own merits.

Were that the case, the legislation would have been filed before the deadline for consideration in the 104th General Assembly. It would have been read on the Senate and House floor on three separate days as the state Constitution requires, assigned to a committee and subjected to testimony from opponents and supporters while open to accumulating witness slips from anyone with something to say for or against it.

Here’s how SB 328 was introduced and passed: Two days before the end of the session, lawmakers in the House filed the legislation as an amendment to what is called a “shell bill,” legislation on a totally different subject that has been filed before the deadline and received two of the requisite floor readings but sits waiting to be hollowed out and replaced with entirely new language any time up to the close of the session. Key interests affected by the legislation learned of it for the first time at 8 a.m. They had an hour to figure out its potential ramifications and one supporter and one opponent were each given three minutes to testify before the House Executive Committee. The bill was passed along partisan lines and sent to the Senate, where the committee chairman said the bill would be submitted without testimony to a roll-call vote on the Democratic-majority panel. It passed the Senate along party lines the next day, amid the crush of a contentious last-minute budget debate.

Does that sound like a transparent, deliberative process from proud sponsors eager to demonstrate the merits of the law they are proposing?

Or does it sound like the way to sneak through a weak, potentially unpopular proposal designed to help one special interest?

Honest minds will surely acknowledge the case for the latter.

But the central issue, the defining point the governor should consider, is that there is room for honest debate on a consequential bill that was deliberately finessed into being by suspicious procedural maneuvering.

In a July 10 Daily Herald guest commentary, Illinois Trial Lawyers Association President Timothy J. Cavanagh argued that Illinois is particularly well-suited to allow litigants to file suit in Illinois even if their alleged injuries occur in one or more outside states because the courts and attorneys here “have developed subject matter expertise that makes for a much more efficient legal process, saving the already busy courts’ time and taxpayer resources.” He also argued that such consolidation would save seriously ill plaintiffs pressed for time and money the expenses and trouble of traveling elsewhere to pursue their cases, although that contention flies somewhat in the face of the scores of billboards along Chicago expressways promising “if we don’t win, you don’t pay.”

Business interests respond with alarm at what they see as an unclear definition of what qualifies as toxic exposure that in their view could open a wide array of businesses to potential litigation, discouraging new businesses from locating here and stirring others to move elsewhere. In an analysis of the legislation, the global law firm DLA Piper notes that the definition of toxic substance referred to in the legislation “will not only apply to potentially hazardous chemicals, but may also include medications, cosmetics, plastics, and food.”

“Companies with any business presence in Illinois — especially those dealing with potentially ‘toxic’ substances under the Uniform Hazardous Substances Act of Illinois — are encouraged to promptly assess their risk and consider the implications for their operations and litigation strategy,” the DLA Piper evaluation states.

Business leaders also counter that rather than saving the “busy courts’ time,” the expanded access could wind up clogging the courts with cases, leading to greater expenses and delays.

Even further, there is also room to probe just what impact this type of access has had in other states. Advocates claim similar laws exist in Iowa and Georgia. Opponents say the only other state with a law similar to SB 328 is Pennsylvania, and they point to sobering statistics there. Surely, questions like these should be more clear before initiating a system with a potential for significant impact on the court system and the economics of the state and with uncertain improvements to the rights of potential plaintiffs.

All in all, then, a strong case exists that SB 328 deserves more scrutiny than a couple of hours of partisan review during the crush of a heated budget debate.

Gov. Pritzker is in an awkward position considering legislation sponsored by the Senate president and the House majority leader. But he has an opportunity to demonstrate courageous leadership and to stand up for good government. And he has precedent. No less a progressive colleague than Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has twice defied her party to veto similar bills.

In a campaign appearance reported by Capitol News Illinois, his new lieutenant governor nominee, Christian Mitchell, appeared to set a tone for a possible third term of the Pritzker administration.

“I think it’s important to take the message … which is let’s make Illinois the most ethical state in the nation,” Mitchell said.

If that indeed is a Pritzker goal, he has a clear opportunity to prove it in the case of SB 328. There is no urgency for the legislation. If it does have merit, the bill ought to be clearly defined and open to careful review and sharp debate.

Gov. Pritzker, do the right thing. Make a positive statement about transparency and the integrity of lawmaking in Illinois. Veto Senate Bill 328.