Daily Herald opinion: End the ‘shell’ game: An abhorrent legislative practice intended to flout transparency and deny discussion is all too common

You need look back barely a few months to see one of the most egregious examples of abuse of representative democracy in Illinois government. And sadly, it is a routine practice.

The case in point is Senate Bill 328, a law that enables someone claiming injury from toxic exposure from a product or substance made by any company that does business in Illinois to sue in Illinois regardless of where the exposure occurred or the product is made. Opponents consider it a horrible law that they fear will flood Illinois courts with lawsuits and further discourage business activity in the state. But they barely got to express their concerns, nor did anyone get the opportunity even to know the law was being considered or debate its impact.

Democratic leaders rammed the bill through both houses of the General Assembly in the waning hours of the spring session last May and sent it to the governor, who signed it in August. It was all done in cynical defiance of provisions in the state Constitution intended to ensure full transparency and open debate about potential laws.

This abomination, initiated to satisfy a single special interest group, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, was enabled by a practice that has become a convenient alternative for a party in the majority to employ so as to pass potentially unpopular legislation before anyone can complain or even learn its details. The practice is generally referred to as a “shell bill” or “gut-and-replace” legislation. The terms refer to a law containing irrelevant text and submitted prior to a session’s filing deadline, given two of three required readings, then left idling in committee until it can be amended by replacing its entire contents with all new, completely unrelated language and passed sometime before the session adjourns.

Unfortunately, this is far from a rare occurrence. Indeed, it has become the routine means of passing the state’s fiscal year budget without the public — or most lawmakers themselves — knowing what’s in it. In the 2025 legislative session last May, legislators were handed less than 48 hours before adjournment a 3,389-page budget document packed into a shell bill. Clearly, there was no time for any lawmaker, much less the general public, to identify problematic spending, much less initiate debate.

This is an abhorrent means of conducting the public’s business. Not only does it defy transparency and discussion, it — and this is an even worse outcome — erodes people’s faith in the authority of their most profound legal documents and the integrity of their elected representatives.

Republican lawmakers have filed suit to try to stop the practice, and one can only hope the courts will see it for the arrogant flouting of constitutional intent that it is. If they do not, it will be time for us all to pressure lawmakers to address it or, if need be, develop an unambiguous constitutional amendment that finally lays it to rest.