SPRINGFIELD — House Democrats on Tuesday again passed a bill that could send the stalled contract talks between Gov. Bruce Rauner and the state’s biggest employee unions to a panel of arbitrators.

However, Democrats remain a handful of votes short of override strength should the Republican governor veto the bill as expected.

After a long and sometimes testy debate Tuesday afternoon, the House passed HB 580 to the Senate on a vote of 67 to 46 with two members voting present and three members not voting.

Rauner vetoed a nearly identical measure in the fall. While the Senate approved an override motion, House Democrats came up three votes short of the 71 votes needed in that chamber.

House Bill 580 would let arbitrators decide between the state’s and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’ final contract offers.

Democrats say the measure is designed to protect state employees and keep state government open and providing services.

The GOP says it’s an unconstitutional move to strip Rauner of his authority to negotiate on behalf of the citizens who elected him and would mean taxpayer-funded gift to big unions of $3 billion or more over the life of a four-year contract — all while the state is in fiscal crisis.

Sponsoring Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch, D-Hillside, said his bill represents a fair way to untangle the year-long and so-far unproductive talks between Rauner’s team and that of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

If the administration can’t live with the decision of three arbitrators — one chosen by the governor’s administration, one by the union and the third drawn from a Labor Relations Board pool — the governor and only the governor can reject the arbitrators’ decision and make each side return to the bargaining table, Welch said.

But Republicans questioned the fairness of that arrangement, with House GOP leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs saying that puts the Labor Relations board or “third arbitrator” in a position of making the decision.

Durkin said 52 of the 54 eligible arbitrators in the current ILRB pool were appointed during the tenures of Democratic governors Rod Blagojevich and Pat Quinn.

“I think it’s a direct conflict with the governor’s authority,” said Durkin. “It takes him out of what I believe is his inherent role to negotiate labor contracts, as every other governor has, on behalf of the taxpayers of Illinois.”

State Rep. Peter Breen, R-Lombard, also said the bill represented a “heads I win, tails you lose” deal to the unions.

Under HB 580, the union could — even in its worst-case scenario — string the talks out for three more years and essentially keep working under terms of the contract that expired at the end of June and which the state cannot afford to continue, Breen argued.

Welch said Rauner had himself to thank for the bind.

“I think this keeps the governor at the table, where he said he would be until he broke his promise,” Welch said.

But Republicans countered Rauner has lived up to the terms of agreements signed by the parties. Those “tolling agreements” say that should either side believe impasse has been reached, either can ask the Labor Relations Board for a ruling.

Rauner in January did that, saying the administration believed the two sides had hit impasse, or the point at which further talks would prove fruitless.

Democrats argue Rauner is intent on declaring impasse so he could put his administration’s terms in place and force a strike, thereby breaking the union.

“The bottom line is you have a governor who came into office after declaring that like Ronald Reagan he was going go to break the union by creating a strike situation,” said Rep. Christian Mitchell, D-Chicago. “Now, when you start with that negotiating position, you are inherently not negotiating in good faith.”

The governor has said he won’t lock anyone out and and denies seeking a strike. His administration argues the contract terms sought by AFSCME and a half-dozen allied unions is unaffordable given the state’s debt, deficit spending and declining revenue.

“If it becomes law, it will dig Illinois’ fiscal hole even deeper, further squeezing social services and, ironically, it will lead to layoffs,” Rauner spokesman Lance Trover said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon.

Trover called the measure a tax-hike masquerading as a labor bill.

“Public service workers want an agreement that’s fair to all,” AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Roberta Lynch said in item on the union’s website. “Submitting our differences to an independent third party can ensure working people are treated fairly and public services are not disrupted.”

St. Clair County judges believe that nothing in the Illinois Constitution, the constitutional convention record, the state Election Code or any legal precedent has ever suggested that retention is the exclusive path that a sitting judge must follow to seek a successive term.

Chicago attorney Michael Kasper adopted that position for Judges John Baricevic, Robert LeChien and Robert Haida in a brief filed Tuesday in Sangamon Circuit Court.

In defending a lawsuit challenging their access to the March 15 Democratic ballot, Kasper argues that the question Associate Judge Esteban Sanchez must decide is whether the judges nominating papers are valid.

Kasper bolstered his constitutional arguments with political perspective.

He stated that in Illinois, there is an "overriding interest in ballot access" which is "zealously" protected by the State Board of Elections and the courts.

He says that Cook's "largely political" position is not relevant to the validity of the judges' nomination papers.

Rhetoric such as "judges are not politicians" and that they should be "beyond political pressures" of raising campaign contributions has little to do with the judges' eligibility, Kasper wrote.

"First, it ignores the obvious fact that a retention election is, in fact, an election," Kasper wrote. "Seond, and more importantly, it is the Petitioner himself who seeks to deprive the voters of any election at all."

If Cook prevails, Kasper wrote, "no candidate's name will appear on the Democratic Party's primary ballot for those offices."

"One cannot seriously argue that the voters are better served by having literally no choice at the polls on election day."

Kasper says that since the judges meet requirements of citizenship, residency and attorney licensing as described in Article VI, Section 11 of the state Constitution, they are eligible to run.

Sanchez, who will hold a hearing Friday afternoon, is likely to rule quickly since the primary election is less than four weeks away.

Challenger Dallas Cook, Belleville City Clerk, argues that the state constitution establishes that the only process for a judge to retain office is through a retention vote that requires 60 percent voter approval - not simple majority re-election style as the three circuit judges seek to do.

In August, the three judges submitted letters of resignation to the Illinois Supreme Court, indicating that they intended to seek election to their seats rather than to seek retention.

In December, Cook filed objections with the State Board of Elections. On Jan. 20, the elections board voted 4-4 along partisan lines following a hearing officer's recommendation that the judges be allowed to run in the primary. In effect, the deadlock vote left the judges' petitions for nomination on the Democratic ballot undisturbed.

After the State Board of Elections ruling, Cook, who is represented by St. Louis attorney Aaron Weishaar, filed suit in Sangamon Circuit Court.

In the case before Sanchez - an appointed not elected judge - both sides rely on Article VI, Section 12 of the state Constitution, which outlines processes for judicial election and retention. They disagree on its "plain meaning."

Kasper says that Section 12(d) provides that a sitting judge "may" file papers seeking retention, but that "it says absolutely nothing about what a sitting judge may not do."

"Of course, the plain meaning of the word 'may' is permissive," Kasper wrote.

He further argues that Cook cannot "insert eligibility requirements" into the Constitution.

"Nothing in Section 12(d), or any other constitutional provision, prohibits a sitting judge, who does not seek a retention election, from entering the primary election like any other eligible citizen."

Kasper also states that "all" state supreme court and federal court precedent supports the judges' eligibility.

He notes a 2009 decision at the Illinois Supreme Court, Maddux v. Blagojevich, which struck down mandatory retirement age for judges.

"In Maddux, the majority declared that a sitting judge could not be barred from seeking election (the majority did not distinguish between retention or contested) by mandatory retirement," Kasper wrote. "Justice Karmeier (dissenting) would have barred a sitting judge who had achieved the mandatory retirement age from seeking retention, but not from running in a contested election. Neither the marjority nor the dissent, however, would have precluded an otherwise eligible judge from seeking election fhrough a contested primary election."

One of the issues before Sanchez will be to determine the standard for review.

Cook is asking the court for a review of the entire record on all questions of law and fact, not just a judicial review of whether the State Board of Elections' deadlock vote or the effect of it is contrary to law.

Kasper argues that the question before the court should be whether the State Board of Elections' decision that the judges' nomination papers were valid was "clearly erroneous."

Whatever the outcome may be in Sanchez's court, the case could go up to the Supreme Court to provide guidance for the future.

For decades, all circuit, appellate and supreme court judges in Illinois who have sought successive terms have followed the process of running for retention in non-partisan races which require a higher threshold for winning. The only exception occurred in 2006 when another judge from St, Clair County - Lloyd Cueto - did the very thing Baricevic, LeChien and Haida are attempting.

SPRINGFIELD — Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner used his annual budget address Wednesday to put two choices before legislative Democrats who control both houses of the state legislature:

The General Assembly can grant him, the state’s chief executive, the authority to make the cuts that will allow Illinois to spend what it’s bringing in, about $32.8 billion

Or, Rauner said, lawmakers can agree to some of what he considers essential economic and political reforms and he’ll work with them on a combination of revenue increases and spending reductions for a total budget of about $36.3 billion.

“You choose. But, please, choose now,” Rauner told lawmakers in his second budget address.

The governor also asked lawmakers to promptly send through legislation to fund primary and secondary education for fiscal year 2017 at $393 million, up $75 million and the highest amount in state history.

Democratic leaders largely answered the governor was bringing nothing new to the table to address the overall budget quagmire, which includes the state still spending billions in the red even without a budget more than seven months into fiscal 2016.

In short, if not engaged in outright battles, the warring factions in Springfield appeared to remain at least dug into their trenches.

“Democrats won’t support enough spending cuts to live within our current revenues, and you won’t vote to raise taxes to cover your deficit spending unless Republicans agree to support your tax hike,” Rauner said in his speech.

“I won’t support new revenue unless we have major structural reforms to grow more jobs and get more value for taxpayers. I’m insisting that we attack the root causes of our dismal economic performance. Those are the dynamics.

“That leaves us with only two choices: either you give the executive branch the authority to cut spending to live within our revenues. Or, we agree, together, on economic and governmental reforms, to accompany a negotiated balance of spending reductions and revenue, which ensures that Illinois can be both compassionate and competitive."

Democrats said there was, at core, some nice language about working together in the governor’s speech but no real changes in position.

While applauding the governor’s concern for primary and secondary education funding, Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, also said the state’s system of distributing funds to school districts needs to be completely reworked.

“The governor can be a vital ally in resolving what’s become the defining crisis of our time,” Cullerton said in statement. “But reform won’t come by simply throwing more money at the existing system. We need a complete overhaul.”

Otherwise, Cullerton panned the governor’s speech.

With “all due respect to the governor, his budget speeches don’t help Illinois,” Cullerton said. “At this point, the courts are running more of the state than our governor. It’s going to require real plans and real action on his part to resolve the impasse he created. I want to work with him to find practical solutions to our problems because nothing Gov. Rauner did in his first year worked for anyone.”

Democratic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan of Chicago continued to criticize the second-year governor and his agenda.

Addressing a question on whether there isn’t room for negotiation with Rauner, Madigan said, “The answer is that’s possible where people are being reasonable, where their focus is on the budget deficit problem and not some extreme right agenda which is based in extreme right economic theory that thinks the government ought to be used to drive down the standard of living.”

Said Cullerton in his own news conference, “The speaker and I have been consistent. We are willing to talk to him about cuts, revenues or a combination thereof. He doesn’t seem to be focused on doing that. Instead he’s asking for a ‘turnaround agenda’ that really has nothing to do with the state budget.”

Rauner said “nothing could be further from the truth” than the argument his agenda is disconnected from the budget.

“Workers’ compensation reform and lawsuit reform. Mandate relief, consolidation, local control of bargaining and bidding to drive down property taxes. These reforms will provide many billions of dollars every year in government cost savings,” Rauner said.

“But even more critically, they’ll help our economy grow faster by rebuilding job creators’ confidence in our state. More businesses, more jobs, more people working and paying taxes.”

Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton) had a more conciliatory reaction than Democratic legislative leaders.

"There are so many issues in which we can agree upon,” said Haine. “It is time to sit down and find common ground for funding for our students, our universities, Alzheimer’s patients and those who are feeling the real impact of this budget impasse. It is time we work together to solve this budgetary crisis and work toward a caring and compassionate state.” 

Illinois began fiscal year 2016 last June 1 without a budget and still remains without one.

Without an overall budget for this fiscal year, the state is still making payments on roughly 90 percent of the bills by paying for costs mandated in continuing appropriations, by court decrees, in the primary/secondary education budget that did pass and for its debt service.

And that spending does not include funding for higher education or most social services.

Illinois also is sitting on about $7 billion in unpaid bills, and that amount will grow to $10 billion to $12 billion by June 30, the end of fiscal year 2016 if action isn’t taken, state Comptroller Leslie Munger, R-Lincolnshire, recently said.

Additionally, Illinois’ unfunded pension obligations are estimated at $111 billion to $113 billion.

While the impasse in Springfield didn’t seem to change much Wednesday, the governor said he’s willing to talk.

“I stand ready to negotiate with each and every one of you – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,” Rauner told lawmakers.

Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat who takes pride in opposing tax increases, said the governor needs to be more specific on some of his proposals but added, “I’m happy to work with him, though. I think he was being very pragmatic. I don’t think he was being overly confrontational, I think he was just laying it out as he saw it.

Franks also argued for action, by Democrats and Republicans, now.

“What I would ask the governor to do now … he ought to be locking us down here in Springfield, and not letting us leave that chamber until we come away with a budget, because every day that we’re not here, the citizens of Illinois are spending $33 million more a day than we are bringing in.”

Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville, also gave Rauner points for being less divisive than in some of his past speeches.

“He still made his points, but I thought the overall tone was just more amenable … so I appreciated that.”

Sullivan said he thinks there’s reachable middle ground on some of the governor’s agenda items, such as workers compensation, although he expressed doubt that Democrats would yield on diminished collective bargaining for public employees.

Sullivan said he’s also concerned about higher education.

”I have Western (Illinois University), I have six community colleges in my Senate district, and I have three private (institutions), and the privates are affected because of MAP (the Monetary Award Program). … So, I am very very much concerned about higher education and how it would be affected by a budget that is given to the governor to spend as he deems fit.”

Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, endorsed the governor’s calls for economic and political changes.

“We’ve got to be bold about these structural reforms,” he said.

“It’s going to take some tough decisions made now to right this ship,” McCarter said. “I just hope there's enough legislators to stand up for what’s right and not just give in to the special interests that have guided us down the wrong path.”

Todd Maisch, president and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, endorsed Rauner’s calls for change.

“We simply cannot allow state government to be treated like an endless supply of blank checks,” Maisch said. “I said last year that the check has come due. Our situation is one year worse now. Structural changes, even a couple of them, will help grow our economy and bring in more revenue, and that must be a reality this year.”

After three days of trial testimony, a Madison County asbestos case settled shortly after 9 a.m. today.

Plaintiff William Hollingsworth, a Michigan mechanic, sued dozens of corporations in 2012, claiming his wife, Karen, died from mesothelioma in 2010, as a result of second-hand asbestos exposure derived mainly from his work on tractor clutches.

Hollingsworth was represented by Eric Jackstadt, Patrick Haines and Justin Heim of Napoli Shkolnik of Edwardsville. He claimed that Deere manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products which contaminated his clothing and exposed his wife when she laundered them.

The only defendant at trial in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs' court was Deere & Co., represented by Matthew Fischer and Brian Watson of Schiff Hardin in Chicago.

In a motion for summary judgment, Deere argued that since Michigan law governed Hollingsworth's claims, a question of law for the court was whether the company owed a legal duty to Karen Hollingsworth because she was exposed second-hand by residue "carried miles away from the workplace on the clothes of her husband."

Prior to trial, Deere pointed out in legal briefs that the Michigan Supreme Court in 2007 vacated an out of state verdict and concluded that Michigan law does not impose such a legal duty.

It also argued that even though Michigan relies more on the relationship, if any, between the parties than foreseeability in deciding whether a duty exists, Hollingsworth did not offer any evidence that the risk from take-home asbestos exposure was forseeable by Deere.

In addition, the company argued that Michigan public policy has refused to impose a legal duty with respect to second hand exposure.

"As the Court explained, the 'recognition of a commonlaw cause of action under the circumstances of this case would, in our opinion, expand traditional tort concepts beyond manageable bounds and create an almost infinite universe of potential plaintiffs,'" wrote Deere attorney Watson.

Hollingsworth countered that Deere "conflated" Michigan law on premises liability with the state's law on products liability.

"In the products liability context, the Michigan Supreme Court has not only held that the manufacturer of a product owes a legal obligation of due care to a bystander affected by the use of its product, it specifically held that the relationship between the manufacturer and the user of its product extends to the person injured by that product," wrote Heim.

Jurors in federal court awarded $450,000 to former Madison County comptroller Linda Dunnagan, on a discrimination claim against county treasurer Kurt Prenzler.

Eight jurors returned the verdict in the court of District Judge Staci Yandle on Feb. 11, after three days of trial.

Dunnagan sued Prenzler in 2014, alleging he fired her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to her lawyers, Lee Barron and William Buchanan of Alton, she was hospitalized with a life threatening illness in 2012.

She accused Prenzler of hostility toward her on account of her disability.

Dunnagan's lawyers claimed Prenzler expressed no concern for her physical or emotional well being.

On her return to work, she claimed she was told her duties would be transferred to a less experienced employee.

Her lawyers wrote that she performed her duties with skill and great competence.

After another hospitalization, Prenzler suggested she retire, her suit alleged, yet she indicated a desire to remain in her position.

Dunnagan's lawyers wrote that in 2013, she received a letter from Prenzler stating he decided to eliminate the comptroller position in 30 days.

They wrote that he terminated her employment on Feb. 14, 2013.

Prenzler’s lawyers, John Gilbert of Edwardsville and Geri Arrindell of St. Louis, answered that Prenzler didn’t fire her, rather, he offered her an alternative position and she chose to retire.

They wrote that she didn’t inform him that she was disabled or impaired.

They wrote that consolidation of duties in his office helped him reduce total costs by 30 percent.

Prenzler argued at trial that the Americans with Disabilities Act didn’t apply because Dunnagan was not disabled, but jurors found otherwise.

Yandle later cast doubt on the size of the verdict, ordering Dunnagan to file a brief on damages by Feb. 25.

She ordered Prenzler to respond by March 10.