A coalition of Illinois road contractors, suppliers and engineering companies has appealed a state appellate court ruling that says the Safe Roads Amendment, passed by a majority of voters in 2016, applies only to the state and not to the taxes and other revenue collected by home-rule counties and municipalities.
安全道路修正的语言，passed by the voters by a nearly four-to-one margin2016年11月，需要从运输中产生的资金来用于“建设，重建或维护公路，道路，街道，桥梁，大众运输，大众运输，内城市客运铁路，港口，机场或其他形式的运输”。
Dollars received from gasoline taxes, transportation bonds, fees for the registration of motor vehicles and other transportation revenue sources cannot be used for other government spending, according to the amendment. But the appellate court said the amendment does not define how money can be spent by home-rule units of government, only the state itself.
“The Amendment protects from diversion of those revenues from transportation-related taxes whose expenditure is authorized by statute. The Amendment does not sequester revenues from transportation-related taxes spent by home-rule units pursuant to their independent constitutional spending power," a three-justice panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court, based in Chicago, wrote in its March 31 ruling.
对该决定提出上诉的原告包括伊利诺伊州道路和运输建筑商协会，妇女承包商联合会，伊利诺伊州总体生产者协会，伊利诺伊州的相关总承包商，伊利诺伊州沥青路面人行道协会，伊利诺伊州伊利诺伊州现成的混合凝结协会，伟大的湖泊建筑协会，美国工程公司委员会伊利诺伊州分会，芝加哥AGC，伊利诺伊州地下承包商协会和伊利诺伊州混凝土管道协会。
The defendant is Cook County, the largest county in the state by population, which has used transportation tax and fee proceeds for public safety, including funding the office of the Cook County Sheriff. It has also used transportation funds for other general operating expenses since 2016. The road builders' coalition's appeal argues the appellate court's ruling was incorrect because it relies on arguments made in the general assembly and a section of the amendment that does not address how funds can be spent. It also argues that, if the ruling stands, any local government would be all but free to ignore the so-called lockbox amendment.
“这项修正案的目的非常明确，”代表交通联盟的伯特·迪维托（Tabet Divito＆Rothstein）的律师约翰·菲茨杰拉德（John Fitzgerald）说。“运输税收收入必须用于运输目的，这在我们看来，修正案用非常清晰的语言说明了什么，这就是为什么选民以近80％的全州投票批准了它的原因。”
菲茨杰拉德（Fitzgerald）还表示，尽管没有提及对修正案中的家庭规则县和市政当局的任何豁免，但在另一部分中，联邦税款有豁免，称联邦资金可以用于联邦法律授权的任何目的。
"If the drafters wanted to include an exemption for home rule units, or for home rule taxes, they would have said so very clearly," he says, "and they did not."
库克县州检察官金·福克斯（Kim Foxx）的办公室正在捍卫该县，并在一份声明中说：“我们认为，上诉法院在这里取得了正确的结果，并确信其决定会持续下去。”
菲茨杰拉德说，伊利诺伊州最高法院可能会在今年秋天决定是否批准上诉。关于任何潜在上诉的口头辩论可能会在2022年第一季度遵循。尽管此事完全基于州法律，但最终的解决方案是什么，无论其最终的解决方案都可能对具有类似语言的交通锁定式修正案（如康涅狄格州）（例如马里兰州）产生影响，新泽西州，路易斯安那州和威斯康星州。
