Mary Lee Leahy, the Athens resident and Springfield lawyer who took the Rutan case to the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to a 1990 decision banning most political hiring, died today following a battle with pancreatic cancer. She was 72.
Leahy had been in hospice care at her Chicago residence, and died there at 5:30 a.m., said her sister, Maggie Cullen of Springfield. […]
Leahy was a delegate to the state Constitutional Convention that yielded the 1970 constitution. She and her late husband, Andrew, were two of five lawyers who worked to oust the 1972 Democratic National Convention Illinois delegation backed by then-Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, allowing a slate of independent candidates led by the Rev. Jesse Jackson to be seated.
Her best-known case, Rutan vs. Republican Party of Illinois, was on behalf of the late Cynthia Rutan and four others who argued they were denied promotions or other advancement in state government because of the political patronage system. Rutan had said she was told she didn’t get a promotion at the old Department of Rehabilitation Services in 1983 because of her Democratic voting record. Most state positions are now officially covered by Rutan protection against political favoritism.
Mary Lee was an incredible woman. Smart, funny, tough and beautiful inside and out. She was a force unto her own and history followed almost wherever she went. I didn’t always agree with her, but I most certainly respected her, as did friend and foe alike.
* Outgoing Congressman Joe Walsh got tongues wagging a bit when he hinted at his last town hall meeting that he might run for US Senate (“It’d be kind of fun to run against Dick Durbin, wouldn’t it?”) or governor…
“This state needs a Republican Party. The reason Michael Madigan can dominate this state is because there’s no Republican Party. This Republican Party needs a Scott Walker to run for governor, and I have not seen or heard that candidate yet.
“I will not sit by and let some establishment, fuddy-duddy Republican be our candidate again when this state needs to be totally saved.”
As speaker, Mr. Madigan employs about two dozen staff members who work directly with Democratic representatives in writing legislation, running committees and so forth. Known as the “issues staff,” such folks also almost always serve as Madigan political operatives during election season, going off the government payroll as soon as the legislative session ends and then going on a political payroll, where they run the campaigns of Democratic House candidates.
Anyhow, the gigs generally are for two years. Which means that, given the long hours and other opportunities elsewhere that tend to open up after working for the powerful Mr. Madigan, there are some departures every two years, right after the election.
This year, though, the turnover appears to be particularly high. […]
But given the number, I hear two other possibilities: One, that people are being held in reserve for a Lisa Madigan campaign. Two, that the issues staff senses the speaker’s days are numbered, perhaps because he’d have to step down for a Lisa Madigan race, so they’re embedding themselves in a slot to make some money off their connections while they still can.
“Everybody’s speculating that this is Madigan’s last hurrah,” says one influential Democratic rep.
“Nothing like this happens by coincidence,” says a well-connected lobbyist.
I know many of those who are leaving, and not one of them has even remotely indicated that they’re leaving because they have some sort of knowledge that the Speaker is retiring soon. He may be retiring soon. But those staffers wouldn’t know about it.
Citing a statewide need to better combat crime and corruption, Republican Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran says he’s seriously considering making a bid for attorney general.
And, he said, he would do so regardless of whether current Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan — who is rumored to be weighing a run for governor but has not yet announced her intentions — seeks re-election.
“I intend to run against her,” said Curran, of Libertyville. “She’s won by big margins in the past. But, look, I have a good feeling. Does everyone I say that to connect with me on that? No. But I think we (as a state) can do much better.”
A wealthy southwest suburban businessman says he’s being urged to run for governor against incumbent Pat Quinn in next year’s Democratic primary — and confirms that he just may do it.
John Atkinson, 52, a managing director at insurance giant Willis Group Holdings, says he hasn’t made up his mind and won’t until taking some time to review his options and determine where he would fit in a field that could draw multiple challengers to the incumbent. But he makes it clear he’s no fan of Mr. Quinn’s.
“We do need some new leadership in this state. We have no vision for the future,” Mr. Atkinson told me in a phone interview. Those who have approached him — a mix of elected officials and others whom he declined to name — “see me as someone who can raise money and talk to business but who also shares their values.”
Mr. Atkinson had been prepared to run for Congress last year against Chicago Democrat Dan Lipinski, who is considered well to the political right of most Democrats. He backed off after Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and other Springfield Democrats literally redrew the congressional map to save Mr. Lipinski, carving Mr. Atkinson’s Burr Ridge home out of Mr. Lipinski’s district and putting it into an adjoining district where he would have had to run against U.S. Rep.-elect Bill Foster.
A rich Democrat would be able to finance much of his own campaign, but he’d need to run a spectacular race to beat a sitting governor in a primary bid - and I don’t care how unpopular Quinn is now or is then.
* The Golden Horseshoe Award for best Senate Democratic campaign staffer goes to Jill Dykhoff…
Hands down. The senate Dems had many great campaign managers this cycle but Jill stands out the most. Mike Jacobs was an underdog who NO ONE thought could win. Jill was disciplined and driven and never let any of the negativity surrounding the race get to her. Jill deserves to be commended for the outstanding job she did. There wouldn’t be 40 seats in the state senate without Jill and her work on the Jacobs campaign!
The SDems did have a lot of stars this year, so it was a difficult decision, but Jill dragged Sen. Mike Jacobs across the finish line when pretty much everyone - including her own bosses - had given up on him. She’s the most deserving.
Sam Strain, Campaign Manager for Andy Manar, deserves the win. Not only did he work tirelessly from the start of Andy’s campaign and bring home a win for the Senate Dems (without taking time off to go visit his family or take a breather from rough campaign life), he did it with a great attitude.
I don’t know anyone else who worked as hard as he did to pull off a seamless campaign without major “boo-boo’s” and faulty press releases. Everyone knows Andy Manar’s race was the number one target for Christine Radogno. And no offense to Manar but even he has to admit managing a race for a candidate with Andy’s background in campaigning, is much harder than managing any “normal” first time candidate. Overall it was a great well run campaign – great field campaign, regular e-blasts, good looking mailers, and amazing fundraising levels. Strain was on top of it and anyone who denies it, is not giving due credit, where it is deserved.
That campaign was indeed almost flawless. Great candidate, excellent staff.
* The Golden Horseshoe Award for best Senate Republican campaign staffer goes to Helen Albert…
Helen Albert for Mike McElroy. She ran yet another of many hard fought races, this time in a district the opponent drew for himself. Helen is the epitome of persistence and hard work.
Helen is leaving the SGOP staff soon. I wish her nothing but the best. She’s run several winning campaigns over the years. It’s just too bad that she’s leaving on such a down note.
Rachel Bold ran Bill Albracht’s campaign. She parachuted into the race from Springfield after Albracht had parted ways with two prior managers. Rachel’s first test was to gain the confidence of the local organization, which viewed the party establishment with considerable suspicion. Her level temperament and ability to communicate her ideas in a respectful manner won over those around her. Regardless of the race’s outcome, Rachel demonstrated natural leadership abilities and prodigious communication skills that will serve her well on the next campaign or any future endeavor.
Albracht was an impossible candidate to deal with. Rachel didn’t win the race, but she won a lot of respect back in Springfield.
* OK, campers, let’s move on to today’s categories…
* Best campaign staffer - Illinois House Democrats
* Best campaign staffer - Illinois House Republicans
I know you may be getting tired of hearing this, but the contest is about the intensity of your nominations, not the number of votes. No explanation means your vote won’t count. At all. So, write the best nominations you can. Thanks.
* ABC 7 is reporting that Sen. Donne Trotter’s attorneys were “very disappointed” today because they’d hoped to have a preliminary hearing, but the state’s attorney has decided to take the case to a grand jury…
[Trotter’s lawyer Thomas Anthony Durkin] said he had hoped to force a preliminary hearing Wednesday that would have exposed the weakness of the case against Trotter. Instead, prosecutors received a continuance until Jan. 17.
That doesn’t bode well for Trotter at all. He couldn’t undermine the prosecution’s case ahead of this weekend’s slatemaking session, and now State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez apparently wants to expand the investigation. Bad all around.
Although state Rep. Monique Davis doesn’t plan to announce until Tuesday afternoon whether she’ll run for the 2nd Congressional District seat, she already is shooting barbs at potential opponent state Sen. Donne Trotter.
Trotter, D-17th, who said he will run, was arrested last week after security at O’Hare Airport found an unloaded gun and bullets in his carry-on bag. […]
“Who forgets they have a gun in their bag? As a legislator you have to be thinking at all times, and obviously, Sen. Trotter was not thinking when he left home that day,” Davis said.
Davis said she will meet with a group of South Side ministers Tuesday before deciding whether to run for the seat vacated by Jesse Jackson Jr.
“I am meeting with a coalition of ministers … who are in support of me running for Congress, and once I see what kind of support I have out there, I will make my decision,”
Trotter’s cousin ran against Davis a few years ago, and the two do not have a good relationship, to say the least. I talked to Davis this morning, and she hasn’t yet made up her mind about a run.
* And check this out. John Vernon Moore is backing Robin Kelly for Congress and posted Kelly’s comment about yesterday’s appellate court ruling on a Facebook page dedicated to helping find a good candidate. Debbie Halvorson, who has announced she’s also running for the seat, then posted a comment…
There will be much discussion on this issue. The state legislature now has to pass a bill that will deal with the decision made by the court of appeals allowing concealed carry. It is my hope that whatever they pass that it includes education and training. In my 12 years as a state senator and my two years in Congress I have been a consistent supporter of the second amendment with protections for the law abiding citizen and I will continue to support the law abiding citizen’s ability to protect themselves and do everything in my power to enforce the laws that are already on the books to convict our criminals that do harm and who are causing this violence. Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on a weapon. But by keeping them out of the hands of the law abiding citizen is doing more harm than good. I am not going to debate my position here on FB. This is just a statement and I look forward to how the state legislature is going to deal with this issue in the coming months.
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
The cable industry is asking lawmakers to place a NEW 5% tax on satellite TV service. HB 5440 is not about fairness, equity or parity – it’s a tax increase on the 1.3 million Illinois families and businesses who subscribe to satellite TV. They cannot afford another NEW tax – not now and not in this economy!
HB 5440 Will Hurt Illinois Families and Small Businesses
• Satellite TV subscribers will see their monthly bills go up 5%.
• This tax will impact every bar, restaurant and hotel that subscribes to satellite TV service, which will translate into higher prices, decreased revenues, and fewer jobs.
• Rural Illinois has no choice: In many parts of Illinois, cable refuses to provide TV service to rural communities. Satellite TV is their only option.
HB 5440 Is Not About Parity or Fairness
• Cable’s claim that this discriminatory tax is justified because satellite TV doesn’t pay local franchise fees could not be further from the truth. Cable pays those fees to local towns and cities in exchange for the right to bury cables in the public rights of way—a right that Comcast and Charter value in the tens of billions of dollars in their SEC filings.
• Satellite companies don’t pay franchise fees for one simple reason: We use satellites—unlike cable, we don’t need to dig up streets and sidewalks to deliver our TV service.
• Making satellite subscribers pay franchise fees—or, in this case, an equivalent amount in taxes—would be like taxing the air It’s no different than making airline passengers pay a fee for laying railroad tracks.
The gun rights backers interpreted the 2-1 appellate court ruling as a mandate instructing lawmakers to pass a bill allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons in public with few if any restrictions. Todd Vandermyde, a National Rifle Association lobbyist, said gun control advocates could forget any limits such as partial bans near places such as day care centers and schools.
“It’s over for them. They have no stroke in this game, they have no negotiating power,” Vandermyde said. “When you start drawing circles around all those places — day care centers, schools and parks — that’s a ban and they don’t get a ban. They lost.”
State Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored a restrictive concealed carry bill last year that lost by the slimmest of margins, said gun control advocates are not going to like the next bill they see on the floor of the General Assembly.
“I said on the floor (last year), ‘A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days you’re going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days the court’s going to rule and you’re not going to like the ruling,’” said Phelps, a Democrat. “Today’s the day.”
Richard Pearson, the executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said lawmakers could quickly pass the Phelps bill when they reconvene the first week of January. The bill, he said, “contains all the things — background checks, classroom time — that all the parties wanted, so it’s ready to go.” But that’s not to say all those provisions will be in the bill this time around, he said.
“We bent over backwards before and tried to accommodate everybody, and they just threw it in the garbage,” Pearson said. “Maybe we won’t be so accommodating now.”
* Gun control advocates like House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie now want to craft a much more restrictive law, but the NRA is having none of that…
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, a vocal gun-control advocate, said, “If we are required to adopt some form of concealed carry, I would hope we have one that puts strong restrictions on who can carry guns and where they can carry them.”
But jubilant gun-rights advocates warned that, with the court’s ruling and the six-month deadline, they’re unlikely to agree to the kinds of compromises that they have in past debates over concealed carry.
“We don’t have to negotiate anymore … There’s not much else to argue about,” said Todd Vandermyde, the National Rifle Association’s chief Illinois lobbyist, who has been trying for years to get concealed-carry legislation passed in the state. “If they won’t pass a bill … then you could walk down the street with a rifle slung over your back and there’s nothing they can do about it.”
The NRA could, indeed, try to block any sort of “compromise” proposal that it disagrees with, which would mean a permanent injunction against current state law. They have to be taken seriously. Leader Currie cannot continue to dismiss them.
Phelps would not rule out possibly trying to move concealed carry legislation during the upcoming lame duck legislative session, which runs from Jan. 2 through midday on Jan. 9. But he stopped short of saying how closely a new bill would mimic HB 148.
“In that bill, there were a lot of limitations, a lot of safety guidelines, background checks. But pretty much, this court today didn’t really specify where you can carry, where you can’t. It just sent a mandate that Illinois has to have a concealed carry law in 180 days,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. “I think we can come to an agreement. I think we can pass sensible legislation.”
(A)n aide to Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, hinted at a lengthy legislative response time that could well go beyond the first two weeks of January.
“We’re going to take the time the court has given us to carefully review the ruling and to consult with the attorney general’s office before we determine what legislative action we take on concealed carry,” Cullerton spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said.
* Most of the media coverage of yesterday’s appellate ruling was about concealed carry. But the case was about much more than that, as Justice Posner outlined in his opening paragraph…
An Illinois law forbids a person, with exceptions mainly for police and other security personnel, hunters, and members of target shooting clubs… to carry a gun ready to use (loaded, immediately accessible—that is, easy to reach—and uncased). There are exceptions for a person on his own property (owned or rented), or in his home (but if it’s an apartment, only there and not in the apartment building’s common areas), or in his fixed place of business, or on the property of someone who has permitted him to be there with a ready-to-use gun… Even carrying an unloaded gun in public, if it’s uncased and immediately accessible, is prohibited, other than to police and other excepted persons, unless carried openly outside a vehicle in an unincorporated area and ammunition for the gun is not immediately accessible.
This appears to be about everything to do with carrying a weapon outside one’s home - in your car, in your briefcase as well as on your person. It looks to be a very broad decision, specifically referencing the state’s Unlawful Use of Weapons statute.
* Now, on to the reasoning behind the decision. We won’t delve into everything, but let’s start with this…
Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home… but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home. Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and… carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Confrontations are not limited to the home.
The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. Suppose one lived in what was then the wild west—the Ohio Valley for example (for until the Louisiana Purchase the Mississippi River was the western boundary of the United States), where there were hostile Indians. One would need from time to time to leave one’s home to obtain supplies from the nearest trading post, and en route one would be as much (probably more) at risk if unarmed as one would be in one’s home unarmed. […]
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.
But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.
It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
* And the majority justices used a bit of wry humor to reject the reasoning of a New York case…
Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit’s analysis (apart from disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with, with some of the historical analysis in the opinion— we regard the historical issues as settled by Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction.
For example, the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the [Supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.”
Well of course—the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.
* We’re going to look at different aspects of yesterday’s blockbuster US Appeals Court ruling on the right to carry guns outside one’s home. So, please stick to the topic of the individual post. Thanks.
“[T]he change in gun carrying appears to be concentrated in rural and suburban areas where crime rates are already relatively low, among people who are at relatively low risk of victimization—white, middle-aged, middle-class males. The available data about permit holders also imply that they are at fairly low risk of misusing guns, consistent with the relatively low arrest rates observed to date for permit holders. Based on available empirical data, therefore, we expect relatively little public safety impact if courts invalidate laws that prohibit gun carrying outside the home, assuming that some sort of permit system for public carry is allowed to stand.”
Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller… some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.
* The judges even suggested that open carry could be required…
If guns cannot be carried outside the home, an officer who has reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk a person and finds a concealed gun on him can arrest him, as in United States v. Mayo, 361 F.3d 802, 804-08 (4th Cir. 2004), and thus take the gun off the street before a shooting occurs; and this is argued to support the ban on carrying guns outside the home. But it is a weak argument. Often the officer will have no suspicion (the gun is concealed, after all). And a state may be able to require “open carry”—that is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed. See District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 626; James Bishop, Note, “Hidden or on the Hip: The Right(s) to Carry After Heller,” 97 Cornell L. Rev. 907, 920–21 (2012). Many criminals would continue to conceal the guns they carried, in order to preserve the element of surprise and avoid the price of a gun permit; so the police would have the same opportunities (limited as they are, if the concealment is effective and the concealer does not behave suspiciously) that they
* Not everything they said was calming, however. They cited study after study which showed no material increase in gun violence following concealed carry enactment, but then added…
In sum, the empirical literature on the effects of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law… Anyway the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts… If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.
In other words, concealed probably won’t increase gun deaths, but if it does, too bad.
* Related…
* Sun-Times: Do right-to-carry laws cut crime? Debate has raged at U. of C.
The Nov. 29 indictment alleges Ford obtained multiple advances by making false statements about his intended use of the bank funds. The indictment also alleges that Ford diverted bank funds toward personal use: for car loans, credit cards, other mortgages owed by ShoreBank, payments to a casino in Hammond, and his 2006 campaign for state rep.
[Tom Durkin] did not go into specifics of Ford’s defense, but contended federal prosecutors may be hinging their case on a mistake “on a financial form” submitted to the bank.
“These cases are usually about numbers put in a form and there are questions about whether banks relied on it or not,” Durkin said. “My point is that … when businesses and corporations submit loans, there is often a lot of mistakes made on numbers. And there are questions whether that was material the bank relied upon. I believe we are going to show that this bank was relying on his good character and his person.”
“I think there should be questions raised as why at this stage of the game these charges would be brought five to six years later,” Durkin told reporters after Ford’s arraignment at the Dirksen Federal Building.
“These are garden variety bank fraud charges that have nothing whatsoever to do with his public office,” Durkin added, expressing puzzlement that his client is the only person to be linked with the bank’s failure.
“I am not aware of any other prosecutions coming out of that bank,” Durkin said. “Why the only person that is prosecuted is a popular African-American legislator. I don’t understand it.”
Interesting points.
* Several people showed up for the court proceeding…
In an unusual scene, about 50 people cheered and clapped as Ford entered the downstairs lobby after his brief arraignment. The crowd surged around the 40-year-old West Side lawmaker. […]
As he was exiting the courthouse, Ford appeared visibly moved by the show of support, turning briefly to compose himself before he stood before the television cameras.
Among Ford’s supporters were the president of Christ the King High School, a Catholic priest, community activists and a 71-year man with gout leaning on a cane who took the bus to be there.
“I know he did nothing but good,” said West Side resident James Ruffin, 71, who has campaigned for Ford. “He’s always down there on the spot to help you out. I had to do something to support him.”
There are a large number of people on both the West Side and in Oak Park — the communities he represents in Springfield — who are standing with Ford in these first days since his indictment. These are people we know and whose judgment we respect.
The charges against him do not relate to his six years in office. Unlike most of the political thugs who get indicted and convicted around here, no one is accusing him of selling out his office for profit. These charges tie back to Ford’s days as a Realtor and home rehabber and how he handled bank funds.
We respect his body of work as a legislator. And, we’d suggest, given the quiet emanating from Springfield, that his colleagues there are willing to be patient for a fair hearing of his case. This reaction is in marked contrast to the near instant demands that fellow West Side legislator Derrick Smith be expelled from the House almost immediately after his indictment.
The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered and end to legal action that has been blocking Gov. Pat Quinn from closing state prisons.
In a split decision, the high court directed that a lower court lift a preliminary injunction that had been granted to a state workers’ union trying to keep the prisons open.
Quinn’s office said the ruling means the governor may proceed with shuttering the facilities. The union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, is still awaiting a judge’s ruling on whether an independent arbitrator was correct in finding Quinn had followed proper procedures with his shutdown plan. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the Supreme Court order trumps that.
Three of the seven justices dissented, arguing that the court was overstepping its bounds, ignoring key constitutional questions that the Quinn administration itself raised and taking the unusual step of determining that the arbitrator’s ruling was correct. That should be left up to a local judge to decide after the two sides’ arguments, they said.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees had sued to prevent the closures, arguing they would worsen prison overcrowding and put employee’s lives in danger. AFSCME spokesman Anders Lindall said the union was “extremely disappointed” by the ruling.
Slated for closure is the state’s only super max prison in Tamms in far southern Illinois, along with the Dwight Correctional Center for women in central Illinois and juvenile justice centers in Joliet and Murphysboro. Three transitional centers for inmates, including one on Chicago’s West Side, also will be closed.
Lawmakers had set aside enough money in the budget to keep the facilities open, but Quinn vetoed the money out, arguing it would be better spent in the state agency that oversees child welfare.
Senate lawmakers moved to override that veto when they met in Springfield late last month, but the House chose not to follow suit. So the governor’s veto was upheld.
* React from the governor’s office…
This is encouraging news for Illinois taxpayers, who will no longer be on the hook for spending millions of dollars we don’t have on empty or half-empty, unnecessary and very expensive facilities. Once fully implemented, these closures and consolidations will strengthen our long-term effort to cut state expenses, save taxpayers $100 million a year and help restore fiscal stability to Illinois.
The Union will continue to pursue its lawsuit seeking to overturn the arbitrator’s decision which dismissed the Union’s claim that the closures presented a health and safety risk throughout the corrections system. That case is currently before Judge Cavaness in Alexander County.
Discuss.
…Adding… More from AFSCME…
AFSCME members are extremely disappointed in this ruling. The injunction is vital to upholding the union’s right to seek judicial review of an arbitrator’s findings on crucial health and safety concerns. Nonetheless, we intend to vigorously pursue that appeal. This ruling doesn’t change the fact that closing any prison will worsen severe overcrowding throughout the correctional system, making the remaining prisons more dangerous for employees, inmates and ultimately the public.
