* WTTW…
Legislators approved the SAFE-T Act at the urging of the Black Caucus in January 2021 as part of Black legislators’ response to the murder of George Floyd.
“This is about trying to build a process that allows people to have faith in the system, and building a process where justice is more fair,” said state Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth, D-Peoria, a Black Caucus member.
Her own stepson was murdered in 2014.
“Crime is something that has been very prevalent in a lot of communities in Illinois. I myself am a crime victim. My family has seen the absolute worst of every side of this issue,” she said. “For one to think that anybody would be a proponent of crime is silly and it’s quite preposterous.”
More on the murder of Deputy Majority Leader Gordon-Booth’s stepson can be found here. Some of JGB’s work with crime victims is here.
* So, what about her statement that some people are claiming that those supporting the law are a “proponent of crime”? Well, here are just a few quick examples gathered by my associate Isabel Miller…
House Republican Leader Jim Durkin: Until they wake up and repeal their pro-criminal SAFE-T Act, there will be no safe communities in Illinois.
Rep. Andrew Chesney: “How did we get here? During the final hours of the 2021 lame duck session, Illinois Democrats rammed through anti-police, pro-criminal legislation, which Governor Pritzker then signed into law.”
Rep. Joe Sosnowski: “Together with thousands of like-minded citizens across Illinois, we can put pressure on Illinois Democrats to reverse course on their dangerous pro-criminal policies before it is too late.”
McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally: Kenneally called the enactment of HB 3653 a “political ambush” that is “dedicated to the well-being of one constituency – criminal defendants.”
Kankakee County Sheriff Mike Downey: No mention of this officer by our anti-law enforcement Governor, no mention of this officer by the authors of HB 3653 Sen. Elgie Sims or Rep. Justin Slaughter both anti-law enforcement legislators who rammed through anti-police/pro-criminal legislation in the early morning hours when no one was watching.
JGB was and remains a SAFE-T Act proponent, but also says that changes will be made in the veto session.
* On to a media advisory…
Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin, along with Representatives Keith Wheeler and Chris Bos, will host a news conference via zoom and broadcast on BlueRoomStream on Wednesday, October 5 at 12:00 pm (Noon) CT.
The SAFE-T Act, which takes effect on January 1st, will end cash bail and increase property taxes to pay for this new government program. House Republicans will discuss the increased costs on local governments which will be heaped upon overburdened property taxpayers in Illinois.
* One of their House Republican candidates laid out the property tax argument in a recent press release…
Illinois House 66th District Candidate Connie Cain will support repealing the SAFE-T Act to protect the community and prevent property tax increases from filling the budget holes that the legislation is creating for local governments.
Last week, the Kane County Board announced it was discussing the first property tax increase in a decade to fill a deficit - about $3 million of which was created by unfunded mandated reforms in the SAFE-T Act - which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2023, as reported by the Daily Herald.
As a United States Army Reserves veteran and a Licensed Certified Public Accountant with over 20 years of financial experience, Cain is concerned that the legislation is fiscally irresponsible and harmful to public safety.
“The SAFE-T Act defunds the police through unfunded mandates and cost shifts to local taxpayers for administering our criminal justice system after January 1st,” said Cain. “This defunding is forcing local governments like ours to increase property taxes, decrease public safety, or both. If elected, I will fight to repeal this legislation and its accompanying hikes to our local property taxes, which are already the second-highest in the nation thanks to tax-and-spend politicians in Springfield.”
While the SAFE-T Act has been receiving national attention for its sweeping overhaul of Illinois’ criminal justice and pre-trial detention system that could threaten public safety, taxpayers are only just becoming aware of the very real defunding and tax hikes the legislation punts to local government officials.
“This legislation undoes all the hard work local officials have put in over the last ten years to avoid local property tax hikes,” Cain said. “We are seeing the defunding play out in real-time and, as always, it will overburden Kane County taxpayers and families footing the bill.”
The Kane County Board has tried to prevent property tax increases by keeping government salaries lower than neighboring DuPage and Lake counties, but new costs are driving the conversation about tax hikes. The SAFE-T Act was opposed by nearly every law enforcement organization in the state, and it was criticized by local governments concerned it would be especially detrimental to smaller police departments and drive up taxes. The final legislation was passed in the middle of the night without a single Republican vote.
Illinois House Republicans proactively filed House Resolution 598 in January, which “Urges the Illinois General Assembly to value and protect crime victims and law enforcement and to repeal House Bill 3653, the SAFE-T Act, in its entirety.” The resolution was never called for a vote. Cain said she would be introducing new legislation to both repeal no cash bail and other dangerous provisions of the SAFE-T Act and to prevent property tax hikes to fund criminal justice reforms.
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE 1 *** Illinois Network for Pretrial Fairness press release…
Leader Durkin is Lying, SAFE-T Act Does Not Require Property Tax Increase
The SAFE-T Act does not require counties to raise property taxes to fund the criminal legal system after eliminating cash bail. For the last two years, the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts has been working with stakeholders from every branch of government to ensure that counties across Illinois have the guidance and resources they need to effectively make this transition. Non-partisan and bi-partisan groups agree that forcibly extracting revenue through a system of cash bail from low-income people and families living in poverty is not a financially responsible, sustainable, or ethical way to fund government operations.
Money bond does not keep communities safe because it allows people who are a safety or flight risk to be released pretrial as long as they have money, and it jails people who are legally innocent solely because they are poor. People should not be jailed pretrial simply because they can’t afford to pay bond.
In today’s press conference, Leader Durkin claimed that eliminating cash bail removes an operational revenue stream for the criminal legal system. Funding government operations should not happen on the backs of and through the incarceration of low-income communities and people of color. Most people who are unable to pay a money bail, and who are consequently incarcerated pretrial, fall within the poorest third of society. Unnecessary pretrial incarceration of those who are innocent leads to the disruption of family, neighborhood, employment, and community ties. Such disruptions can actually increase the risk of recidivism and destabilize community safety.
Wealth-based incarceration has torn families apart. In Chicago, Lavette Mayes, a mother of two and small business owner was jailed for 571 days because she could not afford to pay her bond. During that time, Ms. Mayes lost her home and business and almost lost custody of her children. Several years after her case ended, Ms. Mayes is still recovering from the harms caused by her pretrial incarceration, and her children remain traumatized to this day. Stories like this one are present in communities across the state, which is why legislators worked to eradicate the use of money bond in Illinois.
Money bond extracts wealth from our state’s poorest communities who are forced to choose between paying rent and paying a ransom to free their loved ones. It is also costly for counties across the state. Pretrial incarceration costs an estimated $40,567 per person per year.
By eliminating cash bail, the Pretrial Fairness provisions of the SAFE-T Act makes sure that low-income people are not trapped in a cycle of poverty and jail time in a criminal justice system that violates the basic constitutional and human rights of our community’s most vulnerable people. The SAFE-T Act ensures that decisions about who is released pretrial and who is jailed are based on safety needs and not access to money. Our justice system should focus on public safety needs and not on generating revenue.
More on Lavette Mayes here.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From the governor’s office…
Since Governor Pritzker took office, over $1.1 billion annually has been allocated to local governments to assist with costs over and above what they were previously receiving from the state. This is on top of the 49% increase in revenue sharing to local governments over Governor Pritzker’s first term. In addition, the FY23 budget includes, but certainly is not limited to, an additional $30 million in grants to help local governments with the costs of body and vehicle cameras, which have been proven to be a critical element of a reformed criminal justice system. For pretrial services, to date the state has provided an additional $26 million in funding for the Illinois Supreme Court’s requested support for the first phase of a three-part effort to establish comprehensive pretrial services in the counties without such services.
The Governor has and will continue to work with the General Assembly and local governments to ensure the appropriate resources are allocated to support the reforms passed in the SAFE-T act. The Pre-trial Fairness Act creates a system where detention is based on risk, rather than poverty: that’s why domestic violence groups and other victims’ rights groups support it. Public safety is best addressed by focusing on risk to the community, not on who can afford to pay their way out of jail, and a system that supports that is essential to a fair and equal Illinois. It seems that Republicans are advocating for pretrial defendants to uniquely bear the cost of running our criminal justice system, which is not only unfair but also racist, as found by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
- walker - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:18 am:
Everything GOP now becomes about Property Taxes — right on schedule.
- Curious citizen - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:24 am:
Is there ANY proposed legislation that won’t raise property taxes??
- Blue Dog - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:28 am:
down here, this SAFETY Act is all the folks are talking about. not abortion. not inflation. npt gas prices.. don’t think Pritzker will be affected that much but there could be some surprises come November.
- Rabid - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:32 am:
Bail funds criminal justice?
- Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:34 am:
“Is there ANY proposed legislation that won’t raise property taxes??”
Ask a farmer?
- The Opinions Bureau - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:35 am:
If these sheriffs, state’s attorneys, and legislators ever wanted to have a serious discussion about how we structure and fund courts and law enforcement in this state, they’d find willing partners from across the ideological spectrum. Alas, they seem to prefer to whine.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:38 am:
On the Safe-T Act, like so many other issues, modern-day Republicans show that they are not serious people.
- Google Is Your Friend - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:43 am:
The property taxes argument is interesting because it is a subtle exposure that despite the media largely being in the pocket of the GOP, wittingly or unwittingly, on this issue, it isn’t actually moving the voters the GOP needs it to move. Thus, they’re switching tracks to complaining about potential tax hikes. One question to pose in return: why don’t Republicans want to properly fund police?
- Facts Matter - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:44 am:
To Walker - they aren’t wrong. Whether you agree that it is appropriate or not, counties have received financial benefit from cash bail. To the extent they no longer have that stream of revenue, the counties either have to make up for that revenue stream, or cut services. Given the limited taxing authority of counties, other than Cook which is the only home rule county, the most viable method of replacing those revenues is through the property tax. This is another example of an apparently unanticipated consequence of the legislation.
- Just Another Anon - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:48 am:
Calling the bill and its sponsors “Pro-Criminal” does not mean equate to calling it “pro-crime”. It means they are more concerned with the people committing the crimes (”criminals”) than the victims of those crimes. Not to put a grammar lesson together, but “crime” is a noun defined as “illegal activities”. “Criminal” is a noun defined as “a person who has committed a crime”. One can be anti-crime, for example opposing legalizing bank robberies, but pro-criminal by espousing policies which reduce the consequences of the bank robbers illegal conduct or which favor the comfort and repose of the bank robber over the safety and concern of the victims. Said another way, it’s the difference between sin and sinner. This article conflates comments saying the legislation is “pro-sinner” as saying its “pro-sin”, which strikes me as entering the area of “spin”.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:51 am:
“increase property taxes to pay for this new government program.”
There may be some new expenses, like proving someone should be locked up, but the savings from not locking people up should outweigh that. Locking people up is expensive.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:51 am:
===which strikes me as entering the area of “spin”.===
lol
Thanks for the goofy mansplain.
- DePaul Alum - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 11:53 am:
First, Gordon-Booth is one of the best legislators in Springfield. She brought well reasoned nuance to every aspect of the debate around the Safe-T act. I often looked to where she was on every aspect of this legislation to know where best to land on the actual legislation.
Second, Republicans going to Republican (although making the argument that municipalities should be using the criminal justice system as a profit tool is an…interesting…argument.). But I’ve been surprised at how the state attorneys have acted. Ultimately their politically driven statements and lawsuits are not going to affect the political makeup of the state all that much. But it is going to plant years of ill will between them and the legislature - considering many of them were consulted when the bill was drafted. Maybe I should chalk it up to people who understand courtroom politics being woefully bad at actual politics but who knows.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 12:21 pm:
===they aren’t wrong===
(Sigh)
Darren Bailey, on a school board raised property taxes for education.
This idea that property taxes are bad, “because Dems” or whatever partisan spin makes a peg fit a hole, there are way too many instances where the cry of “property taxes” is the catch all when stopping anything bad… or even good… for locals.
- duck duck goose - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 12:32 pm:
Has anyone specified exactly what “unfunded mandates” are in the Act that would lead to property-tax increases?
- froganon - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 12:37 pm:
Let’s fund our criminal justice departments on the backs of people who can’t afford bail. What a telling comment on the cruelty that underlies our judicial system.
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 12:37 pm:
–forcing local governments like ours to increase property taxes–
I’d be interested in an analysis of how this bill is going to specifically increase my school taxes. Or park district. Or library. Or township.
- This Just In - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 1:05 pm:
Carol Ammons is quite up front about not wanting to “fix” ambiguities in the Safe T Act. She suggests that her goal is to gum up the Judicial system, and has never shown much interest in reining in criminals.
In fairness, Carol could also be reasonably termed absurd and quite preposterous- so JGB’s underlying premise remains intact.
- SWIL_Voter - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 1:07 pm:
It’s actually good to shift a funding burden from poor people who commit nonviolent crimes to people who own property.
- AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 1:45 pm:
Republicans have once again forgone the opportunity to bring into the discourse valid concerns about a flawed bill compounded by what appears to be a botched implementation by instead resorting to dog whistles and lies.
- Shark Sandwich - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 2:23 pm:
” Calling the bill and its sponsors “Pro-Criminal” does not mean equate to calling it “pro-crime”. ”
This bill is all about people who are not yet convicted, so they aren’t “criminals” yet, either. They aren’t saying it’s “pro-defendant”, are they?
The word “Criminal” is a deliberate choice, as evidenced by its repetition. One even frames it as “anti-police, pro-criminal”.
These folks need to be asked if Amendments 4,5,6,7, and 8 are “pro-criminal”, too.
- The Velvet Frog - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 2:24 pm:
This law doesn’t help out “criminals”. People arrested and needing to pay cash bail to avoid being detained aren’t criminals, they are people accused of a crime (at least one of the guys complaining about the law used the correct term “defendants”). And in this country people are presumed innocent until found guilty at a trial. Some of the people who are arrested and who will be released have committed a crime, others are accused but haven’t.
And that’s exactly what’s happening right now with people who can afford to pay their cash bail. Either it’s dangerous to release people who are accused of committing a given crime or it’s not, yet we detain some and release others depending on their access to money.
The biggest problem with the GOP “argument” against eliminating cash bail is the inconsistency of being outraged that “criminals” are being released when they’re poor, but they’re perfectly fine if that same “criminal” is released as long as they have more money.
If the GOP was sincere about their concerns about crime, they wouldn’t be insisting on repealing the law. They’d be insisting on repealing the law *and* stopping the release of defendants who can afford to pay the cash bail for the crimes they are pretending to be worried about.
By their own definition, if they are supporting the status quo, which allows for the release of “criminals” if they have enough money to cover bail, it sure looks like they’re “pro-crime” themselves.
- vern - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 2:24 pm:
Who is the update press release from? Can’t figure it out from the text
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 2:28 pm:
=Thoughts?=
The “property tax” ruse is just another attempt to get voter attention when the ilgop is unable to make a compelling case.
And, IF, as another poster posited that the loss of bail money is what is causing the deficit, bail money should never have been viewed as revenue to begin with. For 100 different reasons.
- DuPage - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 2:33 pm:
They already have I-Bond, personal recognize,
and citation “must appear” tickets (instead of arrest). It is all at the discretion of police, county D.A.s, and judges. Local police should be billed and forced to pay the county jails for housing minor infractions that could have been handled with a ticket or I-Bond.
- duck duck goose - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 2:59 pm:
If county governments are relying on bail skippers to balance their budgets, then we have much bigger problems than have been presented thus far.
- Thomas Paine - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 3:11 pm:
To the update:
How do you hold someone for trial for 14 months because they cannot make bail, when the penalty for the crime someone is charged with is 12 months?
Make it make sense, please?
Shouldn’
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 3:29 pm:
Blue Dog:
In my portion of Forgottonia (southern portion) there are people talking about the SAFE-T Act……they don’t seem to know what is in the bill or what it actually does….but they are talking about it.
And not letting facts get in the way of opinions.
- Kelly Cassidy - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 3:44 pm:
@ThomasPaine: it’s incredibly common. They’re called “turnarounds.” It takes so long to get to trial that every month, dozens of people are transported from Cook County Jail to be processed by IDOC in Joliet and released the same day, usually having served well over their sentence. Ex: A Class 4 felony retail theft defendant is sentenced to a year which translates into 6 months with good time credit for time served, is automatically credited for the 12-18 months spent awaiting trial and gets sent home on the train the same day. Except he didn’t do 6 months in custody, he did 12 or 18. He still has a period of Mandatory Supervised Release to comply with too. And if he gets violated during that time, it’s not like that extra time served is treated like roll over minutes. Efforts to address this, like Cook County’s “Rocket Docket” are barely making a dent in the issue. Make it make sense indeed!
- Holy Mackeral - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 4:32 pm:
What was Ms Mayes originally charged with and when ?
- The Velvet Frog - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 4:43 pm:
The info is in the link. Physical altercation with her mother in law.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 4:44 pm:
==How do you hold someone for trial for 14 months because they cannot make bail, when the penalty for the crime someone is charged with is 12 months?
Make it make sense, please?==
This is what the States’ Attorneys really do not want to lose. Why?
From the article on Ms. Mayes: “I was forced to take a plea deal, even though I knew I could win my case if I fought it. I had already been trapped behind bars for the amount of time that the court would have required if I had been found guilty, and fighting the charge would have meant staying under an electronic monitoring setup that felt like its own version of jail.”
Here we have a person, detained for an altercation with her mother-in-law, she could not afford the money bond, could not afford a lawyer. The SA’s office says, plead guilty and we’re done with you. The SA’s office gets a conviction for a small amount of their attorney’s time. They do not want to lose this easy route to plea bargains.
- Flexible One - Wednesday, Oct 5, 22 @ 10:57 pm:
Remember the SafeT act isn’t just about bail. The act has many components including mandatory police cameras and all the associated costs. Every video must be reviewed and be properly redacted. A number of Police Departments are already following the legislated mandates. DuPage County voted to spend an additional approx 65 million in costs associated with the cameras. They have to hire an additional 34 prosecutors and 17 public defenders just to keep up with the law’s mandates. In addition to staff responding to inevitable FOIA’s. Plus the additional space to house all these additional employees. They will have to find the money to make this work properly. 65 million dollars comes from tax dollars that need to be collected to pay for this. Denying this doesn’t help. We should all be working together to figure this out.
I’m not an opponent but we have to be honest about the costs and prepare accordingly.
- Betty Draper’s cigarette - Thursday, Oct 6, 22 @ 10:44 am:
=== I’m not an opponent but we have to be honest about the costs and prepare accordingly.===
I’m not an opponent either. How many lawsuits against the police are reigned in because of what is on the police cameras?