The state legislative debate last week over amending the Pre-Trial Fairness Act provisions within the controversial SAFE-T Act featured many of the same obfuscations and outright misinformation that characterized the fall campaign by Republicans, and many of the same insufficient answers by Democrats.
One of the problems tthe super-majority Democrats have in both chambers is that when they know their bill is going to pass, they usually don’t take the Republicans’ objections seriously enough to fully engage with them. But on bills like this, misinformation can spread when points aren’t adequately rebutted.
For just one example, during the House debate, Republican Leader Jim Durkin and his leadership successor, Rep. Tony McCombie (R-Savanna), repeatedly blasted the Democrats at length for forcing victims of violent crime, via the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, to be dragged into court for hearings within 48 hours of an arrest.
Durkin has been making this argument in public venues for months, so the Democrats had to know this was coming.
Durkin appeared furious that the Democrats didn’t fix what he claimed was their egregious mistake in drafting the original bill back in 2021 and claimed it directly violated the Illinois Constitution’s protections for crime victims. He predicted it would have a horrible impact on victims by victimizing them all over again.
But the only answer provided by the sponsor, Rep. Justin Slaughter (D-Chicago), was that some victims’ rights organizations supported the law.
McCombie amped up the rhetoric even further than Durkin by asking if her 8-year-old niece was abducted by two men, brutally raped, buried alive and rescued, then would she be compelled to go to court for a detention hearing?
After saying the bill “didn’t make that possible,” Slaughter then said the law would make it more difficult for that to happen. McCombie said what Slaughter claimed wasn’t true, and that claim was followed by more emotional and unenlightening back and forth.
Slaughter was right, but the actual explanation he could’ve offered and didn’t is pretty simple. Before the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, judges were given full discretion to compel a victim to appear at a hearing on a defendant’s culpability and dangerousness. That’s no longer the case.
The law was changed in 2021 to force judges to explain why they were granting a request, and then they could “only grant the request if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant will be materially prejudiced if the complaining witness does not appear.” That’s one reason why victims’ rights groups supported the overall reforms.
Before the changes were first made in 2021, judges were admonished to “be considerate of the emotional and physical well-being of the witness,” and that particular statutory language was not altered.
The Pre-Trial Fairness Act even eliminated previous statutory language that gave accused criminals “the right to present witnesses in his favor” at those hearings. So, to claim this revision is a horrific sop to accused violent criminals just doesn’t make sense.
The Democrats decided to exclude legislative Republicans from the revision talks, perhaps because they believed the GOP was more interested in theater than responsibly negotiating the new bill. Rarely does one negotiate with someone who will undoubtedly wind up being a hard and public “no.” That’s understandable on one level. I get it.
But, again, this problem is not just about the Pre-Trial Fairness Act or the SAFE-T Act. Time and time again I’ve watched the Democrats stand mute while Republicans lambasted their legislation, which was drafted without GOP input and then jammed through with Dems’ superior numbers. It’s an arrogance of power, and it resulted in a whole lot of scrambling during this past election season as wild claims were made about the bill they had passed.
On the other side, though, the fact this amendment was not officially opposed by any statewide law enforcement groups (which tend to be dominated by Republicans) should’ve prompted an attempt by at least some legislative Republicans to find common ground and maybe steer the end product even further in their direction. Maybe they just didn’t have anyone who was open minded enough or who was brave enough to confront their fellow Republicans by negotiating. Neither is a good sign.
I guess what I’m arguing for here is more respect by both parties for each other, for the legislative process and for the state we all inhabit and the people they all represent.
- H-W - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 8:55 am:
= more respect by both parties for each other, for the legislative process =
This issue will become even more pronounced if the Democratic Party tries to reform gun laws during the lame duck session.
I support the planned reforms. But as a democrat living in a very rural areas, I am fairly certain that some democrats will oppose some of the legislation unless republicans are allowed to sit at the table and negotiate changes.
This may be particularly problematic regarding the “AR-15 style” weapons that a lot of people own, and some use to hunt. Limiting magazine capacity is more likely to reduce the impact of mass shootings. outlawing popular weapons is more likely to meet resistance.
- Out Here In The Middle - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 9:01 am:
THIS.
I guess what I’m arguing for here is more respect by both parties for … the people they all represent.
- TheInvisibleMan - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 9:01 am:
–but the actual explanation he could’ve offered and didn’t is pretty simple–
There is no reason to. In fact, the last election seems to point to there being more benefit to not doing so.
The republicans in Illinois seem to be happy to make themselves look like uneducated rubes trying to scare people. If this is how McCombie wants to define herself right out of the gate in her leadership position, so be it. The only thing the ILGOP is defining is themselves.
Why interrupt a party insistent on self-immolating itself.
- Big Dipper - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 9:19 am:
It’s odd that so many Republican legislators are former prosecutors yet know so little about criminal law (both pre- and post- SAFE-T Act).
- Gish Gallop - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 9:20 am:
On one level, Rich Miller is 100% correct.
However, on a different level, many on the Right use a rhetorical technique known as the Gish Gallop. Flood the zone with countless specious arguments with an occasional good argument mixed in. Whenever a specious argument is shot down, pretend it was never raised and then and add many more.
For example, try to have a reasoned discussion with a creation scientist or an anti-vaxxer.
- Back to the Future - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 9:25 am:
Hat tip to the Sun Times for presenting an objective, balanced and informative view on a path for legislators to follow that would benefit our state.
The use of examples was a good way to make the point that more cooperation and respect for different opinions is a good model to follow.
- That Guy - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 9:48 am:
-Flood the zone with countless specious arguments with an occasional good argument mixed in-
Fully agree with the gish gallop take. If Republicans want to be involved, they can be, but until then they will be relegated to the sidelines where they can complain. I also agree when they utilize rhetoric tactics like that, it serves the Democrats best to not engage, because they are clearly fishing for a “gotchya.”
- Amalia - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 9:52 am:
sure Dems may not want to engage cause of a gotcha, but when it comes to victims, they are making a long game mistake on not being clear. stop seeing the criminal justice system as a place that makes life hard on defendants and start seeing it as a place that has many…too many…victims.
- Moe Berg - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 10:02 am:
“Both sides must do better” overlooks just how badly Republicans are doing and for how long they’ve been doing so.
The de facto leader of the Republican Party, former President Trump, just called for terminating the constitution because he continues to peddle lies about the 2020 election, coming off of his dinner with a couple of anti-semites. For the most part, crickets from GOP leadership nationally and in Illinois on tossing one of our nation’s founding documents.
And, the historical context in which the SAFE-T Act debate took place - 50+ years of the Republican Southern Strategy of explicitly racist appeals to white voters, a two-year long campaign against the SAFE-T Act that was race-based, including Leader Durkin’s ridiculous claims in a September Tribune Op-Ed that it would give “free rein to drug cartels,” and tens of millions in Griffin and Uihlein campaign spending to try and Willie Horton Illinois Democrats.
Rep. Slaughter didn’t show undue deference to the Republicans because where is the evidence they have shown any respect to him or, importantly, Black and Brown people who have been scapegoated by the GOP for decades?
As for spreading misinformation, all the evidence is that no matter how he answered the questions, Republicans are going to spread misinformation anyway. He chose not to play the game.
The GOP made a political calculation to be non-constructive on crime and supportive of taking away women’s right to bodily autonomy. Illinois voters severely punished them for it, and the increasingly lunatic drift of their party.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 10:04 am:
This really made me give pause. Apologies for the length, but the context as a whole is needed:
=== But, again, this problem is not just about the Pre-Trial Fairness Act or the SAFE-T Act. Time and time again I’ve watched the Democrats stand mute while Republicans lambasted their legislation, which was drafted without GOP input and then jammed through with Dems’ superior numbers. It’s an arrogance of power, and it resulted in a whole lot of scrambling during this past election season as wild claims were made about the bill they had passed.
On the other side, though, the fact this amendment was not officially opposed by any statewide law enforcement groups (which tend to be dominated by Republicans) should’ve prompted an attempt by at least some legislative Republicans to find common ground and maybe steer the end product even further in their direction. Maybe they just didn’t have anyone who was open minded enough or who was brave enough to confront their fellow Republicans by negotiating. Neither is a good sign.===
Great stuff by Rich here, and it’s where so many others fail when they attempt to “delve deep” in analysis but fail as they refuse to understand the politics within the General Assembly.
To the post,
I say very, very often. I can’t stand bad baseball or politics played. I can’t stand it. It infuriates me. In politics, understanding the policy to the politics where one party can easily pass whatever they want Allie’s a sloppiness to policy and a thought to it where it allows rhetorical “slamming” because of a seen partisan move. I will be the last to say one should allow disruptive actors in the policy shaping… but what is true…
Winners Make Policy
… doesn’t mean making policy closed to honest actors a reality to good governance
Also, refusing to grasp where common ground can be enjoyed to partake in real bipartisan wins, that where the cult thinking to a party energizes the continual minority party status… as there’s no seen policy wins, but policy where those in the cult see martyrdom. That’s a failing of not only the party, but in real governance.
The disingenuous ask of the SGOP to be engaged, or the honest ask of the SGOP to be involved.
The fact I dunno if either is true is a failure of the GOP.
The fact the SDems didn’t publicly find out is a failure on them too.
And so it goes.
- Norseman - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 10:28 am:
So many great observations here. The sad part is that the people who need to take heed will ignore and continue to do what they do.
- Thomas Paine - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 10:35 am:
Part of the problem is that you do not have very many lawmakers and even fewer staff that have been around long enough to remember how to work cooperatively with the other side of the aisle.
It requires:
1) Willingness
2) Personal relationships
3) Due process
2&3 were always lacking, 1 was wiped out by the election.
Welch couldn’t very well go back to his caucus, especially the Black Caucus, and say “we have got to cut a deal” after picking up seats. Neither could JB.
That is just political reality.
The GOP would have been smarter to push for an implementation delay from the beginning, instead they went all in on The Purge.
They bet everything, and they lost everything.
Losers don’t make policy, especially not 30 days after the election, for the practical reason highlighted above.
- JB13 - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 10:38 am:
– There is no reason to. In fact, the last election seems to point to there being more benefit to not doing so –
1) Correct. From a true hardball politics perspective, Republicans need to give the people a reason to force the Democrats to actually discuss their plans in public before bringing 764 page Frankenstein bills that rewrite entire swaths of state law to the floor of the capitol at 3 a.m. on the last day of session.
2) From a “I Heart Democracy” perspective, “You and what army?” is a horrible answer to accusations of legislative tyranny.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 10:40 am:
I do not care for the GOP, but I think it important to note that it for good or ill represents specific regions in IL (non-metropolitan–so areas outside of Cook and the Collars and Blo-No, Champaign-Urbana, the IL quads) so it behooves for good-governance (not good-politics where it doesn’t matter) to try to include them if they agree not to eat the paste.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 10:42 am:
=== bringing 764 page Frankenstein bills that rewrite entire swaths of state law to the floor of the capitol at 3 a.m. on the last day of session.===
When was the last time a whole election wave was decided on this political talking point?
Abortion, somewhere…
Unless the policy is unpopular than the means to its existence will be unpopular.
The idea of how bills are passed in if itself isn’t a winning political point.
What was passed *is* the point, Republicans lost on the actual point… or at least didn’t win anything.
- Highland IL - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 11:05 am:
==I guess what I’m arguing for here is more respect by both parties for each other, for the legislative process ==
I have been seriously wrestling with the idea of running in the next primary against our GOP state representative on this very idea. The citizens in this district, and other red downstate districts, gain little to anything being represented by the party of “no”. I just can’t help but believe that this is a fool’s errand.
- Jojo monkey boy - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 12:17 pm:
Nice piece. Says a lot about IL politics. I’ve not been on for quite some time but see that nothing much has changed. There are deep-seated and long-standing problems that don’t appear solvable in the near term. Maybe never. One can note that map-drawing has repercussions. Illinois is deeply blue, just as say Missouri is deeply red. It didn’t use to be so.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 12:22 pm:
=== Illinois is deeply blue===
That is inherently and lazily untrue.
One only needs to look at the statewide GOP candidates, the GA candidates, the Congressional GOP choices, and some county-wide candidates in this state…
Tough to say “boy, the voters really let a moderate GOPer down”… in Cook, DuPage, Lake…
Candidate recruitment is a huge GOP problem, even bigger when the primary voters choose unelectable nominees.
- MisterJayEm - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 1:00 pm:
This issue arises from two interrelated facts:
1) the IL-GOP habitually acts, argues and behaves in bad faith, and
2) the IL-GOP’s actions and antics have made them a legislative super-minority.
While I agree that we would all benefit from “more respect by both parties for each other” the key is by both parties.
And nothing in the recent campaign nor anything in its aftermath could lead an honest person to believe that the GOP is going to ditch the dishonesty and behave respectfully.
Sure the Democrats could decide that they are going to try to address every bad faith argument coughed up by the GOP, and that might be good advice if there weren’t limits to their time, money and attention.
But we are all familiar with the political axiom “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
And responding to the Republicans’ many dishonest and disingenuous arguments is nothing if not explaining and, by expending limited time, money and attention, losing.
So rather than unilaterally compromising by treating the GOP as good faith partners in governing, I would suggest that the Democrats focus on identifying which of the GOP’s bad faith arguments might get traction in the press and public and then get out ahead of them.
I think that making that choice would easily do as much good “for the legislative process and for the state we all inhabit and the people they all represent” as baselessly attributing respect and good faith to the IL-GOP in hopes that they will one day act that way.
– MrJM
- Homebody - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 1:12 pm:
== attempt by at least some legislative Republicans to find common ground ==
It is 2022. Anyone who gives Republican legislators any sort of benefit of the doubt at either a state or federal level hasn’t been paying attention for the past decade, at least.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 1:13 pm:
===try to address every bad faith argument===
Didn’t say that. At all. Just be ready for the big stuff in floor debates.
- MisterJayEm - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 5:09 pm:
“Didn’t say that. At all.”
No, you didn’t.
Didn’t mean to imply that you did.
But I did. Sorry.
– MrJM
- Yooper in Diaspora - Monday, Dec 5, 22 @ 11:11 pm:
Really appreciate this column. I think the same dynamic plays out among Democratic leaders if there are efforts to criticize from within some policies that have unintended consequences, but ones that are too subtle or not politically popular to attend to. There can be a focus on the right theater for Democratic leaders as well, or a narrowing of what sorts of goals matter most.