Kankakee County Judge Thomas Cunnington set off a chaotic chain reaction Dec. 29 with his ruling that the General Assembly over-stepped its constitutional grounds when it voted to eliminate cash bail. Cunnington essentially said that a cash bail requirement, even though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, could be inferred; and that the General Assembly had exercised powers that properly belonged to the judicial branch.
Cunnington’s ruling only applied to the jurisdictions where 64 lawsuits had been filed to block implementation of the law on Jan. 1, without regard to the fact that some cities are in multiple counties. Aurora, for instance, is in four counties, including Kane and DuPage, which did not sue to stop the law from taking effect. Aurora is also in Kendall and Will, which were plaintiffs. Naperville straddles DuPage and Will counties.
Some county leaders who were not part of the lawsuit added to the confusion by filing for local temporary restraining orders, often giving minimal or even no warning to the attorney general’s office. Some counties actually filed for TROs without giving any notice at all to the AG’s office, including Alexander, Lawrence, Pike and St. Clair, according to the office.
It seemed to some that a few counties may have been coordinating their efforts to thwart the attorney general’s efforts to dispute their TRO demands. In Menard County, for instance, the AG’s office asked for a one-hour delay while they argued in another county. The request was ignored, and the state’s attorney reportedly entered the TRO without any ability for the state to respond.
Finally, on Dec. 30, the Democratic state’s attorney for Kane County, Jamie Mosser, and the Republican state’s attorney for DuPage County, Bob Berlin, filed an emergency motion for a supervisory order from the Illinois Supreme Court. Mosser had supported the push to eliminate cash bail and Berlin helped work behind the scenes to get the revisions in place during veto session. The two pointed to the massive jurisdictional issues and the TRO filings and asked the court to “enter an order sufficient to maintain consistent pretrial procedures because without such an order, defendants in different jurisdictions will be subject to different treatment upon arrest and throughout pretrial proceedings, creating an equal protection problem for citizens across the state.”
The Supreme Court complied within hours, staying the effective date of the SAFE-T Act’s cash bail provision during an expedited appeal process and effectively stopping the chaos from spreading further.
When asked by reporters last week, Gov. JB Pritzker said he expected the Illinois Supreme Court to decide what to do about the state’s cashless bail law “sometime in the next few months.”
That could well be, but the court won’t even hear oral arguments in the case until March.
A joint motion filed with the Supreme Court by the state and the county plaintiffs set out an agreed-upon briefing schedule; the Court adopted it. Opening briefs will begin in late January and will run through the end of February. Oral arguments will be held during the court’s March calendar.
From there, it’ll be up to the Supremes to hash out their decision and draft their opinion(s). So, it could possibly be a while.
Meanwhile, a poll taken Nov. 15-20 by Impact Research found that 32% of voters had a favorable view of the SAFE-T Act, which included the elimination of cash bail, while 40% had an unfavorable view. The super-controversial law was the subject of millions of dollars in campaign advertising, not just statewide, but also in state legislative districts. So it’s not surprising that those who had a strongly unfavorable view outnumbered those with strongly favorable views by 20 points (34-14). Even so, 28% had no position on the law. Criticism of the law didn’t seem to ultimately harm Democrats, except maybe in a couple of legislative races.
The poll of 800 likely 2024 voters (with a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points) was taken for a group called Giffords, a gun control organization founded by former member of Congress Gabby Giffords.
The poll also found that Pritzker’s favorables were 51%, while his unfavorables were 46%; 29% had a very favorable view of Pritzker, while 40% had a very unfavorable view.
And 41% of those polled said they had a positive view of the National Rifle Association, while 53% had an unfavorable view (46% said they had a very unfavorable view).
- TheInvisibleMan - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 8:55 am:
After reading the decision from the judge in Kankakee, I was most struck by the judge attempting to cite court cases in New York state, to justify his decisions here in the state of Illinois.
I expected the ruling to be based on absurdities because of the obvious forum shopping that was done to bring it into Kankakee county, but I was not expecting such a level of sloppy decision making to actually be put onto paper.
I’ve been very impressed with Jamie Mosser prior to this, and the details included here are adding onto that pile of respect.
- Perrid - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 9:07 am:
It will never cease to amaze me that so many people are upset about poor people being treated like well to do people. Because that’s all eliminating cash bail does. If money is the only obstacle to going free, then a rich violent criminal will be released and a poor violent criminal will not be released. Keeping cash bail doesn’t make anymore safer.
- Red Ketcher - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 9:19 am:
A Pro 2d Amendment person can have a Very Unfavorable view of the NRA . ( NRA’s business practices and monetary abuses are big negatives )
- Hannibal Lecter - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 9:27 am:
=== It will never cease to amaze me that so many people are upset about poor people being treated like well to do people. Because that’s all eliminating cash bail does. If money is the only obstacle to going free, then a rich violent criminal will be released and a poor violent criminal will not be released. Keeping cash bail doesn’t make anymore safer. ===
I think what you need to understand is that SAFE-T Act detractors do not care if the only reason a person remains in jail is because they can’t afford to bail out. In their view, if the person is in jail, they cannot commit more crimes. I do not subscribe to this theory, but this is what the average detractor thinks.
- Norseman - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 9:45 am:
=== The super-controversial law was the subject of millions of dollars in campaign advertising, not just statewide, but also in state legislative districts. ===
And disinformation at that. Sadly, this disinformation was perpetuated by State’s Attorneys.
Like we hear repeatedly on the blog, voters don’t do nuance.
- Jerry - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 9:52 am:
The Honorable Judge Cunnington might want to watch Schoolhouse Rock “I’m Just a Bill”.
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 10:25 am:
Looks like there are more detractors that supporters of the SAFET act but of course that is ignored by the supporters who blame disinformation instead of common sense.
How many repeat violent offenders terrorizing hardworking Chicago families through carjacking and assaults on the CTA during the past few years of escalating crime are wealthy?
- Big Dipper - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 10:29 am:
Gee I thought conservatives were for strict construction of constitutions yet this judge inferred a right that is not explicitly stated and they rejoice. So I guess they will now embrace Roe etc.
- levivotedforjudy - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:03 am:
I know this was not the point of the column, but having municipalities that are part of multiple counties just seems nuts to me.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:18 am:
levivotedforjudy,
Yes, but what do you do when Aurora, say, incorporates an area in an adjacent county?
Decline the incorporation? These are often better for both parties as services improve in the unincorporated area and more people means better scale in the incorporated area.
Change county lines? Seems IL does not like to do that.
- Big Dipper - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:32 am:
LP. judges could always deny release to dangerous people. So your problem is with the judges not the law.
- Pundent - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:44 am:
=How many repeat violent offenders terrorizing hardworking Chicago families through carjacking and assaults on the CTA during the past few years of escalating crime are wealthy?=
If this is happening then your beef is with the judges. But thanks for reminding us of exactly who you are.
- JS Mill - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:51 am:
=hardworking Chicago families=
How do you know they are hardworking? I love the use of the descriptor “hardworking” to give added wait because someone with a more casual attitude toward work is somehow less deserving of safety?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 11:53 am:
===escalating crime are wealthy?===
You are aware that gangs regularly bail out their members, right?
- Big Dipper - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 12:23 pm:
==How do you know they are hardworking==
It’s coded language to separate people who are on public assistance from deserving police protection.
- Chitruth - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:27 pm:
The Act is a reckless exercise in social justice engineering. Besides the cash bail provisions, there is the provision allowing anonymous complaints against the police. If a party was ever tone deaf regarding prevailing attitudes toward unacceptably high crime rates, it’s the IL Dems. As much as I oppose the elimination of cash bail, however, I think there’s a good chance the IL Supreme Court will uphold it, based on the language of the Constitution.
- Big Dipper - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 5:15 pm:
==provision allowing anonymous complaints against the police==
Yet the police encourage anonymous tips about your neighbors.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 6:09 pm:
===encourage anonymous tips===
And have been running TV ads on that topic for many decades.
- dr. reason a. goodwin - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 10:27 pm:
We elect judges in local circuits and counties to determine who should be eligible for bail and for how much. Why should the state meddle in this?
- cermak_rd - Tuesday, Jan 10, 23 @ 9:46 am:
Because the state is tasked with protecting the rights of all residents of the state regardless of where they live. If a county is putting its people in jail in order to get them to plea, even though they are not dangerous and could be going about their lives while awaiting trial, that should be addressed.