Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » 2023 » July
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Afternoon roundup

Tuesday, Jul 18, 2023 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* Let’s start with SAFE-T Act coverage…

    * Sun-Times | Illinois Democrats celebrate court decision ending cash bail: ‘Monumental change is possible’: Many Republicans argued it would put violent offenders back on the streets and would not protect victims. Illinois state’s attorneys and sheriffs also challenged the law in courts. A short statement from Pritzker — who has been in the United Kingdom on a trade mission since last week — belied the months of pummeling he and other Democrats weathered on the campaign trail last year from Republicans who tried, and mostly failed, to rally votes around on the issue.

    * NYT | Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Measure Designed to End Cash Bail: The Illinois Supreme Court upheld a measure on Tuesday eliminating cash bail in the state, finding that Democratic legislators acted properly when they passed the law, which will transform the Illinois criminal justice system and limit judges’ ability to hold defendants in jail before trial.

    * Sun-Times | What happens when cash bail ends in Illinois? In other states, there have been successes but the debate continues: Other states, red and blue, have tried limited versions of what Illinois is about to do. That has made it difficult to know exactly what to expect. As researchers at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government found, “There are so many different approaches to bail reform and because few jurisdictions rigorously evaluate the bail reforms they have implemented, there is not a clear blueprint for what works.”

    * WGEM | Quincy police will be ready for ‘no cash bail’ changes: [Quincy Police Chief Adam Yates] Yates stated the Quincy Police Department, Adams County Sheriff’s Department and Adams County State’s Attorney’s Office met in late 2022 to prepare for the changes that were initially set to go into effect Jan 1. He stated police would work over the next 60 days to ensure they are ready for implementation on Sept. 18.

    * Daily Herald | Elation, dismay from suburban leaders over state Supreme Court’s landmark bail ruling: McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally, who was among the prosecutors who sued to block the change, said his office is disheartened by the decision, He believes it will make the job of prosecutors, judges and police more difficult. “That said, we have no choice other than to accept the decision and move on,” he said, adding that his office will do everything within its power to ensure that dangerous offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial and other measures are in place to minimize risk to the public. “As the flaws of this haphazardly enacted and poorly conceived law become immediately apparent in the form of compromised safety of communities across the state, we will also seek to work with our legislators on common-sense reforms,” Kenneally said.

    * WSPY | Kendall County officials ready for SAFE-T Act implementation, again: Kendall County State’s Attorney Eric Weis was among those who filed suit against the act, delaying a January implementation of a cash free bail system. With Tuesday’s ruling, the act will now go into effect in September. […] Circuit Clerk Matt Prochaska says that his office was ready for the financial impacts of the act before it went to litigation.

    * WMBD | Reaction to the Illinois Supreme Court decision on the SAFE-T Act case: State Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth, a Peoria Democrat in the Illinois General Assembly: “This decision reflects the countless hours of careful consideration that went into every component of the SAFE-T Act. Responsibly modernizing our pretrial procedures will not only create a fairer process, it will help to make our communities safer by basing release decisions on a public safety assessment instead of a defendant’s access to cash.

    * BND | What public officials are saying about Illinois Supreme Court ruling on SAFE-T Act : REP. CHARLIE MEIER, R-OKAWVILLE “I voted against eliminating no-cash bail when this law passed in 2021. The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to support the elimination of cash bail will set criminals free that should otherwise remain behind bars. I am very disappointed with the ruling made by the Illinois Supreme Court Democrat majority that was elected by Governor Pritzker.

    * News Channel 20 | State lawmakers react to SAFE-T Act: State Senator Steve McClure (R-Springfield): “It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court overruled our state’s constitution and the will of the people of Illinois by upholding the SAFE-T Act. This ruling is just one more blow to the credibility of the Illinois Supreme Court, particularly after two of the justices accepted a million dollars from the main proponent of the Act—Governor JB Pritzker. This is yet another victory for the people who choose to commit crimes in our state. Where are the victories for the victims?”

* And here’s the rest…

  10 Comments      


Beyond the rhetoric

Tuesday, Jul 18, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller

* As most of you will recall, the SAFE-T Act was revised by the General Assembly during last year’s veto session. The Civic Federation analyzed the newly revised law in December. From its section on detainable pretrial offenses…

• All non-forcible felonies that are not eligible for probation, if the defendant’s release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case;

• All forcible felonies, if the defendant’s release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case. This includes: treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, armed robbery, aggravated robbery, robbery, burglary where there is use of force against another person, residential burglary, home invasion, vehicular invasion, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement or any other felony which involves the threat of or infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement;

• The list of detainable offenses under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6) (which already included several gun-related offenses) is expanded to include: reckless homicide, involuntary manslaughter, residential burglary, child abduction, child endangerment, hate crimes, aggravated unlawful restraint, threatening a public official and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon other than by discharge of a firearm;

• A new section (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6.5)) is added to include several offenses related to aggravated driving under the influence and animal cruelty; and

• Any attempt to commit the aforementioned charges if the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(7)).

* Revocation of pre-trial release…

If someone is released on a felony or class A misdemeanor, and the person commits a new felony or class A misdemeanor while on pretrial release, they are subject to revocation of pretrial release and entitled to a hearing. The revocation hearing must occur within 72 hours of the filing of the State’s petition or the court’s motion for revocation. The defendant is entitled to representation by defense counsel and an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation and evidence in mitigation. If a defendant was released on a Class B or C misdemeanor or any lower offense, and is charged with a felony or a Class A misdemeanor while on pretrial release, the pretrial release may not be revoked but the court may impose sanctions. However, the state can file a petition seeking detention in any eligible circumstance. (725 ILCS 5/110-6)

* Escape from electronic monitoring…

The amendment removes language from the SAFE-T Act that previously required someone to be in violation of electronic monitoring for 48 hours in order for it to be considered an escape and instead states that a person “knowingly escapes or leaves from the geographic boundaries of an electronic monitoring or home detention program with the intent to evade prosecution.” Anyone charged with a felony who escapes according to this revised criterion is guilty of a class 3 felony, and anyone charged with a misdemeanor who escapes is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. (730 ILCS 5/5-8A-4.1)

New language is also added to 730 ILCS 5/5-8A-4.15 to state that anyone charged with a felony or misdemeanor who knowingly and intentionally violates a condition of electronic monitoring or home detention without notification to the proper authority is subject to sanctions; and a person who violates a condition of the electronic monitoring or home detention program by knowingly and intentionally removing, disabling, destroying or circumventing the operation of an approved electronic monitoring device shall be subject to penalties for escape under Section 5-8A-4.1.

* Willful flight…

“Willful flight” is defined as intentional conduct with a purpose to thwart the judicial process to avoid prosecution. Isolated instances of nonappearance in court alone are not evidence of the risk of willful flight. Reoccurrence and patterns of intentional conduct to evade prosecution, along with any affirmative steps to communicate or remedy any such missed court date, may be considered as factors in assessing future intent to evade prosecution. The amendment also removes language that previously said “simple past non-appearance in court alone is not evidence of future intent to evade prosecution.” (725 ILCS 5/110-1(f))

If you have any other questions, please click here first.

* The Illinois State Bar Association also produced an informative guide. From its section on citations in lieu of arrest…

725 ILCS 5/109-1(a-1) makes explicit the official AOIC [Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts] interpretation of the Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA): someone who is trespassing and will not stop may be arrested. Requires that a citation be used first before custodial arrest while retaining exception to allow immediate arrest based on safety of others or the accused. Clarifies that arrests are not required for class A misdemeanors or felonies. Clarifies that any officer can release someone from custody and not only “the arresting officer.” Removes requirement that people released from police custody be scheduled into court within 21 days.

…Adding… AP…

In spring 2020, the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices strongly endorsed bail reform, noting that found that a defendant who can’t afford bail sees his or her life unravel within days — loss of a job, loss of child custody, health problems without access to medication.

What’s more, the commission found that it tends to generate spurious plea deals. Defendants reason that pleading to a lower-level offense gets them out of jail sooner.

  14 Comments      


Top court rejects “uneven reasoning” on SAFE-T Act

Tuesday, Jul 18, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis began the court’s SAFE-T Act ruling by pointing out the obvious: The top court itself was originally behind the move to eliminate cash bail…

In 2017, this court established the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices (Commission) and charged it with “conducting a comprehensive review of the State’s pretrial detention system” and with making recommendations on potential reforms to that system. Ill. S. Ct. Comm’n on Pretrial Practices, Preliminary Report 4 (2018), [https://perma.cc/S8VA-83S9]. In 2020, the Commission issued its final report, listing more than 50 recommendations to reform pretrial practices to “ensure defendants are not denied liberty solely due to their inability to financially secure their release from custody.” Ill. S. Ct. Comm’n on Pretrial Practices, Final Report 22 (2020), [https://perma.cc/Y4FU-GJKL]. The Commission observed that the General Assembly bore responsibility to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/100-1 et seq. (West 2020)) in that regard, and it urged the legislature to ensure that “conditions of release will be non- monetary, least restrictive, and considerate of the financial ability of the accused.” Ill. S. Ct. Comm’n on Pretrial Practices, Final Report 69 (2020).

The following year, such reform occurred. In 2021, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act.

That court commission was rarely mentioned outside of this website, but I thought it was central to the discussion because it explained why eliminating cash bail was within the legislature’s constitutional purview by defining it this way…

Bail: The process of releasing a defendant from custody with conditions set to reasonably assure public safety and court appearance. […]

“Bail” is often used to refer to the amount of cash that a defendant must post as a condition of release. “Bond” is sometimes treated as a synonym of “bail.” Understood properly, “bail” – which literally means, “release” – is a process of releasing a defendant from custody on conditions designed to assure both public safety and the person’s appearance in court. A “bond” occurs whenever a defendant enters an agreement with the court. The agreement may, but need not necessarily, include a financial condition, but can also or instead include a variety of other conditions such as electronic monitoring, curfews, supervised visits or appointments, etc.

* OK, on to the opinion. First up, standing. It’s doubtful that the sheriffs and state’s attorneys actually had standing to sue. But, the majority opinion notes a government brief…

Standing is typically a threshold determination, but this case is anything but typical. In its opening brief, the State referred to the “unusual circumstances of this case” and acknowledged “the public interest would be served by the adjudication of [the] plaintiffs’ claims on the merits.” We turn to those claims and their merits.

* To the meat. Cash bail..

The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and held that the pretrial release provisions violate the bail clause, but the court’s reasoning is difficult to follow. The trial court acknowledged the defendants’ position that “the bail provision exists to confer a right on criminal defendants,” but it asserted the purpose of that provision is “much broader.” The court continued, “Bail exists, as it has for centuries, to balance a defendant’s rights with the requirements of the criminal justice system, assuring the defendant’s presence at trial, and the protection of the public.” Noting that the Act “eradicates monetary bail as a judicial consideration in every Illinois case,” the trial court concluded that, “under the Act, *** ‘persons are no longer bailable by sufficient sureties’ pursuant to the pretrial release provision of the Act because ‘sufficient sureties’ does involve monetary bail as one the conditions of bail which is abolished with the Act.”

We reject the trial court’s uneven reasoning for three reasons.

First, the trial court ignored the plain language of the constitution. The bail clause does not include the term “monetary,” so it did not cement the practice of monetary bail, however long-standing and prevalent across Illinois, into our constitution. “Sufficient sureties” is not limited to sufficient monetary sureties, and we cannot append or supplement the constitutional text.

Second, the trial court correctly recognized that the bail clause strikes a finely constructed balance between the interests of criminal defendants in pretrial release and the interest of the State “obtaining the greatest possible assurance” that the defendant will appear for trial (People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill. 2d 623, 626 (1966)), as well as the State’s interest in public safety, but the court incorrectly assumed that abolishing monetary bail undermines the State’s interests. The court appeared to believe that monetary bail is the only way to assure a defendant’s presence and to protect the public. In doing so, the court elevated the system of monetary bail over the plain language of the bail clause. While the clause establishes an individual constitutional right to bail, that right is not absolute (see Hemingway, 60 Ill. 2d at 80) but conditioned by “sufficient sureties” and, more importantly, by exceptions intended to keep the most serious, and potentially dangerous, offenders in custody after a hearing to establish they pose a real and present threat.

The Act’s pretrial release provisions complement the bail clause in that regard by allowing the State to seek, and the trial court to order, pretrial detention of certain criminal defendants. See 725 ILCS 5/110-2, 110-6.1 (West 2022). The Act requires the court to consider the “nature and seriousness of the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons *** that would be posed by the defendant’s release.”

Third and relatedly, the trial court misapprehended what the drafters of the bail clause actually did. The drafters consciously chose to leave the clause largely identical to the 1870 Constitution, which was largely identical to the original 1818 Constitution. See 1 Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention 699 (describing the current bail clause as a “minor rephrasing” of the 1870 version, leaving “[t]he substance *** unchanged”). Thus, the historical antecedent for the meaning of “bailable by sufficient sureties” is the meaning of bail in 1818.

As the State correctly observes, “monetary bail was all but unknown at the time the 1818 Constitution was drafted.” A dictionary published that year defined bail as “the freeing or setting at liberty one arrested or imprisoned *** under security taken for his appearance” but did not mention money as the sole or even primary means of providing that security. Monetary bail emerged later in the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

The drafters were cognizant of the legislature’s foray into that area, which included section 110-8 of the Code and outlawed professional suretyship by bail bondsmen. The drafters clearly understood that Illinois’s approach to pretrial release had evolved since the State was established and clearly understood that approach would continue to evolve, and they used language that would allow that. Delegate Bernard Weisberg offered a minority proposal that would have allowed all criminal defendants to remain at large until convicted, unless there was a judicial determination that confinement or bail was necessary to assure a defendant’s presence at trial. That proposal was ultimately rejected […]

Legislative latitude in regulating pretrial release, thus, was a fundamental underpinning of the bail clause. The legislature has once again engaged in the process of bail reform, and its efforts are consistent with the drafters’ intent. The plaintiffs’ bail clause claim fails

* Regarding the Crime Victims’ Rights Clause of the Illinois Constitution…

Count IV of the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges that the pretrial release provisions violate the crime victims’ rights clause. Initially adopted in 1992 and since amended, article I, section 8.1, of the Illinois Constitution sets out the constitutional rights of crime victims in Illinois and now includes 12 explicitly defined “rights” that crime victims “shall” have. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8.1. The crime victims’ enumerated rights include, inter alia, “[t]he right to have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in denying or fixing the amount of bail, determining whether to release the defendant, and setting conditions of release after arrest and conviction.”

The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs. The court stated that “the plain reading” of “fixing the amount of bail *** clearly refers to the requirement that the court consider victims’ right in the setting of the amount of monetary bail.” The trial court continued that, by removing that method of ensuring victims’ safety, the legislature improperly removed the discretion constitutionally given a trial court by the clause. According to the trial court, the Act leaves a court with no “amount of bail” to fix, impairing its ability to protect victims and their families.

We reject the trial court’s reasoning for three reasons.

First, the trial court again ignored the plain language of the constitution. The crime victims’ rights clause mentions the “amount of bail,” not the amount of monetary bail. The word “amount” connotes quantity and does not only mean a quantity of money but rather, consonant with the bail clause, a quantity of sufficient sureties.

Second, the trial court appeared to forget that the pretrial release provisions of the Act expressly take crime victims into account. As we have already mentioned, those provisions require a court to consider the “nature and seriousness of the real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons that would be posed by the defendant’s release,” including crime victims and their family members, “as required under” the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act. The provisions also require the court to give notice to crime victims before holding a pretrial release hearing, before revoking a condition of pretrial release, and in a range of other contexts. Thus, the pretrial release provisions secure, rather than contravene, the rights guaranteed by the clause, in that they require the court to consider the safety of victims at every stage at which the court determines whether and on what conditions a defendant should be released.

Third, the trial court failed to grasp that, like the bail clause, the crime victims’ rights clause is part of the bill of rights. Both are equally important and work in concert. The bail clause concerns the individual rights of criminal defendants, but in its “real and present threat” exception, it acknowledges the State’s interest in public safety. The crime victims’ rights clause, initially adopted in 1992, not only bolstered that interest but created a new and watershed structure of individual rights for crime victims. The latter clause was adopted with only one focus, victims. We believe that it would dilute the purpose of that clause to hold that it had another, tangential purpose—namely, to mandate a system of monetary bail for criminal defendants across Illinois. Nothing in the crime victims’ rights clause’s plain language indicates such an intent to upend suddenly, after 174 years, the constitutional history of bail in Illinois.

* Separation of powers…

Count V of the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges that the pretrial release provisions of the Act violate the separation of powers clause. Article II, section 1, of the Illinois Constitution provides, “The legislative, executive and judicial branches are separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another.”

The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs. According to the trial court, this court has held that the legislature is expressly prohibited from exercising judicial power, and statutes that undermine traditional and inherent judicial roles violate separation of powers. Relying upon Hemingway, 60 Ill. 2d at 79, the trial court concluded that the authority to deny or revoke bail to preserve the orderly process of criminal procedure is an administrative matter inherently entrusted solely to the courts. The trial court added that, by encroaching on that authority in abolishing monetary bail, the legislature violated the separation of powers clause.

We reject the trial court’s reasoning and, particularly, its overreading of Hemingway. […]

Our conclusion is consistent with other areas of criminal procedure. For example, this court has held that sentencing is exclusively a judicial function but has also held that “ ‘the legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, such as by providing for mandatory sentences’ ” The plaintiffs’ separation of powers claim fails.

* Conclusion…

The Illinois Constitution of 1970 does not mandate that monetary bail is the only means to ensure criminal defendants appear for trials or the only means to protect the public. Our constitution creates a balance between the individual rights of defendants and the individual rights of crime victims. The Act’s pretrial release provisions set forth procedures commensurate with that balance. For the reasons that we have stated, we reverse the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

On December 31, 2022, this court granted a supervisory order staying the effect of pretrial release provisions in Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104, along with various amendments to Illinois Supreme Court rules that facilitated the implementation of those provisions. See People ex rel. Berlin v. Pritzker, No. 129249 (Ill. Dec. 31, 2022) (supervisory order). Sixty days after the filing of this opinion, on September 18, 2023, this court’s stay of pretrial release provisions in Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104 shall be vacated. On that date, the circuit courts are directed to conduct hearings consistent with Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104, and Illinois Supreme Court Rules implementing those pretrial release provisions shall become effective.

Justice Mary K. O’Brien concurred and wrote about the standing issue.

* Justice David K. Overstreet also addressed the standing issue, but ultimately concluded that the statute violates the Crime Victims’ Rights clause. Justice Lisa Holder White concurred.

In the end, it was 5-2. A partisan split.

I often point out that three numbers are paramount to getting anything done: 60, 30 and 1; majorities in the legislative branch and the governor’s signature. Add to that the number 4, which is a majority of the Supreme Court.

  34 Comments      


Illinois Supreme Court rules ending cash bail is constitutional

Tuesday, Jul 18, 2023 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* Ben Szalinski of the Daily Line…


* You can find the full opinion here.

This post will be updated.

…Adding…


* The Sun-Times…

In its ruling, the court said the state’s constitution “does not mandate that monetary bail is the only means to ensure criminal defendants appear for trials or the only means to protect the public. Our constitution creates a balance between the individual rights of defendants and the individual rights of crime victims. The Act’s pretrial release provisions set forth procedures commensurate with that balance.” […]

The court’s ruling stems from a flurry of lawsuits last year brought by roughly 60 sheriffs and state’s attorneys who argued that eliminating cash bail would reduce public safety, put law enforcement in harm’s way and violate the state’s constitution.

In December, Kankakee County Chief Judge Thomas Cunnington agreed with the groups and ruled the cash bail provision unconstitutional, though his ruling would have only applied to counties that had sued.

An appeal by Attorney General Kwame Raoul sent the matter to the state Supreme Court, and the justices ordered that the entire Pretrial Fairness Act wouldn’t go into effect until further notice “in order to maintain consistent pretrial procedures throughout Illinois.”

* Crain’s…

Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis, writing the majority opinion, said, “Our constitution creates a balance between the individual rights of defendants and the individual rights of crime victims. The Act’s pretrial release provisions set forth procedures commensurate with that balance.”

Joining Theis were the other four Democrat justices on the court: Joy Cunningham, P. Scott Neville, Mary O’Brien and Elizabeth Rochford.

Republican justice David Overstreet wrote the dissent, joined by the other Republican justice, Lisa Holder White.

* The Chicago Tribune…

The majority found that the trial court ignored the “plain language of the constitution” in multiple instances and that the prosecutors challenging the law did not meet the high legal bar for overturning a state statute.

“Statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality because the legislature is principally responsible for determining the public policy of our state,” Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling means judges, prosecutors, attorneys and other court staff across the state will shift how they handle pending criminal cases. The justices gave trial courts 60 days to prepare for the new rules, with cash bail to be eliminated on Sept. 18.

Once the changes go into effect, monetary bail will no longer be a factor in whether someone is released from jail while they await trial. Instead, judges will weigh the circumstances and decide whether to release defendants with certain conditions or order them detained if the allegations meet certain thresholds.

* Senator Robert Peters…

State Senator Robert Peters released the following statement in response to the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling on the pretrial release portions of the SAFE-T Act:

“I am extremely proud that our state’s highest court is prioritizing public safety over wealth. This historic decision is the culmination of over a decade of organizing from countless grassroots organizations that deal directly with vulnerable communities in which cash bail has affected, including groups that support survivors of gender-based violence. I would like to take this opportunity to specifically thank the Coalition to End Money Bond, the State’s Attorneys Association, the Sheriff’s Association and survivor advocates for their assistance in getting pretrial fairness across the finish line.

“In the aftermath of this historical achievement, I expect there to be backlash and calls for the reinstatement of a cash bail system in response to controversial legal cases. Let me be clear: cash bail delegitimizes criminal justice systems and transforms them into systems that violate public safety instead of upholding it. Illinois will not go back. We will only move forward with our goal of ensuring public safety for all Illinoisans, regardless of their background or financial position.”

* Sen. Elgie Sims…

State Senator Elgie R. Sims, Jr. (D-Chicago) — the chief sponsor of the SAFE-T Act — released the following statement after the Illinois Supreme Court upheld provisions of the Pretrial Fairness Act:

“Since day one, I have maintained that the cash bail system places an undue burden on poor people accused of crime and in and of itself does not adequately make our communities safe. What will make our communities safer is a focus on the totality of circumstances behind crime, holding those responsible accountable, and most importantly ensuring crime doesn’t happen in the first place.

“From the beginning, I disagreed with the plaintiff’s claim that the General Assembly exceeded its authority in this case and am glad the Illinois Supreme Court agreed. The General Assembly is charged with passing laws that will improve the quality of life in our communities and that was true in this case. By upholding this monumental legislation, the Illinois Supreme Court is providing for greater protections and more humane treatment of those who have been arrested and accused of crime.

“Change — when it comes — often faces push back from those who seek to continue to invest in the way things are, which has produced disparate outcomes and had devastating impacts on communities. The goal of the proponents of this law has always been and continues to be for the phrase “equal justice under the law,” to be more than an aspirational statement, but the reality of our criminal legal system.

“Today’s decision will allow us to continue the long-overdue step toward dismantling systemic racism and eliminating the practices which have created barriers to opportunities and obstacles to prosperity for far too long. Illinois continues to show the rest of the nation that monumental change is possible to make the criminal legal system fair, equitable and just for all.

“While we celebrate today’s outcome, our work continues.”

* Senate President Don Harmon…

Senate President Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) issued the following statement regarding the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling that the comprehensive public safety initiative known as the SAFE-T Act is constitutional.

“The court’s decision today culminates a long and challenging journey toward fundamental fairness in our legal system that would ensure the accused stay behind bars because they are dangerous, not because they lack dollars in their pockets. The unjust foundations of our society were not built quickly and they will not be dismantled with ease. But we have taken a great step forward today, and I look forward to the road ahead.”

“With the state’s high court having found the SAFE-T Act constitutional, I look forward to this landmark law being implemented fully and fairly throughout the state of Illinois.”

* Governor JB Pritzker…

“I’m pleased that the Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the SAFE-T Act and the elimination of cash bail. We can now move forward with historic reform to ensure pre-trial detainment is determined by the danger an individual poses to the community instead of by their ability to pay their way out of jail. My thanks to Attorney General Raoul’s office and the many people who worked tirelessly over the last months to defend these important reforms. I look forward to continuing to work with the General Assembly and our many other partners as we transition to a more equitable and just Illinois.”

* Speaker Welch…

“Today the Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s promise to create a more equitable and fair criminal justice system — a system that can now better protect victims and will no longer allow violent offenders to buy their way out of jail. Today’s decision is a win for the people of this state, but also for our democracy. As duly elected representatives, we have the privilege and responsibility of creating policy that reflects our values as Illinoisans. Our state’s highest court rightfully ruled that frivolous lawsuits cannot and will not stop the legislative process.”

* DPI Chair Lisa Hernandez…

“Today’s ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court is a victory in the fight for a fairer criminal justice system. For too long, our pretrial detention system has prioritized wealth over public safety, and ending cash bail in Illinois is crucial to ending unjust criminalization of poverty. I’m grateful to the governor and attorney general for their unwavering commitment to building a more equitable Illinois for all,” said DPI Chair Lisa Hernandez.

* Attorney General Kwame Raoul…

“I am pleased – although not surprised – that the Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the SAFE-T Act. The court’s decision today holds – as my office has consistently advocated – that the General Assembly had the authority to eliminate cash bail and replace it with a system in which people are detained pending trial only if they pose a threat to the public or are a flight risk. And it rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that courts must retain the authority to set cash bail free of legislative regulation – an argument that would have called into question decades of criminal justice reforms in our state.

“Someone’s experience with the criminal justice system should not vary based on their income level. The SAFE-T Act was intended to address pervasive inequalities in the criminal justice system, in particular the fact that individuals who are awaiting criminal trials – who have not been convicted of a crime and are presumed innocent – may spend extended periods of time incarcerated because they cannot afford to pay cash bail. The law ensures that the decision about whether people are detained pending trial is not based on whether they can afford to pay for their release.

“With the court’s decision today, the elimination of cash bail will soon take effect. Other parts of the act, not challenged by the plaintiffs, also remain in effect and will have a positive impact within the state. This includes my office’s authority to conduct pattern-and-practice investigations of civil rights violations by law enforcement and improvements to the police officer certification process that create uniformity for departments across the state, promote professionalism in law enforcement and increase transparency.

“Attorneys from my office have spent many months defending the SAFE-T Act’s constitutionality in courtrooms throughout Illinois against meritless challenges. I am proud of their dedication and appreciate their service to the people of Illinois.”

* Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth…

State Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth, D-Peoria, issued the following statement Tuesday after the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling on pretrial release portions of the SAFE-T Act upheld the end of cash bail:

“This decision reflects the countless hours of careful consideration that went into every component of the SAFE-T Act. Responsibly modernizing our pretrial procedures will not only create a fairer process, it will help to make our communities safer by basing release decisions on a public safety assessment instead of a defendant’s access to cash.

“I want to thank state Rep. Justin Slaughter, state Sen. Elgie Sims, the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus and every member of the General Assembly involved with seeing this process through in a transparent and collaborative manner. Their work helped to make today a reality.

“Public safety is never a static issue, and today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision is just one part of a larger effort to make our communities safer. I will continue to regularly engage first responders, prosecutors, community advocates and area residents as we work together to comprehensively curb violence.”

* Illinois Fraternal Order of Police State Lodge President Chris Southwood…

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court confirms Illinois’ status as the state of lawlessness and disorder. The court ignored the pleas of nearly every prosecutor in the state of Illinois, Democrat and Republican, that the elimination of cash bail will put dangerous criminals back on the street, instead of keeping them in jail or forcing them to post cash bail as they await trial. Many of those offenders will commit crimes again within hours of their release. And who will have to arrest those offenders again and again? The police officers whose jobs have been made immeasurably more difficult by all of the new anti-law enforcement measures that are in place. Today’s ruling is a slap in the face to those who enforce our laws and the people those laws are supposed to protect.”

…Added by Rich… Sen. Robert Peters (D-Chicago) pointed out today during a press conference that the IL FOP was officially neutral on the changes made in December, as was the Chicago FOP, the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police.

* Cook County Public Defender…

The Cook County Public Defender’s Office said on Tuesday it is pleased that the Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Pretrial Fairness Act. The ruling is the strongest possible decision upholding the constitutional arguments for ending money bond.

Illinois can now end a great injustice that distorted the criminal legal system and move forward with removing the price tag from the presumption of innocence.

“Using money as the determining factor in whether someone goes to jail or goes home was a broken policy that often produced terrible results. By ending money bond, Illinois is now in position to make these serious decisions without stripping millions of dollars from the communities who can least afford it,” said Cook County Public Defender Sharone R. Mitchell, Jr.

Every day, the hundreds of attorneys at the Cook County Public Defender’s Office, which serves Chicago and suburbs, see the deplorable impact of money bond and pretrial jailing. They see mainly Black and Brown people punished for being poor and the mothers, grandmothers, wives, girlfriends and sisters of accused people burdened with paying cash bail for their loved ones.

Ending money bond is a matter of racial justice.

Cook County court system stakeholders, including public defenders, are poised to implement the pretrial reforms under the Pretrial Fairness Act, after years of preparation.

The law that will now take effect goes well beyond merely ending money bond and transforms the entire decision-making process around what happens to a person after arrest and before trial. The law does not end pretrial incarceration; prosecutors can still request detention in many circumstances. But decisions about detention will be made after a robust, individualized hearing, where both sides can present evidence and arguments regarding whether the accused person is a threat to community safety or a flight risk.

The road to these historic reforms took more than seven years and involved thousands of Illinoisans. After the Pretrial Fairness Act was passed, a coalition of advocacy and community groups, criminal legal system players, lawmakers and others fought bad-faith fearmongering and misinformation.

These efforts were worth it. In deciding that we can make these consequential pretrial release and detention decisions without money bond, Illinois has provided a new model for the national movement to end money bail. We are showing that it is possible to bring significant change a system that harms communities and generates false confessions and wrongful convictions for too many decades.

On this historic day, the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender congratulates our legislative partners who championed pretrial fairness, the Attorney General’s Office that successfully defended the law, and the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice, who made this all possible.

* Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle…

Today, we celebrate a historic victory for justice across Illinois. By ending money bond, we have taken a significant step forward in dismantling a system that disproportionately impacts our Black and Brown communities. We have known for too long that the use of money bond has perpetuated systemic racial injustices and exacerbates the inequalities faced by communities of color.

Today’s ruling is a true testament to the tireless efforts of our criminal justice offices, advocacy groups, and community stakeholders who have been tremendous advocates in this fight. Together, we have engaged in an unprecedented collaborative process to prepare for this transformative moment of reform.

Cook County stands united in support of our court system stakeholders as they move forward with Pretrial Fairness Act reforms, ending money bond and implementing a pretrial process rooted in equity and community safety. My administration stands ready to provide resources and counsel where we can be of service as we move forward toward a more just and equitable future for all.

* Sen. Andrew Chesney…

“I am disappointed with the partisan Supreme Court’s ruling because the Legislature did indeed infringe upon the rights and responsibilities of the judicial branch of government when they stripped away judges’ abilities to set cash bail.

“The Democrat Party has enacted the most radical soft-on-crime policies in the country, and nobody in this state will be immune from the consequences. This pro-criminal brand of justice will put many criminals back on the streets within hours of a serious arrest. Crime victims and Illinois families will continue to feel less safe, and the State of Illinois will continue to grab national headlines for its growing crime rates.”

* Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart…

“The Supreme Court has made our communities safer and our justice system fairer by upholding the SAFE-T Act. Instead of domestic abusers, murderers, and sex offenders using their cash to obtain release, judges can finally hold dangerous individuals prior to trial.

The victim advocates closest to these issues (such as the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Network) support this new law, and they have not been swayed by the months of misleading statements about its contents or its impact.

At the same time, our jail will no longer hold non-violent offenders simply because they do not have money to post bail. We will finally be addressing how a wealth-based system disproportionally jails Black and Brown defendants. We can finally begin to live up to the ideal that access to money should not lead to different justice systems for different defendants.

This safety-based system (as opposed to wealth-based system) has worked for decades in our federal courts and in Illinois’s juvenile courts. This past fall, many individuals were lying to the public by saying that the end of “cash bail” means the end of “pre-trial detention.” These lies failed to turn the public against the authors of the SAFE-T Act. Now, the Supreme Court has affirmed this important reform that has been shaped by law enforcement, prosecutors, victim-rights advocates, and community leaders since the Supreme Court Commission Report of April 2020.”

Let me reiterate this: we will still jail defendants prior to trial, and the defendants we do hold will be the dangerous weapon offenders, drug traffickers, child molesters, murderers, and domestic abusers who will no longer be able to use their own cash (or their accomplice’s cash) as an escape hatch from justice. Our communities will be safer because of today’s ruling.

The Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T Act) is a criminal justice reform that includes the elimination of cash bail as a method of pre-trial release, mandates use of body-worn cameras for all police departments, and calls for the preservation of police misconduct records.

The SAFE-T Act was stayed in late December 2022, prior to its January 1, 2023, effective date. Today’s ruling makes the Act effective September 18, 2023. State’s Attorney Rinehart added, “We were ready in December of 2022, and we will be ready in September of 2023.”

On the effective date, the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office will file petitions to detain offenders who are arrested after September 18, 2023. Judges will decide whether someone is detained or not detained awaiting trial. If a judge rules for detention, those individuals arrested after the effective date will no longer be able to access cash to gain release.

* Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, Inc. President & CEO Joel K. Johnson…

“The Illinois Supreme Court’s SAFE-T Act ruling expands access to pretrial freedom, freedom that allows individuals to prepare their legal defense while securing community-based behavioral health care that they may need, but which is rarely found in jail. TASC is eager to work with the SAFE-T Act’s legislative champions – State Senators Elgie Sims and Robert Peters and State Representative Justin Slaughter - to ensure full implementation of a statewide community-based pretrial service network.”

* Regan Deering…

Today, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the pro-criminal SAFE-T Act. In response, Regan Deering, Republican Candidate for State House District 88, released the following statement.

“As a mom, I care about the safety and wellbeing of my three kids more than anything else,” said Regan Deering. “Governor Pritzker rammed through a radical remaking of Illinois’ criminal justice system – setting violent criminals free, hamstringing law enforcement, and endangering families.”

“Every family deserves to live in a safe community, that is why I am committed to supporting our law enforcement officers and keeping repeat violent offenders locked up,” pledged Regan Deering. “As today’s ruling shows, the Illinois Supreme Court will not save us from extreme policies. It is up to us. I am calling on all Illinoisans to join me in fighting this dangerous law and the corrupt political class in Springfield. Your future and your kids’ futures depend on it.”

* Rep. Tom Weber…

“I am extremely disappointed in this decision by the Illinois Supreme Court to eliminate cash bail, but unfortunately, I am not surprised. Illinoisans deserve safe communities where they can live, work and raise their families without fear, but once again we are left with an extreme progressive agenda that has chosen to side with criminals over families and the dedicated police officers trying to keep us safe.”

* Senate Republican Leader John Curran…

“The long divisive court process instigated by the Democrat’s rushed reform of our criminal justice system opposed by nearly all Illinois law enforcement officials and states attorneys has now concluded with a divided Supreme Court Ruling,” said Illinois Senate Republican Leader John Curran (R-Downers Grove).

“The legislature should finally heed the concerns of law enforcement, judges and their communities and immediately return for a special session to properly address the SAFE-T Acts’ negative impact on the public before this ill-conceived statute goes into effect in 60 days.

“While no person should be held in jail or let free because of their economic circumstances, the SAFE-T Act handcuffs law enforcement and judges making it more difficult for them to combat violent crime.

“It is possible to reform our cash bail system while keeping our communities safe and the legislature should return immediately to ensure that public safety is in no way jeopardized by the implementation of this reckless legislation before it takes effect.”

* Rep. Lakesia Collins…

State Rep. Lakesia Collins, D-Chicago, issued this statement following the Illinois Supreme Court decision to uphold the SAFE-T Act:

“Passing the SAFE-T Act was the culmination of years of effort from Illinois lawmakers to reform our court system, make communities safer by making the system smarter and end the cash bail system that took such a terrible toll on Black and Brown communities. Illinois’ highest court has now solidified this state’s commitment to building a safer and more equitable future for all its citizens.

“I would like to thank the people who made the SAFE-T Act possible, including state Rep. Justin Slaughter, state Sen. Elgie Sims, the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, my colleagues in the General Assembly who put their support behind this landmark legislation and the many stakeholders who helped shape the policy.

“The fight for equity is far from over, but this decision sends the message loud and clear: progress will not be slowed, despite lawsuits from those who continue to cling to a less safe, less just status quo.”

* Lt. Governor Stratton…

“Today’s decision by the Illinois Supreme Court upholding the passage of the SAFE-T Act is a major step in the right direction on our journey to justice. All along, our goal has been to right the wrongs of policies that have disproportionately harmed Black, Brown and low-income Illinoisans while, at the same time, bolstering public safety by building a system that centers on accountability and fairness. 
 
The amount of money in one’s bank account should never be the determining factor of whether they should be released or detained while awaiting trial. To do so does nothing but criminalize poverty and this disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. Today’s victory is thanks to the hard work of Governor Pritzker, Attorney General Raoul’s office, the General Assembly, and the many advocates who have been tirelessly fighting for years for true community safety. We have made great strides, and we are forging ahead.” 
 

* Sen. Craig Wilcox…

“This is not the ruling I had hoped for in this case. The bottom line is that Illinoisans deserve to feel safe in their communities, and this decision makes our cities and towns less safe. The turnstile system of criminal justice that goes along with the elimination of cash bail will put dangerous offenders back on the streets within hours of their arrest. Judges must have the flexibility to set bail as they see fit given the circumstances of each individual case.

“In a state with alarming crime statistics, eliminating cash bail without giving judges full discretion is the last thing we should do. Until Illinois decides once and for all to get tough on crime and hold offenders accountable, this state will continue to have a serious crime problem.”

* Republican Leader Jackie Haas…

“Less than two hours before we began an entirely new General Assembly, Illinois Democrats rammed through one of the worst criminal justice reform packages that was promptly signed into law by the Governor. Even Democratic State’s Attorneys sued because of mounting public safety concerns introduced because of this act. Yet today, the Illinois Supreme Court has declared this constitutional, despite the facts that Illinois has one of the highest murder rates in the country, costs have risen for taxpayers, and our police forces are demoralized. This is a deeply upsetting day for our state and communities.”

* Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe…

“A few moments ago the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Safe-T Act is constitutional and will take effect on September 18, 2023. While this ruling is disappointing and the Act terribly detrimental to public safety, we must abide by the decision and will continue to do our best to serve the people of Kankakee County.

“Despite the defeat, I could not be more proud of all who fought the good fight. The people of Illinois deserve better than bail reform that is passed under cover of darkness at 4am when all the state was sleeping; they deserve to have a voice in any constitutional amendments through the power of their vote; and they deserve to be governed by a government of, for and by the people—not by legislative or gubernatorial fiat. That was the essence of our lawsuit and we stand for those principles still today.”

* Kankakee County Sheriff Michael Downey…

“While extremely disappointed but not surprised that the opinion was down party lines, rest assured that the Sheriff’s Office will continue to work hard to keep our community safe. This opinion will embolden criminals even more which is what our Governor seems to want.”

* US Rep. Mary Miller…

“Today, the Illinois Supreme Court erased the rights of crime victims by upholding the Pritzker SAFE-T Act, which will release dangerous prisoners onto our streets and make it even harder for law enforcement to protect our communities,” Miller said.

“By ending cash bail and ordering the release of dangerous criminals, JB Pritzker has made our neighborhoods and our families less safe in his desperate attempt to make Illinois more radical than California so that he can run for President,” added Miller.

“Our state’s attorneys are warning that almost HALF of inmates currently in jail could be released under the SAFE-T Act, which is why 100 out of 102 State’s Attorneys opposed the bill. Please pray for crime victims and our police officers as they face the latest danger unleashed by JB Pritzker’s radical pro-crime agenda.”

* Assistant House Republican Leader Brad Stephens…

“The so-called ‘SAFE-T’ Act rewrote the book on everything, from allowing anonymous complaints against police officers to abolishing cash bail and letting people accused of violent felonies back on the streets. Despite the multiple pieces of follow-up legislation to address its various problems and lawsuits from even Democratic State’s Attorneys because of the mounting concerns about public safety brought on by this legislation, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional.

“In the midst of this ruling, our reality is clear. Illinois still has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Pressure has been put on our overburdened and demoralized police forces in the 20th District and across our state. Unfunded mandates are driving up costs for taxpayers. This decision is disappointing in so many ways. We need to work in the General Assembly to protect Illinois families and our courageous law enforcement.”

* Clayton Harris III…

Today the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled on the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, stating that the act was fully constitutional.

“Today’s historic ruling codifies that Illinois will no longer criminalize poverty. This ruling continues to enforce the detention process while emphasizing community safety,” said candidate for Cook County State’s Attorney, Clayton Harris III. “This was the right decision from the court, as it maintains accountability and continues to protect the safety of our communities.

“As State’s Attorney, I will always ensure safety and fairness and continue to work with all of our stakeholders.”

* House Republican Leader Tony McCombie…

“Politically compelled public policy has never been in the best interest of the people. The liberal court’s decision today is not surprising, and this decision will undoubtedly hurt families and businesses around the state. Anyone that is familiar with the court system knows that this is not about the ability whether an offender can post bail, but a progressive movement to decriminalize crime and promote an environment for repeat offenders.

This policy is not about bail reform, but about elevating criminals. The Illinois House Republicans will join families around the state to bring light to the failings of the liberal imbalance of the General Assembly. We know there is an approach to address comprehensive criminal justice reform, but that must start with offenders being held accountable for the crimes they commit.

I look forward to working with victim advocates and our law enforcement partners to bring forth changes that ensure safe neighborhoods, thriving business districts and most importantly protect victims of crime.”

* Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson…

“Today, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the Pretrial Fairness Act, ensuring that a person’s ability to pay cash bail does not unfairly dictate their presumption of innocence in the court system.

Cash bail does not make communities safer, and it never has; it has simply exacerbated existing inequities and disparities in the criminal legal system. Pretrial detention, as a result of the inability to pay bail, further decimates communities that have long been most impacted by mass incarceration, and the destabilization of households and families.

I am grateful that we can move forward to implement this legislation to uphold justice and equity.”

* US Rep. Delia Ramirez…

“For too long, cash bail has been a tool to criminalize poverty and offer loopholes to the wealthy. Today’s Supreme Court decision makes Illinois the first in the nation to end this inequitable practice, and provides a model for other states wanting to end the criminalization of poverty. Now, decisions about detaining defendants will be made based on direct threats to community safety, and not how much wealth someone has.

I was proud to be a sponsor of the SAFE-T Act during my time in the Illinois Legislature, but it took a coalition to get it passed. I’d like to thank Governor J.B. Pritzker, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, State Senator Robert Peters, the Illinois Black Legislative Caucus, the Coalition to End Money Bond, and violence prevention groups for their advocacy in passing and defending the SAFE-T Act. It is time to implement these critical reforms to our justice system. I remain committed to defending this historic legislation.”

* ILGOP…

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling makes it painfully clear that elections have consequences. Democrats, first led by Mike Madigan and now by JB Pritzker, spent tens of millions of dollars to elect a 5-2 majority of Democrats on the Illinois Supreme Court. It is not surprising that the Court would vote along political lines to allow Governor Pritzker and the Democrat controlled legislature to disregard constitutionally protected rights of crime victims in abolishing cash bail. This historic change in criminal justice law, combined with progressive Democrat prosecutors like Kim Foxx and Eric Rhinehart, will significantly undermine public safety by releasing from custody dangerous, violent criminals at a time when police are under attack and Illinois families and crime victims already fear for their personal safety.”

* DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin…

This morning, the Illinois Supreme Court found the pre-trial fairness provision of the amended Safe-T-Act constitutional. The law as originally written and passed by the General Assembly, included many glaring deficiencies, including the elimination of cash bail, which would have almost completely eliminated judicial discretion when considering a defendant’s likelihood to appear at future court hearings or if the defendant posed a danger to society. On Oct. 3, 2022, myself, Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser and Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz, accepted an invitation from Illinois Senate President Don Harmon’s deputy chief of staff to serve on a group of stakeholders that included only three state’s attorneys to remedy these deficiencies. Many of the improvements recommended by this group were passed by the General Assembly and signed into law on Dec. 6, 2022. I am very proud of the improvements advanced by this group and, as the only Republican on the panel, I am grateful to Senate President Harmon for allowing me the opportunity to work in a bi-partisan fashion to ensure the continued protection of the public. These amendments go a long way in rectifying many, but not all, of the anticipated problems and restore some measure of judicial discretion at bond hearings.

* Sen. Dave Syverson (R-Cherry Valley)…

State’s attorneys and law enforcement personnel from across Illinois have stated in no uncertain terms that their work – and the ultimate safety of their communities – will be threatened by many provisions of this controversial overhaul of the state’s criminal justice system. With crime increasing across the state, eliminating cash bail just puts more criminals back on the streets. I am not surprised that the politically aligned Court would side with the Governor, but this is certainly not the ruling I had hoped for. It clearly sends yet another message that there are limited consequences for committing crimes in Illinois.

* Sen. Sue Rezin (R-Morris)…

The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the SAFE-T Act in its entirety is disappointing. While I understand the movement to reform our cash bail system, there is a way to do that fairly while also better ensuring the public safety of our communities. The SAFE-T Act, which the Majority Party negotiated, drafted and passed in the middle of the night with little-to-no input from law enforcement, state’s attorneys, and judges is a far cry from achieving that balance. Instead, counties are now faced with implementing this hastily, dangerous, and ill-conceived law, which I fear will make our state a less safe place to call home.

  46 Comments      


Open thread

Tuesday, Jul 18, 2023 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* Big news coming out of the Illinois Supreme Court today, any predictions? In the meantime, what’s going on in your part of Illinois?…

  10 Comments      


Isabel’s morning briefing

Tuesday, Jul 18, 2023 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* Here you go…

  4 Comments      


Live coverage

Tuesday, Jul 18, 2023 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* Follow along with ScribbleLive…


  Comments Off      


« NEWER POSTS PREVIOUS POSTS »
* Isabel’s afternoon roundup
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - New stuff (Updated x2)
* Roundup: Ex-Speaker Madigan back on the stand
* It’s just a bill
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Live coverage
* Selected press releases (Live updates)
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
January 2025
December 2024
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller