Hannah Meisel’s recent report for Capitol News Illinois included a line that jumped out at me: “Per state law — which hasn’t been updated since 1949 — only counties with 35,000 or more residents are required to set up offices of public defender.”
According to information posted on numerous websites (Illinois Demographics, Wikipedia and World Population Review), 62 out of 102 Illinois counties — a majority — have fewer than 35,000 residents.
Fifty counties have fewer than 25,000 residents. Another 31 have fewer than 15,000, 15 have fewer than 10,000, and seven don’t even have 5,000 residents. For perspective, a single Chicago ward has about 54,000 people. Only 24 counties have at least that many people.
All counties in the state are required by the Illinois Constitution to have sheriffs, county clerks and treasurers. State statutes heap on many more responsibilities, as do local county ordinances.
We’ve long seen advocates calling for school district consolidation and township elimination. But the SAFE-T Act’s implementation last week highlights how the state should probably start a conversation about how dozens of small counties can effectively govern in a modern society.
A recent WBEZ story noted Cass County has “one attorney and one resident judge handling all the criminal cases.” Cass is just northwest of Sangamon County and has a bit more than 13,000 residents.
Meisel’s story profiled a public defender who does part-time work in two counties: Gallatin and Hamilton. The combined population of those two counties is about 13,000, according to her report.
The counties want more money from the state to implement the new law. Public defenders outside of Cook County received $10 million in this fiscal year’s budget, which doesn’t seem like much.
I don’t know what the answer is here, but I do know that local mandates are regularly approved at the Statehouse without taking the population of most Illinois counties into consideration.
Bad things will happen, as they always have
And the lack of resources in Illinois’ plethora of tiny counties is only one problem. There will be other problems with the new SAFE-T Act.
A prosecutor will decide not to ask a judge to keep someone in custody who has been busted for a detainable offense, or a judge will overrule a prosecutor who wants someone detained, or a loophole will be exploited — and that suspect will go out and commit another crime and maybe hurt someone, or worse.
This sort of thing is not new, of course. A small minority, but still a significant number, of people who bailed out of jail have ended up going back after committing more offenses. But that history may easily be lost in the debate as bad things happen under the new law.
Controversy arose on the very first day of the new law when WTTW reported the Cook County state’s attorney’s office decided not to ask for the detention of the very first person given a hearing. The suspect was accused of pepper-spraying four Chicago police officers, sending three of them to the hospital, and is facing four counts of aggravated battery to a police officer.
“This highlights the misplaced priorities of Illinois’ criminal justice system when the prosecutor prioritizes the freedom of a violent offender over the safety of those police officers dedicated to protecting and serving our communities,” Senate Republican Leader John Curran said in response.
Elsewhere, though, prosecutors used the new law to keep people behind bars who likely would have previously walked away.
McLean County State’s Attorney Erika Reynolds has been a staunch critic of the new law, but her office persuaded a judge to keep a man locked up who was accused of possessing a gun as a felon, a consortium of public radio stations reported. The man was arrested before the SAFE-T Act officially took effect, and his public defender wanted him charged under the old statute so he could potentially bond out of custody. The judge disagreed, and the man remained in custody.
Proponents just haven’t focused on how the SAFE-T Act will make it easier in many cases to keep physically dangerous people locked up without bail.
But no mere law can eliminate human error or prevent all unforeseen circumstances. As those cases emerge, we can probably expect legislative fights over whether to expand the list of detainable offenses.
Those battles could wind up being the new version of the old legislative tradition of annually enhancing criminal penalties, which proceeded unabated for decades until more progressive members finally put a stop to it.
- Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 9:38 am:
Union County is the only county in the southern seven that has full time PDs.
- JS Mill - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 9:56 am:
=I don’t know what the answer is here, but I do know that local mandates are regularly approved at the Statehouse without taking the population of most Illinois counties into consideration.
Bad things will happen, as they always have=
The same has been true for schools for a very long time. Consolidation is not the answer for many sparsely populated, geographically large unit school districts. Our district is 150 square miles. Less than 600 students.
- Norseman - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 9:58 am:
All major reform measures require tweaks. Now is the time for the different offices effected to work with the General Assembly to address the problems. Unfortunately, in this day and age, we have political hacks who are more interested in politics than good public policy.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:15 am:
The fact that a large portion of the state does not provide people with an adequate defense is not a problem caused by the Pretrial Fairness Act. It is an untreated preexisting condition, one some people have tried to point out for a very long time.
It’s important that the PFA is shining a light on the issue.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:19 am:
==All major reform measures require tweaks.==
No. Some do, some don’t.
And when practitioners do not engage in good-faith, best-efforts implementation, this is not evidence that legislative “tweaks” are needed.
- Amalia - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:30 am:
“… local mandates are regularly approved at the Statehouse without taking the population of most Illinois counties into consideration…” And counties don’t take things into consideration as well. they have a prosecutor but not a public defender. so fun to fight that these (MANY tiny–in population) counties must stay but…. Illinois has too many elected officials. townships need to go. counties, how will you handle the new law? don’t think I even heard the PD dearth come up in the discussion of the legislation.
- levivotedforjudy - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:30 am:
This is a great article. It took me back to my agency days where we had an on-going debate on policies where one side always argued that you can’t treat Chicago different than the rest of the state. But your point on how a typical Chicago ward is bigger than almost 1/4 of the counties in the state shows, Chicago is different. The GA does need to give strong consideration to how different the City is from the Collars, Central is from SE IL and the Metro-East is sort of like the Quads. One size does not fit all.
- Rabid - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:31 am:
Tiny counties need help from the attorney general. Send circuit riders
- Dave Dahl - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:34 am:
This reinforces my belief that we do not need 102 counties.
- /s - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:49 am:
===Those battles could wind up being the new version of the old legislative tradition of annually enhancing criminal penalties===
I suspect this is correct, especially since we’ve already seen a version of it in the trailer bill. It’s one of the easiest (politically, anyway) ways to be ~tough on crime~ without actually doing anything to mitigate crime or the root causes thereof.
- Back to the Future - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 10:57 am:
Appreciate the in depth information on the issues that are coming up.
I suspect the local courts and Bar Association groups will be working through these issues. The approaches may vary from county to county. Probably best to let local folks come up with solutions.
- cermak_rda - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 11:19 am:
–levivotedforjudy
It’s not just Chicago though. Cook county has a lot of different municipalities. DuPage also is quite large and has a fractious collection of munis. Will County etc. I suppose it could be phrased as any county under X residents and use the census to arrive as yes or no under X.
I am not sure my hometown had a public defender (if you add Mattoon and Charleston’s pop though I think you wind up over that limit) I do know that they would essentially draft private attorneys to defend indigent clients because my BIL was an attorney for a while.
- Amalia - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 11:45 am:
would be interested to hear if there is much of an effect on municipal prosecutions if there are many. police arrest, felony or misdemeanor, it’s going to the State’s attorney of the county. the city of chicago is looking to Kim Foxx right now to handle cases and so much complaining about that.
- OneMan - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 12:07 pm:
== This reinforces my belief that we do not need 102 counties ==
Considering some counties have fewer people than attended three of the high schools that served my township, I think he has a point.
Nearly half of the counties have fewer people than the small suburb I grew up in (25,000)
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 12:17 pm:
===Unfortunately, in this day and age, we have political hacks who are more interested in politics than good public policy. ===
With complete fairness to the hacks those are the hacks that were elected by the sparsely populated regions of the state. It does create a fascinating situation where yet another public policy problem that rural and mostly conservative communities struggle with will need to be solved by legislators from outside of their districts and the hacks that they elect will vote against those laws and then complain to the people those laws help about how awful they are.
Never mind these counties also voted against a constitutional provision that would have made it easier for the State to provide resources to their communities.
Our rural Illinoisans are picky eaters. They do not like their fresh fruit and vegetables and have chosen the elected officials who will only serve them a high fat and high salt deep fried diet and insist to them that it is a healthy way to live and their tastes have nothing to do with the problems they face.
We need a state wide solution that protects the constitutional rights of of citizens. Maybe we should fund an office of the public defender and put it under the Attorney General and create state supported public defenders that work circuits in more rural areas.
I know, I know, the conservatives will rant and rave about using tax dollars to defend criminals but people have rights no matter how angry conservatives get about it. I know that the GOP will print mailers condemning anyone who supports this kind of policy, but as per usual, it’s up to the Democratic majority to save rural Illinois.
They may never order fresh fruits and vegetables, but if we put it on the table they’ll eat them while they complain about it and they’ll be the better for it even if no one ever gets the credit they deserve.
- Norseman - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 12:25 pm:
=== This reinforces my belief that we do not need 102 counties ===
At a minimum, folks should be thinking about a CA to eliminate county offices in those failing to meet minimum population requirements. These are to be replaced by regional officers.
- Norseman - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 12:37 pm:
=== “… local mandates are regularly approved at the Statehouse without taking the population of most Illinois counties into consideration…” ===
Valid point, but with respect to this law the opponents were more interested in misrepresenting the proposal and creating false bogeymen. Engagement on cost and process should be welcomed and encouraged. Unfortunately, we saw what politicians do, and to excess by the MAGA GOP.
- JoanP - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 12:54 pm:
= Maybe we should fund an office of the public defender and put it under the Attorney General =
While a State Office of the Public Defender is not a bad idea (other states such as California and Minnesota do that), it would be a built-in conflict of interest to put such an office under the Attorney General. And there’s no reason to do that. It should be a separate agency, as is the Office of the State Appellate Defender.
- Anyone Remember - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 1:38 pm:
===townships need to go.===
Hope the issue of “too small” units of government doesn’t drop back off the radar. They affect people outside their boundaries.
A few years ago, North Dirksen Parkway from Clear Lake to North Grand was widened to 4 lane plus center turn lane, making it 4 lanes end to end. The delay? Springfield Township could not come up with the required $ match (Durbin got federal $ for it). Once did a “back of the envelope” calculation using IOC website data, and the required $ match was twice the township’s annual “road” budget. This is an issue that needs to be discussed.
- 산업용하드웨어 - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 2:45 pm:
Hello, this weekend is nice in support of me, for the reason that this time i am reading this impressive educational piece of
writing here at my house.
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 2:45 pm:
For me, this is the key phrase
=== We’ve long seen advocates calling for school district consolidation and township elimination. But the SAFE-T Act’s implementation last week highlights how the state should probably start a conversation about how dozens of small counties can effectively govern in a modern society. ===
We need to think outside the box, in order to accommodate radically different needs and abilities at the organization level. Each county must have a sheriff, but perhaps some counties can no longer afford to keep a jail. That might suggest regional jails, shared by counties (and equivalence of consolidation).
Alternatively, creating a “circuit” of States Attorneys to assist smaller counties might not be a bad thing, especially if these States Attorneys are assigned to regions, and funded by the state.
There are solutions to the problems we can anticipate, but did not anticipate. And being proactive is essential.
As to reactive, this story shows what happens when small (and large) counties are forced to “react” when they are ill-prepared for changes. Some invent stories to suggest we go backward (cf. the WttW story from Cook County; Meisel’s excellent observations regarding Gallatin and Hamilton counties not being able to each afford a full time appointee).
- H-W - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 2:48 pm:
Anonymous at 2:45 was me. Sorry
- From DaZoo - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 2:50 pm:
It’s hard not to treat this post as a “Fun with Numbers” post. The population comparisons are interesting, but so are land area comparisons. Cook Co has the same land area as the five smallest counties combined. The population of those five smallest counties is 0.7% of Cook. I get that geography has some affect on county boundaries but it does seem like we can redraw some borders and shrink the number of Illinois counties by 10-20. On the flip side, it wasn’t too long ago that 3 or 4 townships got together to talk about breaking away from Cook County to form a 103rd county.
Examining county sizes and borders across all of Illinois would be a Sisyphus task given politics. Maybe, just maybe, someone could look at convincing a few of these smallest counties to work together for at least resources in a way that leads to redrawing a couple county borders.
- Yooper in Diaspora - Monday, Sep 25, 23 @ 9:43 pm:
What an informative piece. Why did this not come up as a theme before, among the critics? It seems the loss of bail income to local jails (a loss of a benefit) was the focus, rather than finding resources to gain a public defendant.