Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

*** UPDATED x1 *** Another day, another lawsuit

Friday, Jul 24, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller

Republican state Rep. Darren Bailey asked a judge Wednesday for permission to lodge a fifth complaint in his lawsuit against Gov. JB Pritzker: Any further disaster proclamations should not affect Clay County. […]

According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, there have been nine confirmed cases of COVID-19 and zero deaths resulting from the virus in Clay County as of Wednesday. Just less than 1,500 tests had been conducted in the county of about 14,000 residents.

Those statistics indicate the novel coronavirus does not meet the definition of a public health emergency as defined by the statute Pritzker cites as granting him authority to utilize emergency powers, Bailey argued in the new filing. […]

But, Bailey’s attorney Thomas DeVore wrote, Clay County’s data does not support the second part of the criteria. There is not a “high probability” that COVID-19 will lead to “a large number of deaths” or “a large number of serious or long-term disabilities” for county residents.

It is also unlikely that there will be “widespread exposure to an infectious or toxic agent that poses a significant risk of substantial future harm to a large number of people” in Clay County, DeVore wrote.

Take off all the restrictions and there won’t be widespread exposure? Right.

* React from Ann Spillane, Gov. Pritzker’s General Counsel…

There is a public health crisis that has taken the lives of 7,367 Illinoisans. It is unconscionable that as states around this country are grappling with a resurgence of COVID-19, there are those who continue to challenge science and data and fight against basic guidance from public health experts to prevent the spread of this deadly virus.

Let’s be very clear about what is going on in with these filings. In the midst of a pandemic, Tom DeVore is playing a game. His actions in every case have demonstrated that he has no interest in truly resolving a real legal dispute. With the exception of a single judge in Clay County, courts throughout Illinois have consistently rejected Mr. DeVore’s arguments and upheld the Governor’s actions to combat the coronavirus. Mr. DeVore has never appealed his losses. And he is now desperately seeking to prevent an appeal in the Clay County case by adding a new claim that is legal nonsense. These cases are all part of his game.

Also, this whole argument that counties are somehow the most important unit of government is ridiculous. Counties are a creation of the state. The state has infinitely more authority over counties than the federal government has over states. Arguing about individual counties is nonsense.

Also, are those counties prepared to give up their disaster funding?

* Maybe they can get a Clay County judge to bite, but this same lawsuit was filed in five other counties…

Residents in six central and southern Illinois counties, including the state capital’s home, filed lawsuits Thursday against Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s restrictions on social interaction prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.

The actions taken in Bond, Clay, Clinton, Edgar, Richland and Sangamon counties seek court orders declaring there is no public health emergency as defined by Pritzker’s Public Health Department. Springfield, the state capital, is in Sangamon County.

Plaintiffs in each case seek injunctions against the disaster declaration Pritzker’s using to justify restrictions on public interaction to limit transmission of the virus. The state has reported 7,367 deaths among 167,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus — mostly in Chicago and Cook County.

“You can’t put a county that has had nine confirmed cases and no one pass away under the same rules and restrictions as counties like Cook,” said Thomas DeVore, a Greenville attorney respresenting the plaintiffs.

* Edgar County is in the Fifth Judicial Circuit…

The Fifth Judicial Circuit has reported that it was notified Thursday afternoon that Cumberland County presiding Judge Jonathan Braden and at least one other court employee have tested positive for COVID-19.

*** UPDATE *** Vermilion County is also in the Fifth Judicial Circuit…

The Vermilion County Courthouse will be closed tomorrow after an employee in the circuit clerk’s office tested positive for COVID-19. […]

All of Friday’s court hearings will be rescheduled to a later date. Parties will receive a new court date in the mail.

* Here’s Annie Thompson at the attorney general’s office…

We take our role as the state’s chief law enforcement officer and the responsibility to protect the people of Illinois and our constitution seriously – even when that means defending against lawsuits that are frivolous. More than 166,900 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed over the course of the pandemic. While many have fortunately recovered, many still suffer from long-term effects, and 7,367 individuals have lost their lives. Each life lost to COVID-19 is “significant,” and we will continue to defend the governor’s constitutional and statutory authority to protect the health and wellness of all Illinois residents.

* Meanwhile, here’s Mike Miletich…

Thursday was the first time Tom DeVore and the Illinois High School Association virtually appeared in Montgomery County court for a lawsuit over the Return to Play guidelines. Both parties had to appear over Zoom due to COVID-19 guidelines for the court. […]

The Association’s attorney, Matthew Hefflefinger, says everyone is dealing with a global pandemic right now, and things change hourly. He argues it’s reasonable to rely upon guidance from the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Illinois State Board of Education. Hefflefinger calls DeVore’s argument “nonsense,” as student-athletes won’t suffer irreparable harm from the guidelines.

Judge Kevin Parker said extracurricular activities and sports aren’t guaranteed as a right under the Constitution. Hefflefinger also explained students won’t be “barred from participating.”

Parker said he’ll need several days to review documents filed Thursday morning by the defendants. A ruling on the case is expected next week.

…Adding… Interesting move by ISBE…

Tag, you’re it! Today’s update from ISBE includes the following statement about sports: pic.twitter.com/FWNzQPajuf

— Sages Athletics (@SagesAthletics) July 23, 2020

* Also…

Jackson County Health Department reported 22 new cases of COVID-19 among residents on Thursday, according to a press release.

Of the 22 new cases, 18 were people in their 20s, three were in their 30s and one was a teen.

The release said 123 new cases in the county have been reported in July, and 78 of the cases, or 63%, have been individuals in their teens and 20s.

Jackson County is the home of SIUC.

31 Comments

Should the extra UI benefits be extended?

Friday, Jul 24, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller

* This op-ed by Rachel Greszler, research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, sums up a lot of the opposition to extending the additional $600 per week unemployment insurance benefits beyond the end of this week…

When the COVID-19 pandemic brought the U.S. economy to a partial halt in March, it made sense for Congress to expand unemployment insurance benefits.

It never made sense, however, to provide an across-the-board $600-a-week bonus unemployment benefit as part of that boost. The purpose of unemployment benefits, after all, is to replace a portion of workers’ wages to help them get by after a job loss through no fault of their own. Accordingly, unemployment benefits usually replace between 40 percent and 50 percent of the previous earnings for workers.

If workers can receive more money from unemployment benefits than by working, there’s a clear incentive to remain unemployed. That’s not good for workers or businesses in the long run — as the unintended consequences of the recently added unemployment benefit show. Yet, Democrats are pushing to extend into 2021 the $600 weekly bonus — set to expire July 31 — as Capitol Hill debates a new coronavirus relief package ahead of the deadline.

The other side of the argument is that the pandemic caused the unemployment and the benefits should be extended until it’s reasonably safe for people to go back to work or reopen their small businesses.

* So, I asked some members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation about where they stood on extending the extra benefits. I’ve received three responses so far. This is from US Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s comms director…

The Congressman supports a formula that encourages people to work and not stay on unemployment.

* Darin LaHood’s comms director…

Congressman LaHood supports providing individuals who have lost their jobs because of COVID-19 with the support they need to get them through this difficult time; but it’s clear that the $600 per week unemployment is disincentivizing individuals from returning to work. Congress should phase down the expanded unemployment program as states begin reopening, incentivize returning to work, and pass Rep. LaHood’s Clean Start bill that would provide businesses the tools to open safely, protecting both workers and customers.

Experts also agree it is disincentivizing work:
Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: Extending higher unemployment payments “would lower economic output and employment in 2021.”
Bipartisan Policy Center: The $600/week should be phased down to $400 for two months and then re-evaluated. “As local officials begin to relax stay-at-home orders, however, evidence is increasing that the additional $600 in weekly benefits serves as a disincentive for some people to return to work and inhibits an economic rebound as business activity picks back up.”
In an op-ed from June, some of President Obama’s economic advisers: Extending the benefit “does not make sense now”—it should be phased out.

* Rep. Rodney Davis…

I supported the CARES Act because our country was, and still is, facing a public health and economic crisis of historic proportions. That extra $600 per week payment was never intended to become law. As currently structured, it allows many who are unemployed to earn more while out-of-work than by working. That cannot go on forever.

I have heard from countless small business owners who are having difficulty re-opening their businesses because of this. If the benefit continues in its current form, the federal government will be holding back our economic recovery and incentivizing workers to remain on unemployment. We should focus our time ensuring state unemployment systems are functioning properly and benefit levels do not deter individuals from returning to work. Additionally, I believe we can provide targeted assistance to out-of-work individuals to make sure they have access to vital services like health care, which is why I introduced bipartisan legislation to make COBRA more affordable.

* I always thought that if you refused to return to your job in Illinois you’d lose your unemployment benefits. So, I reached out to IDES via the the governor’s office. Here’s what I got back from the department…

Under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, refusing an offer of suitable work can result in an individual being found ineligible for benefits.

“Suitable” and “can” would be important words there. For instance, if an employer is reopening in defiance of a governor’s EO, then it could conceivably be argued by the worker that the job isn’t suitable. But it’s not exactly a slam dunk.

…Adding… A new IDES rule that took effect July 1 seeks to clarify. Here’s an example of what that could mean..

A claimant who had been a clerk at a retail store is responsible for a minor child who is prevented from attending school due to closures resulting from the COVID-19 virus. The individual must stay home to watch his/her child until school reopens. However, the claimant is able to perform work that could be performed from the isolation of his/her home (e.g., transcribing, data entry, virtual assistant services) and makes himself/herself available to perform that work. While the claimant is not currently available for work at a retail location, he/she is available for work due to his/her availability for work that could be performed from home.

59 Comments

Protected: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition