Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - A few campaign items
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* From the governor’s media availability today…
Q: You’ve said several times that you’re open to making changes to the SAFE-T Act. What are some of the changes you’d like to see during veto session?
Pritzker: Well, I think it’s very important that we look at Senator Scott Bennett’s bill. He’s really, I think, written a pretty good bill, the provisions of which we should go through and decide which ones are appropriate. Working together in committee hearings and working groups, there are appropriate changes to make, most especially to clarify for everyone, that there’s no such thing as a non-detainable offense. And that what we’re aiming at here is keeping murderers and rapists and domestic abusers in jail, and not keeping people who can’t afford bail for a nonviolent offense out of jail, not putting them in jail, but rather allowing them to get out of jail.
He still didn’t answer the question.
Also, the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice is strongly opposed to Sen. Bennett’s bill…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 7, 22 @ 1:29 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - A few campaign items
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Seems like most of the people suggesting changes to it are just trying to gut it entirely.
Comment by Homebody Friday, Oct 7, 22 @ 1:41 pm
My sense is that Pritzker is not answering the question, “What changes would you make?” because the people asking this question are assuming that provisions in the bill will be removed or edited.
My sense is that for Pritzker, change means clarification, not, change.
Opponents to the bill want changes, so they can say the won concessions. Proponents of the bill do not want to eliminate provisions. They are willing to include language that clarifies, not strikes and edits.
Comment by H-W Friday, Oct 7, 22 @ 1:50 pm
This has been a messaging disaster since “signature”
What has happened is this worrisome wording to what was signed, what needs to change, what’s good…
It’s a disaster on messaging due in large part that they signed the bill and seemingly there was not an understanding that something so sweeping, the opportunities to pick at a big bill increase when scrutiny is available for political opportunists.
The reason for silence?
What exactly at this point even helps the bill?
Forget the politics or the campaign, forget that… the sheer damage to what the bill is now, what the trailer could be…
I have ideas, but at this point, my ideas are a retool/reboot messaging that would do more bad than good 30+ days out.
Still, no surprise… “silence”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 7, 22 @ 2:15 pm
yeah the Gov needs to answer the question better. but the constant argument about mass incarceration needs to deconstruct itself. there is mass victimization in the Black community. so, what about that?
Comment by Amalia Friday, Oct 7, 22 @ 2:41 pm
The fearmongering against the bill was so predictable. But the Black Caucus is never directly affected by the GOP fearmongering. It’s the moderate politicians who are politically affected and taking the hits.
For anyone who wants to see who is truly in charge in Sfld, it is the Black Caucus voting block.
Give JB a chance to get back in and muscle through some common sense clarifications. The Black Caucus should back off a bit just like JB did for them.
Comment by Medvale School for the Gifted Friday, Oct 7, 22 @ 3:48 pm