Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

What’s next for the SAFE-T Act?

Posted in:

Illinois

The SAFE-T act may not have been on the ballot during the 2022 Midterm Election, but it played a big role. Now that Election Day is over in Illinois, attention is turning to the new law set to take effect early next year, but what exactly it will look like by then remains unclear.

Facing mounting criticism from a variety of groups and officials over provisions of the “SAFE-T Act” that will ban cash bail in the state beginning on Jan. 1, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said changes could soon be in store.

“There’s a lot of work that’s been done by the General Assembly over the last number of months and working groups,” he told reporters Wednesday, one day after securing his second term in office. “And so they’re going to bring that to the veto session and I’ll be watching carefully. I’ve made my thoughts clear. And we’ll see if we can get something done during the veto session to address the changes that we ought to be making.”

* The People’s Lobby and some allies pushed back hard on that TV news framing…

Midterm elections in Illinois have shown that the majority of voters were not swayed by far-right Republican fear mongering around the SAFE-T Act and the end of money bond in Illinois.

Not only did Governor Pritzker win a resounding victory over State Senator Darren Bailey, who made attacking Pritzker on crime central to his campaign, but suburban seats that republicans were trying to flip remained blue: State Senator Gillespie (D-Arlington Heights), State Senator Ellman (D-Naperville) and State Representative Stava-Murray (D-Naperville) all beat their republican opponents.

Despite facing a deluge of racist disinformation ads funded by Florida resident Dan Proft and billionaire Trump supporter Richard Uihlein about the “end of days” that would come as a result of the end of money bond, voters weren’t fooled. Illinoisans voted in record numbers during this midterm election and they overwhelmingly showed their support for candidates who prioritize public safety and are committed to creating a more just pretrial system.

“My constituents are concerned about crime, but they understand that the current system isn’t working,” said State Senator Gillespie. “Criminalizing poverty hasn’t made us safer–if anything it’s made things worse by feeding the cycle of incarceration, joblessness and poverty.”

“Republicans know the facts and data about pretrial incarceration are on our side, so they tried to win people over by stoking fear and outrage,” said State Rep. Stava-Murray. “What they don’t understand is that Trumpian tactics don’t work in the suburbs. Here, people want politicians to give it to them straight, and the truth is that we all want to feel safe in our communities and we’ll continue to work with all stakeholders to achieve that goal. We all know we aren’t made any safer when a person accused of a crime languishes in jail because they can’t afford to pay a low bond or when wealth can buy the freedom of someone who may hurt someone while out on bond.”

The People’s Lobby supported Gillespie, Ellman and Stava-Murray on the ground, talking to voters at the doors for months leading up to the election. We knocked on the doors of 6,800 people and called 9,600 people. What we heard across communities was largely the same: once people understood more about how the current system of pretrial incarceration works, and heard more about what the Pretrial Fairness Act actually does, they supported the end of money bond.

“I’ve lived in Arlington Heights for 20 years, and I know what safety looks like for my community: it’s fully funded mental health programs, affordable housing, and thriving schools. It is not locking people up and throwing away the key,” said People’s Lobby member and longtime Arlington Heights resident Peg Lane. “Over the last few months, I have knocked hundreds of doors, and tonight’s results have confirmed what I already knew: my neighbors and I can see right through the fake newspapers and internet ads that have been bombarding us. We support the Pretrial Fairness Act provision of the SAFE-T Act and the legislators who voted for it.“

“Four years ago, the suburbs saw democrats’ win as part of the Blue Wave that grew in response to the election of Donald Trump,” said State Senator Ellman. “We rejected his views then, and we rejected them again in these midterms. Despite dark money churning out misinformation and fear, voters clearly weren’t fooled.”

They’re having a press conference today.

* Meanwhile…

The McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office was selected as lead counsel on SAFE-T Act litigation.

The selection came from the 62 other state’s attorneys who had filed similar suits challenging the constitutionality of the SAFE-T Act to litigate on their behalf.

Also selected as lead counsel were Kankakee County, Kendall County, Sangamon County, Vermillion County, and Will County.

As the case will be decided on legal issues, the parties have agreed to an expedited briefing schedule on cross-motions for summary judgment. A summary judgment occurs when a court decides the outcome of a case based on legal arguments without empaneling a jury, swearing in witnesses, or hearing evidence in open court.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 10:19 am

Comments

“The SAFE-T act may not have been on the ballot during the 2022 Midterm Election, but it played a big role.”

Voters furious about the SAFE-T act took their anger out on Democratic candidates by… uhh… by…

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 10:23 am
===Voters furious about the SAFE-T act took their anger out on Democratic candidates by… uhh… by…===

That realty that we are fresh from an election where Republicans made the Safe-T Act a thing…

While I have my own questions and look forward to trailer bill(s), an argument can be made to see it implemented, and go from there.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 10:44 am
Now that the election is over and their campaign of lies failed to make a difference, the stakes attorneys should now get serious about negotiating on how to make needed reform workable.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 10:45 am
Oops. “States”

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 10:46 am
If JB and leading Dems stated that the bill will be looked at and changes will/can be made, I hope they follow through. While the act did not result in losses for Democrats, in my opinion it certainly made the races closer than they needed to be. I would think my congressman Casten felt the heat. Let’s get all the parties involved and see if we can improve it.

Comment by James the Intolerant Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:01 am
“While the act did not result in losses for Democrats, in my opinion it certainly made the races closer than they needed to be. I would think my congressman Casten felt the heat.”

Do you have any data to back that up? I mean, JB and all the statewide dems won by huge margins. The dems gained in the house. I am scratching my head to see how the SAFE-T Act was a drag on them.

That’s not to say they shouldn’t make some tweaks, but I don’t think the voters sent anyone a message saying that.

Comment by Montrose Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:11 am
This will bedecided by the courts,good thing jb has,this majority in supreme court..

Comment by Step brother Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:21 am
In the ideal world, politicians might consider working collaborative to create a win-win situation. One strategy might involve making languages changes to the bill, clarifying that the fears raised are unfounded going forward.

In the ideal world, this can be resolved quickly.

However, if the courts rule this bill unconstitutional, then then dozens of bills required to accomplish the same goals of the original bill will ensure contempt for one another going forward.

Is that what the elected State’s Attorneys want to ensure going forward - divisions and anger among the citizenry?

Comment by H-W Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:29 am
-I would think my congressman Casten felt the heat.-

It looks like he won by about 7.5% in a district that was Biden +10 or so in 2020, so not that much. Also that’s a state issue not federal.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:31 am
Norseman wrote, ” the stakes attorneys.”

Definitely a Freudian slip. Definitely.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:32 am
** in my opinion it certainly made the races closer than they needed to be.**

What races?

**I would think my congressman Casten felt the heat.**

As said above, the final results do not support this assertion

Comment by JoeMaddon Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:33 am
To be honest the only tweak I would like to make is the one that states that a person must be a threat against a specific person. If a person is a threat against all Jews or all blacks or somesuch but not a specific person, then by all means put them in jail pending trial.

But the other stuff is really good. Tracking deaths in prison, tightening up of bodycam reqs, prohibiting military style equipment purchases), cert/decret of police, even counting (post 2030 census) prisoners as living in their last known residence instead of the prison (just for voting though not funding).

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:37 am
“Do you have any data to back that up?”

Judge Evans retainment vote receiving only 70% and a few Chicago alders publicly stating and in writing to their constituents to vote no.

Comment by 1st Ward Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:40 am
And CPD might want to think real hard whether to push back against this bill. Included in it seemms to be an item that any police union that is in a town greater than 100K(I think there might be 8 in IL–Chicago, Aurora, Joliet, Naperville, Rockford, Elgin, Springfield, Peoria) can negotiate residency requirements as part of labor negotiations.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:42 am
Democrats performed pretty well in Illinois. Whatever else hopefully this makes them take a breath, realize the sky isn’t falling and that they aren’t as bad as NY Dems, and figure out whatever changes they want or need to make to the bill calmly.

Comment by Nick Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:42 am
If the results for Casten were a little closer than some other races, it seems much more likely due to the 1.8 million in ad spending against him in the last week. And even with that he won easily.

I don’t see any evidence the safe-T act made a noticeable difference.

Comment by The Velvet Frog Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:55 am
Did Tom Devore concede yet or does he still believe that their was no election on Tuesday?

Comment by Margie Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 11:56 am
I think @Thomas Paine is correct.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 12:15 pm
While the SAFE-T Act could have been an issue on voter’s minds, it wasn’t enough of one to translate into Republican wins. Candidate quality won the day. That being said, I too am looking forward to the much-needed trailer bills.

Comment by Rogo Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 12:38 pm
I stand corrected on the votes for Casten. I know signs don’t vote, but living in the 19th Ward where I had the only JB sign in my area and the fact that there were many Pekau signs (even more Bailey signs than JB), it can be depressing.
But I do hope that tweaks will be made.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 1:38 pm
You know what scared the public? the abortion decision of the USSC. the vote is not some resounding support for the SAFE T act. the economy and abortion are found by polling to be of most concern. If you think suburban folks newly elected are going to just listen to the short discussed views of those inside Chicago, you are wrong. the discussion will be more detailed. and instead of going on about mass incarceration (which cannot be fixed unless you release violent criminals….affirmed by studies. difference between State and Federal prisons) think about mass victimization, the people who are dying and being assaulted. think of them first, the overwhelming percentage are people of color too.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 2:01 pm
=== Let’s get all the parties involved and see if we can improve it. ===

Elected state’s attorneys in Kane, DuPage, Champaign & Peoria counties have been working with Springfield since August to ensure any SAFE-T Act trailer bills has the direct input of prosecutors.

Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser has been interviewed on TV by WTTW & WGN, latter with her Lake County counterpart who supports SAFE-T Act as-is for a point-counterpoint discussion.

Mosser told the Kane County Board Legislative Committee last month she is pushing for a 6 month delay to implement the Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA) component set to start Janaury 1.

Then there are the legal challenges which may delay PFA anyway.

We’ll all see this unfold starting next week at veto session.

Comment by John Lopez Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 2:19 pm
One thing we all learned in the last few years is that some judges can get completely confused about what we thought was the clear meaning and intent of a law. That’s what “clarifying” trailer bills are meant to mitigate. The legitimate challenges in implementing this act are operational, not legal.

Comment by Walker Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 2:19 pm
The state’s attorneys filing suits against the Safe-T Act are doing it to have a campaign slogan during their re-election campaigns. That, and to keep their jobs easier.

Sad. Being a “law and order” prosecutor is so 20th century (but it’s still a viable strategy for winning in the absence of really smart, really passionate criminal justice advocates who understand that public safety is BEST SERVED by preventing crime as much as possible).

A leader like Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart thinks about evidence-based solutions, rehabilitation, and actual crime PREVENTION and not simply retribution and incapacitation.

The offices that are seeking to hold the historic criminal justice reform bill unconstitutional are doing what is best for themselves and not for the public.

I predict that they will not prevail in their lawsuit (on any of the grounds set forth).

As a silver lining, perhaps it will spur smart attorneys in their respective counties to partner with real public safety organizations like victims’ rights groups (who are overwhelmingly on board with things like no-cash bail) to begin challenging the tired and weak status quo of “lock’em up” justice.

Comment by Luke Steele Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 2:30 pm
===One thing we all learned in the last few years is that some judges can get completely confused about what we thought was the clear meaning and intent of a law. That’s what “clarifying” trailer bills are meant to mitigate. The legitimate challenges in implementing this act are operational, not legal.===

It’s *exactly* as if - walker - crawled in my empty melon and read my thoughts.

This. All day.

Plus, with sound election winS, this is how smart governing can look.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 10, 22 @ 2:55 pm
Hi there, this weekend is pleasant designed for me, as this occasion i am reading this
impressive informative post here at my home.

Comment by guided meditation Wednesday, Nov 16, 22 @ 2:24 pm