Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The SAFE-T Act’s late December legal wrangling
Next Post: Might Bailey have just tipped his hand on Bost challenge?
Posted in:
* My syndicated newspaper column, which was written just before the mid-December break…
Illinois House Deputy Majority Leader Jehan Gordon-Booth, D-Peoria, headed up her chamber’s efforts to amend the controversial SAFE-T Act this year. The day before the bill came up for a vote, I asked her what were, in her opinion, the largest misconceptions about the 2021 social justice reform law.
Gordon-Booth pointed to the trespassing issue. “I don’t care if you live in rural, urban, suburban. The trespassing [issue] was one that just made a lot of folks incredibly uncomfortable.”
Gordon-Booth got a taste for that last summer, she said, when she sat down with a young, millennial police officer she described as a “cop’s cop.” She also met with her local Peoria police chief and the chief’s top brass.
Their top concern was the perceived inability for police to make trespassing arrests under the existing provisions of the SAFE-T Act. Some of her fellow legislators also expressed that concern, so, Gordon-Booth decided, “we just needed to be far more clear about what our intent was.” That intent, she said, “was obviously not as it was framed,” by opponents. “We just had to be more clear about how we wanted the language to read so that it was interpreted the same way by everybody, by all parties.”
So, changes were made that now make it explicitly clear that arrests can be made.
I also asked Gordon-Booth to reflect a bit on the opposition to the new law. She said she’d witnessed some major national backlashes throughout her life, so the fact that people would try to gin up another one on this law didn’t surprise her.
She said she had no illusions “that the SAFE-T Act was going to be used as a tool to fear-monger, to try to get Illinoisans to believe that somehow those of us that are elected officials, many of us who live and represent communities that are also plagued by the violence that we all find abhorrent, many of us also being crime victims. I wasn’t surprised that they used the fear tactic and used the SAFE-T Act as the tool to try to drive the fear.” But, she said, “It still punches you in the gut when you see it play out.”
Even so, Gordon-Booth said, “We knew that we put together a strong body of work that we could stand behind, stand on and not run from,” adding, “it’s a great feeling to know that those fear-mongering tactics did not work.”
The tactics may not have worked politically, but Rep. Maurice West, D-Rockford, wrote a powerful op-ed for the Rockford Register Star about how SAFE-T Act misinformation caused harm.
West, the “only Black legislator in the northern Illinois region,” wrote in his op-ed that the misinformation spread about the legislation, “strategically led people down a path to think of dark-skinned people being let out of jail to destroy our community. Once that bell is rung,” he wrote, “you can’t un-ring it.”
And that, he wrote, is why he is having trouble accepting an attempted walk-back from his local Republican State’s Attorney J. Hanley, who was recently quoted as saying he regretted helping spread that misinformation, which West claimed, “led to confusion and anger in our community and threats to me and my family personally.”
“Because of this misinformation,” West, a church pastor, wrote, “my faith was questioned, my life threatened, and the N-word was used so expressively and easily by some. All while my fellow local elected leaders, on both sides of the aisle, threw me under the bus for their political survival.”
I reached out to West to talk to him directly about his experiences. He said much of the harassment involved calls to his legislative office, “with a quick hang-up after using racist remarks.”
The one that really shook up West and his family was, “a guy who called our office looking to see if the ‘N-word’ was there,” West said. “My office assistant tries to calm him down and tell him that I wasn’t there, but she’s willing to talk to him about the legislation. He calls her a lying c**t and said he doesn’t believe her and he’s coming to the office regardless.” West said he shut the office down for the day.
Legislators’ home addresses are easily accessible online, and because the harassment and threats caused his family so much angst and fear, West said he is now “working on legislation to hide the personal address of each candidate, and the only way to see it is to request copies of the petitions and leave your address as well.”
* The Question: Do you agree or disagree with Rep. West’s idea to conceal the personal home addresses of political candidates? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The SAFE-T Act’s late December legal wrangling
Next Post: Might Bailey have just tipped his hand on Bost challenge?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes. In today’s political climate it seems to only make sense from a security point of view.
If someone wants to question a candidate’s address, let them contact ISBE who can verify the candidates lives in the applicable district without disclosing the exact address.
I don’t think there is a reason someone needs to know the exact address of a candidate.
Comment by Give Me A Break Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:56 am
Anyone can find anyone’s address online. Not sure why legislators should have special protections.
Comment by Chicagonk Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:57 am
I voted disagree. I hate that our current political environment puts public officials under threat of mean, nasty verbal attacks and threats of violence. It’s horrible for so many reasons.
But state legislators and local officials represent their neighbors, the overwhelming majority of whom respect the offices even if they don’t necessarily support the office holder. There are a tiny handful of truly crazy people out there and they need to be held accountable for their actions, and their words if they resort to threats and intimidation. The problem we need to solve is how to hold people accountable, not to hide information from the public.
But yes, I hear you Rep. West and you have good reason to be legitimately concerned about your safety and the safety of your family. I don’t think this proposed solution gets us closer to a more civil society.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:59 am
No one needs to know a legislator’s home address. There is no reason to expose her family to the kind of danger that landed Paul Pelosi in the hospital.d There are too many crazies out there.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:00 am
YES. I think this is available to judges now. Sadly the whack jobs always seem to find work around to get info.
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:07 am
47th Ward expressed my sentiments. I fear for the well-being of my representatives- and for my fellow citizens. But fear inevitably drives ruinous policy. Two generations of The War on Drugs/Terror should make that plain.
Comment by West Sider Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:07 am
Disagree.
–Legislators’ home addresses are easily accessible online–
*Everybodies* address is easily accessible online.
But more importantly West’s examples do not line up with his proposed solution. He is concerned with events that happened at his office, and turns that around to try to put additional restrictions for his *personal* address, but not his office?
–and the only way to see it is to request copies of the petitions and leave your address as well.–
Request from whom? His office? The legislature? The board of elections? Is there a requirement the requestor has to have residency in the district of the person they are requesting the address for? If not, there will be plenty of requests with an address of 1060 w addison. If the request has to be made at his office, then why did he give examples what the person at his office was hearing on phone calls to this office?
The reality is most people are cowards and just like to call politicians names. And yes, some of the names are going to be offensive - but that’s not a reason to erect legal barriers.
–threw me under the bus for their political survival.–
This guy is a politician, right? Also, the sun rises in the east.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:08 am
How does a court, challenger or voter determine if a person lives in a District if you don’t have an “official” address? Would we start moving to elect officials statewide and in other units of government using larger geographical areas rather than Districts?
Comment by Jane Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:10 am
Disagree. I understand the fear but this genie has been out of the bottle for a long time. If you don’t think that all of your contact information is out there already, I have a deal on a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
Comment by Sangamo Girl Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:10 am
I agree and here is my rationale why - Paul Pelosi.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:22 am
Agree with 47 but I voted yes because of the insane political time in which we’re living. There’s probably a way to deal with this so in general it is not exposed as long as the person lives in the district but I totally understand the need to know.
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:22 am
Disagree
A Politician/Elected Official needs to be out front
Leaders need to lead not hide
Comment by Red Ketcher Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:32 am
I disagree with the effort. The address of every registered voter is publicly available.
Every. Single. Voter.
State Legislators are registered voters. The process by which they are placed on the ballot and for which district they run in is very dependent on the address at which they actually live. There is no practical way to mask this address from the public that does not jeopardize the ability to affirm the legal residency of a candidate.
There are other policy options or enforcement measures that can be taken to crack down on illegal harassment and threats directed to legislators. Charging and prosecuting the people who do are the cause for the effort to mask legislator’s addresses is in the public’s better interest rather than an effort to make that address harder to find.
Masking the address is also, at best, security theater. Motivated individuals will still be able to figure it out.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:46 am
Agree. Illinois already permits “law enforcement” personnel (& some family members) to conceal their home address on vehicle registrations, using the agency address. This includes sheriffs & state’s attorneys. Doesn’t seem to have caused a problem.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:08 pm
No, they are running for public office. It’s not like people can’t already figure out where they live. There are many of us who have had to endure a lifetime of such threats. They’re not any different.
Comment by ddp76 Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:16 pm
Disagree.
The unintended consequences are many. One of which is property records. i.e. Deeds, mortgages etc. To redact names is very difficult for the recorder’s office and for title companies and record searchers. All elected officials or just some. Police officers also would like this protection as would school administrators.
A real can of worms.
Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:19 pm
I understand his concern, but, as has been mentioned, home addresses are available through many different avenues.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:32 pm
I voted yes.
We started blocking judges’ info after some family members were murdered in cases across the country.
Then we’ve had Paul Pelosi.
You can’t hide all the info everywhere but I am in favor of making it harder for it to be found.
Comment by Anonish Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:33 pm
No. I hate solutions that attempt to address a symptom of a larger problem, which then takes the pressure off of solving the underlying issue that causes the symptom.
If legislators want to fix them his problem they can start with their over-the-top and hateful rhetoric which is just designed to get more clicks.
Comment by Just Me 2 Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:35 pm
Disagree largely because we have public records like Property Tax records public for a reason and we should be able to see that information for public officials. Beyond that, it’s largely impractical.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:01 pm
Voted No.
If I have to put my name and address on a petition to put you on the ballot, your name and address can be on it too.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:00 pm
Votes Yes. There are segments of our electorate that rather than appeal to voters, perfer to short-circuit that effort and simply use threats of violence against representatives. I honestly don’t see a solution to that problem. It is strongly present on the right and will be on the other sides too as they see that it works. This is a people problem and we just have too many awful people in this nation as well as weapons.
Perhaps an answer is to make everyone’s addresses encrypted in a way. So that rather than enter 1313 Mockingbird lane you enter parcel 144-1 or somesuch like we do for prop taxes.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:20 pm
Voted Agree. People serving in public office and their families and neighbors should not be subject to the threats and violence in their homes. People showing up with guns, pitchforks and other weapons need to spend some time in jail with mandatory anger management training.
Comment by froganon Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:47 pm
This exact proposal was declared unconstitutional in California.
So there’s that.
Comment by Publius Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:54 pm
===in California.===
This is Illinois and we already do it for judges.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:05 pm
Support. At this point, I think that all candidates should be entitled to the same address redactions as judges currently receive.
There is no public good in publicizing ANY elected official or candidate’s home address. Let’s not pretend any individual voter, on their own and not as the proxy of a political party/political campaign, has ever brought a ballot challenge. The actual drivers of petition challenges would be unencumbered in their ability to challenge someone on the basis of residency as they stop at the election authorities anyways. These addresses need not be on the website of an election authority.
Others seem to be filling in the blanks that it’ll extend to all public records. Until we have bill language, it makes no sense to assume.
I would certainly recommend to any public figure that tax bills be addressed to “Taxpayer” and mailed to a UPS Store/PO Box. That is how my landlord hides their address.
==Motivated individuals will still be able to figure it out.==
By that logic, we should have no laws ever. I still lock my car despite the existence of lock picks. Besides, forcing them to navigate a candidate’s online footprint might give them the time to cool down or they give up after two or three Google searches.
==There are many of us who have had to endure a lifetime of such threats. They’re not any different.==
Bad things happening to you are not justification for them to happen to others.
==If legislators want to fix them his problem they can start with their over-the-top and hateful rhetoric which is just designed to get more clicks.==
Legislators are not a monolith and it is often the legislators who do not engage in over the top hateful rhetoric who are the recipients of these threats (by design). Don’t punish all for the misdeeds of a few.
Comment by Nuke The Whales Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:35 pm
It is scary when you step up in public. But people need to know that you actually represent them from where you live and where they live. it’s different because judges do not represent a specific small mapped area.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 4:59 pm
Yes, and include Executive branch officials and appointees as well please.
Comment by Tired Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 6:13 pm