Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Harmon proposal would stop constitutional challenge venue-shopping

Posted in:

Illinois

* Senate President Don Harmon’s Senate Amendment 1 to HB3062…

Sec. 2-101.5. Venue in actions asserting constitutional claims against the State.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, if an action is brought against the State on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly asserting a cause of action for a violation of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, venue in that action is proper only in the County of Sangamon and the County of Cook.

(b) The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to actions subject to this Section.

Remember how the attorney general’s office was forced to rush from county to county last December to respond to identical SAFE-T Act lawsuits? Remember how a certain lawyer would venue shop his COVID and gun law constitutional challenges to get in front of friendly county judges? The Supreme Court eventually stepped in and consolidated the cases. But it was a chaotic mess.

Well, those days would be over if this bill passes (and the courts uphold its constitutionality).

The Senate Executive Committee will take up the amendment today, so I’ll likely update this post.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:15 pm

Comments

Looks good to me.

Some people/lawyers only seem to exist to push the larger society in the correct direction, as a direct response to their terribly incorrect actions.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:24 pm
Makes Sense
Call it the ” McHaney Rule ” maybe ?

Comment by Red Ketcher Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:27 pm
Nice. There is at least some precedent in other statutes where venue is only proper in Cook and Sangamon for actions against the State.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:32 pm
The Constitution says all of the Circuit Courts are of general jurisdiction. Then why would the state get to pick the venue just so it is convenient to the AG. Also, Cook County is not the Capital County

Comment by Boomer Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:34 pm
Seems reasonable. What we really need is a fix at the federal level. It’s absurd the way the MAGA GOP politicians pick an obscure jurisdiction with a guaranteed result.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:35 pm
About bloody time.

Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:45 pm
“It’s absurd the way the MAGA GOP politicians pick an obscure jurisdiction with a guaranteed result
”

Two Dem elected states attorneys are trying Trump, both ran on a promise to get him. But I’m sure they just picked those jurisdictions because they have such broad and politically diverse jury pools.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:57 pm
===But I’m sure they just picked those jurisdictions because===

Because they live there? lol

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:00 pm
===elected states attorneys===

The voters elected them, in a jurisdiction.

Do you understand how courts and state’s attorneys work?

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:01 pm
This will help put Devore out of business. Sweet.

Comment by Shytown Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:06 pm
This is a very reasonable policy.

Comment by H-W Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:51 pm
==Also, Cook County is not the Capital County==

Which is why Sangamon is an option.

Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:52 pm
==Two Dem elected states attorneys are trying Trump==

Because he allegedly committed crimes in their jurisdiction. Do you think Texas prosecutors should try people for what they did in Georgia and New York?

Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:54 pm
Cook County?

Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 5:13 pm
“ But I’m sure they just picked those jurisdictions because …”

That is the jurisdiction within which the alleged activity allegedly occurred.

Comment by Chris Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 5:54 pm
As a general concept, this makes sense. But the AG does have an office in Carbondale, so it seems including Jackson County would also make logical sense. From a legal standpoint, it reduces the odds of multiple county judges coming to multiple conclusions on the same subject matter, which is a problem when one “statewide” ruling comes into conflict with another “statewide” ruling as we have had with seemingly increased frequency.

Comment by Anon324 Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 6:21 pm