Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quick budget address roundup
Next Post: Our state’s biggest budget problem
Posted in:
* Rep. Anne Stava-Murray’s House Bill 3539…
It is a civil rights violation to ask a candidate for election to public office in this State about: his or her parental status; his or her plans for childcare; his or her religion; his or her sexual orientation; or any other question that may result in unlawful discrimination.
Um, anybody remember that thing called the 1st Amendment?
* The gigantic loophole in this bill is that the cam footage wouldn’t be subjected to FOIA laws. I mean, why have all those body cams if the public can’t get access? Also, the bill (click here) would apply to all public officials, not just elected officials. Public officials are defined as “any person who is elected or appointed to public office,” so we’re talking about maybe tens of thousands of people here…
All elected officials in Illinois would be required to wear body cameras while conducting public business if a bill sponsored by state Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, becomes law.
The intent of the bill is to reduce corruption at the state and local levels, but Cabello acknowledges his idea has virtually no chance of winning approval.
“We see the dealings going on in Chicago with some of the wiretaps and some of the corruption that’s been going on for decades,” Cabello said. “We hear of the state lawmakers that get themselves into trouble with bribes and so on and so forth. So, I just thought that since the state was looking at making all police officers wear body cameras, I figured this might be a good way to have records of what lawmakers are doing.”
I’m betting he also figured it was a good way to get a few press pops.
But perhaps Rep. Cabello could wear a cam himself for a while and see how it goes before asking to impose this on everyone else.
* On a much more serious note, I didn’t realize Illinois still had this law on its books…
Recently released inmates people would no longer need to reimburse the Illinois Department of Corrections for the cost of their incarceration under a measure sponsored by State Senator Robert Peters (D – Chicago) which passed out of a Senate committee today.
“It’s ridiculous that a provision like this even exists in the first place,” Peters said. “These people already have a major burden placed on them by the criminal justice system. It’s unconscionable that there’s an additional financial burden placed on them once they’re finally released, and only makes a return to a life of crime more likely.”
Under current law, recently released persons are required to reimburse the DOC for any expenses incurred as a result of their incarceration. The measure, Senate Bill 1158, strikes this requirement from the statute.
The bill passed through the Senate Committee on Criminal law and will now proceed to the full Senate for consideration.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quick budget address roundup
Next Post: Our state’s biggest budget problem
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
rep murray intent in hb 3539 is not to skirt 1st amendment rather to reduce discrimation b/c of personal attributes. i like it
Comment by bill Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:12 am
===intent in hb 3539 is not to skirt 1st amendment===
LOL
Whatever the intent is, this bill is blatantly unconstitutional.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:13 am
Stava-Murray and Cabello vying for the title “Dumbest Rep. in Illinois”. Stava-Murray likely winner only because of her tenacious clamoring for the spotlight only to reveal her grasp of ………nothing.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:25 am
I feel fairly certain that we will be hearing from the ACLU with their take on HB3539.
Is anyone taking bets yet on whether this even gets out of Committee?
Comment by illini Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:29 am
“These people already have a major burden placed on them by the criminal justice system.
Sorry they placed the Criminal Justice system on themselves.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:31 am
“Your Honor, I understand I’m in domestic relations court for alleged past due child support, but due to the fact that I’ve formed an exploratory committee to run for dogcatcher of Bumble County, you just unlawfully discriminated against me and violated my civil rights by requesting information about my parental status and child care plans. I’ll have my attorney get in touch with yours.”
Comment by Ruh Roh Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:31 am
I sometimes (no, make that often) wonder whether these legislators have actually read the bills they introduce and have thought through the ramifications.
In the case of Stava-Murray and Cabello, the answer is clearly, “No”.
Here’s a thought: how about an amendment to Stava-Murray’s bill barring candidates for public office from referencing any of those things on their websites/social media/campaign literature? No more pics of people with their smiling kids or their spouse, no more stuff about how they were honored by the Knights of Columbus, no filming in the kitchen, none of that.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:31 am
maybe is unconstitutional. do you know if issue has been litigated? if not thru legislation how can discrimination against personal characteristics be addressed? i hope rep murray’s bill is debated and not just shelved someplace. the underlying issue needs to be addressed
Comment by bill Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:32 am
I’d love to wear a body cam at my local library board’s meetings!/s
Comment by G'Kar Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:32 am
maybe it is unconstitutional. do you know if issue has been litigated? if not thru legislation how can discrimination against personal characteristics be addressed? i hope rep murray’s bill is debated and not just shelved someplace. the underlying issue needs to be addressed
Comment by bill Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:34 am
===Under current law, recently released persons are required to reimburse the DOC for any expenses incurred as a result of their incarceration===
The current cost to incarcerate a prisoner in Illinois is $25000- $35000 per year depending on healthcare and other issues. So if you are in prison for four years you owe the IDOC $100,000? Can you say recidivism?? As an ex con what options do I have to pay back $25000+ to the DOC? Hmm. Deal Drugs, Boost cars, etc.
To be fair according to the Trib article below the law, which originated in 1982, was not highly enforced until the last several years. But still.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-prison-fees-lawsuits-met-20151129-story.html
For an alternative use for the high costs to incarcerate prisoners:
http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagos-real-law-blog/2017/06/it-costs-more-to-house-a-prisoner-in-illinois-than-to-send-them-to-depaul/
Not to mention that many prisons have contracts with private companies to use the prisoner as labor while paying the prisoners low wages.
Also the Illinois prison population as increased 330% since 1978.
Comment by Big Jer Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:34 am
It would appear under HB 3539 that a voter attending a candidate forum for a school board election asking a candidate if they have any kids in the school district would be a civil rights violation. Wonder why there’s no cosponsors.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:34 am
===the underlying issue needs to be addressed ===
What issue is that, pray tell?
AS-M’s Twitter account features a pic of her holding her baby. I have zero problem with that, but nobody can dare ask her how that baby is doing? What sort of world do you want to live in?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:35 am
“Sorry they placed the Criminal Justice system on themselves.“
Going forward it’s not in society’s best interest to saddle people leaving prison with huge amounts of debt.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:36 am
=== maybe is unconstitutional. do you know if issue has been litigated? if not thru legislation how can discrimination against personal characteristics be addressed? i hope rep murray’s bill is debated and not just shelved someplace. the underlying issue needs to be addressed ===
Discrimination based on personal characteristics is already actionable through applicable federal civil rights laws. Asking a legislator a question about their family or their religion is not discrimination.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:38 am
I feel like “ASM” is a conservative troll, deep undercover.
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:46 am
JoanP: Bingo. I’d add not dragging you poor family to parades.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:47 am
Does ASM think running for office should be treated like any other employment process where employers are prohibited from asking about such things? It seems like that is her rationale. I don’t see how you can treat running for public office like that.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 10:52 am
Rep. Stava-Murray continues to impress. /s
Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:06 am
===I feel like “ASM” is a conservative troll, deep undercover.===
Interesting theory. As a conservative I’m not even offended by that because it IS actually the most logical explanation for her bizarre behavior.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:12 am
@Name/Nickname/Anon
I just did a spit-take on that one. Could you imagine the book deals? Lol.
But seriously, I could potentially understand where ASM is coming from. There’s frequent discussions about how “electability” can be used to discourage POC, women, & LGBTQ folks from pursuing elected office. There’s an interesting article by fivethirtyeight on it that I’ll link below.
However, this legislation wouldn’t necessarily address that issue, and the costs would far outweigh the benefits that such an ambiguous and overreaching bill like this would create. I cringe at the thought of a candidate getting to dodge questions on their anti-LGBTQ policies by hiding behind their religious beliefs. No thank you.
fivethirtyeight article on the issues of “electability”: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-problem-with-electability/
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:15 am
=== or any other question that may result in unlawful discrimination. ===
It is not unlawful to discriminate (e.g. not vote for) a candidate based on a protected class status (e.g. familial status, race, religion, national origin, etc.). If you don’t like Norwegians and a candidate is of Norwegian descent, it’s perfectly legal to not vote for that person because they are of Norwegian descent and publicly tell others not to vote for them because they are of Norwegian decent. It would be abhorrent but not illegal.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:29 am
Rep. Cabello seems to be having trouble filling the time.
How does that idea even get past the bong-session stage?
As for Stava-Murray, I’m guessing she has a whole slew of ideas just like this one we’ll be hearing about.
I bet the folks at the Legislative Reference Bureau duck when they see them coming.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:30 am
==It is a civil rights violation to ask a candidate==
Would it be out of bounds to ask if they plan on finishing their term before seeking higher office?
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:35 am
chicago_Downstater thanks for sharing aricle about “electability” i get rep murray’s bill overreaching and civil right violations areto legislated federally. i learned from this discussion. however this issue of “electability” as described in article deserves attention not sure howwhat does anything think?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:40 am
That first one, wow. Rich, based on reviewing her filed bills, I think you could do a whole subset called “It’s just a Stava-Murray bill.”
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:41 am
I don’t know how ASM can be called progressive when there are only two gender pronouns in the bill.
Comment by Angry Republican Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 11:57 am
Do state representatives have good health insurance?
Comment by Psychotropic Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 12:30 pm
“These people already have a major burden placed on them by the criminal justice system”
First, I completely agree with the goal of the bill.
That said, that statement is goofy; “these people” were convicted of crimes. They’ve (generally) placed the burden on themselves.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 12:36 pm
“ASM’s” bill (I use quotes because she’s not really worthy of an initials) isn’t even in the realm of constitutionality. It’d be struck down sua sponte in a federal court and the 7th Circuit wouldn’t publish an opinion, unless it wanted to preach about how unconstitutional it is.
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 12:45 pm
== Do state representatives have good health insurance ==
Assuming they get the same choices that CMS offers State employees, yes, they get pretty good insurance.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 1:09 pm
== Discrimination based on personal characteristics is already actionable through applicable federal civil rights laws. Asking a legislator a question about their family or their religion is not discrimination. ==
Remember, people who are / who choose to be “public figures” have less legal expectation of privacy, etc. This bill flies in the face of long-standing legal precedent.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 1:14 pm
Cabello embodies Another Victim Heard From
I wonder if police ever get embarrassed by his whining
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 1:28 pm
House Amendment #1 to ASM bill….adds to civil rights violation mocking bill sponsor on blog
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 1:36 pm
Annonin’ - and HA #2 doubles the penalty if the sponsor deserves to be mocked.
Comment by Whatever Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 1:47 pm
The body cam idea is great… but I’d require all voters to watch every last minute of the footage before entering the voting booth.
Comment by Right Field Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 3:48 pm
I wish to thank Rep. John Cabello, R-Machesney Park, for one of the best laughs I’ve had in a long while. I mean, a genuine out-loud guffaw that woke up almost everybody in the coffee shop.
Comment by Flapdoodle Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 5:43 pm
The Century Club welcomes its newest members.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 5:45 pm
“Would it be out of bounds to ask if they plan on finishing their term before seeking higher office?”
How about starting their term before seeking higher office?
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon2 Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 6:47 pm