|
What a week! While we were complete it our second week of Veto Session, the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) at the federal level received bipartisan support in the US Senate this week with the House likely pass the bill next week. The RMA is proactive protection against the Supreme Court’s threat to reverse the Obergefeld Decision establishing marriage equality as the law of the land. The law requires states and the federal government to continue to recognize marriages if the Supreme Court ever overturned the right and previous state prohibitions on same-sex marriage came back into effect. This law would require states with bans to recognize marriages performed in states without the ban. However, it would not protect those living in those states who wish to get married in a prohibited state. This law would apply to interracial marriage also. Illinois was the last state to codify marriage equality via legislation before the Obergefeld decision established the right nationwide, ensuring that Illinois residents will be protected regardless. The bill being considered at the federal level contains significant religious protections
At the state level, we had a very eventful last week of Veto Session. As discussed previously, clarifications and changes to the Illinois SAFE-T Act were a priority, both to address drafting errors and to clarify issues highlighted in the ongoing misinformation campaign we saw over the last several months. Thursday, we passed a trailer bill that sought to address some of the biggest questions and criticisms surrounding the bill before the January 1st, 2023 effective date. The trailer bill passed 71-40 in the House and 38-17 in the Senate. The amendment now heads to Gov. JB Pritzker's desk for his signature. The SAFE-T Act is a sweeping criminal justice reform overhaul. It consists of eliminating cash bail, more training for law enforcement, the use of body cameras, a ban on chokeholds, and a host of other remedies to ensure a more humane justice system. What follows is a list of changes and a link to the full text:
Safe-T Act Trailer - HB 1095 SA#1
The Transition: Sets out what happens on Jan. 1, 2023. Anyone charged on or after Jan 1 uses the new system. Anyone charged before Jan 1 stays on the current system, but the state or defendant have the option of moving the individual case to the new system, on a motion schedule that prioritizes low level non-violent offenders. Non-detainable offense hearings must be within 7 days, willful flight hearings within 60 days, and threat to safety hearings within 90 days.
Detention Net: Adds various offenses to the detention net with the underlying theme of detaining people who pose a danger and releasing people who do not. For the threat prong it adds non-probationable felonies (with a higher burden for drug offenses involving intent to distribute), forcible felonies (with clarifying language on the definition), hate crimes, attempts of crimes that are otherwise detainable, a few serious crimes that don’t fall under those categories such as aggravated DUI causing great bodily harm and felony animal torture.
Dangerousness Standard: Makes consistent throughout the act the dangerousness standard (what a prosecutor must show to detain an individual on grounds the individual is a threat). The standard is: the person poses a real and present threat to any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case.
Willful Flight: Fixes language that some argued prohibited judges from considering past non-appearances. Under the new definition, “Willful flight” means intentionally avoiding prosecution. Non-appearance alone is not indicative of flight, but patterns (of nonappearance or of affirmative steps to communicate or remedy nonappearances) can be considered as factors in determining willful flight
Public Defender Support: Creates a grant program for increasing public defenders to handle the expected increase in caseloads. This will be administered and overseen by the AOIC. Subject to appropriations.
Prompt Remote Hearings: Requires a defendant to have a detention hearing within 48 hours. Fixes inconsistent language regarding the use of remote hearings. Allows use of remote court hearings if the defendant waives the right to be in person, if the court determines remote is necessary to protect the health or safety of any person involved, or the court determines remote is necessary due to logistical challenges
Warrants: Fixes a drafting error prohibiting the use of bench warrants. Clarifies what happens if someone is arrested in one county and has an outstanding warrant in another county and gives sheriffs 5 days to transport an individual.
Trespass /Misdemeanor Citations: Requires an officer to issue a citation before arresting an individual unless the officer reasonably believes the person poses a threat, the person continues to commit the offense, or the person has an obvious mental or medical health issue and poses a danger to him or herself. Removes the requirement that the summons be set exactly 21-days later.
Electronic Monitoring and Escape: Clarifies court authority in setting conditions and defines a. reasonable time period. Removes the provisions that made escape chargeable only after 48 hours and replaces it with language that requires physical escape and intent.
Speedy Trial: Excludes from the speedy trial clock any continuance granted by the court for good cause reasons such as a delay by a lab in processing DNA.
Appeals: Allows for the state and defendant to appeal all court decisions related to pretrial release. Clarifies that the public defender handling the detention hearing also handles the appeal.
Clarifying Language and Drafting Error Fixes: Clarifies that the least restrictive conditions of pretrial release be set and specifies that least restrictive in an individualized assessment. Specifies when pretrial release conditions can be revoked. Fixes language related to pregnant defendants. Clarifies exigent circumstances for officer body cameras.
In addition to the Safe T Act changes described above, we also passed a bill extending certain deadlines and sunset dates that would have occurred before we return to session in January, passed a critically important bill to use some of our remaining ARPA funds to pay off outstanding debt impacting our Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. Failure to pass that bill before the end of the year would have had devastating implications for our system and employers as we would have been mandated to dramatically increase the rates payed by employers and decrease benefits to unemployment recipients if we had not.
Also on Thursday, The Firearm Safety and Reform Working Group led by my colleague Rep. Bob Morgan, released their proposal for the last days of the 102nd General Assembly session in January. The full bill is here. The other working groups, including the one I chair concerning Reproductive Rights and the Dobbs decision, continue their work. I expect that over the next few weeks, we will see those proposals released as well.
Next week, I will be traveling to Washington DC to participate in the annual State Innovation Exchange (SiX) convention with a particular focus on the work to protect and defend reproductive justice. I am eager to reconnect with many of the colleagues I have come to know as a member of the Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council and to compare notes as we all prepare for legislatures to reconvene in January with the expectation that many states will continue their efforts to create barriers and penalize patients and providers. Look for a full report in next week’s newsletter.
| 
