Bill to boost legal services to indigent on governor's desk
Jun. 12—Illinois legislators have created a new statewide public defender's office, but it's going to take a while to sort out the details.
They put the finishing touches on the "Funded Advocacy & Independent Representation (FAIR) Act" on May 31, the last day the legislature met in its spring session.
The bill now goes to Gov. J.B. Pritzker for his expected signature.
The legislation won't take effect until Jan. 1, 2027, because there are major details to iron out.
Champaign County Circuit Judge Randy Rosenbaum, the county's chief judge and former longtime public defender, said he is, generally speaking, "very much in favor" of the idea behind the legislation but distressed by a couple of issues.
The legislation "doesn't talk about any money," he said, referring to what he expects will be the massive costs of the bill.
Plus, Rosenbaum said, it limits the role of the local presiding judge in selecting a county's chief public defender.
For example, Champaign County Public Defender Elisabeth Pollock, a former federal public defender, was named by Rosenbaum to fill the job.
But Rosenbaum said the legislation takes local "judges out of the selection process" when they are best situated to determine who is most qualified to be appointed to such an important position.
He said it is his understanding the new appointment process was established to insulate the appointed county public defenders from the judiciary.
The legislation is motivated by a desire to boost the quality of legal representation for individuals charged with crimes who cannot afford a to hire a lawyer.
Many of Illinois' 102 counties have a public defender's office. Those that do not appoint private lawyers to handle cases for the indigent.
However, there is concern that public defenders have too many cases to handle in an efficient manner. The legislation is designed to ensure they have greater resources.
Pollock said she is "grateful" the legislation is before the governor and will be "excited to watch it be implemented."
"It is no secret that public defenders have struggled for decades with a need for increased staffing and greater resources in the face of ever-expanding workloads," she said.
She called the bill a "a necessary and meaningful step forward."
However principled the motivation, the legislation shows signs of the usual politicization in this hyper-political state.
For example, Rosenbaum said Cook County lobbied for the legislation but is exempt from some provisions. For example, it leaves public defender appointment power with the president of the Cook County Board instead of transferring it to a committee.
The legislation establishes regional offices of the state public defenders that are designed to provide additional resources to county public defender offices.
The legislation calls for the Illinois Supreme Court initially to appoint a state public defender.
The Coalition to End Money Bond praised the bill, contending it "build(s) on" the SAFE-T Act social-justice law that, among many other things, abolished the cash bond system.
It said the new public defender law "brings Illinois closer to ensuring that public defenders have adequate resources" to provide high-quality representation to indigent defendants.
Part of the law is devoted to establishing case management resources that ensure access to a "digital discovery storage management system" and "case management software."
The new office also is directed to take a survey to determine "the number of employees and contractors providing" legal services and the variety of legal services they provide.
It has an odd organizational status, one dubbed as an "independent agency" within the judicial branch. The legislation directs that the state public defender's office "shall" be under the supervision of the state public defender, not the Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Obamacare decision makes way for debate on what's preventive
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband services. The 6-3 ruling is a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, which operates the pot of money in question, known as the Universal Service Fund. It's also a rare win at the Supreme Court for agency power, as the court's conservative majority — which is often skeptical of independent agencies — passed up an opportunity to further weaken the administrative state. Three liberal justices and three conservatives formed the court's majority. Three other conservatives dissented. The money in the Universal Service Fund comes from charges collected from telephone providers through a surcharge on customers' bills. It is used for a mix of internet connectivity subsidy programs that help schools, libraries, low-income households and internet providers in rural areas. In upholding the fund, the justices rejected a bid by some legal conservatives to weaken the administrative state by reviving a controversial theory known as the 'nondelegation doctrine.' Under that doctrine, Congress has extremely limited authority to delegate policymaking decisions to executive branch agencies. 'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. The three justices often considered the court's most conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Writing for the dissenters, Gorsuch said the court effectively rewrote the law in order to deem it constitutional. 'We wind up in much the same place, only now with judges, rather than Presidents or bureaucrats, making our laws,' he wrote. Proponents of the nondelegation doctrine argued that Congress handed away too much power when it instructed the FCC to determine how much money to collect for the Universal Service Fund. And, they say, the FCC in turn handed away too much power when the agency established a private corporation to help administer the fund. In essence, the challengers argued, the fund represents an unconstitutional tax. If the Supreme Court had fully accepted those arguments and endorsed an aggressive view of nondelegation, experts say it would have imperiled numerous programs across federal agencies. But the high court, in a 6-3 vote, said the FCC setup didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine. 'Consumers' Research contends that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the provisions it points to show nothing of the kind,' Kagan wrote for the majority, referring to the conservative nonprofit group that brought the case. 'The test Consumers' Research proposes also would throw a host of federal statutes into doubt, as Congress has often empowered agencies to raise revenue without specifying a numeric cap or tax rate.' The justices' ruling will be a relief for the many telecom players who felt threatened by the case. Supporters of the fund have long warned that a decision striking it down could put millions of beneficiaries at risk. The loss could have squeezed households particularly with lower incomes and in rural areas, where cutting off the aid could have driven up internet prices right as households lost a monthly subsidy helping them pay for it.
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
499 pages of opinions
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband services. The 6-3 ruling is a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, which operates the pot of money in question, known as the Universal Service Fund. It's also a rare win at the Supreme Court for agency power, as the court's conservative majority — which is often skeptical of independent agencies — passed up an opportunity to further weaken the administrative state. Three liberal justices and three conservatives formed the court's majority. Three other conservatives dissented. The money in the Universal Service Fund comes from charges collected from telephone providers through a surcharge on customers' bills. It is used for a mix of internet connectivity subsidy programs that help schools, libraries, low-income households and internet providers in rural areas. In upholding the fund, the justices rejected a bid by some legal conservatives to weaken the administrative state by reviving a controversial theory known as the 'nondelegation doctrine.' Under that doctrine, Congress has extremely limited authority to delegate policymaking decisions to executive branch agencies. 'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. The three justices often considered the court's most conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Writing for the dissenters, Gorsuch said the court effectively rewrote the law in order to deem it constitutional. 'We wind up in much the same place, only now with judges, rather than Presidents or bureaucrats, making our laws,' he wrote. Proponents of the nondelegation doctrine argued that Congress handed away too much power when it instructed the FCC to determine how much money to collect for the Universal Service Fund. And, they say, the FCC in turn handed away too much power when the agency established a private corporation to help administer the fund. In essence, the challengers argued, the fund represents an unconstitutional tax. If the Supreme Court had fully accepted those arguments and endorsed an aggressive view of nondelegation, experts say it would have imperiled numerous programs across federal agencies. But the high court, in a 6-3 vote, said the FCC setup didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine. 'Consumers' Research contends that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the provisions it points to show nothing of the kind,' Kagan wrote for the majority, referring to the conservative nonprofit group that brought the case. 'The test Consumers' Research proposes also would throw a host of federal statutes into doubt, as Congress has often empowered agencies to raise revenue without specifying a numeric cap or tax rate.' The justices' ruling will be a relief for the many telecom players who felt threatened by the case. Supporters of the fund have long warned that a decision striking it down could put millions of beneficiaries at risk. The loss could have squeezed households particularly with lower incomes and in rural areas, where cutting off the aid could have driven up internet prices right as households lost a monthly subsidy helping them pay for it.
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
‘Deplorable': Democrats slam SCOTUS ruling in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband services. The 6-3 ruling is a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, which operates the pot of money in question, known as the Universal Service Fund. It's also a rare win at the Supreme Court for agency power, as the court's conservative majority — which is often skeptical of independent agencies — passed up an opportunity to further weaken the administrative state. Three liberal justices and three conservatives formed the court's majority. Three other conservatives dissented. The money in the Universal Service Fund comes from charges collected from telephone providers through a surcharge on customers' bills. It is used for a mix of internet connectivity subsidy programs that help schools, libraries, low-income households and internet providers in rural areas. In upholding the fund, the justices rejected a bid by some legal conservatives to weaken the administrative state by reviving a controversial theory known as the 'nondelegation doctrine.' Under that doctrine, Congress has extremely limited authority to delegate policymaking decisions to executive branch agencies. 'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal-service programs has led to a more fully connected country. And it has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. The three justices often considered the court's most conservative members, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Writing for the dissenters, Gorsuch said the court effectively rewrote the law in order to deem it constitutional. 'We wind up in much the same place, only now with judges, rather than Presidents or bureaucrats, making our laws,' he wrote. Proponents of the nondelegation doctrine argued that Congress handed away too much power when it instructed the FCC to determine how much money to collect for the Universal Service Fund. And, they say, the FCC in turn handed away too much power when the agency established a private corporation to help administer the fund. In essence, the challengers argued, the fund represents an unconstitutional tax. If the Supreme Court had fully accepted those arguments and endorsed an aggressive view of nondelegation, experts say it would have imperiled numerous programs across federal agencies. But the high court, in a 6-3 vote, said the FCC setup didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine. 'Consumers' Research contends that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the provisions it points to show nothing of the kind,' Kagan wrote for the majority, referring to the conservative nonprofit group that brought the case. 'The test Consumers' Research proposes also would throw a host of federal statutes into doubt, as Congress has often empowered agencies to raise revenue without specifying a numeric cap or tax rate.' The justices' ruling will be a relief for the many telecom players who felt threatened by the case. Supporters of the fund have long warned that a decision striking it down could put millions of beneficiaries at risk. The loss could have squeezed households particularly with lower incomes and in rural areas, where cutting off the aid could have driven up internet prices right as households lost a monthly subsidy helping them pay for it.
