Bill aimed at bolstering county public defender system moves forward in Springfield
On Tuesday, the 62nd anniversary of the landmark court decision, an Illinois House committee approved by a 10-5 vote a measure that would create a statewide public defender's office to assist under-resourced county public defenders throughout Illinois.
It's the first time the bill, dubbed by advocates as the Funded Advocacy & Independent Representation bill, or FAIR Act, has moved forward since a version was introduced last year by Democratic Senate President Don Harmon of Oak Park. But lawmakers in favor of the bill, which is primarily geared toward rural counties, acknowledged it still needs some changes before advancing through the legislative process.
Advocates point to multiple reports from 2019 to 2023 that show about 60% of Illinois counties have no government office of public defense, and instead contract with private attorneys, often part time.
The bill also seeks to address disparities between county public defender's offices and state's attorney's offices. For example, Cook County's 2024 budget provided about $102 million for its public defender's office, and about $205 million for its state's attorney's office. Also, while Illinois has no statewide office to provide public defenders where they're needed, its attorney general's office provides prosecutors around the state as necessary.
'A courtroom is kind of a three-legged stool. You have a state's attorney, you have a judge, and you have the PD (public defender). And for a long time, the PD was understaffed, underfunded and just in a position that they just, it wasn't fair,' state Rep. Dave Vella, a Rockford Democrat who is sponsoring the bill, said during Tuesday's House Judiciary Criminal Committee hearing. 'So a lot of times, defendants weren't getting the defense they needed or deserved.'
'Let's say you're in an extremely southern, rural county. And you have a 15-person drug case. You've only got one public defender. You're going to need some help, so this statewide public defender will send some attorneys down there to help with the case,' said Vella, a former Winnebago County assistant public defender.
The bill also calls for the office to establish a recruitment and retention plan to ensure 'a skilled and diverse workforce is available to serve clients in every part of the state.' The office would also provide funding 'to improve, increase access to, and advance the cause of indigent defense,' the bill says.
After Tuesday's hearing, Vella pegged the annual cost of operating the state public defender's office at $1 million or less. If the bill were to pass immediately, those costs wouldn't kick in for about two or three years while the office gets organized. Vella said the money could come from the state Supreme Court's budget.
Under the bill, the initial state public defender would be nominated by the Illinois Public Defender Association, a nonprofit educational organization for public defenders, and appointed to a two-year term by a majority vote of the state Supreme Court. Each subsequent state public defender would be appointed to a six-year term by a newly-formed, 11-member state public defender commission.
The state public defender's office would provide training to county public defenders and maintain a panel of private attorneys available to serve as counsel on a case-by-case basis. The office would also provide county public defenders with expert witnesses, investigators, administrative staff and social service staff.
In her testimony before the committee, Stephanie Kollmann, an attorney with Northwestern University's Child and Family Justice Center, cited research by her office showing large caseloads for public defenders throughout the state that are 'unacceptable' under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to an attorney for people accused of crimes.
'I work in a law school. Our students really want to go into public defense, many of them,' Kollmann said. 'But they can't enter a profession that doesn't have jobs open, that doesn't openly advertise jobs when they are open, that doesn't train them effectively or have enough space, time and money to do that.'
One goal of the bill, according to Vella, would be to make public defenders more autonomous from the judiciary. Chief judges appoint and remove most county chief defenders, although not in Cook County. Under the legislation, when a vacancy occurs in the position of chief county public defender, the state public defender would nominate a candidate and the state public defender commission would make an appointment through a selection process.
Sharlyn Grace, representing the Illinois Public Defender Association, told the committee she spoke with a chief public defender who is supportive of the legislation but feels they can't be open about that in the legislative process because they're afraid their of retribution from their chief judge, who is responsible for their appointment.
'When we have this system that prevents our public defenders from engaging in this conversation about how we can improve public defense and ensure that the state of Illinois meets its Sixth Amendment obligations, that's something we have a duty to rectify,' said Grace, who works for the Cook County public defender's office.
State Rep. Patrick Windhorst, the Republican spokesperson for the committee and a former state's attorney for downstate Massac County, noted several public defenders are opposed to the legislation. Vella responded that 'there are a lot of different counties, a lot of different circuits, a lot of different public defenders with ideas about how to get autonomy' from judges.
John Rekowski, a retired public defender from downstate Madison County, agreed that it's important to insulate public defenders from retribution from the judges they appear in front of but said it's also important for chief judges to have a working relationship with public defenders, since the judges generally have a good grasp of the legal landscape in the areas they oversee.
He testified the bill should allow for the current system of having the chief judges, in consultation with circuit judges, appoint the county public defenders, while taking away the judges' power to reappoint them and remove them for cause. That function, Rekowski said, should be reserved for the statewide office.
'That guarantees that the advocate in front of the judge isn't talking to the person who can fire him,' he testified.
An attorney representing the Illinois State Bar Association testified that while the group supports much of the bill, particularly the provisions where the bill provides more resources and more public defenders, it's against the judicial appointment power being taken away.
'We just believe that they're certain parts of the state that are different than the collars and Cook and that need that type of specific judicial involvement with the public defenders,' said the lawyer, David Eldridge.
So far, the bill has three Democratic co-sponsors, Chicago state Reps. Kevin Olickal, Lindsey LaPointe and Kelly Cassidy, who is vice chair of the House Judiciary Criminal Committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant.
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
Legal loopholes and Senate drama: Inside Trump's battle to install US attorneys
President Donald Trump's fraught effort to install political appointees in permanent roles as US attorneys across the country gained momentum this week, as Republicans work to jumpstart a stalled confirmation process in the Senate, while the White House resorted to a novel legal maneuver to keep a political ally in place as New Jersey's top prosecutor. Alina Habba, the Trump-appointed interim US attorney for New Jersey, resigned from her post on Thursday in an effort to keep it, after district judges for the state booted her from the job. Habba, a former personal attorney for Trump and campaign spokesperson, said she will now be appointed as the 'acting' US attorney for New Jersey. Habba's time as interim US attorney was due to expire on Friday. The move, according to one source familiar with the strategy, will prevent Habba's term from expiring and nullify an effort by the state's federal judges to name her replacement, leading to a simmering standoff between the administration and New Jerseys' judges. Meanwhile in the Senate, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have offered a broad compromise to Democrats in an effort to break a blockade on the president's slate of US attorney nominees in hopes of getting a few confirmed before the Senate leaves for its monthlong recess in August, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. A spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Democrats declined to comment on the situation. Administration officials were initially confident they would be able to install a slate of more than 30 US attorneys Trump nominated early in the year. But only a dozen have even moved past a preliminary committee vote and not a single nominee has received a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. While every recent president has gotten off to a slow start moving US attorney nominees, Trump is in danger of falling even further behind, especially amid concerns over the quality of some of the more controversial nominees tapped by Trump, some of whom have never worked as prosecutors. The clock is also running out on the interim status for many of Trump's US attorney picks, beyond Habba. Under federal law, if the administration doesn't fill the job and the Senate doesn't confirm a nominee within 120 days, federal judges can select a temporary US attorney, further undermining the administration's goal to have their own people in place. Pressure is therefore mounting on Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats to get at least a few nominees confirmed before the Senate leaves town for a month. 'I think both sides understand that the current situation is untenable,' the source familiar with the negotiations told CNN. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has since May put a blanket hold on Trump's slate of US attorney nominees, leaving the administration without top law enforcement officials in permanent roles as it presses forward with an aggressive agenda that includes a heavy focus on immigration enforcement and violent crime. Durbin has justified his blanket hold in part by arguing that then-Sen. JD Vance placed a similar hold on Democratic US attorney nominees during the Biden administration. 'Sen. Durbin continues to discuss a path forward with his Democratic and Republican colleagues,' Durbin spokesperson Josh Sorbe said in a statement to CNN. There are now a dozen US attorney nominees ready for a floor vote, after seven were passed out of committee on Thursday. That includes former Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro, who is in line to be the top federal prosecutor in Washington, DC. While US attorney nominees usually receive broad bipartisan support, some of Trump's nominees have made that more difficult. In comments on Thursday, even Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, acknowledged that some of the president's nominees are 'controversial.' 'As chairman, I try to be fair to all members of the committee, even during controversial nominations. And we have plenty of them and have had plenty of them as well,' Grassley said. The drama has been particularly acute in New Jersey, where the Justice Department spent much of the week engaged in a bitter standoff with the state's federal judges over who will be the state's top prosecutor. With Habba facing an unlikely road to confirmation in the Senate, and her interim status set to expire Friday, federal judges on Tuesday tapped Desiree Leigh Grace, a top federal prosecutor, to take over the office. The Justice Department immediately said it was removing Grace, though she vowed to take over the job next week. To do so, Grace would've had to be sworn in by a federal judge just after midnight Friday after Habba's interim term expired. But Habba short-circuited all that by resigning on Thursday, trading in her interim status as New Jersey's US attorney to an 'acting' role, thus (in theory) restarting the clock on how long she can serve. 'Donald J. Trump is the 47th President,' Habba posted on Twitter on Thursday. 'Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. And I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.' Habba continued: 'I don't cower to pressure. I don't answer to politics.' Habba and the Justice Department both declined to comment when reached by CNN. Grace did not respond to CNN's request for additional comment. The White House had hoped to avoid all this. In the early days of Trump's second term, the administration worked to compile a slate of nominees to lead some of the 93 US attorneys' offices across the country. Top Justice Department officials, with input from the White House, selected dozens of nominees they believed could carry out the president's agenda – specifically on immigration and violent crime. While senior officials were initially confident they would be able to get these nominees confirmed, the process stalled earlier this year amid the disastrous attempt to force through the confirmation of Trump's nominee to lead the DC US Attorney's Office, Ed Martin. Martin's nomination was riddled with controversies. He had to repeatedly update his mandated disclosure forms to Congress and came under fire over his previous praise of a Capitol rioter who is an alleged Nazi sympathizer. In the end, Martin's nomination was pulled and Trump in his place nominated Pirro, who is not without controversy herself following her years as a Fox News personality. US attorneys are the top law enforcement officials in each of the 93 judicial districts across the country. They play an important role in prosecuting federal crimes and defending the government in civil litigation. They are also key to implementing the president's agenda at the local level. 'So much of our public focus is on the attorney general, and rightly so. However, the real engines who drive DOJ's day to day work and case making on a district-by-district basis, are the US attorneys. Each US attorney essentially runs one of those districts, and has very broad autonomy in how that office functions,' said CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor in New Jersey. While nominees can serve temporarily on an interim or acting basis without getting Senate confirmation, it's less than ideal, said Honig. 'There's a big impact where you have a non-confirmed US attorney, especially if there's flux and uncertainty. If you're going from one acting to another, interim back to the other acting, it causes chaos in those offices,' Honig said. 'It causes a lack of stability, a lack of a sense of mission. It undermines morale in those offices.' Data from the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for an effective government workforce, shows that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were the only modern presidents able to get nominees confirmed by the six-month mark. Trump, in his first term, did not have any US attorneys confirmed after the first six months. Max Stier, PPS's president and CEO, notes that it is significant that in his second term Trump was quick to put up nominations, but that has not resulted in swift confirmations. 'Instead of being ahead of the curve, they are now behind the curve,' Stier said. Stier noted though that the pace of nominations is not what is slowing the administration from filling vacancies; it's the nature of the nominees. 'It's not just a numbers game that we're watching this administration, even unlike the first Trump administration, is putting forward extraordinarily partisan and unqualified candidates for these positions, and it's not just in the District of Columbia,' Stier said. Stier points to other examples including Habba, who has worked as Trump's personal attorney and campaign spokesman but never as a prosecutor. John Sarcone, Trump's pick for US attorney in Northern New York, has also been criticized for not having any prosecutorial experience. 'I do think the extra element that's added here of consequence is the deeply flawed nature of a consequential number of the candidates that are being put up by this administration,' Stier said. Acting US attorneys can still carry out the president's agenda without being confirmed by the Senate, but there are downsides. 'I think his real view is that acting officials are people that don't have the oversight by the United States Senate and by the public through that process, and so that allows to put in place people who either shouldn't or would exact a political cost to actually get confirmed,' Stier said. Senators have the option to personally request a confirmation that has been otherwise blocked or delayed in a process called 'blue slipping,' but a senior administration official told CNN: 'Unless there is a deal struck, in blue states we are not going to get any blue slips.' One notable example is how Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declined to offer a blue slip for Jay Clayton, who was tapped to be US attorney in the Southern District of New York even though he is the former head of the SEC. 'It's pretty crazy,' the official said.
