Letters: Lawmakers should pass the FAIR Act to ensure all Illinoisans get a fair defense in court
Under the Sixth Amendment of the United State Constitution, all accused indigent people are guaranteed the right to effective legal representation in a court of law. Unfortunately, that is not happening in Illinois.
Illinois has not significantly updated its public defense structure since 1949. The result is that Illinois is an outlier in the United States and is one of only a handful of states with no statewide body to ensure that those who cannot afford an attorney receive effective representation.
Additionally, with 102 counties in Illinois, there are some counties that have no public defenders at all. About 60% of Illinois counties have no government office of public defense and instead contract with private attorneys, often on a part-time basis. Some counties may share a public defender or a judge may appoint any lawyer to represent a client even if that lawyer has no experience in public defense. The result of this lack of effective legal representation can lead to unnecessary jail admissions or prison sentences, which then damage individuals, families and communities through incarceration and lost wages.
The Funded Advocacy & Independent Representation (FAIR) Act (HB3363) is currently in the Illinois Senate. Under the FAIR Act, an independent State Public Defender Commission and a state public defender position would be created. The commission would provide resources to county public defender offices, establish training programs and advocate for court system funding. The commission would determine metrics regarding public defender offices, caseloads, staffing and resources. It also would be able to offer resources to under-resourced counties in Illinois.
Passing the FAIR Act would put into law the necessary structural changes that Illinois residents need in order to obtain fair and effective public defense representation. The passage of the FAIR Act would modernize the public defense system and offer to all people the constitutional protection and the vigorous defense we all should expect.
When I was a child, my father believed that we only get the justice we can afford. That needs to change in Illinois now.A recent news article and opinion piece in the Tribune have an important connection. The Tribune Editorial Board enthused about successes at O'Hare International Airport ('First job for new aviation commissioner? Don't mess up Chicago's O'Hare Airport,' May 11), and Ron Grossman gave a fascinating look at Chicago Union Station's storied past ('100 years ago, the first trains pulled into Union Station,' May 11).
Together, this coverage highlights the best possible future for Chicago transportation: connecting these two assets via a quick train ride. The key is bringing intercity and regional rail passengers within walking distance of O'Hare's ticket counters. The best transit systems in the world provide this.
Imagine being able to travel conveniently between O'Hare and destinations throughout the region by intercity train. This would make O'Hare an even more appealing hub airport. It would allow ORD to focus on more profitable long-distance flights instead of connectors, while saving fuel and innumerable hours simply getting travelers to and from the airport.
It would also fulfill the great potential of Union Station, now 100 years young and looking forward to a bright future as the hub of a magnificent Midwest rail system and future home of high-speed rail.
We hope Michael McMurray, Chicago's new commissioner of aviation, sees this potential to revolutionize Chicago transit with a Union Station-O'Hare connection.
We're pushing for five straightforward fixes at Union Station to better connect it to the region while increasing its capacity tenfold: a new concourse to make it easier to find your train, direct access to southern platforms from above, through-running trains on Amtrak and Metra to O'Hare, a shift from diesel to electric trains and better connections between Union Station and other transit assets, especially the Ogilvie Transportation Center and the Blue Line.
The key is investment, and the looming fiscal cliff for transit presents an opportunity. Let's invest in a comprehensive railway program that connects O'Hare and Union Station as part of a network of fast, frequent, affordable trains and transit that serve our entire state and beyond.Chicago has become a thriving hub for life sciences innovation. Through our elected officials' foresight and planning and fueled by world-class universities, tech incubators and a growing ecosystem of venture-backed startups, Chicago is an epicenter of biotech and digital health.
And essential to the innovation and breakthroughs emerging from the Chicago life sciences industry is artificial intelligence, a powerful tool whose promise we're only beginning to comprehend.
AI is transforming the pace and precision of life sciences research in Chicago (and everywhere else). Machine learning is helping startups model new innovations to enhance clinical trials, power personalized medicine tailored to each patient's biology and achieve predictive diagnostics with unthinkable accuracy.
It goes without saying that protecting the development of AI and minimizing obstacles to its continued use is essential for a hub such as Chicago.
Lawmakers in Springfield are considering a bill, HB3506, to regulate companies that are utilizing AI, proposing technical reporting and compliance obligations that would prove costly and burdensome. As well intentioned as the policy may be, it would as written have a chilling effect on AI innovation by entangling early-stage life sciences startups in red tape before their innovations ever reach a patient or become commercially viable.
Before finalizing any bill, Illinois policymakers should thoughtfully engage the community of talented life sciences entrepreneurs here in Chicago to better understand how AI functions in the life sciences. Regulation of this emerging industry is warranted but must be narrowed to address bad actors without handcuffing innovation. Proposed regulations that couple burdensome reporting requirements with overreaching policies risk imposing unsustainable costs on small startups — draining limited resources and possibly forcing promising startups to close before they can get off the ground.
Illinois is poised to be a major contender in the next wave of medical innovation, so instead of fast-tracking legislation around a complex and nuanced issue such as artificial intelligence, legislators should take a measured and forward-looking approach.
Chicago's life sciences and tech ecosystems are thriving, and we've only scratched the surface on the promise of AI to transform health care. Let's make sure Chicago is at the center of that transformation, supported by smart policy that fosters innovation at every turn.When my business was strapped for cash and traditional lending wasn't an option, I had to take a loan from a quick cash lender so my business could survive. But after taking out that financing, I realized that the lender lacked transparency when I saw how high the interest rate really was.
This traps small business owners in a vicious debt cycle in which all they can afford to do is make the minimum loan payment, and sometimes, they can't even afford that. While I'm paying off my loan now, other small business owners are still struggling. There's no road map for navigating this debt while keeping cash flow steady.
That's why I'm urging the Illinois legislature to support any legislation that would require noncommercial lenders to disclose their annual percentage rate, or APR. This is the only metric that enables borrowers to make apples-to-apples comparisons between different financing products. Small businesses need to be able to make informed decisions so they can access true capital, not high-interest traps that keep us struggling.I'm wondering why Jasmine Paolini, the first Italian to win the Italian Open in 40 years, got the 'Shorts' spot in the Sunday Sports section, while the match between Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner (who lost) got the nice, quarter page article the next day?
Oh yeah. Women's sports. Silly me.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Politicians, scared of truly open primaries, offer ‘limited' alternative for nonpartisan voters
Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) A ballot measure to establish an open-primary, ranked-choice voting system in Nevada may have been rejected by voters last November, but its underlying message of voter disenfranchisement clearly struck a chord with Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager. The Assembly's top Democrat, who opposed that ballot measure, said he suspects changes to Nevada's closed primary system are coming whether the political establishment wants it or not: 'The dam is going to break one way or another. The question is: Are we going to be part of the process?' To that end, Yeager is proposing Assembly Bill 597, which would allow nonpartisan voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic primary. He introduced the bill as an emergency measure on Monday, a week before the end of the session, and presented it to the Senate and Assembly committees on legislative operations and elections during a joint meeting Thursday. Yeager described his bill as a 'pushing back' to Question 3, the election reform proposal approved by voters in 2022 but rejected by voters in 2024. That ballot measure, which needed to pass twice because it proposed amending the state constitution, was heavily funded by out-of-state election reform groups. Those groups viewed Nevada as 'a playground in which they can experiment,' Yeager said. 'We know they will continue to attempt to exploit this issue' of closed primaries 'to fool around with our elections.' AB 597 is 'much simpler' than Question 3. There would still be Republican and Democratic primaries. The only change would be that a registered nonpartisan voter could cast a ballot in one of them. (Question 3 proposed putting all candidates on the primary ballot regardless of political party, with the top five finishers appearing on the general election for voters to rank in order of preference.) Yeager described AB 597 as a common sense solution that addresses the growing number of nonpartisan voters in the state. As of April 2025, 34.9% of registered voters in Nevada are nonpartisan, 29% are Republican and 29% are Democrats, according to the Secretary of State's Office. The remaining 7% of registered voters are members of minor parties like the Independent American or Libertarian parties. That means nonpartisan and third-party voters are the biggest voting bloc in the state. Yet they are unable to participate in the primary elections their tax dollars pay for unless they agree to temporarily affiliate with a major political party. The Nevada State Democratic Party, which opposed Question 3, has not expressed support or opposition for AB 597. But Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat and the state's top election official, spoke in support of the bill. The Nevada State Republican Party is strongly opposed to AB 597, as they were to Question 3. Representatives from the state party and affiliated local party groups argued that allowing nonpartisans to participate in party primaries would dilute party values and invite interference from outsiders. Opponents also argued the bill is unnecessary because nonpartisan voters can already participate in a primary by temporarily registering to a political party. Nevada offers same-day voter registration, which means nonpartisan voters have that option all the way through election day. 'I think that practically that just doesn't happen,' Yeager countered. 'People are not going to change party registration and then change back. They're not partisan for a reason or not affiliated for a reason.' Some election advocates worry nonpartisan voters may similarly be turned off by the process laid out in AB 597. Yeager plans to introduce an amendment to require nonpartisan voters request a political party primary ballot by 'the 7th Monday before the election day.' (In real terms: That would have been April 23 for last year's June 11 primary.) Nonpartisans after that date would have to vote in person. Yeager's proposed amendment would also keep the state-run presidential preference primary closed. Doug Goodman, the founder of Nevadans for Election Reform, has pushed for fully open primaries for more than a decade. He took a neutral position on AB 597, saying the bill is 'far from ideal' and only 'a small start.' The bill doesn't address disenfranchisement of voters registered to minor parties, who still would be unable to participate in a major political party primary without leaving their preferred party. It also doesn't address the issue of voters not being able to cast ballots in the significant number of races decided in competitive primaries where the winner goes on to run unopposed in a general election. That is a particularly common occurrence in districts that lean heavily toward one party. Sondra Cosgrove, another outspoken advocate for election reform in Nevada, took a similar position as Goodman, though she described herself as 'reluctantly in support' of AB 597. 'In America elections belong to the people, not the political parties,' she said in a statement to the Current. 'So, I plan to run a ballot question in 2026 to adopt a fully open primary so that the people of Nevada can discuss how we would like our primary election to be managed. Many political commentators believe major election reform will only come to Nevada through a ballot measure backed by outsiders because the existing political establishment benefits from the current system. The Legislature must adjourn Monday, leaving lawmakers only a few days to pass Yeager's bill. If they do, it could still be vetoed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, who has already vetoed one election bill this session.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is about to send tipping culture into overdrive
'When I get to office we are not going to charge taxes on tips, on people making tips,' Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail. 'If you're a restaurant worker, a server, a valet, a bell hop, a bartender, one of my caddies –your tips will be 100pc yours.' The billionaire president has stayed true to his promise. The bulk of the tax cuts outlined in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill, currently before the Senate, reward the wealthy. But one populist clause within the legislation is a plan to scrap federal tax on tips – one of Trump's key campaign pledges. The tax break is popular with US service workers – everyone from hairdressers to restaurant staff – but may not be so popular with customers. American tipping culture is already in overdrive, and people hate it. A policy that was once the sole domain of the restaurant and hospitality sector has rapidly proliferated since the pandemic. Takeaway coffee orders now prompt demands for a few bucks extra and even stopping by a news-stand for a paper or some gum can lead people to pay an extra 20pc on their bills. Many Americans have noticed this creep and don't like it. As one Reddit user put it online: 'What the f--- am I tipping for? Is it not bad enough that I just paid over $5 (£3.7) for a small bottle of water?' Trump's tax break is likely to push a wave of new jobs to adopt restaurant-style tipping policies and will incentivise businesses to restructure their employees' pay, so that they receive a larger proportion of their income from tips. Maurice Obstfeld, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, says: 'Number one, this is going to induce new employers to classify more compensation as tips.' It may already be happening. Chris Bakke, a San Francisco entrepreneur and investor, wrote on X recently: The message, which may have been a joke, was in response to news that the US Senate had passed the No Tax on Tips act – a bipartisan bill proposing a tax deduction of up to $25,000 for cash tips. It is separate to the president's proposals, showing the broad support for the policy across the political spectrum. Both Republicans and Democrats present the policy as a boost for blue-collar workers. However, economists warn that people could end up with lower baseline pay as a result of the changes, putting more pressure on customers to top up earnings. That means even more social pressure and financial pain at the checkout. The plans laid out in Trump's tax and spending bill offer the same level of tax break as the No Tax on Tips act. Under the current law, staff are required to report tips to their employer if they total $20 or more in a single month. Businesses then include the tips in salary calculations – withholding federal income tax, social security tax and Medicare taxes. The new exemption will only apply to tips paid in cash, not by card. Workers must earn less than $160,000 per year to qualify and be working in occupations that 'customarily' receive tips. The US Treasury will publish a list of these occupations when the bill is passed into law. The total cost to the public purse will be around $15bn per year. The impact on American consumers and tourists visiting the US will also be huge. Abir Mandal, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, says tax exemptions on tips will create 'perverse incentives' for employers. It will encourage businesses to make employees source more of their wages from tips, with a lower proportion from their salaries. Expectations for tips could also become far more widespread, and bigger. Chris Edwards, a tax expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says: 'I think different job types will shift their types of compensation. You can think of all kinds of professions where it could become more normal.' Luggage handlers at airports are an obvious potential example, says Mandal. 'They are given a salary. You can give them like $1 or $2 for carrying a bag, but in general they are paid a wage. If this thing takes off, perhaps their income could be reconfigured so that they would make a lower wage but expect a larger tip per bag.' Tipping has always been the norm in US restaurants, but something changed during the pandemic. More people had food deliveries and wanted to show their appreciation for drivers, widening the tipping net. At the same time, wage growth accelerated sharply as the economy reopened but restaurant bosses and other small business owners struggled to match it. As a result, demands for tips grew. 'The expectation of tipping has grown quite dramatically,' says Stephen Barth, an attorney and hospitality law professor at the University of Houston. 'It was already growing and then during Covid it expanded exponentially.' The share of bakeries asking for tips has soared from 36pc to 49pc in the five years to July 2024, for example, according to analysis of payroll data by Gusto. Among coffee shops, the proportion has jumped from 56pc to 72pc. 'For a lot of small businesses, they run on very tight margins, which means that owners couldn't always raise wages. Tips let them pay more to their employees without hitting their budgets,' says Nich Tremper, senior economist at Gusto. The growth of electronic payment terminals, such as Square, has also made it easier to request tips. Whereas with cash it was up to a customer's discretion, now they are confronted with a menu of tip options and have to actively opt out. Even some card machines now have this as the default option. Tips are even now entering shops. The share of retail businesses using tips as part of their employees' pay nearly doubled in the five years to July 2024, rising from 3.86pc to 6.6pc. One in six health stores, 16.2pc, now pay their staff partly in tips. If Trump's bill passes, tipping will become even more important to staff wages, but potentially also more irritating to give. 'Only cash tips will be untaxed if this legislation passes. There may be added pressure on consumers to pay tips in cash. It'll make things awkward. And people already hate tips in America,' says Mandal. The change to federal tax policy is likely to trigger a wave of similar policies at a state level, he adds. States typically try to conform their own taxable income in line with federal policy. That may sound good for workers. But Barth says it amounts to just a 'subsidy for employers'. The tax break will reduce pressure on employers to raise wages and companies could actually cut workers' base pay as a result, demanding they make up the difference through tips. It hits at the heart of what many customers dislike about the recent transformation in tips. What was once a way of showing appreciation for good services has transformed into an expectation with no real link to the quality of experience. If you don't tip, it's not a sign that you're unhappy with the service – it's a signal you're a bad person. Obstfeld is scathing: 'This was a campaign promise that was made to essentially pander to voters and the economic rationale for it is basically nil.' The public may soon share his anger as demands for tips mount up. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump allies urge crackdown on Cabinet secretaries meddling in GOP primaries
MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich. — President Donald Trump's allies are fuming at Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy for getting involved in Michigan's Senate primary, a race that now threatens to divide Republicans. Duffy is headlining a planned June 4 fundraiser for Rep. Bill Huizenga, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO — a move that puts Duffy at odds with the National Republican Senatorial Committee and 2024 Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita. Duffy has also been advising Huizenga, according to a person familiar with the race. Duffy, according to the two people close to Trump, never cleared his political engagement with the White House political shop, and has now drawn the ire of Trump's top political hands. The transportation secretary's move to fundraise for Huizenga has now prompted threats of a crackdown on Cabinet secretaries' political activities ahead of the midterms, POLITICO has learned. 'He did not ask for it to be approved,' a person close to Trump and granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive political matter told POLITICO of Duffy's decision. 'It would not have been approved. They are old friends and it's technically for the House so not going to embarrass him by standing it down, but the fact is administration officials are not free agents politically, even in their spare time. You never get ahead of the President.' Huizenga has told others that a second Cabinet official could fundraise for him but they're settling on a date. One of the people familiar with Trump's thinking said they would not allow that to happen. The White House declined to comment. A spokesperson for Duffy did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Rogers declined to comment.
