Illinois lawmakers' latest perk — continuing education credits for going to work
State legislators who are also lawyers in Illinois are getting a new perk, courtesy of the state Supreme Court.
They just need to show up for work in the Illinois General Assembly and they'll be able to collect credit toward satisfying continuing education classes required to keep their law licenses in good standing.
The new benefit came about from a little-noticed change in Supreme Court rules, a move encouraged and endorsed by multiple lawmakers. It took effect Jan. 1, just in time for the ongoing spring legislative session. At least 29 lawmakers were notified that they could qualify for up to 12 of the 30 educational credits they need to collect over two years.
The lawmaker-lawyers can chalk up three hours of credit by simply attending one day of a legislative session, a committee meeting or a subcommittee hearing, according to the new rule. One catch is that they can collect only three credits throughout a legislative session, such as a spring session that lasts several months or a fall veto session that lasts a few weeks, court officials said.
While many current lawmakers — notably House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch, Senate President Don Harmon and Senate Minority Leader John Curran, all three of whom are lawyers — not surprisingly support the new benefit, some former legislators and state legal experts said the benefit for a select few of the state's nearly 86,000 active lawyers raises questions about why members of the General Assembly get the special break. They and others also said it smacked of favoritism from a Supreme Court whose budget relies on lawmakers' approval.
'It does sort of seem like special treatment for a select group of people,' said Kent Slater, who formerly served as a House Republican and as a state appellate court justice. It 'looks like the Supreme Court is trying to make friends with the legislature.'
Illinois lawmakers over the years have amassed or worked to collect a wide array of benefits for themselves, including pension sweeteners and salary bonuses for higher-ranking lawmakers. For more than a century, they were able to distribute legislative scholarships, before the program was killed after news stories detailed tuition waivers at state universities for relatives, political cronies and campaign donors. In the 1980s, one legislator even advanced a bill that would have allowed lawmakers who served 10 years in the General Assembly to practice law without going to law school if they passed the bar exam. That idea rose quickly but fizzled fast once the public heard about it.
Yet the timing for this latest perk is inopportune, as it comes when Gov. JB Pritzker and his fellow Democrats who control supermajorities in both chambers are showing little interest in implementing any sweeping good-government reforms — even following former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's federal corruption conviction earlier this year.
Elizabeth Grossman, executive director of Common Cause Illinois, said the idea that lawmakers are now getting another break 'rather than passing meaningful reform that will make the legislature more responsive to the people of Illinois shows us where their priorities are.'
But state Rep. Terra Costa Howard, a lawyer and Democrat from Glen Ellyn, said she pushed for the credits because she saw a need.
Though she could benefit from the new rule, Costa Howard said acquiring required educational hours 'really isn't hard' for her personally because she already gets significant annual training. But her colleagues, she said, often are in a quandary trying to find time to complete their educational hours while they are busy making laws during crunch time in Springfield.
Costa Howard said she reached out to various legal sources, including Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Kay O'Brien, a former House Democrat who represents the lawmaker's region on the high court.
'I sort of just took the bull by the horns and went for it,' Costa Howard said.
No doubt, lawmakers can learn something about state laws if they pay attention to debates, ask questions and discuss the legal issues as part of the General Assembly. Because their job, which is technically part-time, also requires them to vote on proposed state laws, they also have an argument that attending legislative hearings could qualify for continuing education credit hours.
'The work that we do as legislators is actually continuing legal education each and every day,' said Costa Howard, who served six years on a House judiciary panel. 'The legislation that you are working on, really going through, has to do 100% with the practice of law. You're looking at statutes, how they are read and interpreted, and it's what we do all the time.'
The new rules went into effect at the start of the year but in March the Illinois Supreme Court's Minimum Continuing Legal Education Board sent a reminder to legislators explaining, for example, how a House lawmaker who is a lawyer can receive the credit by sending in a copy of a 'Quorum Roll Call,' the official House record that keeps track of who punched their attendance button for a particular legislative day. A similar process was explained for senators. A video link was even provided to help lawmakers figure out how to get their 'non-traditional' credit.
'You will earn three hours of general MCLE credit by attending at least one day of one qualifying legislative session,' the video said.
How much credit lawmakers should receive is another issue getting attention.
'If it adds up to 12 hours, that's quite a bit,' said Ann Lousin, a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago's law school who worked as a researcher at the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention. In comparison, she said, she might get 15 credit hours for writing a substantial law review article or a book on legal issues.
Steven Lubet, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University's law school and an expert on legal ethics, called the credit for lawmakers 'remarkable.'
'It is especially weird because full-time law teachers do not obtain credit for teaching law school courses, presumably on the theory that MCLE credit requires more than just doing your job,' Lubet wrote in an email. 'I don't see why that same principle wouldn't apply to legislators.'
In an interview, Lubet acknowledged he didn't have a 'great problem' with extending credit for legislative hearings that include evidence about why a law should be written but he said that the inconsistency of what counts as credit is 'jarring.'
Costa Howard, while saying she has 'utmost respect' for most law professors, maintained that writing and teaching law is very different from lawmakers' interpreting, preparing and explaining bills in Springfield.
The decision to give Illinois lawmakers credit raised the number of states that count legislative service toward legal education to at least 24. Before the decision, the nation was split evenly, with 23 states giving credit to lawmakers for their service and 23 that did not, according to research by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Four states didn't require continuing legal education. Eleven states provided a 'full CLE exemption for attorney legislators,' said Supreme Court spokesman Christopher Bonjean.
'The Illinois Supreme Court has been part of a national movement to recognize the educational value of activities outside of traditional coursework. One early example of this is attendance and teaching at bar association meetings,' Bonjean wrote in an emailed response. 'This has gradually expanded to legal scholarship, lawyer-to-lawyer mentoring and service on Supreme Court Boards, Commissions, and Committees. Expansion of limited credit for legislators is a continuation of this, and the Court most recently added a pilot project for CLE credit for providing pro bono legal assistance.'
While a legislator could claim three hours of credit if a short committee meeting is the legislator's only committee hearing or full legislative session for the day, it is likely that every lawmaker will have other scheduled legislative days to participate in a full legislative session or committee hearing for at least three hours in either session, according to court officials.
Legislative support included a letter co-signed by Welch 'along with more than 30 colleagues from both sides of the aisle asking the Supreme Court to consider recognizing the work legislators do as part of their continuing legal education requirement,' said Jon Maxson, Welch's spokesman. 'Throughout his time as a lawmaker and attorney, the speaker has completed his CLE requirements and will evaluate how this rule can contribute to this requirement going forward.'
Similarly, Harmon spokesman John Patterson said the Senate president communicated to court officials his support for the new rule. Patterson said giving the credits to lawmakers has been talked about for many years and Harmon has indicated his support 'in passing conversations over the years.'
'It seems like a reasonable approach,' Patterson said. 'Continuing Legal Education programs are intended to make sure lawyers stay up to date with laws, and that's what lawmakers do on a daily basis during session.'
Patterson said it is possible Harmon will tap into the new credits for legislative service, depending on what his overall tally of credits is when it is time for him to report.
Curran, the Senate GOP's leader, said he was not sure if he would partake in the opportunity for credit because his law firm uses the Illinois State Bar Association's online offerings for educational purposes, but he said he supports the new rule.
'I thought it was a very appropriate accommodation by the Supreme Court in recognition of just the volume of statutory work we do as legislator lawyers,' Curran said. 'I would put the statutory work I do as a legislator against any CLE (course) that I've ever been a part of.'
House Republican Leader Tony McCombie of Savana is not a lawyer. But her predecessor, former Rep. Jim Durkin, a former prosecutor from suburban Cook County, embraced the idea, saying his time spent debating, discussing, crafting and rewriting bills was more valuable than 'watching a CLE program on my laptop.'
Giving credit to this select group of lawmakers, of course, raises the issue of whether the same opportunity should be made available to lawyers elected to city councils and village boards — a point Illinois Municipal League CEO Brad Cole said is a 'natural question.'
In their own communities, Cole said, 'local officials write the laws too.'
Cole said he would monitor how the credit is used by state lawmakers and, if all goes well, look at requesting the credit be expanded to include lawyers elected to local government positions.
Asked whether lawyers elected to local posts should receive similar educational credits, Curran said: 'I think they should direct those issues to the court and ask the court to take a review of it.'
One question that often arises in Springfield is, once you start expanding a benefit, where do you stop?
In the 1980s, Democratic Sen. Frank Savickas of Chicago took advantage of a fast-paced day loaded with mundane bills to win support on a voice vote for an amendment that allowed lawmakers with a decade of service to become lawyers without going to law school. The one caveat was they had to pass the bar exam.
Savickas, who was not a lawyer but enjoyed creating mischief, suggested, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that legislators make laws and should be smart enough to use them professionally.
The idea went nowhere once the proposal made headlines, but his move to make veteran lawmakers eligible to practice law became legendary. It even drew admiration from colleagues when the Senate passed a traditional memorial resolution years later upon his death.
Even in Springfield, however, the resurrection of the Savickas proposal is unlikely — at least not anytime soon. Costa Howard 'can't imagine' it would pass today.
'Those of us who've actually graduated from law school and taken the bar would take umbrage with that,' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
16 minutes ago
Election of Mexico's first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in 170 years raises hope and skepticism
MEXICO CITY -- In his campaign for Mexico's Supreme Court, Hugo Aguilar sent a simple message: He would be the one to finally give Indigenous Mexicans a voice at one of the highest levels of government. 'It's our turn as Indigenous people ... to make decisions in this country,' he said in the lead up to Sunday's first judicial elections in Mexican history. Now, the 52-year-old Aguilar, a lawyer from the Mixtec people in Mexico's southern Oaxaca state, will be the first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in nearly 170 years in the Latin American nation, according to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. He could lead the high court. The last Indigenous justice to do so was Mexican hero and former President Benito Juárez, who ran the court from 1857 to 1858. For some, Aguilar has become a symbol of hope for 23 million Indigenous people long on the forgotten fringes of Mexican society. But others fiercely criticize his past, and worry that instead of representing them, he will instead stand with the ruling party, Morena, that ushered him onto the court. Supporters cite Aguilar's long history of working on Indigenous rights, while critics say that more recently he's helped push the governing party's agenda, including former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's massive infrastructure projects, at the expense of Indigenous communities. Aguilar's team said he would not comment until after official results were confirmed. 'He's not an Indigenous candidate,' said Francisco López Bárcenas, a distinguished Mixtec lawyer from the same region as Aguilar who once worked with him decades ago. He applauded the election of an Indigenous justice, but said 'He's an Indigenous man who became a candidate.' Aguilar was elected in Mexico's first judicial election, a process that's been criticized as weakening Mexico's system of checks and balances. López Obrador and his party overhauled the judicial system the populist leader was long at odds with. Instead of appointing judges through experience, voters elected judges to 2,600 federal, state and local positions. But the vote was marked by a very low voter turnout, about 13%. López Obrador and his successor and protege President Claudia Sheinbaum claimed the election would cut corruption in the courts. Judges, watchdogs and political opposition called it a blatant attempt to use the party's political popularity to stack courts in their favor, and gain control of all three branches of Mexico's government. While votes are still being counted in many races, the tally of results for nine Supreme Court justices came in first. The vast majority of the justices hold strong ties to the ruling party, handing Morena potential control over the high court. Aguilar's name was among those that appeared on pamphlets suggesting which candidates to vote for, which electoral authorities are investigating. Aguilar scooped up more than 6 million votes, more than any other candidate, including three who currently serve on the Supreme Court. The victory opened the possibility of Aguilar not just serving on the court, but leading it. Critics attributed his win to Mexico's highly popular president repeatedly saying she wanted an Indigenous judge on the Supreme Court in the lead up to the election. On Wednesday she said she was thrilled he was on the court. 'He is a very good lawyer,' she said. 'I have the privilege of knowing his work not just on Indigenous issues, but in general. He has wide knowledge and is a modest and simple man.' The Supreme Court has handed down decisions that, for example, establish the right of Indigenous people to be assisted by interpreters who speak their native language and defense attorneys in any legal process. But there remain significant outstanding issues like territorial disputes in cases of mega-projects. Aguilar began his career in Oaxaca's capital, working for SERmixe, an organization advocating for Indigenous rights as a law student in his mid-20s. Sofía Robles, a member of the organization remembers young Aguilar being passionate, choosing to be a lawyer to advocate for Indigenous communities often living in poverty and out of reach of the law. 'He had this conviction, and there were many things he wouldn't conform with,' 63-year-old Robles said. 'From the very beginning, he knew where he came from.' Despite coming from a humble working-class family, he would work for the organization for free after his law classes. He later worked there as a lawyer on agrarian issues for 13 years. After the Zapatista uprising in 1994, a guerrilla movement fighting for Indigenous rights in southern Mexico, Aguilar worked to carry out constitutional reforms recognizing the basic rights of Mexico's Indigenous people. Robles said she believes he will bring that fight she saw in him to the Supreme Court. 'He gives us hope,' she said. 'Aguilar is going to be an example for future generations.' But others like Romel González Díaz, a member of the Xpujil Indigenous Council in a Mayan community in southern Mexico, cast doubt on if Aguilar would truly act as a voice for their community. Aguilar's work came under fire when he joined the government's National Institute of Indigenous Peoples at the beginning of López Obrador's administration in 2018. It was then that he began to work on a mega-project known as the Maya Train fiercely criticized by environmentalists, Indigenous communities and even the United Nations. The train, which runs in a rough loop around the Yucatan peninsula, has deforested large swathes of jungle and irreversibly damaged an ancient cave system sacred to Indigenous populations there. Aguilar was tasked with investigating the potential impacts of the train, hearing the concerns of local Indigenous communities and informing them of the consequences. That was when González Díaz met Aguilar, who arrived with a handful of government officials, who sat down for just a few hours with his small community in Xpujil, and provided sparse details about the negative parts of the project. González Díaz's organization was among many to take legal action against the government in an attempt to block train construction for not properly studying the project's impacts. The environmental destruction left in the project's wake is something that continues to fuel his distrust for Aguilar. 'The concern with Hugo is: Who is he going to represent?' González Díaz said. 'Is he going to represent the (Morena) party or is he going to represent the Indigenous people?'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Urges Americans Take Action to ‘Kill' Trump Tax Cut Bill
(Bloomberg) -- Elon Musk is on a mission to block President Donald Trump's tax bill after he tried — and failed — to convince Republican lawmakers to preserve valuable tax credits for electric vehicles in the legislation, according to a person familiar with the matter. ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars NYC Residents Want Safer Streets, Cheaper Housing, Survey Says At London's New Design Museum, Visitors Get Hands-On Access The Buffalo Architect Fighting for Women in Design The Tesla Inc. chief executive officer personally appealed to House Speaker Mike Johnson to save the tax credit, the person said, requesting anonymity to discuss a private conversation. The House version of the tax measure calls for largely ending the popular $7,500 electric car subsidies by the end of 2025. Since losing that battle, Musk ratcheted up his offensive against the president's signature legislation on Wednesday, urging that Americans contact their lawmakers to 'KILL' the legislation, pinning his opposition to the bill's $2.4 trillion price tag. 'Call your Senator, Call your Congressman,' Musk wrote in a social media post. 'Bankrupting America is NOT ok!' The post came one day after Musk lashed out at the tax bill, describing it as a budget-busting 'disgusting abomination' as Republican fiscal hawks stepped up criticism of the massive fiscal package. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. NBC News reported earlier on Musk's overture to Johnson. Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who voted against the measure, defended Musk, saying in a post on X: 'He knows if America collapses financially, we aren't making it to Mars. He's right.' Trump hasn't publicly responded to Musk's comments, but the White House put out a statement Wednesday saying the legislation 'unleashes an era of unprecedented economic growth.' Tensions between Musk and the White House have flared in recent days after the tech titan formally stepped down from his role leading Trump's federal cost-cutting effort, the Department of Government Efficiency. After a meeting with Trump and Republican senators at the White House on Wednesday evening, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas told Bloomberg Television that 'Elon was not important at all as far as this conversation goes.' Earlier, Johnson told reporters that Musk was 'dead wrong' about the bill and that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through economic growth. Musk's public condemnation pits him against the president at a critical time as Trump is personally lobbying holdouts on the bill. His campaign against the legislation threatens to stiffen resistance and delay enactment of the tax cuts and debt ceiling increase. Musk has attacked the legislation days after leaving a temporary assignment leading the administration's Department of Government Efficiency initiative to cut federal spending. The Tesla Inc. chief executive officer's high-profile role in the Trump administration eroded his business brand and sales of his company's electric vehicles plunged. The House-passed version of the tax and spending bill would add $2.4 trillion to US budget deficits over the next decade, according to an estimate released Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO's calculation reflects a $3.67 trillion decrease in expected revenues and a $1.25 trillion decline in spending over the decade through 2034, relative to baseline projections. The score doesn't account for any potential boost to the economy from the bill, which Johnson and Trump argue would offset the revenue losses. Johnson said Musk had promised to help reelect Republicans just a day before savaging Trump's bill, adding that he did not want to ascribe a personal motive. Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Separately, Jared Isaacman, a financial technology billionaire, appeared to suggest Trump withdrew his nomination to run NASA because of his close ties to Musk. 'There were some people that had some axes to grind, I guess, and I was a good visible target,' Isaacman said on an episode of the All-In Podcast released on Wednesday. His ouster was driven by Sergio Gor, the head of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, according to people familiar with the matter. Gor and Musk had butted heads during the billionaire's tenure running the Department of Government Efficiency, the people said, and Gor moved to have Isaacman's nomination withdrawn after Musk pulled back from the administration. A White House spokesperson said Trump ultimately makes the decisions regarding who will serve in his administration. Musk, the world's richest man with a net worth of about $377 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, has become a crucial financial backer of the Republican party. After making modest donations most years, Musk became the biggest US political donor in 2024, giving more than $290 million. Most of Musk's political giving was aimed at electing Trump but he also supported congressional candidates. America PAC, the super political action committee that Musk largely funded, spent $18.5 million in 17 separate House races. Though that total pales in comparison to the roughly $255 million he spent backing Trump, the spending means a lot in a congressional election, where challengers on average raise less than $1 million. Control of the House will likely be decided by the outcome of fewer than two dozen close races in the 2026 midterm elections. The GOP's chances of holding their majority would suffer a major blow if Musk were to withdraw his financial support. --With assistance from Bill Allison, Kailey Leinz, Joe Mathieu and Ari Natter. (Updates with Thomas Massie comment, in seventh paragraph.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Election of Mexico's first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in 170 years raises hope and skepticism
MEXICO CITY (AP) — In his campaign for Mexico's Supreme Court, Hugo Aguilar sent a simple message: He would be the one to finally give Indigenous Mexicans a voice at one of the highest levels of government. 'It's our turn as Indigenous people ... to make decisions in this country,' he said in the lead up to Sunday's first judicial elections in Mexican history. Now, the 52-year-old Aguilar, a lawyer from the Mixtec people in Mexico's southern Oaxaca state, will be the first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in nearly 170 years in the Latin American nation, according to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. He could lead the high court. The last Indigenous justice to do so was Mexican hero and former President Benito Juárez, who ran the court from 1857 to 1858. For some, Aguilar has become a symbol of hope for 23 million Indigenous people long on the forgotten fringes of Mexican society. But others fiercely criticize his past, and worry that instead of representing them, he will instead stand with the ruling party, Morena, that ushered him onto the court. Top vote getter in controversial contest Supporters cite Aguilar's long history of working on Indigenous rights, while critics say that more recently he's helped push the governing party's agenda, including former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's massive infrastructure projects, at the expense of Indigenous communities. Aguilar's team said he would not comment until after official results were confirmed. 'He's not an Indigenous candidate,' said Francisco López Bárcenas, a distinguished Mixtec lawyer from the same region as Aguilar who once worked with him decades ago. He applauded the election of an Indigenous justice, but said 'He's an Indigenous man who became a candidate.' Aguilar was elected in Mexico's first judicial election, a process that's been criticized as weakening Mexico's system of checks and balances. López Obrador and his party overhauled the judicial system the populist leader was long at odds with. Instead of appointing judges through experience, voters elected judges to 2,600 federal, state and local positions. But the vote was marked by a very low voter turnout, about 13%. López Obrador and his successor and protege President Claudia Sheinbaum claimed the election would cut corruption in the courts. Judges, watchdogs and political opposition called it a blatant attempt to use the party's political popularity to stack courts in their favor, and gain control of all three branches of Mexico's government. While votes are still being counted in many races, the tally of results for nine Supreme Court justices came in first. The vast majority of the justices hold strong ties to the ruling party, handing Morena potential control over the high court. Aguilar's name was among those that appeared on pamphlets suggesting which candidates to vote for, which electoral authorities are investigating. A focus on Indigenous rights Aguilar scooped up more than 6 million votes, more than any other candidate, including three who currently serve on the Supreme Court. The victory opened the possibility of Aguilar not just serving on the court, but leading it. Critics attributed his win to Mexico's highly popular president repeatedly saying she wanted an Indigenous judge on the Supreme Court in the lead up to the election. On Wednesday she said she was thrilled he was on the court. 'He is a very good lawyer,' she said. 'I have the privilege of knowing his work not just on Indigenous issues, but in general. He has wide knowledge and is a modest and simple man.' The Supreme Court has handed down decisions that, for example, establish the right of Indigenous people to be assisted by interpreters who speak their native language and defense attorneys in any legal process. But there remain significant outstanding issues like territorial disputes in cases of mega-projects. Aguilar began his career in Oaxaca's capital, working for SERmixe, an organization advocating for Indigenous rights as a law student in his mid-20s. Sofía Robles, a member of the organization remembers young Aguilar being passionate, choosing to be a lawyer to advocate for Indigenous communities often living in poverty and out of reach of the law. 'He had this conviction, and there were many things he wouldn't conform with,' 63-year-old Robles said. 'From the very beginning, he knew where he came from.' Despite coming from a humble working-class family, he would work for the organization for free after his law classes. He later worked there as a lawyer on agrarian issues for 13 years. After the Zapatista uprising in 1994, a guerrilla movement fighting for Indigenous rights in southern Mexico, Aguilar worked to carry out constitutional reforms recognizing the basic rights of Mexico's Indigenous people. Robles said she believes he will bring that fight she saw in him to the Supreme Court. 'He gives us hope,' she said. 'Aguilar is going to be an example for future generations.' Ties to governing party But others like Romel González Díaz, a member of the Xpujil Indigenous Council in a Mayan community in southern Mexico, cast doubt on if Aguilar would truly act as a voice for their community. Aguilar's work came under fire when he joined the government's National Institute of Indigenous Peoples at the beginning of López Obrador's administration in 2018. It was then that he began to work on a mega-project known as the Maya Train fiercely criticized by environmentalists, Indigenous communities and even the United Nations. The train, which runs in a rough loop around the Yucatan peninsula, has deforested large swathes of jungle and irreversibly damaged an ancient cave system sacred to Indigenous populations there. Aguilar was tasked with investigating the potential impacts of the train, hearing the concerns of local Indigenous communities and informing them of the consequences. That was when González Díaz met Aguilar, who arrived with a handful of government officials, who sat down for just a few hours with his small community in Xpujil, and provided sparse details about the negative parts of the project. González Díaz's organization was among many to take legal action against the government in an attempt to block train construction for not properly studying the project's impacts. The environmental destruction left in the project's wake is something that continues to fuel his distrust for Aguilar. 'The concern with Hugo is: Who is he going to represent?' González Díaz said. 'Is he going to represent the (Morena) party or is he going to represent the Indigenous people?'
