logo
Bill aimed at bolstering county public defender system moves forward in Springfield

Bill aimed at bolstering county public defender system moves forward in Springfield

Yahoo19-03-2025
SPRINGFIELD — In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that every person has a constitutional right to free legal representation in criminal cases, including poor people who are unable to afford a private attorney.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Texas Democrat says she was threatened with arrest after escort lost her on trail
Texas Democrat says she was threatened with arrest after escort lost her on trail

The Hill

time7 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Texas Democrat says she was threatened with arrest after escort lost her on trail

A Texas state House Democrat said she was threatened with arrest after an officer assigned to follow her lost track of her on a walking trail. Texas state Rep. Sheryl Cole (D) said in a post on X on Tuesday that an escort from the Texas Department of Public Safety, whom she said 'was forced upon me to track my every movement,' lost track of her on the trail, became angry and 'made a scene' in front of her constituents. 'While a little shaken up from the incident, I remain undeterred by this intimidation tactic by House Republicans to have a 24/7 state police presence to intimidate me and my colleagues,' Cole said. Cole's account of the incident comes as a fellow Democratic state representative, Nicole Collier, has chosen to stay on the floor of the state House chamber for more than 24 hours rather than having a law enforcement officer shadow her. After the state House Democrats returned to the Lone Star State on Monday, ending their two-week out-of-state stint to prevent Republicans from passing a new map, state Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) declared that those who came back would have an officer with them to ensure they didn't leave the state again. Collier chose to stay in the state House overnight instead and told MSNBC's Ali Vitali in an interview that she would stay 'as long as it takes.' 'At the moment that the directive was issued, I felt like it was wrong. It's just wrong to require grown people to get a permission slip to roam about freely. So I resisted,' she said. Cole said she stands in solidarity with Collier, who has 'refused to go along with this charade.' 'We will not be intimidated by this, and history will remember this,' she said. The Texas state legislature is expected to approve a new map as soon as this week, with enough Democrats back in the state for the body to conduct business.

There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem

The Hill

time7 minutes ago

  • The Hill

There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem

The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .

California Republicans sue to pause Newsom's redistricting effort
California Republicans sue to pause Newsom's redistricting effort

Axios

time7 minutes ago

  • Axios

California Republicans sue to pause Newsom's redistricting effort

California Republicans asked the state Supreme Court to pause Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) redistricting legislation to give the public time to review the proposal. Why it matters: The Monday lawsuit escalates the nationwide partisan redistricting battle, kicked off by President Trump pushing for redistricting in Texas. Newsom's office did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Driving the news: The lawsuit argues that the legislation's timeline undermines the state constitution's 30-day rule for public review. "Instead of a months-long transparent and participatory process overseen by an independent citizens redistricting commission for such a sensitive matter, the public would be presented with an up or down vote on maps unilaterally prepared in secret by the Legislature," the lawsuit said. The legislators are represented by Dhillon Law Group, a conservative law firm. State of play: Democratic lawmakers planned to pass a package of bills in the "Election Rigging Response Act" on Thursday, ahead of a Nov. 4 special election. The lawsuit argues that the legislature can't act on the bills until Sept. 18.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store