Illinois debates Clean Slate Act to seal or expunge eligible criminal records
ROCKFORD, Ill. (WTVO) — The Illinois Clean Slate Act, currently under consideration in the General Assembly, would create an automated system to seal or expunge eligible criminal records, offering individuals with past convictions a fresh start.
'We talked to over 100 legislators and every one of us that we've talked to so far has been really excited about passing clean slate legislation,' said Rev. Ciera Bates-Chamberlain, the executive director of Live Free.
'The system is problematic,' she continued. 'If everyone who was eligible to have their records sealed went down to the courthouse, it will take 154 years for them to actually seal all of those cases because of the backlog.'
Advocates for the Clean Slate Initiative say that a criminal record creates barriers to employment, housing, and other opportunities.
The plan would automate the process, automatically clearing an offender's record once they become eligible for relief.
Rev. Violet Johnicker, pastor of Brooke Road United Methodist Church, said, 'So, people think, 'oh, well, they've served their time. Why don't they just go get a job?' Because we unfortunately, as a society, and particularly Illinois, continue to place obstacles in the way of those folks who are working to better themselves and be meaningful, doing good contributions back to society So we want to remove those barriers and get themselves back on their feet.'
The Clean Slate Act has been passed in 12 states.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maryland emissions testing fee increasing from $14 to $30 on July 1
Vehicle emissions inspection costs in Maryland are slated to increase from $14 to $30 on July 1, part of a package of higher taxes and fees passed by the General Assembly as lawmakers sought to offset a deep budget deficit. The Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, also known as VEIP, requires vehicle owners to undergo emissions testing every two years to reduce air pollution, according to the state's Motor Vehicle Administration. Maryland Transportation Secretary Paul Wiedefeld said earlier this year that the VEIP fee has not increased since 1997. The funds raised will increase revenue to the transportation trust fund, which has funded the Maryland Department of Transportation since its creation in 1971. The extra revenue will go towards major transportation projects, such as improving I-81 and U.S. 15, state officials said. 'Democrats in Annapolis continue to punish drivers with gas vehicles,' Republican Del. Ryan Nawrocki said in a post on Facebook, pointing to the higher emissions inspection fee. Next week, the Maryland Board of Public Works is expected to approve a new contract for Envirotest Corp. to manage the VEIP stations and self-service kiosks in 13 of the states 23 counties and Baltimore City, according to the meeting agenda. Have a news tip? Contact Irit Skulnik at iskulnik@ or on X as @irit_skulnik
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Federal panel rules in favor of state in Arkansas congressional redistricting lawsuit
(Getty Images) A three-judge federal court panel on Friday dismissed with prejudice a case challenging Arkansas' congressional district map. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by a group of voters and the Christian Ministerial Alliance. It claimed boundaries for Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District were racially gerrymandered and diluted the votes of Black Arkansans. Congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn after the U.S. Census each decade in a process known as redistricting. The goal is to create districts that contain roughly the same population. The Ministerial Alliance's lawsuit was one of four filed to challenge Arkansas' 2021 redistricting process and the only one that hadn't been dismissed. On Friday, U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. and U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. granted the state's motion for summary judgment, saying there was not enough evidence to support the plaintiffs' racial discrimination claims. 'Multiple Arkansas citizens challenge how the General Assembly redrew the state's congressional district lines,' Friday's order states. 'Although their allegations were plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss [Docs. 35, 42], the evidence does not back up their claims of racial discrimination. For that reason, we grant summary judgment to Secretary of State John Thurston.' Thurston, who was secretary of state when the lawsuit was filed in 2023, was elected state treasurer in 2024 during a special election. The governor appointed Cole Jester to succeed Thurston. Previously, the entirety of Pulaski County was included in Arkansas' Second Congressional District, which is represented by Republican U.S. Rep. French Hill. During the 2021 redistricting process, Pulaski County was split between three congressional districts. Plaintiffs alleged the General Assembly considered racial data when redrawing district lines and unconstitutionally 'cracked' the Black voting bloc in southeast Pulaski County. The state's attorneys submitted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the state last October. According to Friday's order, the original complaint alleged two constitutional claims — one for racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment and one for vote dilution under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The federal panel said race needed to be 'the predominant factor' motivating the General Assembly's decision and that awareness or acceptance of a 'racially disparate impact is not enough.' Three-judge panel hears arguments but doesn't rule in Arkansas redistricting lawsuit Creating 'an alternative map' is one way to prove redrawn boundaries were racially motivated, the panel said. However, that only works if the alternative map still accomplishes the Legislature's partisan goals. 'If it does not, then it just highlights how the pursuit of a nonracial aim — like retention, partisanship, or geography — could have led to an unintended racial disparity,' the panel wrote. 'All three of the plaintiffs' alternatives fall short in exactly this way.' Citing a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of a decision by a three-judge panel that found South Carolina had discriminated against Black voters in a 2023 redistricting lawsuit, Stras and his counterparts noted the high court emphasized that the courts must 'start with the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.' 'Absent direct evidence of racial discrimination and with only weak circumstantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case, the presumption of legislative good faith tips the balance,' Stras wrote. That coupled with the fact that no alternative map achieves the General Assembly's goals with 'significantly greater racial balance,' meant the judges could not reasonably find that the plaintiffs had proved enough for their claim of racial gerrymandering to survive summary judgment, according to the ruling. The primary obstacle of the presumption of good faith holds true for the plaintiffs' vote-dilution claim, according to Friday's order. While the vote-dilution claim requires race to be a 'motivating factor' instead of the predominant one, the panel argued 'the plaintiffs do not have enough evidence to get there.' 'Most of what the plaintiffs offer are the materials we have already discussed: maps, statistics, and legislative history, none of which are enough to infer a racial motivation,' the panel wrote. The federal judges acknowledged as evidence a report from a university doctoral candidate that describes Arkansas' 'long history' with racism and resistance to Black voters, but wrote that much of that predates the passage of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. 'Even if he identifies a few scattered examples since then, none are 'reasonably contemporaneous with the challenged decision,' giving us little insight into what the General Assembly may have been thinking four years ago,' the panel wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
