Dec. 12, 2017
(Champaign) News-Gazette
No single person has been, is now or ever will be in charge of the state of Illinois, and it’s a darn good thing.
Gov. Bruce Rauner stirred up another rhetorical hornet’s nest last week when, in an emotional exchange with reporters, he spoke with frustration about his inability to implement some programs he believes would boost the state’s economy, lower property taxes and create term limits for state legislators.
“Illinois would be on a great future … if I was in charge. I am not in charge. I’m trying to get to be in charge,” he said.
Then Rauner, as is his custom, identified House Speaker Michael Madigan, who has blocked almost the entire Rauner agenda, as the source of Illinois’ problems.
“We’ve been in a state controlled by one person, one person, for 35 years. And until that changes, we don’t have a good future,” Rauner said of the 75-year-old Chicago Democrat.
Given that Illinois is on the verge of an election year, and Rauner has an opponent in the March primary and a slew of Democrats who’d like to win his job in the November general election, reaction was as swift as it was demeaning.
“If (Rauner) is not in charge, we’d better find out who is,” said Steve Brown, who answers the questions posed to Madigan.
State Rep. Jeanne Ives, the Republican House member from Wheaton who is challenging the governor in the GOP primary, asserted that if she’s elected governor, she’ll be in charge of the state.
“Rauner says he’s not in charge in Springfield. I am ready to lead the charge in Springfield,” Ives tweeted.
The political folderol generated by Rauner’s comment is no surprise. Election rhetoric is aimed at hitting emotional hot spots, and most, if not all, politicians know how to play that game, Rauner included.
It’s one reason why he aims most of his attacks at the deeply unpopular but tremendously powerful Madigan. It’s the same reason that Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner J.B. Pritzer spends a lot of time talking about how much he dislikes Republican President Donald Trump.
The names of both Madigan and Trump touch nerves in the voting population, and Rauner and Pritzker think they can profit politically by making their targets the face of the opposition.
OK, fine. That’s how the game is played.
But that does not have to reflect the public discussion generated by less partisan commenters.
So let’s be clear about Rauner’s statement that he’s not in charge of Illinois and that Madigan is.
The governor is half right. Rauner is not in charge of the state, but neither is Madigan.
Both certainly would like to be. Under the separation of powers, neither ever will be.
Federal and state government in this country is based on a system of checks and balances designed to protect the people from the abuse of power - executive, legislative and judicial branches who have their own individual duties.
As the state’s chief executive, Rauner is in charge of the executive branch.
As House Speaker, Madigan is one of many legislators who control the House and Senate, although he has acquired, through a variety of astute maneuvers, outsized influence that makes him the go-to guy in the General Assembly.
As for the judiciary, it’s managed by the seven members of the Illinois Supreme Court, and power is devolved from the high court to the appellate and trial courts.
No one is in charge because the Founding Fathers realized that no single individual - like, say, the king of England - can be trusted to exercise such vast power in a way that does not threaten the liberty of the people.
Perhaps Rauner wasn’t thinking exactly in those terms when he referred to his inability to compel Madigan and the Democratic legislators to do that which they do not wish to do. But his point is no less valid.
Government in Illinois relies on cooperation between the executive and the legislative branches, something that’s been urged on Rauner and Madigan since the voters elected a divided government in November 2014.
The two men obviously could not agree on a state budget, among other things, and a two-year standoff ensued, each betting the other would eventually cave.
Rauner lost that battle when enough legislative Republicans surrendered to Madigan on the budget issue and the speaker was able to override Rauner’s veto of a state income-tax increase and the Democrats’ version of the budget.
That series of events made amply clear how power is apportioned under the democratic process - by design, no one person is in charge, should be in charge or ever could be in charge of Illinois.
___
Dec. 11, 2017
The (Alton) Telegraph
Just because once-green fields are now barren doesn’t mean farms fall silent.
Even those who aren’t tending to livestock have plenty of things to fill the winter hours and days. Combines and planters need repaired and readied for spring. Decisions have to be made about what crops will be planted next season. Budgets have to be prepared.
Those who have never run a farm - family or commercial - can only imagine what goes into that last responsibility. There is a lot of projecting and guessing: from what the weather will do to how crop payments will trend to how the economy will affect the prices of equipment and materials.
Compound that with a growing mystery over the future of the United States’s role in the North American Free Trade Agreement and it would be easy to understand the hand-wringing taking place in the agriculture world.
About one-third of Illinois farmers surveyed by the Illinois Farm Bureau expect 2018 to be rougher than this year, while 59 percent anticipate things being the same. The majority are planning to delay buying equipment, while one-quarter say it’s likely they will cut back on labor or buy less-expensive seed.
“In this climate, farmers are looking for ways to cut expenses,” Illinois Farm Bureau senior economist Mike Doherty said. “It’s not only a matter of financial awareness; for many, it will be an absolute necessity.”
The impact of that angst will extend beyond the tilled farmlands. The agriculture community pumps more than $121 billion a year into the state’s economy - nearly 10 percent of the total - and its 72,200 farms account for almost 6 percent of all the jobs in the state, according to the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
Illinois also is a leading exporter of agricultural commodities, with its 27 million acres shipping more than $8 billion in goods to other countries.
Given that, it’s not surprising that trade agreements and the future of NAFTA are big worries for Illinois farmers.
“Our farmers understand the importance of trade and value its contribution to their bottom lines, so it’s always a priority. However, this year’s political focus on NAFTA and talks of withdrawing from the trade deal certainly keeps trade top-of-mind,” according to Adam Nielsen, director of national legislation and policy for the Illinois Farm Bureau.
The Trump administration has signaled its desire to pull out of NAFTA. Many agriculture groups have expressed opposition to such a move, while some are supportive of going that direction if better agreements can be forged.
Unfortunately, that’s a big “if” and it seems as though having a plan in place is not a priority. It’s become modus operandi for federal agencies so blinded by the rush to dismantle the past that they don’t even consider the future. The ambiguity of putting “America first” too often seems to mean “America all by itself.”
Failing to grasp, or choosing to ignore, that distinction when it comes to the importance of trade could be devastating.
Not just for the farmers who are able to see beyond the here and now.
___
Dec. 9, 2017
Chicago Sun-Times
Illinois has put a new twist on the Alice-in-Wonderland concept of “sentence first - verdict afterward.” A legal backlog has grown so lengthy that some defendants are getting hearings on their appeals only after they have already completed their sentences.
The backlog has built up in the Office of the State Appellate Defender, which handles appeals for defendants who can’t afford their own appellate lawyers. Over the years, the roughly 175 lawyers in the office have uncovered many egregious examples of innocent people who were wrongfully convicted.
Twenty years ago, the appellate defender’s office ran afoul of a federal court because the backlog of cases had grown to the point that opening briefs weren’t being filed until an average of 18 months after the verdict was rendered at the trial level. The federal court said such a lengthy delay was “presumptively unconstitutional.” After the federal rebuke, the appellate defender’s office got rid of the backlog.
But now, because vacancies weren’t filled in recent years due to Illinois’ budget constraints, the average delay for the 5,700 cases currently in the office has shot back up to 21 months.
That’s “disheartening,” said MacArthur Justice Center Executive Director Locke Bowman, who led the fight to erase the backlog 20 years ago. “I had hoped that the examination of these issues and the work we did 20 years ago would have been more permanent.”
Because of the delays, innocent people may be sitting in prison unnecessarily. Other innocent people might have done their time before getting a ruling on their appeals. When you add in the time required for the state’s briefs, reply briefs and oral arguments, it can take close to three years or more for a ruling from an appellate court if the opening brief isn’t filed for 21 months. Most defendants have finished serving their sentences by then.
Last week, the Injustice Watch website cited two cases in which defendants had completed sentences of seven and 10 years, taking into account day-for-day credit, before the appellate court ruled in their favor.
When there are procedural errors at the trial level, the remedy usually is a new trial. But there is little point in having a new trial when the defendant already has served a sentence. Moreover, the longer it takes to schedule a retrial, the harder it is for both prosecutors and defense lawyers to put on their cases. Witnesses may be hard to find or may have started to forget what happened. Knowing that, appellate judges may be more reluctant to order new trials.
Long delays give the wheels of justice a flat tire.
After the Legislature finally passed a budget last year, appellate defender vacancies were gradually filled, and money again was made available to hire some outside lawyers to help out. That will keep the backlog from growing, but whittling it down will be an overlong process.
To get caught up more quickly, the Legislature should make additional money available to shorten the backlog, either by hiring extra appellate lawyers or increasing the funding for outside help. When a new director takes over the office next year, trimming the backlog should be a priority.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.