After strengthening their supermajorities in the General Assembly and reelecting Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Democrats returned to Springfield on Tuesday for the veto session, facing questions about whether or not they’ll make changes to a controversial bill that was a hot-button issue during the campaign.
That bill, the “SAFE-T Act,” will eliminate cash bail on Jan. 1 in Illinois. In its place, judges will be required to determine whether defendants pose risks to individuals or to the public at-large, or if they pose a flight risk.
Legal challenges to the bill remain ongoing, but Democrats in Springfield are cautioning voters not to expect a major overhaul to the legislation at this time.
“We’ve learned from the past that the current cash bail system is unfair,” State Rep. LaShawn Ford said. “This is about making sure we bring everybody to the table. Everybody is going to be in Springfield that has an interest in improving the SAFE-T Act, and we’re going to be listening and working together.”
Ford says that the provisions in the bill requiring judges to evaluate whether a defendant is a risk to the public should remain in place, and emphasized that he doesn’t believe any of the language eliminating cash bail will be struck from the legislation.
Those who supported the bill argued that the current cash bail system disproportionately impacts poorer Illinoisans, and that the new system will add equity into the criminal justice system.
For his part, Pritzker has said he believes lawmakers will evaluate the bill, but he hasn’t offered many details on what those changes could entail.
“I’ll be watching carefully, and I’ve made my thoughts clear,” he said. “We’ll see if we can get something done during the veto session to address the changes we ought to be making.”
The legal challenges to the bill remain ongoing, however. More than half of the state’s attorneys in Illinois have filed suit against Pritzker and his administration, arguing that the SAFE-T Act violates the state’s constitution on several fronts.
One of the legal arguments is that eliminating cash bail is itself unconstitutional because it’s mentioned in the document itself, which could require additional steps to undo. The other argument is that lawmakers did not take the required amount of time to debate the bill before its passage.
The suits have been combined into one class-action lawsuit, with opponents of the bill set to make legal arguments in a Kankakee courtroom on Dec. 7.
Meanwhile, lawmakers may wait until after Thanksgiving before putting any tweaks to the SAFE-T Act up for debate or a vote, but what exact changes may be offered remain unclear as the session gets underway.
Read More: As Legal Challenges Persist, Democrats Evaluate Whether Tweaks to ‘SAFE-T Act’
