In our last installment, we introduced you to HB3138, the bill that, last night, became a 389-page judicial redistricting bill.
As introduced, of course, the bill had nothing to do with judicial redistricting, in Cook County or anywhere else. But HB3138 had other virtues that recommended it highly to those looking to quickly enact a map, to wit, it had passed the House and was on the cusp of passing the Senate, too, prior to yesterday.
The almost leisurely pace of this bill, through the House and into the Senate, is reflected in the legislative history of the bill displayed on the General Assembly's website (click to enlarge or clarify):
As originally introduced, this bill was the model of bipartisanship; it passed the House 113-0.
It arrived in the Senate on April 23, 2001 and received its First Reading on April 28.
Then something happened. As HB3138 made its way through the Senate Committee structure, Senate President Don Harmon filed an amendment to the bill. This is the text of Senate Amendment 1 to HB3138, filed May 26, 2001:
1 AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 31382 AMENDMENT NO. ___. Amend House Bill 3138 by replacing
3 everything after the enacting clause with the following:
4 "Section 5. The Supreme Court Act is amended by changing
5 Section 7 as follows:
6 (705 ILCS 5/7) (from Ch. 37, par. 12)
7 Sec. 7. The
8 power and authority necessary to carry into complete execution
9 all its judgments and determinations in all matters within its
10 jurisdiction, according to the rules and principles of the
11 common law and of the laws of this State.
12 (Source: P.A. 81-275.)"
Before this amendment, the statute was dull and lifeless. But then comes the amendment! As rewritten, the soaring language of that deathless prose sends little shivers up your spine, doesn't it?
Now I suppose, if any seasoned legislator or legislative staffer were to actually read this post, he or she might tell me to chill out. The experienced person might assure me that things like this have been done in Springpatch since before Abraham Lincoln jumped out of a window to try and avoid a quorum call.
And Abraham Lincoln did jump out a window once, for that very purpose. I looked it up. (See, David Herbert Donald's Lincoln, p. 77, Simon & Shuster, 1995.) And, as a lawyer, and therefore a sucker for precedent, I might be inclined to believe that the stockpiling of almost-passed bills has been in the General Assembly's toolbox since Vandalia was the state capital.
But -- even if that were true -- not the part about Lincoln -- that is true -- the part about almost-passed bills -- I really doubt that giant 389-page bills could have been swapped out for a single paragraph before the advent of modern word processing software.
But let us continue. After this thrilling amendment was introduced, it was quickly approved by committee and the bill, as now amended, received its Second Reading, and placed on the calendar for its Third (and final) Reading. And then it was placed on hold. On ice. In stasis.
Until it was needed. Here is the rest of the legislative history, taken from the GA website (click to enlarge or clarify):
Golly. Things sure happen fast when some folks make up their minds.
Now I know that I'm veering off topic here for a moment, but I'm afraid some readers might worry: What happened to the non-controversial, unanimously-passed amendment to §11 of the Supreme Court Act?
Well, it became law, right enough, this past July.
It seems that an identical piece of legislation was filed in the Senate as SB337. SB337 passed the Senate unanimously, too, and around the same time that HB3138 was adopted by the House. SB337 and HB3138 might have even passed by each other as they journeyed across the Capitol. Ultimately, it was the Senate version that passed the House on May 19, 2021 (becoming P.A. 102-94) and leaving HB3138 available to be hollowed out and put in storage until it was needed last night.
Which brings us to the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022 itself.
A number of rumors are already swirling about the unintended consequences of this enactment -- for example, one rumor has it that this new law will hit the Cook County Democratic Party squarely in the pocketbook.
But -- unlike the stellar graduates of the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading Course who must predominate in the Legislature -- it will take me a little time to work through this lengthy bill. Bear with me a little while.
To be continued....
3 comments:
=== But -- unlike the stellar graduates of the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading Course who must predominate in the Legislature -- it will take me a little time to work through this lengthy bill. Bear with me a little while. ===
I worked through the bill in about a half hour. Here's a hint: only focus on the underlined language. Its the underlined language that is actually new. The other stuff already exists within the statutes.
Jack,
What the bill does is take the next 55 "countywide" vacancies that become available after 6/1/22 and reassigns them to the new subcircuits (16, 17, 18, 19, and 20) until each of the new subcircuits have 11 judges. Usually there are around 10 countywide vacancies in every two year election cycle so the Cook County Democratic Party is not going to be able to slate a countywide judicial candidate until all the new subcircuits are filled -- which will probably occur sometime next decade. And when all the new subcircuits are filled, there will only be around 35 countywide circuit judges left on the bench.
Here is the language in the bill from page 365 of Senate amendment 2:
705 ILCS 35/2f (d-5) (new) All vacancies in circuit judgeships in the Circuit of Cook County, which are not allotted to Judicial Subcircuits 1 through 15 pursuant to subsection (c) of this Section, existing on or occurring on or after June 1, 2022 shall be allotted in numerical order to Judicial Subcircuits 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 until there are 11 resident judges to be elected from each of those subcircuits (for a total of 55).
So we are trading one set of mediocre countywide judges for another set of mediocre subcircuit judges -- the only metric for success being the value of their ballot name. Expect a mad rush of lawyers in the Chancery Division seeking name changes. The most popular surnames being Murphy, Jackson and Garcia.
Post a Comment