As the Pretrial Fairness Act component of the SAFE-T Act went into full effect Monday, local state legislators were critical of the unintended consequences and expedited passage of the law that eliminates cash bail.
“The General Assembly is intended to be a deliberative body,” said state Sen. Erica Harriss (R-Glen Carbon). “The expedited process that rewrote the state’s criminal justice system, making Illinois the first in the nation to eliminate cash bail, came with little to no deliberation nor input from citizens. Additionally, nearly every State’s Attorney’s in the State opposed this legislation. This new law fails to consider the implications to public safety and the financial impact on our counties and local taxpayers.
State Rep. Charlie Meier (R-Okawville) agreed, saying the law will carry with it many unintended consequences.
“The unintended consequences of no-cash bail leave some of our local law enforcement and prosecutors with no choice and limited options,” he said. “With that said, I know our courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement are doing everything they can under the law to keep our communities safe. I will do everything I can to support them and welcome their feedback and suggested improvements to help them enforce the law and keep our communities safe.”
Specifically, Meier said that while the law puts criminals back on streets faster, it also deprives individuals with drug addictions from receiving treatment.
He added that the law affects individuals who have mental health issues and are arrested.
“I am talking about people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, this vulnerable population will be put back on the street instead of being transferred to a state facility for mental health treatment,” he said.
Harriss said the law also has unintended financial consequences.
“Together, Madison and St. Clair counties will see a financial hit of millions of dollars - money that has traditionally funded our courts’ ability to function and allowed victims to receive restitution and other resources and services,” she said.
“Now, it will likely be up to our property taxpayers to foot the bill if we don’t address this issue and find real solutions to provide our counties with the financial resources they need,” she added.
The SAFE-T Act went into effect on Sept. 18 after a stay on the law expired, which was established by the Illinois Supreme Court in response to a constitutional challenge by Kankakee County State’s Attorney James Rowe, a Republican, and Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, a Democrat. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of more than 60 state’s attorneys and sheriffs from counties throughout the state, including Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Haine. The law was originally supposed to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023, before the stay was issued.
The state’s attorneys argued that the law jeopardizes public safety by allowing criminals to remain free and potentially continue to commit crime while they await trial. They also argued that the law scrapped the state’s monetary bail system without a constitutional amendment.
In a 5-2 ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court - with a Democratic supermajority - sided with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul when it rejected the constitutional challenge on July 18.
Illinois courts now have 60 days to comply with the provisions of the SAFE-T Act.
The state’s Supreme Court’s majority ruled that Gov. J.B. Pritzker and his allies in the Illinois General Assembly were within their constitutional authority to reform the cash bail-based system of pretrial release without amending the state constitution.
“Legislative latitude in regulating pretrial release … was a fundamental underpinning of the bail clause,” Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote for the majority. “The legislature has once again engaged in the process of bail reform, and its efforts are consistent with the drafters’ intent.”
Republican Justices David Overstreet and Lisa Holder White dissented, arguing that the Illinois Constitution guarantees a right to “bail by sufficient sureties,” including cash bond.
The majority, however, concluded that the constitution’s language was merely a tool for courts to use when balancing the rights of criminal defendants to remain free pending trial and the rights of the public to remain safe from criminal threats.
They added that lawmakers may take the tool away and require the courts to develop other ways to compel defendants to return to court to stand trial.