Senate raises hurdles for ERA
ON MARCH 5 the state Senate severely crippled this year's move toward ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), in the Illinois General Assembly. By a vote of 31-26, the senators agreed to set three-fifths as the required majority this session for adoption of the controversial amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Some women's rights proponents said the action effectively killed ERA this year. "There is no way we (ERA supporters) can get a three-fifths, we barely have a majority," said Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D., Chicago). Another pro-ERA senator, John Knuppel (D., Virginia), saw the action as a "waffling" avoidance of a vote on the amendment itself. "For those of you who don't have the guts to vote on the issue, then vote in favor of this motion," challenged Knuppel.
Senate Minority Leader William Harris (R., Pontiac) sponsored the motion to amend Senate Rule 6 that settled the vital side issue of whether a three-fifths majority of 36 votes, or a simple majority of 30 votes, would be needed to ratify. Harris said the move was not designed to kill ERA, but to follow the guidelines of the Illinois Constitution.
The state Constitution requires "the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members" of each house to ratify federal amendments. However, the Illinois attorney general has twice declared the three-fifths requirement in conflict with the highest law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
.ERA supporters took the question to court, but a three-judge U.S. District Court in Chicago sent the matter back to the lawmakers, ruling that it should be left to their discretion.
The Senate Executive Committee had already voted ERA out with a do-pass recommendation on February 4 when the February 19 court ruling put Senate President Cecil A. Partee (D., Chicago) at the center of controversy. An ERA opponent, Partee had been generally expected to rule in favor of a 30-vote requirement, but he was reprieved from making that difficult decision by the adoption of the Harris resolution.
His ruling had been put off the day before, when the chief ERA sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Esther Saperstein (D., Chicago) decided against bringing the amendment to a vote. Apparently uncertain I as to how Partee would rule, and fearing that she might not have ¦ even 30 votes, Saperstein put off the matter. The next day's action set the requirement at 36 votes, thus precluding the possibility of a 30-vote ruling from Partee.
Even after the procedural defeat, Saperstein did not lose hope. "There are some who voted for the amendment [to the rules] who told me it won't change their 'yes' vote on ERA when it is called," she was quoted as saying.
A roll call comparison seemed to verify her conclusion. Six senators who voted for ERA when it passed the Senate last year voted for the Harris resolution this year. They are: John Davidson (R., Springfield), Norbert A. Kosinski (D., Chicago), John J. Nimrod (R., Skokie), Frank Savickas (D., Chicago), James C. Soper (R., Cicero) and Stanley B. Weaver (R., Urbana). As of early March, 34 states had ratified the amendment. For it ' become effective, 38 states must ratify before March 11979./G.A.
House Standing Committees Appropriations I Appropriations II Banks and Savings & Loan Associations Cities and Villages Counties and Townships
Agriculture
Democrats Schisler, chairman;
Brinkmeier. vice chairman; Craig, Dunn, Fennessey, Hanahan, Huff, Jaffe, Keller, Mudd, Mulcahey, O'Daniel, Richmond, Schraeder Republicans Rigney, minority spokesman: Anderson, Coffey, Ewing, Friedrich, McMaster, Neff, Schuneman, Waddell, Winchester
Democrats Lechowicz, chairman;
Democrats Boyle, chairman;
Democrats Leon, chairman;
Democrats Taylor, chairman;
Democrats Yourell, chairman;
Elections
Democrats Fennessey, chairman;
Laurino, vice chairman; Byers, DiPrima, Huff, Kozubowski, Leverenz, McPartlin, Sharp, VanDuyne
Republicans Kempiners, minority spokesman; Bluthardt, Collins, Friedland, Macdonakd, McAuliffe, Peters, Sevcik
Elementary and Secondary Education
Democrats Schneider, chairman;
Berman, vice chairman; Brinkmeier, Chapman, Jaffe, Lucco, Madison,
Marovitz, McClain, McGrew, Mulcahey, Pierce, Satterthwaite,
White
Republicans Polk, minority spokesman; Anderson, Borchers, Deuster, Gaines, Griesheimer, Hoffman, G., McCourt, Porter, Tuerk
Environment, Energy and Natural Resources
Democrats Pierce, chairman; Von Boeckman, vice chairman; Beatty, Boyle, Calvo, Parley, Getty, Houlihan, J., Kosinski, VanDuyne Republicans Meyer, minority spokesman; Barnes, Borchers, Bluthardt, Fleck, Griesheimer, Leinenweber, Macdonald, Mahar, Reed
Executive Higher Education Human Resources
Democrats Matijevich, chairman;
Capparelli, vice chairman; Berman, Flinn, Garmisa, Hill, Kozubowski, Luft, Maragos, Taylor, Terzich, Tipsword, Younge, Yourell
Republicans Kent and Lauer, minority spokesmen; Collins, Cunningham, Hoffman, R., Hudson, Kucharski, Miller, Peters, Stearney
Democrats Mann, chairman;
Stone, vice chairman; Beaupre, Birchler, Greiman, Kane, Lucco, Mautino, McGrew, Satterthwaite
Republicans Dyer, minority spokesman; Deuster, Dunn, Ebbesen, Hirschfeld. Jones, J., Klosak, Steele
Democrats Chapman, chairman;
Insurance Judiciary 1 Judiciary II
Democrats Merlo, chairman;
Beaupre, vice chairman; Berman, Craig, Fary, Laurino, Matijevich, Pierce, Pouncey, Von Boeckman Republicans Epton, minority spokesman; Carroll, Deavers, Hoffman, G., Mahar, Miller, Schuneman, Tuerk
Democrats Washington, chairman; Rayson, vice chairman; Beatty, D'Arco, Getty, Greiman, Holewinski, Houlihan, D., Jaffe, Lemke, Marovitz, McClain, Mugalian, Sangmeister Republicans Rose, minority spokesman; Bluthardt, Daniels, Fleck, Griesheimer, Hirschfeld, Palmer, Porter, Schlickman
Democrats Katz, chairman;
Roll call on motion to amend rules
Voting aye (to amend), 31. Democrats, 11 Bruce, Course, Donnewald, Joyce, Kosinski, McCarthy, Nudelman, Romano, Savickas, Vadalabene, Welsh. Republicans, 20 Bell, Beming, Clarke, Davidson, Graham, Harber Hall, Harris, Latherow, Merritt, Mitchler, Mohr, Moore, Nimrod, Ozinga, Philip, Regner, Shapiro, Sommer, Soper, Weaver.
Voting nay, 26. Democrats, 21 Buzbee, Chew, Daley, Demuzio, Dougherty, Egan, Kenneth Hall, Hickey, Hynes, Johns, Knuppel, Lane, Morris, Netsch, Newhouse, Palmer, Rock, Saperstein, Smith, Wooten, Partee. Republicans, 5 Carroll, Fawell, Glass, Roe, Schaffer.
Absent, 2. Bloom, R.; Swinarski, D.
May 1975/Illinois Issues/151
Labor and Commerce
Democrats Fary, chairman; Hill, vice chairman; Branch, Brinkmeier, Caldwell, Parley, Jacobs, Mautino, Slubblefield, Von Boeckman Republicans Geo-Karis, minority spokesman; Barnes, Deavers, Hudson, Molloy, Simms, Tuerk, .Waddell
Motor Vehicles Personnel and Pensions Public Utilities Revenue
Democrats Londrigan, chairman;
Keller, vice chairman; Barnes, Calvo, Craig, Giglio. Jones, E., Leon, Schisler. Schraeder
Republicans Skinner, minority spokesman; Carroll, Daniels, McAuliffe, McCourt, Molloy, Schlickman, Sevcik
Democrats McLendon, chairman;
Democrats McPartlin, chairman;
Democrats Maragos, chairman;
Transportation
Democrats Garmisa, chairman;
Sharp, vice chairman; Barnes,
Darrow, Dunn, Giglio, Jones, E.,
Kelly, Luft, Williams
Republicans Neff, minority
spokesman; Friedland, Kent,
Kucharski, McAuliffe, Steele,
Totten, Winchester
Veterans' Affairs, Registration and
Regulation
Democrats DiPrima, chairman;
Jacobs, vice chairman; Birchler, Caldwell, Fary, Laurino, Mudd, Nardulli, O'Daniel, Patrick Republicans Campbell, minority spokesman; Carrol], Epton, McAvoy, Schoeberlein, Sevcik, Waddell, Wall
Senate Committee Changes
The Senate Republican minority announced these changes in committee rosters first announced Jan. 22, 1975: Appropriations, Mohr for Berning; Finance, Bloom for Harris, Berning for Mohr; Insurance, Harris for Bloom.
Correction
Sen. Fred J. Smith was listed as a
Republican (in Illinois Issues,
April, p. 110). He is a Democrat,.
Judicial Report
Supreme Court Annual Report: Recommendations to legislature
THE ANNUALREPORT of the Supreme Court to the General Assembly covered 16 topics on which the court made recommendations. Some of the topics are:
1. Defender services
"It can safely be stated that trial level defender services in Illinois need to be increased substantially .... At the present time, providing public defender services, at the trial level, is the responsibility of the various counties. A public defender office must be established in counties of 35,000 or more inhabitants and may be established in counties of less than 35,000 inhabitants. Most of Illinois' 102 counties do not have public defender services. Of the 44 counties that have public defender offices, only 2 have full time offices ....
"[A]ny system adopted should 1) provide for the services of a full time public defender organization, possibly supplemented by participation of the private bar; 2) provide the indigent defendant with assurance that his publicly appointed counsel has the same professional independence, before the courts, as private counsel, and 3) provide investigatory, expert, and other supporting services necessary for an effective defense."
2. Restructuring of
judicial selection districts
"[T]he Court suggests to you that not every county in Illinois is big enough or busy enough to warrant a resident circuit judge ....
"We recommend that the General Assembly consider consolidating two or more counties, which have small populations, within any one circuit into one judicial district and provide for the selection of one judge to serve that district. By doing
State funding (chief judges' offices in multi-county circuits, improving court facilities),
Procedural matters (sentencing for multiple offenses, alibi defense. Juvenile Court procedure, recrimination in divorce cases), and Election Code problems. Excerpts from the report are given below; citations are usually omitted. Copies of the Annual Report are available from the Office of the Court Administrator, 118 West Edwards St., A Springfield, 111. 62706. so, the General Assembly could, as existing judgeships expire, allocate additional judgeships to the high population, high volume counties throughout the State without effecting any real increase in the number of sitting judges, but reallocatin them on a more rational basis."
3. State financing of chief judges' office in multi-county circuits
"The expenses of the office of the Chief Circuit Judge in a multi-county circuil should be paid out of State appropriations .... Individual county boards are reluctant to assume full responsibility for paying the expenses of an office which serves the needs, not only of the county in which the Chief Judge is located, but also of up to 11 other counties in the circuit."
4. Clerks of court
"The Supreme Court recognizes that the power to provide for either the election or the appointment of clerks of the circuit court is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the General Assembly. Nevertheless the Supreme Court concurs with its Committee's recommendation that clerks of the circuit court should be appointed by the circuit judges of the respective circuits and urges the General Assembly to consider changing the law in that respect....
"The salaries of the clerks of the circiut courts should be paid out of State appropriations under a schedule to be approved by the Supreme Court, within maximum and minimum amounts established by the General Assembly."
152/Illinois Issues/May 1975
Report cites defendants' rights, probation services, inadequate court facilities, election problems
5. Capital improvements and funding
"[T]he court facilities in a substantial number of our counties are little short of disgraceful .... Many courtrooms are poorly lighted, poorly ventilated, and badly maintained. Acoustical problems are so serious that hearing is difficult without loud speaker systems. Staff quarters are crowded, even though the staff itself is frequently insufficient. Conference rooms are not available .... Juvenile detention facilities are also nonexistent in some communities, despite the fact that the law prohibits judges from detaining juveniles in facilities used to house adult offenders .... [T]he lack of adequate court facilities in many areas is a major handicap to the effective administration of our judicial system ....
"It is particularly distressing to realize that millions of dollars in federal money have been allocated to Illinois in recent years which, if it could have been used for the priority programs identified by our Court, could have made significant inroads in dealing with these problems. Our Court has consistently maintained that federal funds allocable to the Courts to improve the administration of criminal and juvenile justice could most fruitfully be applied to funding capital improvements building, repairing and remodeling courthouses. Nevertheless, the agency responsible for allocating such funds has failed to authorize such programs for downstate counties. In Cook County the only county in which authority to spend federal funds for construction of court facilities has been considered the grant was coupled with such unacceptable conditions that Chief Judge John S. Boyle refused the money rather than abandon his constitutional responsibility to administer his court. 'Planners' and "social engineers' who are neither familiar with nor responsible for the administration of our courts cannot be allowed to assume authority to dictate court policy and procedure .... As much as the courts could use the millions of federal dollars which might be available under the 'Safe Streets Act', we will not accept any money for any program which could result in any economic control over the Illinois Court system by any agency oilier than the General Assembly of this State."
6. Multiple offenses and consecutive sentences
"[A] defendant who committed several offenses as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objectives . . . may either be sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for two or more of the offenses proved ... or may be considered to have committed the offenses in the course of a single transaction and, thus, will be liable to be sentenced only for the most serious of those offenses .... In such cases our Court has held that it is appropriate to impose only a single sentence for the most serious of the offenses proved, because the lesser offenses were not independently motivated or otherwise separable from the conduct which constituted the more serious offense ....
"[I]t seems counter-productive for the courts to view, review and then review again whether the criminal conduct of which the defendant has been proved guilty, arose out of a single act, was part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objectives, or whether each charge constituted a separate and distinct offense. The practical consequences of deciding these complex factual issues are not substantial; the defendant will probably not spend any more time in the penitentiary for several convictions on separate offenses than he would have if the court simply sentenced him for the most serious felony proved at any one trial.
"Therefore, the Supreme Court recommends that the General Assembly consider revising the Unified Code of Corrections to provide that where a defendant is tried on multiple charges, the court shall sentence him for the most serious charge of which he is found guilty, without regard to whether each such offense was a separate act or part of a single transaction or whether all arose out of a single act. However, the Court also recommends that the law provide that judgments of guilty on all offenses proved would remain a part of the defendant's criminal record, despite the fact that he would be sentenced for only the most serious proved."
7. Speedy trial statute
"It is suggested that the General Assembly consider amending the Speedy Trial statute to provide that, upon a motion for a continuance by the defendant, the running of the statutory period shall simply be held in abeyance during the period of the continuance and shall resume on the day following the day to which the case was continued."
8. Post-Conviction Hearing Act
A. Post-Conviction relief in misdemeanor cases This act permits a prisoner to raise constitutional questions as to the validity of his trial. In People v. Warr, 54 111. 2d 487 (1973)
the court had adapted the proceeding under this act to review also constitutional questions raised by defendants convicted of a misdemeanor (and therefore not in prison). "Perhaps the General Assembly would review the procedure outlined by the Court and incorporate appropriate statutory language in the Post-Conviction Hearing Act to accomplish the basic objectives outlined in the Warr case."
B. Limitations on filing petitions Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1960's led to reviews of the validity of convictions some years prior, and the 74th General Assembly amended the Post-Conviction Hearing Act to allow petitions to be filed within 20 years after final judgment. The Illinois court now recommends that this period be reduced to five years. "Such a change will have no effect on a prisoner's right to secure judicial review . . . but it will reduce the number of times the court system will be burdened by the same prisoner's request for relief from the same claims of injury on the same record which has been reviewed and denied several times already."
9. Discovery alibi defense rebuttal witnesses
"Perhaps the General Assembly would consider repealing the Alibi Defense statute, in view of the fact that essentially similar disclosure can be compelled under our Rules."
10. Pre-sentence evaluations
The Unified Code of Corrections allows the trial judge to commit a defendant to the Department of Corrections for not more than 60 days for pre-sentence examination, conditioned on the ability of the Department to accept such defendants. "To date, the Department of Corrections has not certified that it is capable of performing such presentence examinations.
"[T]he sole reason ... is the lack of adequate funding with which to establish examination depots. Our court feels that the establishment of pre-sentence examination depots is a matter of high priority [and] recommends that adequate appropriations be made available ... to carry out this very serious responsibility."
11. Recommendations for statutory and rule changes in cases arising under the Juvenile Cour Act
Recommendations of the Juvenile Problems Committee of the Illinois Judicial Conference on appeals in juvenile cases are reviewed and endorsed by the Court which "now urges the Legislature to pass the suggested amendments to the Statutes referred to."
12. Probation in Illinois
"The Committee [on Probation in Illinois] reports that the nature and quality of the services performed by probation staffs are considered by observers to vary greatly throughout the State. Caseloads are generally considered to be very high, and there is no
May 1975/lllinois lssues/153
Supreme Court Annual Report
consistent, generally accepted standard of performance in such critical areas as juvenile case intake procedure, pre-sentence investigating and reporting and the supervision of probationers ....
"[I]n the ideal probation system, the Supreme Court would exercise ultimate administrative authority and the system would receive full funding from the state appropriations .... [but] the General Assembly is not likely, in the foreseeable future, to assume the burden of appropriating millions of dollars to fund probation services throughout the State .... [I]t has been estimated that it would cost the state in excess of $25 million per year simply to fund probation services at current levels ....
"The Supreme Court has not yet undertaken to implement any of the suggestions made by the Committee . . . and is reluctant to undertake unilateral action to reorganize the administration of probation services without having first consulted with and obtained the counsel of both the General Assembly and the Governor."
13. Automatic enforcement of support and alimony decrees
"An appropriate statutory method should
be worked out whereby mandatory, automatic enforcement procedure for support and alimony orders could be initiated in Illinois without unduly burdening the Clerks of our Circuit Courts. If the Clerks need financial support, we recommend that support be provided by an appropriate fee or other measure deemed suitable by the General Assembly."
14. The defense of recrimination in divorce cases
"The Court urges the General Assembly to examine the question of whether the defense of recrimination should be abandoned under Illinois law, and to take such action as it may deem appropriate."
15. Election Code
A. Nomination of candidates who
have recently voted in another
party's primary The U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 held unconstitutional a provision in the Election Code forbidding a change in party affiliation for voting in a primary in a 23-month period. On the basis of this decision, the Illinois Court struck down a provision of the same character pertaining to eligibility to
sign a primary nominating petition. The Court quoted its language in that case, "our decision . . . may well prompt legislative action."
B. "Head-on-head" v. "field"
election of judges Where more than one vacancy in a judicial office is to be filled at a single election is there a separate contest for each position to be filled (head-on-head), or do all candidates run against all other candidates (field)? When this question was raised the court found no applicable statutory provision and decided in favor of head-on-head (1974). Now the court suggests the legislature supply the answer for the future.
16. Pensions
"[T]he salary for the last day of judicial service be considered as the base upon which retirement benefits will be calculated rather than the last four years of service ....
"The present period of vesting should be reduced from 10 years to 6 years.... Under the 1970 Constitution, circuit judges are elected for six-year terms, and reducing the period of vesting from 10 years to 6 years would coincide with one complete term for a circuit judge."
Judicial Rulings
Decides obscenity case
People v. Gould et at, decided January 1975
Defendants were convicted at bench trials of selling obscene magazines. The key issue on appeal was whether or not the magazines in question were obscene. The court, with only one justice dissenting, ruled that they were, and accordingly affirmed the finding of guilt by the trial court.
In so doing the court reviewed and reinterpreted the state's obscenity statute (///. Rev. Slat., 1969, ch. 38, par. 11-20) in the light of the U.S. Supreme Court definition of obscenity as declared in Miller v. California. 413 U.S. 15 (1973). In that case the U.S. Supreme Court articulated a three-pronged test for obscenity:
1. whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Illinois Supreme Court
The Illinois court construed state law, at least in this case, to include or incorporate the first and second standards of the Miller
decision. However, the Illinois court chose not to use or rely upon the third standard. But the court did declare that the third guideline under Illinois law was that the material in question had to be judged "utterly without redeeming social importance" (Emphasis added).
The substitution of this guideline in testing for obscenity within Illinois seems to place a more stringent standard upon the prosecution than the U.S. Supreme Court guideline. The U.S. Supreme Court required demonstrating a lack of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (Emphasis added).
In light of the above analysis, it should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be addressing itself to hard-core pornography, which is made illegal. The offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated" (Emphasis added). The Illinois Supreme Court, however, found the magazines in question to be obscene where "abnormal sexual activity between two females is suggested" and where "male models are posed ... in such a way as to suggest that abnormal sexual activity is imminent" (Emphasis added). In effect, the Illinois Supreme Court seems to have rejected a plea of constitutional protection for so-called soft-core pornography. /C.P.R.
Federal District Court
Non-union printer
Judge Morgan of Federal District Court in Peoria found nothing in Illinois law which requires a union label on printing.
Tallman Robbins & Co. of Springfield had filed suit challenging the awarding of the printing contract for legislative documents to Phillips Brothers, Inc., a union printer. Tallman Robbins, a non-union printer, submitted the apparent low bid.
Judge Morgan's order (1/28/75) allowed the state to take no action except to award the printing contract to Tallman Robbins, which is now printing the legislative calendars, journals, digest, and bills for the House and Senate.
Phillips Brothers, one of the defendants, has filed an appeal which will be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, Chicago.
Circuit Court, 7th Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County
AFSCME v Walker, ISEA v. Walka, decided March 10, 1975
Circuit Judge Waldo Ackerman ruled that the state must grant $200 in back pay to state employees. His ruling covers two suits brought by employees unions.
154/Illinois Issues/May 1975