By ERIC J. SCHUSTER A 1977 graduate of the Public Affairs Reporting Program at Sangamon State University, he served his internship with the Chicago Daily News. She is an independent Democrat challenging the regular party Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch DAWN dark Netsch, Democratic state senator from Chicago, likes to quote what she calls a famous expression around Springfield: "To get along, you have to go along." Sen. Netsch, first elected from Chicago's northshore 11th District in 1972, uses the quotation as a roundabout introduction to her own independent political philosophy. "The easiest thing a legislator can do," she says, "is to vote in favor of every appropriations bill and vote against any tax increase, because then everyone is happy. But, meanwhile, the legislator rejects his responsibility, and that's the type of 'going along' which can cost someone their soul." No one should accuse Sen. Netsch, who will be 51 in September, of "going along" simply for the sake of "getting along." Although she is often referred to as an "independent" by fellow Democrats from the regular Chicago organization, she prefers the label "independent Democrat." Sen. Netsch is one of the most articulate and respected members of the "Crazy Eight," an independent group of senators so named for their challenge to the authority of regular Chicago Democrats in the Senate. By her own admission, some of her bills fail merely because she is the sponsor. But she says that taking an unpopular position becomes worthwhile when she returns to her district and a constituent tells her, "I know it was tough, but thanks for fighting the battle."

Sen. Netsch is a lawyer who also teaches law at Northwestern University, where she was graduated magna cum laude in 1952. She lives with her architect husband, Walter, on Chicago's North Side in her home district, which includes the socially diverse regions of Old Town, New Town, the Gold coast, Cabrini Green and Lincoln Park.

Her first elected position was as delegate to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention, where she helped define the role of the chief executive under the new Constitution. At the time of this interview (May 26), the annual legislative logjam was underway and Sen. Netsch was in her Springfield office working late into the night.

Q: When did you first become interested in law and politics?
A: My interest in politics predated my interest in law. I cannot remember a time, at least back to the age of 12 or so, that I was not interested in politics or government. It was that interest that carried me into law school, which I expected not to like but was pleasantly surprised when I did.

Q: Has being a woman been much of a factor for you competing in a male- dominated profession like law?
A: For me, it has not. I do not have any sense of being discriminated against in my legal professional activities. I'm not sure whether it was because I never expected it or because I was too insensitive to realize it was there. I recall an incident early in my career where one of my clients, who happened to be a lawyer himself, was noticeably uncomfortable with me at our first meeting. But when the novelty wore off, he accepted me and everything went fine, 1 know that discrimination does occur with other women in the law, though. I could see it quite often with my women law students when I first started teaching, but I think now the situation has improved.

Q: Do you think the Equal Rights Amendment can pass in Illinois?
A: We're going to need every supportive legislator present to vote and to persuade others who are sort of wavering on the issue. It has a possible, but shaky, chance of getting by the House. If we need a three-fifths majority [36 votes] in the Senate, then I'll just say that it will be very difficult.

Q: How do you represent the interests of such a diverse legislative district on an emotional issue like ERA?
A: I've always made it clear that I support ERA and would vote for it under any circumstances. A couple of, weeks ago I was approached at a dinner by some ERA opponents who seemed quite furious because I was not representing their viewpoint in Springfield. I acknowledged that they were right and pointed out that all the other North Side legislators were supporting ERA also. I told them I was sorry, but that we were representing the majority viewpoint from our area of Chicago.

It's a difficult thing. Perhaps more than any other legislators, I feel I owe it to my constituents to let them know what my views are so they can make their judgment before the election. I can

10 / August 1977 / Illinois Issues

sense how people in my district will feel on some issues, but certainly not all. For instance, there are a huge number of what I call political independents in my area, so when I sponsor open primary legislation I know that a majority of my constituents will be for it. Q: What do you think about President Carter's instant voter registration proposal? A: Well, I'm unique among Chicago people in that respect, because originally I was terribly excited about it. I have since toned down my enthusiasm for it because virtually everyone whose judgment I trust is strongly opposed to the idea and very worried about it. It does offer some frightening opportunities for fraud. But I am firmly committed to the idea of making it easier for people to vote. I'm against artificial barriers, like the lockout or closed primary, which limit voter participation. Q: How do you define a "political independent?" One of your colleagues said recently "there is no such animal." A: Where I come from, an independent means someone who is not part of the regular Democratic organization in terms of where they owe their allegiance. Once in awhile, I have to remind my colleagues that I'm a Democrat, but I think they accept it now. As an independent Democrat, though, I am neither created by nor beholden to the regular Democratic Party in Chicago. Q: As one of 15 legislators who were spied on by the Chicago Police, how do you feel about this type of surveillance and what is the legislature doing about it? Spying by Chicago Police: 'It represents all the worst of what went on during the Nixon years'

A: It's just outrageous. My first inclination after seeing my file was to laugh, because it was so amateurish, innocuous and ridiculous. For instance, it reported that I attended a church group to speak on the problems of senior citizens; it said that I was at a rally during [U.S.] Sen. Adlai Stevenson's first campaign; and that I went to a luncheon sponsored by the Committee on Illinois Government. It seemed funny at first because the reports were so outlandish. Then I realized that the Chicago Police Department had taken upon itself the business of spying upon people who are engaged in absolutely lawful activities — activities which, in fact, are encouraged by our system of government.

There are at least two ramifications involved. First, it could- stifle people from participating in the political process. To cite a First Amendment ruling, it could have a "chilling effect" just for someone to think they were being watched or photographed. Secondly. it represents all the worst of what

could afford to devote all their time and energy on a full-time basis. Obviously, I would want to have some of those people in the process, but I don't think we would want the entire legislature composed of any one type of person. I don't think public officials should be totally dependent on their elected position.

Q: How do you assess the power of the Chicago bloc in the legislature since Mayor Daley's death?
A: When it functions as a bloc, it's still pretty potent because it's the single largest cohesive group. It might be too early to say yet, but I think now it appears 'rudderless' at times. No one is quite sure who is making the decisions from up high, which was never in doubt while the Mayor was alive. During the long battle over the Senate presidency, some of my colleagues were saying, "If the Mayor was alive, we would have settled this a long time ago."

Q: What about the power struggle within the City of Chicago since Daley's death?
A: I don't think it's over yet. I think it was fairly amazing that all of the regular Chicago Democrats who were talking bravely of breaking out and getting their share of the action in the immediate aftermath of the Mayor's death, have since sort of evaporated. There still have got to be a lot of frustrated people champing at the bit, and something may develop out of that.

Q: Do you think this legislature will adopt legislation revising the State Board of Elections to include a fifth member, who would be an independent?
A: There still are several legislators who absolutely refuse to recognize people who do not affiliate themselves strictly with one party. A majority of polls show that at least one-third of the voters do not identify solely with Democrats or Republicans, although they may vote for one party more than the other. The major concern in terms of the Board of Elections is that whoever has the appointive power may be in a position to play games with the selection of that independent. My own judgment is that the governor, being the single most visible person in the state's political structure, would not be too likely to abuse that power.

Q: How would you assess Gov. Thompson's performance so far?
A: He really hasn't done that much yet to make a clear assessment, but there have been a couple of disappointments. One, he does not seem to have, or seem to have developed, a very good grasp of government and all the thousands of problems that the governor has to deal with. Second, he's been really lacking in leadership with the legislature. I am not just saying that as a Democrat, but as someone who has talked to several Republican legislators in both the House and Senate.

Q: It appears that criminal justice is the governor's top priority this year. Would you agree with that priority?
A: No, not unless we broaden the definition of criminal justice. Thompson has proposed a smattering of tougher penalties and a few procedural changes, which shows that he really hasn't got the problem into focus yet. I don't think there is anyone who would still suggest that longer and more severe penalties alone will deter crime. We have to attack what one witness called the "front-end" of the problem, including joblessness, poverty, broken families, hopelessness, and bad schools. And what about those people committing a kind of lawlessness who are not being punished for their crimes — like a former president of the United States? I think the greatest deterrent to a criminal would be the knowledge that he was going to get caught, he would be tried swiftly, and he would be sentenced to jail. As it is now for the most serious crimes, only one out of four criminals are apprehended, which could make a life of crime seem pretty appealing. We need improvement across the board — with our courts, probation system, methods of apprehension -- in addition to solving some basic social problems if we want to fight crime. I am not trying to put down the governor's priority, but my quarrel with it is that he is just picking away at the problem, and yet it's being represented as a solution. We could pass his entire criminal justice package [of bills], and I'm afraid that it would not help reduce crime.

'As an independent Democrat... I am neither created by nor beholden to the Democrat party in Chicago'

Q: Do you think that Illinois might get a constitutional obscenity law on the books during this session? A: Yes, I think the one that [Rep.] Bob Mann is working on [H.B. 1915] was very carefully drafted and has a good chance of meeting all constitutional requirements.

Q: Are you ever frustrated by a legislature, which can pass the death penalty as easily as it defeats ERA?
A: Oh yes, it's a constant state of frustration down here. At times it can be very depressing and I usually end up thinking about it once a week. Some of the time, you just roll with the punches because you can't expect to win all your battles.

Q: What do you do for relaxation?
A: I really don't have any spare time right now. I guess when I'm not teaching in Chicago or doing my duties here, I could be working on a casebook I'm trying to finish. But I hardly view that as relaxation, it's hard work.

Q: What is your single most satisfying achievement in the General Assembly?
A: I never really stopped to think about that. I guess it would be that despite my numerous legislative defeats, I've helped to bring some sense of enlightenment or reason to various debates. A lot of the legislation I get involved with is difficult to pass, but I think someone has got to tackle it.

As far as specific legislation, I'm very happy that the alcoholism legislation [creating state-financed detoxification centers] was one of the few bills I've sponsored that got passed. I think that has been a real contribution, not by me necessarily, but for what the bill has accomplished. I would love to say that a bill requiring merit selection of judges was my greatest achievement, but that hasn't happened yet.

Q: What about the future? Will you run for the Senate again? Would you like to run for any other office?
A: I do plan to seek another term in the Senate. But the idea of running for another office is kind of frightening. There is another office I would like too hold, but I don't know if I could subject those around me to the primary and election battles which would involve a good deal of time and money.

Q: Which office is that?
A: Governor.

12 / August 1977 / Illinois Issues