Two Great ISBA Member Benefits Sponsored by
A Value of $1,344, Included with Membership

Legislation

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers House Bill 5221 (Child-support enforcement), House Bill 4665 (Residential construction and radon), House Bill 5314 (Security deposit and email), Senate Bill 1691 (Business law cleanup) and HJRCA 49 (Constitutional amendment for pension increase).  More information on each bill is available below the video.

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers House Bill 6192 (Rewrite of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act), House Bill 6191 (Rewrite of the Parentage Act), Senate Bill 3823 (Sanctions for visitation violations), Senate Bill 2569 (Dissipation claims and child support), Senate Bill 3849 (Child support enforcement), House Bill 3960 (Calculation of child support) and Senate Bill 2488 (Cell phones in construction and school zones). More information on each bill is available below the video.

Please note that the General Assembly must send to the Governor passed legislation within 30 days from the date both chambers passed it. The Governor must sign, veto, or amendatorily veto a bill within 60 days of his receipt of it. The "drop date" is the 60-day deadline for each bill and is the date by which the Governor must take action.

If you're interested in what action he has taken on a specific bill or want to view the full text, visit the General Assembly's excellent website at http://www.ilga.gov.

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers House Bill 5823 (Health Care Services Lien Act), Senate Bill 3171 (Medical Records of deceased family members) Senate Bill 2840 (Medicaid and estate planning) and House Bill 1263 (eavesdropping). More information on each bill is available below the video.

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers House Bill 196 (New traffic fees), Senate Bill 1808 (Eavesdropping and cell phones) and Senate Bill 2840 (Medicaid eligibility rules). More information on each bill is available below the video.

 

New traffic fees. House Bill 196 (McAuliffe, R-Chicago; Munoz, D-Chicago) creates the State Police Merit Board Public Safety Fund that is to be used to provide training for law enforcement personnel. Requires that every person pay $15 to pay for this fund if he or she is convicted of any criminal or traffic violation or a similar provision of a local ordinance. This is on third reading in the Senate. This is going to be a trend in which Illinois state government is moving to funding specific state agencies by assessing fees wherever they are able to get legislation enacted to do so.

Earlier this month the House appropriations committee (and the full House of Representatives) passed a proposed budget that included $328 million for LSC funding, which already would be a $20 million cut from this year's already reduced level.

During the floor debate about this budget, two LSC amendments were introduced, which, if they passed, would have further cut LSC funding. One amendment would have slashed LSC funding from $328 million to $200 million -- which would have been a further cut of $128 million to this year's LSC appropriation. This amendment was soundly defeated and by wider margins than similar amendments in previous years. Representatives Roskam, Hultgren, Manzullo, Schilling, Schock, and Walsh supported this amendment.

Another amendment that was voted on that night that would have eliminated all funding for LSC. Representatives Manzullo, Schilling, Schock, and Walsh supported this amendment.

(Feigenholtz, D-Chicago; Steans, D-Chicago) is supposed to eliminate Illinois’ $2.7 billion Medicaid funding gap. Included in Senate Bill 2840 is a repeal of the compromise of the Medicaid eligibility rules negotiated last fall between the Department of Healthcare and Family Services and the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

Some of these changes include the following: (1) A home transferred into a trust after the bill becomes law may not be considered homestead property. If the home was transferred into a trust before the bill becomes law, it prevents a person from being eligible for long-term care if the person’s equity interest in this homestead exceeds the minimum home equity as allowed under federal law. (2) People over the age of 65 can no longer participate in a federally created OBRA Pooled Trust unless the beneficiary is a ward of the county public guardian or the State guardian. (3) A healthy spouse still living at home will receive only the minimum resource allowance instead of the maximum allowance as previously approved by JCAR. (4) Abolishes spousal refusal entirely so that HFS is not limited to how much it can seek when pursing a support order against a community spouse.

Senate Bill 2840 will be heard in House Executive Committee this afternoon. The bill has an immediate effective date and will therefore take effect when the Governor signs it. House Amendment No. 3 becomes the bill, and these provisions may be found starting on page 75.

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers House Bill 5434 (Post-judgement collection of debts), House Bill 3972 (Cell phones and driving), House Bill 3636 (Mechanics' Lien Act), House Bill 5823 (Health Care Services Lien Act). More information on each bill is available below the video.

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers Senate Bill 2894 (Probate fees), Senate Bill 2569 (Child support and dissipaation of assets), House Bill 4081 (One-party consent wiretapping), Senate Bill 3792 (Mechanics Lien Act) and Senate Bill 3823 (Sanctions for visitation violations). More information on each bill is available below the video.

The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has issued an order asking the district court to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the Cook County State's Attorney from applying the Illinois eavesdropping statute against the ACLU and its employees or agents for openly recording law enforcement officers who are performing their official duties in public places. The court held that Illinois' eavesdropping law "likely violates" the First Amendment. The opinion is available here. The Illinois State Bar Association is opposed to the law and supports SB 1808 - which would allow a citizen to audio and video record police officers performing public duties in public places. More information on SB 1808 is below.

The Facts on Illinois’ Eavesdropping Law: Support SB 1808 as amended by HA #1

Q:  What is this bill trying to address?

A:  Illinois eavesdropping law allows a citizen to video-record (film) a law enforcement officer doing public duty in a public place but makes it a Class 1 felony if the citizen audio-records the same public activity. Senate Bill 1808 strikes the right balance between the reasonable expectation of privacy and the First Amendment by allowing citizens to audio record law enforcement officers performing public duties in public places.

Q:  What do Illinois’ courts have to say about the current eavesdropping law?

The Springfield State Journal-Register is reporting that opposition from the Illinois State Bar Association has stalled progress of HJRCA 29. The victims' rights amendment appeared headed for a place on the November ballot after clearing the Illinois Senate 55-1. Opposition from ISBA, Illinois state’s attorneys and Illinois public defenders associations gave legislators cause for concern.

A good state’s attorney will keep crime victims abreast of developments during trial, said Jim Covington, the bar association’s director of legislative affairs. But the amendment would have given victims and their lawyers more input in the courtroom.

Under the amendment, victims would have:

* The right to be heard at any post-arraignment court proceeding;

* Access to relevant documents relating to the defendant;

* Be considered if and when bail for the offender is being contemplated; and

* Have the ability to back up those rights in courts that have jurisdiction on the case.

Covington said it would be impractical to allow victims the right to be heard at any post-arraignment court proceeding.

“It would undermine the presumption of innocence if you add a third — someone besides the state and the defendant, a victim or his or her lawyer — involved in the case from that point forward,” Covington said.

Click here to read the full article

Read Rep. Jim Sacia's (R-Freeport) explanation of why he voted against HJRCA 29