(bright music) (dramatic music) - Welcome to "CapitolView" on WSIU, I'm Brian Sapp.

I'm a reporter here in Carbondale with WSIU radio.

I'll be your host today.

The Illinois General Assembly is on break this week.

Last week, we saw the typical flurry of bills being voted out of each chamber.

We were trying to watch and see which ones were gonna make it and which weren't.

But that being said, that there were a few that did not make it.

We'll talk about some of the bills that did and some that didn't and whether they still have a chance.

And a Northern Illinois Democratic congressman made a visit here to Southern Illinois in Carterville.

We'll find out what brought him to some solidly Republican territory.

Joining us this week to cover what's happening in Springfield and around the state are Mawa Iqbal of WBEZ and Jeremy Gorner of the "Chicago Tribune."

Hi, guys, glad to have you here.

- Thanks.

- First question, Mawa, I wanted to jump right into some of the bills that passed last week.

Last year, Sangamon County Deputy Sean Grayson was charged with the murder of Sonya Massey after she was shot in her home after they responded to a call.

There were several bills that passed out of the legislature last week, particularly out of the Senate.

What are those bills and what do they hope to accomplish?

- Yeah, so like you said, Brian, after her shooting death, you know, there was a real groundswell movement from community activists to get something done, right, to get some reforms passed.

And so they turned to State Senator Doris Turner, who's actually not only from Springfield, and so like Sonya Massey was one of her constituents, but also actually knew the Massey family.

She said that she'd met Sonya before her death and that she, you know, knew her mom and knew the Massey family going back multiple generations actually.

So you know, for her, it was a really personal, obviously very, very personal issue.

And her death, I think, affected her a lot.

And so when she got into the legislature, when the session started, you know, Senator Doris Turner introduced these two bills, these two reform bills that, like you said, passed the Senate.

One would essentially make the standards for background checking potential applicants or potential hires at law enforcement agencies a lot stricter.

So basically, according to the legislation, the applicants for police jobs would have to, essentially, allow their previous law enforcement employers to turn over, you know, background investigation materials, physical and psychological fitness, any investigations into misconduct, like all, work performance records, like all sorts of things, before they're even authorized to go forward with the application process.

And the reason for this was because, after the shooting took place, you know, through like journalism and through a lot of like community members just looking into what happened, it was revealed that then Sheriff's Deputy Sean Grayson had received quite a few disciplinary infractions at his different agency that he was employed at.

And the only reason he was really hired at Sangamon County was because he got a good recommendation from a former Sangamon County law enforcement personnel.

And so you know, a lot of the community members were saying, you know, if there were like stricter background checking standards, then maybe Sean Grayson wouldn't have been hired.

And so that's one of the bills.

The other one is a little bit more focused on elections.

And so this one was something that, you know, after the shooting death, a lot of people who were upset about Sean Grayson being hired pointed to the sheriff as being responsible, right?

That Sean Grayson was hired under Sheriff, then Sheriff Jack Campbell.

And people, of course, were calling for his resignation.

They were calling for him to step down.

And initially, he didn't.

But eventually, just with enough community pressure and criticism, he did step down.

And so a lot of community members felt like this was a situation where, you know, if something like this were to happen again, which obviously, the hope was that it never does, but if something like this were to happen again, and you know, there's a sheriff who, you know, kills someone and then the sheriff, you know, decides, "Okay, well, you know, I'm not gonna take responsibility for it," then people wanted to have some sort of recourse to essentially recall the sheriff.

And so in the second bill that Senator Doris Turner introduced and has now passed the Senate, basically, it would create a path for Sangamon County to institute recall elections for the 2026 election.

It would essentially like make a way for the county to put that question of, "Should we have recall for county-wide officials?"

on the 2026 ballot.

- Thanks, Mawa, for that.

One clarification, so this bill, the second bill about the recalls, would set it up so that Sangamon County could then, their voters could say whether nor not they want to institute the recall.

Is that right?

- Yeah, so it's not, you know, like, should this person, like for example, the new sheriff, should they be recalled during the 2026 election?

It's just, should we have recall?

As like a yes or no ballot question for the 2026 November election.

- Okay.

And then, Jeremy, you were saying a little bit that there were, you were telling me a little bit about, not to get too much into the weeds, but there is an amendment on this bill?

- Yeah, there were a couple.

There were actually a couple.

So you know, for one thing, you know, one iteration of the bill exempted the Office of County Treasurer and regional school administrators that could span multiple counties from this recall bill.

Those two positions were exempt initially.

But then in the final product before it passed the Senate, those exemptions were stripped out.

The reason those exemptions were there in the first place is because, for county treasurer, and apparently, regional school administrator, there's already a mechanism in place to recall those positions.

But those exemptions were still taken out before the Senate passed it.

And then, the other thing too is, Senator Turner had said that she wanted this recall bill to apply more broadly to, you know, other counties, to all the other counties, you know, you know, in Illinois, except for Cook County, which has its own process.

But her goal was, you know, she needed to do justice, she said, for the Massey family, and the only way to do it was to pass something.

So that's a big reason that this bill, as passed through the Senate, only applies to Sangamon County.

- Okay, all right.

Well, I guess we'll see what happens next in the House.

Jeremy, while we're talking to you, I wanted to move on, gonna talk about a bill that did not pass.

But it didn't get the support it needed get outta the House, but from what I read, it was the resentencing youth offender bill.

From what I read, Speaker Welch this year was really trying to make sure that the bills before he brought 'em to the floor had the votes he needed.

And this one sounded like it did, but ended up not having them.

Can you tell us a little bit about the bill and then kinda what happened on its failure?

- Sure, yeah, so basically, what this legislation would've done is, it would've provided another pathway for people who've been in prison for lengthy periods of time for crimes they committed when they were under 21 to have another pathway for early release.

This kinda goes to the heart of an issue called retroactivity, which has been pretty controversial in the General Assembly for years.

Retroactivity meaning, you know, granting early release for people who are incarcerated for, especially heinous crimes, and for other crimes, you know, in which they served for many years.

It's controversial because, you know, a lotta law and order types believe that once you're sentenced, you're sentenced.

So there should be a finality to your sentence.

And it does not do justice for victims who would have to relive any kind of efforts for early release, you know, all over again, victims or their families, basically.

You know, so it's been very controversial, but nonetheless, you know, there have been efforts in recent years to pass retroactive sentencing reform.

You know, a couple of years ago, you know, a sentence of natural life without parole was abolished in the General Assembly, where now, anyone who was sentenced to natural life could, you know, be eligible for parole after serving 40 years in prison.

And the same goes for youthful parole, where after serving 10 years or 20 years for most crimes, anyone who was in prison for crimes that they were convicted of committing when they were under 21, they would be eligible for parole.

But those two laws I mentioned are not retroactive.

What this legislation would've done is that it would've allowed anyone who's under 21, who committed a crime when they were under 21 still in prison, to wait, for most crimes, to wait 10 years before they, themselves, could petition the courts for early release.

And one of the things the courts would have to consider is their, you know, age and maturity at the time the crime occurred.

This kinda goes to research that proponents have cited about what, you know, the world now knows about brain science in adolescents and lack of maturity for young adults.

This, of course, was something that was, this whole concept, though, has been downplayed, again, by law and order types, who still believe that, you know, a law like this doesn't do any justice for victims who would have to essentially relive these hearings all over again.

So what happened was is that this bill, so State Rep Theresa Mah, she's a Chicago Democrat, carried this bill.

And she had told me that, before she, you know, the bill had 27 cosponsors on the House Democratic side going into last week.

And before it went onto the House floor, State Rep Mah basically told me that she had the necessary 60 votes to basically bring it to the House floor.

60 votes is an informal threshold that House Speaker Emanual Chris Welch, you know, basically dictates that, you know?

When he dictates what bills get to go to the House floor, he likes this 60-vote threshold, because that really means that, if there's 60 Democrats who are aboard, then they would have an automatic majority.

The bill would have an automatic majority for passage.

So Mah basically thought that she had the 60 votes, but when it came down to it during the vote, she failed to get 60.

There were 49 in favor and 51 opposed.

So as a result, you know, in rare fashion, the bill was defeated on the House floor.

- [Brian] Okay.

Is there an opportunity for it to come back, or are they gonna try for another session maybe?

- Well, it's really hard to tell now.

I know that advocates were weighing their options, you know, to see.

I mean, it could be taken up at, you know, in another session.

I mean, we are at the start of a brand new two-year session for the legislature, so we'll see what happened.

But I think it's important to note that this issue, because I talked about retroactivity and how controversial it has been in the General Assembly, it really underscored a political divide between progressives and moderates within the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to criminal justice reform issues.

You saw the Democrats who voted against it were Democrats who represent districts where a lotta first responders live or have direct ties to first responders themselves, either because of a family connection or because they were one, or Democrats from the suburbs, where the ones who, the Democrats who favored it were largely progressives and, you know, from the City of Chicago.

So you know, as well, so I guess we'll have to stay tuned, Brian, to see what happens.

- Okay, yeah.

That's a lot of what I read too is that the split between the progressives and the more moderates.

So we'll see what they're able to work out.

Moving on to another bill, the Senate passed a bill, not to downplay it, about the smells or the storage of cannabis and its smell.

It goes back to a Supreme Court, Illinois Supreme Court decision last year.

But Mawa, could you kinda fill us in?

How does the smell of cannabis play into this bill?

- Yeah, so essentially, this is Senator Rachel Ventura's bill, and she's a Democratic senator.

She has done a lot of criminal justice and related bills.

And so this one, it's interesting, because it essentially says that, you know, a requirement that's in place right now where you have to store your cannabis in an odor-proof, sealed container while you're driving, that this bill would essentially get rid of that requirement and would basically say that, you know, the smell of weed is not probable cause enough for a law enforcement officer to search a car.

And you know, it's interesting because proponents of this bill and Senator Ventura and other Democrats who are in favor of this bill were talking about how, you know, that there is a racial and a social justice component to this, right?

They were saying that like data shows that, unfortunately, oftentimes Black drivers are pulled over in these pretextual traffic stops and are, you know, law enforcement officers will use the smell of cannabis as like a way to search their car and to try to like get 'em for something, you know, like tack on another criminal charge or whatever.

And I think it's interesting, like during the debate, what I would here too from people who are in support of this bill is that, you know, even if you're coming back from a dispensary, you know, where you're buying legal cannabis, and they give it to you in a bag, sometimes those bags aren't odor-proof or sometimes the dispensaries themselves smell like weed.

And so if you were to sit in your car immediately after coming back from a dispensary, and you have your windows down, the police officer nearby smells you, then they could think like, "Oh, well then this person must be high," even though you're just coming from a dispensary and not actually partaking.

But of course, you know, a lot of the opposition was that, you know, this will lead to more DUIs, that this will give people more license to just feel okay to smoke weed while they're in the car or just before they get in the car and start driving.

A lot of the opponents, which were mostly like Republican lawmakers too, brought up that the reason why we had this requirement was to bring weed up to parity with our alcohol laws.

So like in Illinois, you can't have an open container of beer, for example, like just in your side console.

And so, you know, it's interesting, but I think because like there is enough Democrat support, it probably will also just pass in the House.

(laughing) But the debate has been pretty interesting around it.

And yeah, like you mentioned too, last December, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that the smell of raw cannabis actually is enough probable cause for police to search a vehicle.

So it will be interesting, like once, or if, I should say, if this bill were to pass, then to become law, how that affects, you know, what the courts do and then also what police officers then do.

- Okay, all right, thank you.

Another bill that passed.

Last week in the newsroom, we saw the bill that passed, I believe, out of the Senate about restricting mascots that were based on people with disabilities.

And then, on Friday, the House, I believe, passed a bill that would ban Native American mascots.

And Jeremy, I believe you said you wrote something about that on this past weekend.

Can you tell us a little bit about the issue and what happened?

- Yeah, so I did a story, Brian, where I combined the two bills, because they basically touch on the issue of discrimination, you know, with respect to school mascots, you know, regardless of, you know, whether it's discriminatory against Native Americans or elsewhere.

So basically, these two bills passed through the House, mostly along party lines.

And you know, this follows a wave of schools and professional sports teams over the last 20 years that have scaled back their usage of Native American-themed names, imagery, mascots, and logos.

And you know, but the, you know, the issue, and this would affect primarily elementary through high schools.

And the bill calls for banning schools from using Native American names, logos, or mascots that include federally recognized tribes, historical Native American people or tribal groups in their insignia.

It calls for prohibiting terms such as redskins, braves, chieftains, chiefs, tribe, and Indians from being used and barring depictions of feathered headdresses, tomahawks, arrowheads or spears, arrows or other weapons, et cetera.

I'm basically citing the statute as it was in my story.

But you know, so if this bill were to become law, the measure would allow schools to continue using these uniforms or any materials with these names until September of 2030.

But there is a caveat.

(laughing) - Okay.

- The caveat here, though, is that, you know, the bill doesn't carry any penalties if schools ignore the measure.

So State Representative Maurice West, who backed both bills, you know, acknowledged that neither bill really contains any enforcement mechanisms.

But his hope is that local school boards will abide by these measures.

And you know, so what this really bill does is it kinda furthers the conversation on these controversial mascots that we've seen.

I believe the most Illinois-centric example that's out there is, well, Chief Illiniwek.

You know, University of Illinois rid itself of Chief Illiniwek in the mid-2000s following years or protests.

And we've seen NFL teams.

We've seen the NFL team, the Washington Redskins changed to the Commanders, and in Major League Baseball, Cleveland changed their name to the Guardians from the Indians.

These are recent examples, and we see this in schools all over the state.

Although, proportionally, there's like maybe 90 out of the thousands that are out there, public schools in Illinois.

So it's a small percentage, but it still does exist.

So that's kinda what this bill addresses, but again, there really isn't a lotta teeth to it unless school boards, you know, come onboard.

And if they do come onboard, the idea is they would have this legislation to refer to.

The second piece of legislation, the second piece of legislation doesn't deal with the Native American community.

It's called the Prohibition of Discriminatory Disability Mascots Act.

And this really only targets one school down in the Metro East area.

It's Freeburg Community High School.

And you know, basically, you know, basically here, the nickname is considered by proponents of this bill as a dwarfism slur.

They're called the Midgets.

And you know, but according to the school's website, the Midgets moniker, it's been around 90 years, and it was given to a basketball team at the high school by a sports writer because, you know, because of their, you know, because they were, despite their short height, they were winning a lotta games.

And you know, the website calls this an affectionate and respectful label.

This has been kind of a tradition in Freeburg for 90 years.

But nonetheless, there have been proponents who have wanted to get rid of this, of this bill who want them to change their name because they feel like it's discriminatory against little people.

And you know, so basically, the school may continue, according to this legislation, the school may continue using uniforms or other materials with this name up until 2028.

But again, you know, this is gonna be contingent on whether local school boards want to, you know, wanna get rid of the mascot and change the name, which seems very highly unlikely from what I've been told or could ascertain at this time.

I know there was a lotta resistance from the state rep who is from, who represents Freeburg in that area.

He basically said on the House floor that the community is proud of the mascot, they love the mascot, and you know, all the stores in town are gonna sell the shirts and that it's not gonna have the effect that the Democrats in the legislature, you know, that they want.

But nonetheless, you know, you have Democrats who their impetus for voting in favor of this bill in the House is, you know, they've called the mascot name divisive and harmful.

So we'll see what happens.

Again, these are both bills that don't have an enforcement mechanism or penalties set forth in them, you know, in the legislation.

And they're leaving it up to the local governments to do something about this if they wish.

But also, it's important to note that it's only passed the House.

So we'll have to see what happens in the Senate with both of these bills.

- Okay, yeah, well, look forward to that.

Now, we've got just a little bit of time left.

And Jeremy, I wanted to stick with you.

You wrote an article with another colleague of yours from the "Tribune."

Sean Casten is an Illinois Democratic representative, US representative.

He came down to our area, down here in Carbondale, Carterville, which is really red.

Can you tell, we've got a little bit of time, can you tell me about that and what it means?

- Yeah, so Sean Casten, he's a Democrat from the Chicago suburbs.

He came down to do a town hall in Carterville, which is next to Carbondale.

A day earlier, he was in Dixon, Illinois, (laughing) which was the boyhood home of former President Ronald Reagan, another red area of the state.

You know, but, you know, basically, you know, his aim with these town halls was to kind of make up ground that Republicans, that he feels, that Democrats in his position feel Republicans have lost, you know, when they've tried to go back to their districts, back to their own red districts, to basically address concerned citizens about, you know, policies that President Donald Trump wants to enact, which would include the loss of federal funding, the possible loss of federal funding in many areas, including Medicaid, Social Security, and you know, and other areas.

You know, both areas of funding that Democrats have, you know, feared could happen, where you have Republicans who've been downplaying it, saying that, you know, Trump has not said that.

Well, you know, Republican congressmen have had to go all over the country back to their districts in light of this rhetoric from the president and really face a lot of angry constituents, you know, when they go back to their home districts, you know, over what Trump may do.

And one of the Republican congressmen, you know, who's head of the GOP's Congressional Campaign Committee basically told his Republican colleagues to stop holding these in-person town hall meetings because of anti-Trump protesters and also just, you know, like I said, there's been a lot of concerned and angry people (laughing) about what may or may not or what may happen.

So Democrats, so Sean Casten's been trying to take advantage of this, basically, by going to red districts.

He has nothing to lose.

He doesn't represent people in this district.

He's a Democrat and it's almost like, "Well, it's a foregone conclusion they're not gonna going to support me."

But when he came to Carterville, he encountered about 120, 130 people at John A. Logan College who were pretty favorable to what he had to say.

And basically, you know, he was trying to talk about, you know, what impacts.

He did talk a little bit about what these impacts could have on, like what Trump's policies could have on, you know, on the people, you know, the way he sees it, you know, the negative impacts.

But it really was more to kinda educate people about these issues, about Medicaid and Social Security, and what budget blueprint has been voted on in Congress, what that's about, just a lotta different things.

And.

- Okay.

- You know, when I- - Sorry to interrupt you, but we've gotta (laughing) wrap it up there, and I really appreciate it.

And I have seen that in my own reporting here, that people want to talk to their representatives.

Mawa and Jeremy, thank you for your time.

And that's it for this week's edition of "CapitolView."

Join us next week and thanks on behalf of Mawa Iqbal and Jeremy Gorner, thanks.

(dramatic music) (dramatic music continues)