(cinematic music) - Welcome to another edition of "Illinois Lawmakers."

I'm Jennifer Fuller.

The veto session is finished across the state of Illinois.

As we record this, though, lawmakers continue to do their work.

Rich Miller of the Capitol Fax is joining us to talk about how things are going.

Rich, this veto session is anything but typical, wouldn't you say?

- Yeah, well, there are no vetoes to deal with.

They dealt with all those during summer session.

So right now they are working on some major pieces of legislation as we speak.

- Things like the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, the Parental Notification of Abortion law changes to, of course, congressional maps, which everyone thought would be the big issue for the veto session, but then also other things have been added.

Things like expansion of gaining to include in state colleges and universities, as well as some boosts or some incentives for electric vehicles.

This feels almost more like an extension of the spring session rather than a veto session.

- Yeah, it feels like late May is what it feels like right now.

They are trying to do a whole lot all at once.

And quite a bit of it will get done and some of it may not.

The Parental Notification of Abortion has already cleared both chambers.

So they've killed off that law, pending the governor's signature and he'll sign it.

The Healthcare Right of Conscience, which is basically changing state law so that people can no longer sue when they are told to get vaccinated or in the alternative test, people are not taking vaccines and then refusing them regular COVID-19 testing, which is odd.

And when they are fired or dismissed or suspended, what have you, they're suing over it.

And that's whatever.

So they're narrowing the law to make sure that people can't do that.

- We're seeing a lot of, as you might expect, a lot of response when it comes to the change to that law.

And that has meant a lot of amendments, a lot of revisions to the changes that we thought might be made, which would have been specifically stating that if you're told you have to get a COVID-19 vaccine in certain professions, certain organizations, that it could be mandated.

And that would take, as you said, the exception out of the way, but that's had to be watered down quite a bit.

Do you think that this will still hold water?

- They changed it a little bit.

This is basically tort reform.

All right, that's all this bill does.

It prevents lawsuits.

You can still request a religious exemption for vaccinations.

I don't know if he could get a religious exemption for taking a COVID-19 test, but it's basically, all this does is take away the ability to sue and get triple damages if you're suspended because you won't take a COVID-19 test.

You won't spit in a jar or have them put a swab up your nose.

That's all this bill does.

There is so much dis-information out there on this bill.

It just boggles my mind.

That's all it does.

- Certainly things that will continue to crop up as the state and other governments work on mandates and requirements when it comes to COVID-19, but the big issue that everyone expected to be talking about for the veto session was the new congressional maps.

And we've seen a revision to those maps come out the weekend in the middle of the veto session and then another revision this week.

What's going on there with these changes?

- There's a lot going on behind the scenes.

People are arguing about all sorts of things.

The house is no longer top-down in Illinois.

In the day, this is the map and this is what we're voting on and just vote for it.

And they would take care of things in advance.

This new speaker is much more bottom up than top down, and that has its advantages and it has its disadvantages.

And we're seeing possibly one of the disadvantages right now.

You have members all over the place.

They want changes to the maps, but if you change one person's district, everybody else's has to be changed, right?

It has a ripple effect on everyone else.

So right now at this moment at whatever time it is today, whatever day it is, is it Wednesday?

I think it is.

They don't have the votes in the house to pass a map, any map.

Latinos are arguing amongst each other and with the rest of the house, Democratic caucus.

There are some people in DuPage county, they're upset the way that Sean Caston's district has been drawn.

Caston himself has made some enemies by going off on a couple of members over the phone.

It's a bloody mess right now, the map.

It should have been more of a slam dunk, but it turned out not to be.

People are freelancing, going off on their own and developing a little coalitions.

Because we're in October, this is after May 31st, any bill with an immediate effective date requires three-fifths in both chambers.

This bill has to have an immediate effective date because without it, it doesn't take effect until June one.

And that's way too late to pass petitions, to do anything.

And June 28th is the primary.

So the house has 73 Democratic members.

They need 71 to pass it.

So anybody who can get two people to come with them can stop this bill from passing.

And there's about three different factions that have enough people to stop the bill from passing.

The problem is, I don't know how they're going to be able to satisfy all those people at the moment.

I just, I dunno.

We'll see if the senate just says, hey, we're just gonna pass our own bill.

- Is that something that they then pass on to the first part of January and hope for that three-fifths majority?

- They could.

The problem with doing that is a petition can start circulating in January, a nominating petition.

So what that means is the map then is approved and comes before the court right before all of these petitions can go out.

And there's a danger, therefore, that for the Democrats that the Republicans could step in and say, hey, we need a special master appointed right now to draw some new maps or people aren't gonna make their deadlines.

And that could turn out to be disastrous for the Democratic party, including nationally, by the way, because it might turn out to be close in the U.S. House of Representatives, a partisan split.

So if they lose, Democrats lose a seat because of this, conceivably, it could change the whole future of the United States of America.

It's weird, I know.

Right now, they're just letting everybody run amok, and we'll see if that hammer comes down.

- Certainly something that, as we say, we'll have to keep a close eye on.

Rich Miller of the Capitol Fax.

Thank you so much.

- Thanks for having me.

- Democratic House speaker, Chris Welch of Westchester joins us now in the program.

Mr. Speaker, thanks for taking the time out.

I know it's a busy day.

It's Wednesday, and a lot of big issues are still to be decided in the Illinois House of Representatives.

- Jack, how are you?

Good to see you again, my friend.

And yes, it really is a big day, a year in Springfield.

It seems like every day is a big day here in Springfield with a lot of important items to discuss and decide on, but that's why we all sign up for the big day.

- Yes indeed, indeed.

One of the biggest ones still hanging out there is the congressional remapping.

There was an initial plan that was floated by the Democrats in Springfield.

There was some back and forth on that.

There's a new version out.

Is this the final one that will be put before the legislature?

- Well, I don't think it's the final map.

I think first couple of maps that we've put out have been draft maps.

We've been clear about that.

We want to make sure that we get these maps right.

And that entails getting plenty of input.

We got to get input from the public, input it from the congressional delegation, input from members of the general assembly.

We want to make sure that we're adhering to federal law and making sure these maps reflect Illinois' true diversity.

That takes a lot of time and process to get that right.

And in the past, renowned experts have looked at our maps and say that we really are a model for minority representation.

And I want experts to look at this map when it is final and say that again.

And so it's not final yet, but I'm hoping we're near in that process, so.

- To that end, there is a new Latino district in this latest map.

And that was a significant change.

Talk about some of the back and forth on that.

I know that African-Americans also want to make sure that their congressional vote is not diluted as well.

- Yeah, I mean, I think the minority population will be well represented in whatever map that we approve because the data clearly shows that.

And so that's why the draft map was a response to the input that we had received through the early part of the process.

In an unprecedented move, we have a very active website and a portal that allows people to submit information.

We've had over 70, 75, 80 hearings where we've heard from people.

And so we know that the numbers are there to actually finally have a second Latino district.

And so that's why it was included in the second map.

I highly anticipate a second Latino map being in the final map, but we have to continue to work through the process and make tweaks and make sure we're adhering to all aspects of the law.

- The the GOP is not happy about this because it draws for their members, congressional members, into two districts.

To be fair, there's also two Democrats who are incumbents, who are drawn into the same district.

Will this be the final version?

- Well, I don't know what the final version will look like yet.

We're drawing maps without regard to anyone's address, without regard to anyone's party, and I think that's extremely important.

We have to follow the data and the numbers.

And we know that there was significant loss of population in Southern Illinois and we know that there was a tremendous amount of growth in the Chicago land area.

Chicago saw 50,000 new people move into the city of Chicago.

And so when you're doing map-making, you have to follow the numbers.

On top of that, Illinois lost one congressional seat, like we have for the last five decades.

So you have to take all of that into consideration, and that's why this process takes time.

- Are you confident that whatever emerges from the general assembly will pass legal muster 'cause there've been a lot of court challenges to these things in the past.

- I do believe that it will pass court muster.

That's why we're taking our time and trying to get this right.

We want to make sure it complies with all federal laws.

We want to make sure the Voting Rights Act is looked at what utmost important that minority representation is included in this map to the maximum ability that we have.

And so our goal is to pass as a legal map that will withstand muster when it's challenged in court.

- We've got about half a minute left.

What about the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act?

There's been some tweaking going on with that because of the way a number of folks around the state have interpreted how that act could be applied to COVID testing, vaccine mandates and so on.

- You know, let me say this Jack.

One thing we know for certain, absolute certain, is still in the midst of a global health pandemic.

And unfortunately, what we have seen going on across the state is that people are utilizing the Healthcare Right of Conscious law in the way that it was never intended.

And the reason the governor's office is asking the legislature to take a look at this law is so that we can stop the improper use of this law the way it was never intended and that we can make sure people continue to work environments that are safe and sound, and we can stop the spread of COVID-19.

And so, we're trying to make sure our schools and nursing homes and veteran homes and health care facilities continue to be safe.

And we're gonna try and do the best we can before we leave.

- Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for taking the time with us.

We certainly appreciate it, sir.

- Jack, it's always a pleasure.

Thank you so much for all you do.

- Up next on "Illinois Lawmakers," We're joined by Senate Republican leader, Dan McConchie of Hawthorne Woods.

Senator, thanks for carving out some time for us today.

I know it's very busy in the veto session, even though you're not actually dealing with any vetoes this particular a week in October.

- Yeah, no, it's a very interesting time, a unusual time.

Typically at this time of year, you set up this time in order to consider all the different vetoes of the legislation that the general assembly has passed.

And yet the few vetoes that there were were actually taken care of during the summer when we were negotiating on Energy Bill.

And so we've been here the very full two weeks, actually doing regular legislation, which is not typical for this time of year.

- Well, one of the most substantive pieces that you're dealing with right now is the congressional remap.

I'm speaking to a Speaker Welch a little earlier on this.

And he was saying that the bill that the Democrats have laid out, the map that the Democrats have laid out there, once all is said and done, we'll meet all the constitutional tests as far as the Voting Rights Act goes.

But I know that on the Republican side of the aisle, there are some huge problems with the way this map's been drawn.

- Well, we'll see.

I don't even know that the map that we have now is going to be the final map.

We don't have word of that yet.

We actually don't have legislation that's been put in front of us, just an outline of a map.

But the interesting thing that there is, there is an article that came out about a week ago that said that Democrats were struggling to figure out just how aggressively to gerrymander the state.

And so for those of your listeners and your viewers who maybe don't really know what this is, this is where the majority party takes as many Republicans as possible and puts them into one district or a few districts in order to spread out Democrats in order to try to elect more Democrats than what the electorate actually shows.

And that is what there obviously in these sample maps so far attempting to do.

It's what they did on the state legislative maps that actually were found unconstitutional earlier here a few weeks ago.

And so, we'll see at the end of the day whether or not they actually meet the constitutional requirements or not.

- So as I understand, the lay of the land at the moment, and we're still waiting to see the final results of all of this.

There are four Republican incumbent members of Congress who were drawn into the same maps.

And I think two incumbent Democrats were drawn into the same district.

So what would Republicans do differently?

- Well, what we've done in the past is promote a fair and independent map-making process.

And what that looks like for us is actually not happening.

Politicians pick their own voters.

In this case, having members of Congress using their proxies in the legislature to pick their own voters.

What we believe actually should be the case is that independent citizens, statisticians, and just regular folks are able to draw those maps in accordance to with what it is that needs to happen rather than trying to draw them in a manner that tries to maximize single party control.

- To be fair, Republicans are doing the same thing in other states around the country.

And I know that looking back some, couple of decades ago when Republicans were in the driver's seat, drawing up their own maps, you did the same kind of thing.

- Well, obviously I can't control what others do in other states, but what I can say is what it is that we have done here in Illinois.

I was a very strong supporter of the independent maps process back in 2015, 2016 when we tried to put this on the ballot to let the people to decide.

I have regularly co-sponsored legislation along with this.

In fact, earlier this year, prior to the census data coming out because we knew the census data would be delayed, we introduced legislation that took the Democrats own previous ideas down to every and, and comma and said, we put that back in as a proposal saying, come on, let's really do this this time.

And the Democrats who had sponsored that before walked away from it, which goes to show that their support for independent maps was just for show and not really being on the side of what the voters want.

- So will there be a Republican response to this in coming days or will it have to play itself out in the courts?

- Well, so we've got two different things going on at the same time.

One is the state legislative maps.

Those, the federal courts have ruled the initial map on that unconstitutional has asked for us to draw a map to respond to their second map based on all the different constitutional concerns.

We'll have to see what the final map looks like on the congressional side to determine whether or not we believe that it is drawn within a constitutional manner.

And we have to remember, there's really two different things going on here, right?

One of which is those federal issues in which the federal supreme court has indicated they're not gonna weigh in on partisan gerrymandering.

However, that question has not been resolved here in the state.

So it's very possible that a congressional map that may pass federal constitutional muster still could be challenged in state court on these partisan gerrymandering grounds.

- Leader McConchie, thank you so much for your time this afternoon on "Illinois Lawmakers."

We certainly appreciate you blocking out some time for us in what is a very busy, very busy day for you.

- My pleasure, Jack.

- Representative Dan Brady of Bloomington is our guest on "Illinois Lawmakers."

Representative, thanks for joining us for this veto session edition.

- Thank you very much, nice to be with you.

- Lots of big issue topics to talk about.

Probably the largest and effecting the most people might be the talk of remap, new congressional maps.

Perhaps a second look at these state maps.

I know that Republicans and others have been involved in lawsuits, challenging the maps that have been approved.

There's a lot of opposition to the congressional maps.

What's the take right now and what do you hope to see over the next several days and weeks?

- Well, first off, I can remember veto sessions where you just dealt with overriding the governor's vetoes on things and not maps and not really legislation that was very, very controversial and emotional for a lot of folks, but that's not this session for sure.

But with the remaps right now from a state and federal side of things, the state, we know that we are coming up towards maybe our third adjustment of that map redraw and that the map itself is still in federal court with now the panel that we had put in place by the federal judges asking for another map to be drawn.

So potentially now we're going to our third map.

That's supposed to be done, I think, around November the ninth and back to the court.

So that's the state's act.

The federal side then is in round number two from what we can all tell with potential vote from the House this week and the Senate dealing with the maps.

And those maps, depending on, obviously, who you talk to find this time around the second drawing maps more, I think individuals would tell you more controversial districts that pit Republican against Republican.

- I know that in the court case, the federal appeals court has said, if Republicans have alternatives, they'd love to see those submitted.

This is always a political issue.

When you talk about drawing district boundaries, there's been a lot of call for independent commissions and more bipartisanship in terms of drawing these legislative maps.

What are the Republicans have in terms of their own proposals?

What would you like to see?

- Well, those proposals are in the works with the order from the court at this point in time.

But what I think I would like to see is the under-representation primarily the lies in the stubborn areas that several of the groups have challenges as well as our Republican caucus that there would be more of a resolution to what one could come away with as more of, the grass cut even if you will, aspect of things, meaning that there is a better representation for those minority groups in those particular areas that they've challenged.

And so I think our maps, our attempt to draw a map will be an attempt to just that.

The other aspect of course is we as Republican caucus in particular have set the drawing of these maps.

We should take the politicians out of that.

And we still certainly abide by that, but we also have to abide by a federal court mandate to us that we provide to the court, our ideas.

And so long-term, I guess obviously after this process would be starting again for the electorate, for the people, to have their voice heard of an independent panel and an independent way in which to draw these maps in the future.

- You mentioned some high-profile and perhaps emotional issues that the legislature is taking up as well in the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act as well as the Parental Notification of Abortion Act.

Some changes to those laws.

Somewhat party line votes when it comes to these sorts of things.

Your reaction to the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, which is allowing in some cases, courts to decide in favor of those who would rather not have a COVID-19 vaccine.

Should that be changed?

Should it be clarified at all?

- Well, the legislation was written back in a different timeframe.

In fact, I think around 1998, maybe even before that.

And the legislation absolutely was not designed for the situation we find ourselves in now.

The post COVID era to some degree from the standpoint of what we initially went through, but nonetheless, dealing with that and people's rights, people's religious right, people's right not to be vaccinated, et cetera.

And I think one thing's really important is that this particular proposal that was in executive committee recently of which I serve on for well over three hours, we debated this particular issue.

And what was very striking to me was that, and as you will know yourself, as you slip committees as it's called, as you put a response into a committee for your approval or opposition to a piece of legislation that over 48,000 individuals slipped in opposition to this piece of legislation.

Around 600 slipped in favor.

Right there, I think it would tell you, people are number one, obviously, concerned.

Number two, people are confused.

And number three, this bill was being pushed in the veto session where I don't think it belongs.

I think it needs to go back to the drawing board.

And it's a very, very, very broad definitions of what it's doing.

One hand, we have the bill sponsor saying that we're really not changing anything.

We're just kind of fine law.

But if you look at the amendment, we most certainly are changing things or why we bring the bill forward.

So I think that in itself is telling, and I think that in itself is something that was not ready for prime time.

- Certainly something that we'll continue to keep track of.

I'm sure it's something we'll continue to hear about.

Representative Dan Brady.

Thank you so much for your time.

- Thank you very much.

Nice to be with you as always.

(cinematic music)