[MUSIC] >> Welcome to Capitol View on WSIU.

I'm Jeff Williams sitting in this week as we take a look at what's making news around the state in Illinois politics.

At the top of the News feed this week, Governor Pritzker signed legislation adding new protections against a civil immigration arrests, and the Trump administration is again threatening to withhold federal funding over disagreements with two of the state's Democrat leaders.

We'll take a closer look at those stories, and probably more this week on Capitol View to help lead the discussion.

This week, our Brendan Moore, statehouse reporter for Capitol News, Illinois, and Kent Redfield, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

Gentlemen, welcome back to the program.

>> Good to be here.

>> Great to be with you, Jeff.

>> The governor on Tuesday signed a bill that bans civil immigration arrests in and around courthouses, as well as provide some additional protections, I believe, to a daycare facilities, college campuses and and hospitals.

Brendan, you've been been following the story.

What what will this new law do?

>> Yeah.

So this is the this is the response to the immigration campaign known as Operation Midway Blitz that the Trump administration has been undergoing in the Chicago region for the past several months.

It's kind of wound down now, but the government claims that it is still ongoing.

Uh, so it does a few things.

As you mentioned.

It, uh, basically provides a, a uh, maybe not quite a ban, but, um, it places restrictions on, on civil immigration arrests inside, uh, state courthouses.

So basically you would have to, um, it would create this 1000 foot buffer zone around, uh, these buildings, um, there's kind of they're kind of in a de facto understanding in the past that these were safe zones, uh, you know, people were going to court.

They're doing the right thing, but they have been the site of of some of these immigration arrests in recent months, including a case in Staunton where somebody, uh, who was undocumented, but he was going to show up for for a DUI case, and, uh, Ice agents came and got him.

Um, so it wouldn't necessarily be able to people wouldn't necessarily be able to stop federal agents from going in, but it would allow for people to sue, uh, these agents, and they would be civilly liable for damages up to $10,000.

Uh, it would also allow for, uh, for residents to sue immigration agents if they believe that their constitutional rights are being violated.

Uh, that's kind of a controversial provision in this legislation.

Uh, it's kind of been acknowledged even by the bill sponsors, that this is probably going to be challenged in court.

Uh, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government a lot of leeway to, uh, operate, uh, in states and doesn't really allow the states to place a lot of restrictions on that.

So it'll be interesting to see kind of what the, uh, what the response is in court from, uh, the federal government here.

Uh, but as you mentioned, there are a few a couple other provisions, uh, just kind of dealing with, you know, some common spaces in the public, such as, you know, colleges and universities, hospitals, childcare facilities, um, basically making sure that they have policies in place for dealing with immigration enforcement.

Um, it also kind of prohibits them from disclosing immigration status of, you know, students, patients, parents, children.

Um, and again, just make sure that they have policies in place.

Uh, you know, it's not, uh, it's not the most you know, it's very limited in what what it does.

I mean, I think the sponsors acknowledge that, you know, there's only so much you can do as a state to stand up to the federal government.

But, you know, they wanted to do something because this literally has been on the front door of legislators, especially in the Chicago area.

These are their constituents.

These are, you know, they say their communities have been traumatized and terrorized by federal agents.

So they view this as, you know, at least we're doing something to respond, even if maybe it's not everything that they that they want.

>> Yeah.

As a as a backdrop or maybe going on in the background of this, several media outlets have reported the past few days that the Trump administration is again threatening to withhold at least some federal funds for the state of Illinois over dustups, or maybe differences of opinion with the governor and also Attorney General Kwame Raoul.

Both are Democrats over some of the states.

I guess you would call them sanctuary laws and the Trump administration's, uh, I guess referral to the states lack of cooperation in areas of of immigration that also includes the recent request, I think, from the US Department of Agriculture for, I think, what the governor calls sensitive data related to the states, Snap recipients.

Um, can can I help put this latest tug of war into into context for us?

>> Yeah.

These are you know, it's definitely there's a public relations battle going on in terms of framing.

Exactly.

You know, what the contention is between, uh, the state of Illinois and and also the city of Chicago and the federal government's attempts to, uh, wrap to to increase their focus on identifying and deporting, uh, people who are, uh, in the country who, you know, illegally.

And so, uh, it this is both this public relations battle.

But when we're talking about the federal government, then we're getting to specific, you know, specific.

Uh, grants, uh, specific programs where, uh, you know, while there may not be the, you know, the ability to.

Completely deny Illinois funds, uh, that have been appropriated for specific purposes.

Uh, you can certainly slow things down.

You can, you know.

And, you know, so you're trying to exert leverage.

So, uh, we had a, uh, a memo come out from Homeland Security, uh, and specifically focusing on the attorney general, uh, talking about how, uh, all of these, uh, people who are finishing criminal sentences for a whole variety of things they had been incarcerated.

That, uh, you know, Ice puts out detainers.

It's a it's a civil kind of of, uh, of document that, uh, you know, we want to, you know, get these people into custody and, and look at their immigration status.

And, uh, now, clearly, the law is that, uh, these civil detainers that don't involve any kind of court actions are, as the case cited by the attorney general in his response.

These are requests, not recommendations.

And so, uh, the state is not happy with the way that the Trump administration and Ice are prosecuting their, uh, you know, increased, uh, immigration in enforcement.

Uh, and so, you know, there is this, this back and forth about, uh, you know, there's the ice is saying this is reasonable.

These are the worst of the worst.

Um, you know, the state pushes back and says, you know, first of all, it's a request, not a not something we have to honor.

Secondly, you know, the big, beautiful bill has billions, literally billions of dollars, increased funding.

Uh, and, uh, so the state is saying, you know, this takes away our efforts to, uh, do criminal enforcement, you know, to provide public safety.

Uh, you know, they're they're asking us to do their job when, you know, and that takes away from our ability to to to do the the law enforcement.

Uh, there's not again, this is they're vague.

They're threats about how we're going to do things in terms of money that's appropriated for public safety kinds of things.

Federal money when you get to something like transit, then you got the president, essentially.

As far as anyone can tell, kind of creating a new kind of request that somehow the state needed to provide by, in a week, some kind of emergency plan for fixing the reducing the amount of violence, uh, on, uh, the, uh, Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, all of the net met the the focus is mainly northeastern Illinois, uh, the transit and, uh, you know, that comes with real teeth because you have money that is appropriated, uh, for those specific systems.

And, uh, if you can again, we're trying to to bail them out, balance them.

There's been a big push.

You know, the governor's response is, you know, it's a 300 page bill and we've got, you know, 60, 90 pages worth of things we're going to do in terms of public safety.

So, you know, we've already done it.

So this is back and forth, back and forth again.

But it can have real impact when you get to snap.

Again this is food stamps.

This is the way we used to refer to it.

Then this is about you know, the federal government wants as much information as possible about who's getting this, these these, uh, these grants from, you know, that are passed through the state, uh, and they want that data.

You know, they're looking for illegal immigrants, people that are undocumented, but they're also trying to highlight fraud in terms of if they can find people that are on the rolls, then, you know, that strengthens their case, that, you know, they're really not, uh, you know, that in the long run, all of the restrictions they're putting on snap are going to have a positive public policy impact.

So, you know, this is, you know, one more chapter of the back and forth.

Sometimes it has teeth, sometimes it doesn't.

And it you know, it's one more thing that makes, uh, the state's efforts to make these programs work.

Uh, you know, it's one more, in some cases, distraction.

Other cases, it's a serious threat.

>> Mhm.

Mhm.

>> The the governor on, on Tuesday I believe it was said that the General Assembly is standing by to redraw Illinois's congressional district map.

If a Republican led redistricting effort in Indiana succeeds, we may know what happens with that effort by the the end of the week.

Um, there's been some legislative opposition by some Indiana lawmakers, including some Republicans, to that plan.

So we'll we'll have to wait and see what happens.

But Brendan, here in Illinois, at least during the session, legislative leaders seemed, I don't know, hesitant, maybe reserved about the need to redraw the state's congressional maps.

Is there any more definitive support from House and Senate leaders now for redrawing what is, I think, admittedly, already a pretty gerrymandered congressional map in Illinois.

>> The short answer is no.

Uh, no.

No, no.

But nobody really, really wants to blow up the map in Illinois.

As you said.

I mean, it's already one of the most gerrymandered maps in the country.

It's a 14 three map in favor of Democrats over Republicans.

Yes, they can squeeze out a 15 seat if they get creative with their cartography.

Uh, but the districts would look quite ugly.

And there were a lot of concerns, particularly among black legislators about the dilution of of my minority majority districts, particularly black districts.

Um, you know, there are currently, uh, three, uh, black majority or uh, or districts drawn to elect African Americans in Illinois.

Uh, and basically those would have to get maybe watered down a little bit, uh, to get a 15 seat.

Uh, so there were some concerns there.

Uh, in October.

Uh, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries came to Chicago, and then he came to Springfield and he talked to, uh, Illinois legislators trying to get him on board.

Uh, the Illinois Democratic Congressional delegation says, you know, they're for it, too, but they're not the ones that are going to be voting on it.

Uh, it would be the state legislators.

Governor Pritzker would have to sign it.

Um, you know, and I think some of, uh, his, his rhetoric on this is kind of keeping up with the Joneses a little bit, because California had the referendum.

Gavin Newsom was really out front on that.

They're going to redraw their districts to create five more Democratic districts to counter Texas.

Uh, we see in Virginia and in perhaps in Maryland, they may they may redraw to counter Republican gerrymandering and other states.

Uh, and then the governor kind of tied down.

Well, we're a midwestern state.

Uh, perhaps we can pair with Indiana if they do it.

And this was when we nobody really thought Indiana was going to do it.

They kind of shut it down.

But, uh, President Trump has really turned up the pressure on these lawmakers.

Uh, so we will see if there is enough support in the Indiana Senate.

Uh, but, uh, if it does happen and it gets signed into law, that would, uh, perhaps put the governor and state, uh, Democrats into a tough spot, because logistically, at this point, it would be very hard to to do a remap because the ballot has has basically been been set for the March primary.

So you would probably have to, uh, move back the March primary, at least for federal races for for the congressional races.

Uh, or you would have to, uh, change, you know, signature requirements.

Uh, you know, because you have to get a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot, uh, in your district.

Uh, so, so logistically, there are so many hurdles that it just it is so hard to see it happening.

Um, but, you know, you you can't you can't say you can't rule it out, especially with what's happening in other states.

>> Yeah.

Just quickly go ahead.

The only you know to do this, you would have to flip a Republican district.

The only one that it would be possible vaguely would be, uh, Lahood's district.

Uh, boss and Miller's districts are so intertwined with protecting, uh, Sorensen, the Democrat, the Democrat.

That and you would have to somehow get more Democrats into Lahood's district by giving Republicans to suburban, uh, congressional districts, uh, that are, you know, not nearly as strong as the Chicago districts in terms of Democratic majority.

This this is a this is a non-starter from a whole bunch of different directions.

>> Mhm.

>> That kind of dovetails into the next area I wanted to talk on.

Illinois historically has been a strong union state.

The AFL-CIO has released its endorsements for the upcoming March primary.

A majority of the state House and state Senate uh endorsements are for Democrats, along with a few Republicans in the statewide races, though noticeably absent were endorsements for state comptroller and perhaps the biggest race in the state.

And that is for Dick Durbin's open U.S.

Senate seat.

Kent.

What does this say about the race when the AFL-CIO is unable to, amongst themselves, come up with a majority of support and a couple of key statewide races?

>> Well, they are not worried about whoever gets elected, not being a friend of labor.

And so that's where they start.

These are their these these candidates, by and large, the the major candidates in their the districts we're talking about are, um, you know, have strong labor records.

Uh, some of them have been aggressively getting endorsements from specific unions, and that makes it much more difficult to get a consensus vote within the AFL-CIO's.

You know, the way they go about this, because you've you've already got people that are committed to, uh, you know, a particular candidate.

And so it's a testament to to really how strong labor is that they're really not worried.

And they don't.

If they've got three people that, uh, are perfectly acceptable, then, uh, you know, why make an enemy of someone now?

They, you know, an exception would be in the ninth, uh, where this, uh, the former mayor, I mean, the mayor, former legislator is, uh, you know, they've endorsed him, and there's some thought there that, um, you know, they're they're worried about there's a an influencer who is.

I'm sorry, I can't I can't pronounce her last name, but, you know, they're worried about, you know, that there's an uncertainty in that district because you really don't know how that phenomena translates into a very big field.

And so they are, I think, saying, you know, this is the strongest candidate to make sure that we're 100% comfortable with whoever you know, who, the person that comes out of the primary.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, Chicago media and Capital Facts are both reporting that the governor is expected to sign the Medical Aid in Dying Act on Friday.

Uh, this is a bill that's not been without a little bit of of of controversy.

Brendan.

Uh, what what will this bill allow if it when it becomes law?

>> Yeah.

Jeff, this this narrowly passed back in the veto session in October.

It kind of came up unexpected.

Uh, it passed narrowly in the House in May, and then it got up in the Senate and passed with, uh, no votes to spare.

Uh, basically, it would allow, uh, Illinois residents that are that are terminally ill, uh, the option to take basically life ending medication that's prescribed by a physician.

Um, they would have to be, uh, diagnosed by, I believe it's two physicians, uh, that, you know, their illness is terminal, that they are, um, within six months of of death, naturally.

Uh, so it is viewed as a, a perhaps a way to provide people a dignified, uh, dignified death.

Uh, and, you know, laws like this have have popped up in a handful of other states.

Uh, but obviously there are concerns from from a lot of corners.

And it's not just, uh, you know, the typical corners, the right to life, folks.

But there are there are folks that are concerned about are there enough safeguards in here where, um, it truly is going to to the folks that's intended to serve, uh, that not just anybody who is depressed and wants to end their life can, can, can get a hold of, of this medication.

So Governor Pritzker, uh, has taken his time on this.

He's acknowledging it's a tough issue.

Came up very briefly in his audience with Pope Leo the 14th.

Uh, earlier or last month.

And, uh, but he's expected to sign it.

Um, and, uh, I guess we'll see if he if he does that by the time this airs.

But, um, it, uh, but he's he's definitely being very, very cautious and very, um, deliberative in reviewing it.

I'm sure his legal team is, is taking a look at it.

Um, but, uh, no matter what he decides to do, uh, it's, uh, going to, uh, there's going to be, uh, strong opinions on both sides of this.

>> Sure, sure.

Gentlemen, we've got about four minutes or so left.

I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you.

The spring legislative session is going to get underway in about a month.

In January.

Uh, either one of you, any predictions about what we what we may be seeing, what may be priorities in this upcoming spring session?

>> Well, you know, we have a primary coming, and that's always an issue when you're trying to do a spring session in a in an election year.

Um, it is they will not pass a budget before the primary.

And, and, uh, you know, I mean, no one expects them to, but this is going to be a brutal year in terms of getting a state budget.

And so, uh, a lot of people would like to, to, to not do as little as possible to, to, you know, get focus on them, uh, you know, before we get passed the budget and then, uh, you know, there's really not any other issue other than, uh, how are we going to, you know, put way too much spending, uh, and match that up with way too, too little money.

And so, uh, I it will not be fun to be a member of the General Assembly.

Uh, if you're leaving, I guess then you don't, uh, you know, that's not as it's not as dramatic as as if, you know, you're either going to you know, you're going to have to, uh, you know, make some really tough choices.

>> Uh, Brendan.

Yeah.

>> Yeah.

Just to piggyback off of Kent, uh, I think the budget is going to be a really dominant part of the discussion.

I mean, it always is every year, and there's always other, other issues that come up as well.

But, uh, they did get some big ones off their plate this year with, with the transit bill and with energy reform.

Uh, so I think this next year is going to be really be what we call, I guess, a budget year, because it is it is an election year.

They're not going to want to do a whole lot.

They're going to want to get out on the campaign trail.

Um, but they have to pass a budget.

And the governor's budget office is projecting, uh, $2.2 billion deficit in the next fiscal year.

Uh, now, of course, some of these reports that come out don't end up being as bad, uh, once the governor gives his budget address in February.

So we'll have to see how some of the numbers, uh, I guess, uh, what the results are in the next few months.

What?

You know, what the revenue shows.

But it's not going to be great, especially with some of the, uh, some of the cutbacks coming from the federal government that, uh, didn't really affect the state as much this year.

But in the coming years are really going to start to have an impact on the budget, especially when it comes to, you know, social services like Medicaid spending.

Uh, snap, perhaps, uh, and, and, uh, a lot of other programs that that the state gets money from the federal government.

So yeah, it's not going to be fun.

Uh, but, uh, you know, it'll be, uh, I mean, they always figure it out every year, so we'll see.

But, uh, yeah, I would say a lot of focus on the budget this coming, this coming session.

>> Yeah.

>> About a minute or so left, gentlemen.

What, uh, what what's on your radar for the coming week?

For each of you?

>> Uh, well, I, I guess I would say, you know, we've had a kind of a pretty sleepy Senate race so far.

Surprisingly.

So, uh, for Senator Dick Durbin seat.

But we're starting to see it heat up a little bit.

Uh, there's some reporting in the Sun-Times, uh, about a, uh, $90,000 worth of contributions that, uh, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi received from an Ice contractor.

Uh, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Obviously not a great, uh, headline to have as a Democrat running in a primary.

Uh, but he's the front runner.

Uh, he's made he's on TV.

Uh, other candidates have struggled to get traction.

Uh, Lieutenant Governor Stratton, uh, Congresswoman Kelly.

So it'll be interesting to see if they, uh, are able to, uh, I guess, uh, kind of get more of a foothold, uh, in this race.

>> All right.

Kent, anything?

>> Uh, I'm watching, uh, what's happening with the Republican primary in the governor's race?

Not that either one of them, either.

And Bailey last year left from four years ago.

And then, uh, Ted Dabrowski, who is a, you know, more of a policy wonk, wants to, you know, kind of sound like Bruce Rauner.

And, uh, you know, this is going to tell you a lot about how the Republican Party is or isn't going to start to rebuild, you know, what are they going to, you know, is this going to look like four years ago, or are they going to try to frame it in a way that at least lays, you know, gets, gets them, you know, stops the bleeding in terms of, of the Republican Party.

So, uh, that one's going to be fascinating.

>> All right.

>> Ken, I'll let you have the last word.

Ken Redfield, Brendan Moore, thank you both for joining us this week on Capitol View.

And thank you at home for tuning in.

I'm Jeff Williams.

Have a good week.

[MUSIC]