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

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

The leader of the Customs and Border Patrol immigration enforcement effort, Midway Blitz, is back in Chicago.

Governor JB Pritzker has signed a $1.5 billion mass transit funding package.

We'll take a closer look at those stories and likely some more this week on Capitol View.

And to help lead the discussion, Hannah Meisel state House and Chicago reporter for Capitol News, Illinois and Mawa Iqbal Capitol, state House reporter for WBEZ and for Illinois public radio stations.

Welcome back to the program.

>> Thanks for having us.

>> So, as I mentioned, Greg Bovino, the commander of the immigration officers in Chicago, is back in Chicago, along with reported surge in immigration enforcement this week, as Operation Midway Blitz appears to be gearing back up.

I know you covered the governor this week.

He had some, I guess, praise for how Illinoisans have handled this enforcement effort as well as, I guess, maybe some some words of caution on this next wave of enforcement.

>> Right.

We know that there is an unrelated press conference that the governor had yesterday, where he talked about how Gregory Bovino and federal agents are back in Chicago, and they came back yesterday morning.

Um, we have reporters who were in Little Village, which is a Western neighborhood of Chicago, who, uh, saw Gregory Bovino and his agents detaining people.

So it seemed like they started deploying as early as yesterday morning.

Governor Pritzker says they were out there.

You know, the agents were wearing masks.

There were, um, riding around in unmarked vehicles.

So it's a lot of what we saw in the first round of this operation Midway Blitz, so to speak.

Um, where you had a lot of agents targeting people in neighborhoods in the suburbs and using, like, increasingly aggressive tactics.

Right.

So, so it was, um, putting people in chokeholds or if it's car chases or shooting people or, um, using chemical munitions against protesters.

It's, you know, it's a lot of that.

And that's something that Governor Pritzker was saying, you know, I'm very proud of the way that people in the Chicagoland area in Illinois have used their cell phones and their whistles to stand up for each other and to also document what's happening.

Um, but it's certainly unclear.

You know, Pritzker was saying that we don't know how long they're going to stay.

They also didn't tell us that they were arriving right before we were under the impression, um, that the Sun-Times had spoken with someone at Department of Homeland Security who had suggested that Bovino was thinking about returning to Chicago in March and with 1000 agents, presumably because it will be warmer at that point.

So so the fact that they're back now and for maybe a couple of days is not what we were expecting.

But, you know, regardless, Pritzker was like, we just need to make sure that people are protesting peacefully and that they're documenting what's happening.

And it's interesting, too, that, um, later this week, there's going to be it's the Illinois Accountability Commission, which is created by Pritzker, by the state to essentially document people's real life stories.

So they're going to have their first town hall meeting in Chicago.

And I guess, you know, it'll be an opportunity for people to just come in and speak on, like, you know, what their personal experiences have been dealing with federal agents or protesting federal agents, and specifically their focus is on their use of chemical munitions.

So like pepper spray and some of these other weapons that these agents have been using.

>> Um.

>> Is there any.

>> You know, uh, it was just a few weeks ago, kind of led by a couple of things.

One, that there had been pretty credible intelligence that Border Patrol wouldn't be back until the spring.

But then also because, um, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had cast some doubt on this preliminary injunction that a federal judge had put in place limiting agents use of, uh, you know, so-called riot control weapons, including tear gas, including, um, other uses of force, like chokeholds, like I mentioned, um, that, you know, the folks who had brought this major lawsuit in the first place decided to, um, kind of just pull back and say, um, you know, we would actually like the case dismissed.

And so currently, there's really not any protections, um, for people now, there are maybe norms.

And, um, I think there are things that people had learned during the first two months of Operation Midway Blitz um, starting in September through mid-November.

Um, but you know, right now, for however long these Border Patrol agents stay, um, you know, currently, uh, there's not really any protections, like I said, like there had been under this judge's temporary restraining order, which was then converted into a preliminary injunction.

Um, you know, this is especially doing this right before the holidays.

I think it, um, maybe sends a message from Greg Trevino that, like, you're any sort of, uh, false sense of safety that you had.

Um, we want to just remind you that, um, you know, that was it was just an illusion.

Um, and people who were expecting to be, you know, home for the holidays, um, among their family, grateful that they were not, um, you know, anyone who was swept up in the 3000 plus immigration arrests during those first two months this fall.

Um, you know, they're they're not so safe.

>> With with this Governor's Accountability Commission.

Is there a sense of what, uh, the governor hopes will happen?

Obviously, they're tracking and correlating stories and things that have happened, but is there a more tangible long term end goal for this, for this commission, do you think?

>> You know, I think with all commissions, um, that the state puts on it really depends on, um, the personalities of people who are leading it.

But I also want to note, um, that during a fall veto session, lawmakers did pass, um, legislation.

Uh, that would, um, the governor had signed last week.

It, um, it would bar civil immigration arrests from being carried out in courts, daycare centers and hospitals, public universities, uh, you know, especially daycare centers.

Uh, you know, we had a case, uh, close to the end of the first surge of this woman who was, um, you know, basically followed into her, uh, job at a daycare center in Chicago, um, you know, civil arrest, uh, in courts.

Um, that is actually quite common.

Um, especially if someone have has an immigration court date.

Um, you know, that has happened a lot.

This being a state law, it, um, it is limited in its impact.

Um, but it also gives people, uh, you know, kind of a right of, um, a right to sue agents accused of violating their civil rights.

Again, uh, being a state law, it is limited.

But, um, you know, I think the governor and state lawmakers, Democratic lawmakers wanted to send a message.

Um, and you know, this commission, I'll be very interested to see what results from it.

Um, you know, at the very least, there will be, you know, a narrative of, you know, people who have experienced, um, you know, being roughed up by these agents.

Um, you know, certainly we've heard many stories about, um, actual US citizens being detained, uh, and then maybe eventually let go, maybe even being taken all the way to the Broadview, um, ice processing center.

Uh, but, you know, I like all state commissions.

Um, you know, it's just very limited in scope because, again, this is all under, uh, everything that, um, federal immigration, um, agents are doing is under a federal law.

And, um, you know, the state can only really do so much.

>> Mhm.

>> Right.

And going off of, like, what Hannah was saying.

Just, just going off of what he was saying too, that this was something that when the lawmakers were considering through, um, or passing it through the legislature and veto session, a lot of Republican lawmakers had said, you know, like our main concern is that if you're going to give people the right to sue federal agents because they feel like their constitutional rights have been violated, whether that's because the agent refused to identify themselves or they were driving an unmarked vehicle, or they're the plates of that vehicle were tampered with, or whatever the case may be, you know, can can you actually do that legally?

Right.

Like, you can sue this agent in state court, which is what the state law carves out for people.

But then who's to say that that case won't get just kicked up to the federal court system?

Or who's to say that, you know, the federal government itself won't step in as like a defendant instead of this individual federal agent.

So there's definitely a lot of legal questions.

But but the the vibe or the sense I got from the Democrats like Senate President Don Harmon, who carried this bill, and then Governor Pritzker, who signed it, is that we just want to give people something like like a recourse.

Um, and we'll just see how it goes, I guess.

But, but but certainly with, with this, um, commission, I would also yeah.

Like I said, I'd be curious to see, like, what they actually do with all these public accounts and, and the website did say to you can submit documents and photos to just to have a record of what people are experiencing.

>> Mhm.

>> And we'll continue to monitor and see what what happens with that.

Uh, also this week the governor signed the transit bill that essentially provides a $1.5 billion bailout for Chicago area public transit.

It also provides a small amount of money for downstate transit.

The majority of the funding comes from, I believe, diverting sales tax revenue from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund, as well as the diversion of some other incomes from the from the State Road Fund, um, to help unpack what all is included in this in this transportation transit funding package?

>> Yeah.

Essentially this transit bill, it can be split up into two components.

One component is the governing aspect, which, um, when talking to lawmakers, it seems like the governing aspect.

So like how this new Northern Illinois Chicago area transit body will operate, that seemed to be the more easier problem to address and solve.

I talked with State Representative Dina Delgado, who was pushing this measure through the House, and she was saying that, you know, like we got the governing portion figured out with all the stakeholders, all the labor people, all the transit workers, all figured out immediately, right?

And essentially what it is, it's it's it's, uh, replacing the regional transit authority.

So they've created this new giant, um, mega agency called Nida, Northern Illinois transit agency and or authority.

I'm sorry, but, uh, Nida will basically oversee Metra, pace, Chicago Transit.

Um, and essentially the idea is to streamline fares for people.

So like, if you're someone who has to take the metro, then you have to take the CTA, uh, subway, then you have to take, you know, so so then now under this new law, you can just get a fair that that will carry on through the different transit services you may have to use in one go.

Um, it also the idea is to to streamline just scheduling and helping people figure out, you know, like how to how to use these systems.

But that was like probably one component, the other component that was probably the more difficult component to to figure out for lawmakers was funding.

Right?

So, so like you were mentioning too, you know, they come up with all these different revenue streams because, um, transit and specifically the Chicagoland area was facing a pretty steep fiscal cliff.

Um, the original numbers that that the regional Transit Authority had come out with was like a $700 million fiscal cliff.

They came out recently like a couple months ago, saying that that fiscal cliff has now shrunk to 200 million.

But still a lot of money, right?

Um, and a bunch of, you know, the labor advocates, labor union representatives are saying that with the fiscal cliff this large, you know, that will mean cutting services.

That might also mean laying off transit workers.

And, you know, this really has come about because a lot of the Covid recovery dollars that went towards Chicagoland Transit have since run out.

So lawmakers are pretty hard pressed, um, this past spring session and this past veto session to figuring out, like, how are we going to make sure that we have funding not just to meet this cliff, but also sustainable for for years to come?

And what they've come up with is a 1.5, like you said, $1.5 billion annual revenue, um, fund that that would basically come from increasing toll fees.

So in the Chicagoland area, the toll fee is going to go up $0.45 per car.

Um, it will also allow the transit authority to increase the local sales tax for the cook and the collar counties by 25%, or 25%.

So so a quarter of 1%.

Um, and then, yeah, it also diverts funds from the motor fuel gas tax and then also from the road fund.

And that's actually something that a lot of Republican lawmakers and particularly downstate lawmakers.

So so you have House Minority Leader Tony Mccombie.

You have Senate Minority Leader John Curran, who came out with their statements after Pritzker signed this law yesterday or earlier this week saying that, um, you know, this is this is just going to hurt people in the suburbs.

You know, they're going to have to pay more in tolls and in the sales tax, but also it's going to hurt downstate.

You're diverting these funds from downstate projects like, like, um, infrastructure projects, you know, bridges and roads and stuff.

So it definitely the sense I got from just talking to lawmakers is that the funding aspect specifically was going to be really difficult.

Not everyone's going to be happy with it.

And certainly that's what ended up happening too, is that you have people who are who are not happy with it.

But but you also have labor leaders who you know that Tim Dray, with the Illinois AFL-CIO, with big labor union in Illinois, was at the press conference with Governor Pritzker to sign this law.

And and he was like, you know, I can breathe a sigh of relief that that this we finally got this figured out.

>> So, yeah.

>> I know there's a lot of the downstate.

And I'm saying southern Illinois Republicans obviously got the message and were spoke out against this funding mechanism.

And there are a lot of road and bridge projects down in this part of the state.

Was there any type of a of a fiscal note or a budget note on this legislation, looking at the potential impact of utilizing the motor fuel tax and the state road funds to help fund this.

And what, in terms of what it might mean for future and ongoing construction and infrastructure projects?

>> Yeah, I think the idea was that, you know, the funding for the infrastructure projects would come from different buckets.

Right.

But but that this motor fuel tax and then the road fund diversions will specifically be for transit because that that seemed to be the more pressing issue.

Um, it's again, it's certainly, you know, became a pretty heated, I guess, issue that for, for a lot of, like you said, downstate lawmakers to who we're talking about, you know, that this is just another bailout for for Chicagoland where downstate having to pay for a problem that Chicago needs help with.

It seems to be like a recurring, recurring issue that that keeps coming up in the legislature.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, yeah.

I mean, uh, that is the message that, uh, you know, is heard over and over and over again.

But, um, you know, at and it certainly can feel unfair.

I'm not discounting that.

But, um, you know, uh, research from Southern Illinois University, um, has consistently found that, you know, contrary to that, um, you know, that feeling.

It's really, uh, the Chicagoland area that, uh, supports economically the rest of the state.

Um, and, you know, letting transit, um, fail, you know, that is for a lot of lawmakers, um, you know, even Republicans in the suburbs, um, and remind people that the suburbs used to be a bastion of, um, you know, Republican policy makers, um, you know, letting transit fail was not an option because transit, um, represents so much economic, um, opportunity because, you know, you have to have people get to work every day.

Of course, Covid disrupted people's transit patterns.

Um, you know, Covid brought a lot of, um, service disruptions to, um, you know, one, because there was just not as much demand for it, especially during the height of the pandemic.

But also, you know, because people, uh, you know, office workers in Chicago who prior to 2020 would have gone downtown every single day.

Um, maybe they're commuting only three times a week now, or their, uh, work has turned into a fully remote job.

Um, but even still, you have to have that reliability of a, you know, a public good.

And, um, I know that people pointed to the, um, what happened in Philadelphia this past year when they had their own fiscal cliff with their Septa system.

And, um, you know, they didn't really solve that in time.

And, you know, Philadelphia saw major service cuts.

And that translates into, you know, economic depression.

Um, and, you know, it's it's a really, really difficult issue.

Uh, you know, I'm definitely not discounting that.

And, um, but, you know, the motor fuel tax, for example, uh, that is something that can be used for transit projects.

Um, and the interest from the road fund, that's something that's been building that will provide, you know, a top off from, um, what will be earned.

And it's it's definitely not going to be pleasant to pay even more in tolls.

You know, I pay tolls up here all the time.

Um, and, you know, I get a little notification on my phone that, um, I passed has taken another $20 out of my account, and it seems like not too long ago, I feel like there was a doubling in tolls.

It used to be $0.40.

Now it's $0.80 or something like that.

And it's going to be, you know, more than a dollar now to go through certain tolls.

That is hard to take.

Um, but at the end of the day, um, policy makers, uh, felt like transit is just something that could not fail.

Um, and it's a, there's, I think, larger economic, um, you know, uh, there's a larger story that needs to be told and there's a larger trend that needs to be addressed.

But, you know, on a state level, you can only do so much because a lot of, um, uh, power to fix transit and to fund transit actually comes from the federal government.

And as we know, the federal government is not into spending a lot of money right now.

>> Absolutely, absolutely.

Uh, I want to do wanted to touch on we had kind of an update as we're getting into the campaign season and jockeying for upcoming primary positions as well, underway in the state for state lawmakers, including, uh, Senator Emil Jones the third, who recently entered into a deferred prosecution agreement after his federal bribery trial ended in a mistrial.

Jones was removed from his leadership position back in 2022 after indictment, and he's now facing a primary challenge.

How have you been covering this case as it has unfolded?

What is this latest development mean for the senator and also for his his future in the in the General Assembly?

>> Yeah, this is a surprise.

Um, you know, myself and my colleagues were gearing up to cover his retrial in January, um, after having covered his, uh, three week trial in April, which, as you said, ended in a deadlocked jury.

And, um, so in a hearing last week, um, it's a surprise that, uh, Emil Jones, uh, um, entered into this deferred prosecution agreement.

But, uh, in another sense, I don't think it's actually that much of a surprise.

Um, I think watching that three week trial.

There were certainly deficiencies in the government's case.

And, you know, of course, when everyone was called back into the courtroom in June, uh, prosecutors said, yes, we're going to do a retrial.

We're going to call some more witnesses.

But I think ultimately, um, that was maybe more to save face.

And they knew that putting on a retrial, um, might be, you know, kind of a waste of resources, especially, uh, now given, um, you know, how strapped the US Attorney's office is in Chicago.

And frankly, around the country, there's been, you know, massive, massive turnover of prosecutors, um, and other folks who work in, um, these US attorney's office during the Trump administration.

And there's been a, you know, turn of focus, uh, basically to remind viewers, uh, Emil Jones was accused of, um, bribery.

He was accused of agreeing to accept bribes, uh, one in the form of $5,000 campaign contribution, which actually never came to fruition.

And another, uh, which was his idea, a, um, a job for his former intern.

Um, and these were with these are the bribes were from, um, this man named Omar Ahmadi, who was an executive of this red light camera company called Safe Speed.

Um, but unbeknownst to Emil Jones, uh, he was actually working with the FBI.

Um, he had an undercover, uh, camera at three of their dinners in 2019.

Um, and then when the FBI came knocking, uh, in September of 2019, uh, Emil Jones, um, he, you know, lied to FBI agents saying that he didn't know, um, that, you know, what?

His former intern was getting paid for this, um, kind of fake job that he only ended up having for about six weeks.

But, um, you know, again, there was a lot of deficiencies in the government's case.

Um, you know, including and especially the fact that the, uh, $5,000 campaign contribution never came to fruition.

And because, you know, the bill that Omar was trying to kill, uh, which would have, um, you know, kind of hurt the red light camera industry in his estimation.

Um, it didn't ever come up for a vote.

But that's not because of Omar.

Um, promised campaign contribution or the job for the intern is because, uh, Emil Jones was not just.

He was not the most effective legislator, um, you know, pushing that bill.

>> In a couple of minutes.

>> I'm sorry.

Like you said, he is facing, uh, primary challenge and part of the, um, you know, his time on the witness stand, which was also, uh, you know, a high risk, high reward kind of situation when he got on the witness stand, you know, he said, yeah, I've never had a a election challenge and the prosecutor asked, then why do you have a campaign fund?

Which is kind of a silly question for anyone who watches politics.

Um, because you have to have a campaign fund.

Um, but yes, he does have two primary challengers and apparently a Republican challenger, but I don't see any reason why he would really have to worry about these primary challengers.

They're not really big.

They're, you know, not big names at all.

And they're not really raising that much money.

I think that, um, his, uh, the strength of his name, uh, especially his, uh, father being former Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr, and, you know, the length of his tenure already.

Um, you know, he's served since 2008 or 2009 after replacing his father on the ballot in 2008.

Um, even with this blip, I think that, uh, he still wins.

>> All right.

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

We are once again out of time.

Hannah Meisel Capitol News, Illinois.

Mawa Iqbal WBEZ.

Thank you both for joining us this week.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> And thank you for tuning in to Capitol View.

I'm Jeff Williams, and on behalf of everyone here at WSIU, we hope you have a happy and safe holiday season.

[MUSIC] [MUSIC]