SPRINGFIELD — In a surprising loss for criminal justice reform advocates, Democrats on Thursday were unable to pass legislation providing more resentencing options for people in prison convicted of committing crimes when they were under 21.
The bill not only was a setback for advocates but also underscored a political divide between progressives and moderates within the Democratic Party, which has a supermajority in the House. The measure sponsored by Chicago Democratic state Rep. Theresa Mah was defeated late Thursday 51-49 — 11 votes short of passage as several Democrats, including from the suburbs and downstate, either voted against the bill or did not vote at all.
Mah’s legislation called for allowing youths incarcerated for lengthy sentences to be eligible for resentencing by a judge who should take the age and maturity level of the person seeking the resentencing into consideration.
Proponents thought the bill was needed because it recognizes “children and young people’s brain development and unique capacity to mature and change,” Mah had said. But opponents said the legislation did a disservice to victims and their families.
Illinois still has other pathways for people in prison to seek early release, including clemency from the governor and post-conviction claims alleging a prisoner’s constitutional rights were violated during trial. Terminally ill inmates may also be released early and in recent years prosecutors have been allowed to file resentencing petitions to argue that further incarceration is unjust.
Politically, the legislation’s defeat was surprising as the bill handily cleared the House Restorative Justice and Public Safety Committee and had 27 Democratic sponsors. Also it’s customary for House Democrats, who have a 78-member supermajority, to have the necessary 60 votes from members of the caucus before sponsors take the legislation to the House floor for a final vote.
House Democrats who joined Republicans in voting against the bill were from the more moderate wing of the caucus, though none of the Democrats spoke during the floor debate.
A few were from Chicago, including Michael Kelly, a former Chicago firefighter from the Northwest Side, Angelica Guerrero-Cuellar, who represents the Southwest Side and whose husband is a Chicago police officer, and Mary Gill, who represents a far Southwest Side district where many in law enforcement live. Other Democrats from the suburbs or downstate who voted against the bill included Marty Moylan of Des Plaines, Larry Walsh of Elwood, Katie Stuart of Edwardsville and Dave Vella of Rockford.
After the vote, Vella said his problem with the bill had to do with “procedural issues” and he worried it could violate the Illinois Constitution.
“It’s us telling the judiciary what to do. So I think it’s a separation of powers issue. That’s really what it was,” said Vella, a former assistant public defender in Winnebago County. “I’m a big fan of process. The person who could do this is the governor. The governor has the power to give clemency under the Illinois Constitution. We don’t have that power. We are not supposed to meddle in with the judiciary and I think this went to that place.”
The legislation called for imprisoned individuals who had already served more than 10 years behind bars for most crimes committed when they were under 21 to be able to petition a judge for release. Imprisoned individuals would have to wait 20 years to petition the courts if they were in custody for first-degree murder and did not receive a sentence of natural life, and 30 years if they were sentenced to natural life.
The legislation was estimated to benefit roughly 1,200 incarcerated people if it became law.
During the floor debate Thursday, Mah noted the General Assembly passed similar resentencing laws in recent years, including in 2019 when a law was passed allowing people sentenced to lengthy prison terms for most crimes committed when they were under 21 to have their sentence evaluated by the Illinois Prisoner Review Board after serving 10 years. But those previous laws were not retroactive, something Mah’s legislation aimed to address.
“This bill would create a pathway for people sentenced as children and young adults to show that they have been rehabilitated and potentially return home and give back to their communities,” Mah said. “Data show that there is a low recidivism rate for people convicted as children and young people and released as adults.”
Mah also noted a 2022 report from a resentencing task force recommended the legislation she proposed, adding that the bill didn’t require a sentence reduction, only the ability to ask for one. And she highlighted a section of the bill allowing victims or their families to be given the opportunity to speak in court or issue a written statement about the petitioner’s resentencing request.
Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy of Chicago, who also backed the bill, said it acted as a check on the state’s prison system to determine if it was successful in rehabilitating those petitioning the court for release.
“If our Department of Corrections is to truly be a resource for restoring people, bringing them back to their families, putting people back into community and being productive members of our community, we should have some mechanism by which we can determine whether or not the department’s efforts have paid off,” Cassidy said.
But House Republicans came out in force against the bill.
“With respect to victims, we need to give them finality in the criminal justice system,” said state Rep. Patrick Windhorst of Metropolis, who is a former state’s attorney. “They should not be having to come back to court to relive a loss that they suffered either being the victim of a crime or the family of a victim of a murder.”
Republican state Rep. Dan Ugaste, of Geneva, asked Mah during the debate whether her bill would apply to people behind bars for committing crimes against children.
“They were children themselves when they were convicted,” Mah replied.
“I just want to know if this would include people who committed crimes against a child. That’s all I was asking,” Ugaste responded.
Mah replied that the bill did, and Ugaste promptly urged lawmakers to vote against it.
Originally Published:
