Editorial Roundup:

Arlington Heights Daily Herald. February 10, 2022.

Editorial: Children caught in crossfire of battles over school mask mandate

Children caught in crossfire of fights over school mask mandate

Threats, name-calling, bullying. For months on end, the school masking issue has inspired behavior from parents that they would in no way tolerate from their children. And that debate spiraled into chaos Monday as schools grappled with Friday's temporary restraining order by a downstate judge regarding school mask mandates.

The cries for masking 'œfreedom'ť and school board shouting matches that followed that day, falling on Charles Dickens' birthday, might have literature buffs recalling his memorable best of times/worst of times opening to 'œA Tale of Two Cities'ť:

'œIt was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity... it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.'ť

It does indeed feel this week as if we are slogging through that winter of despair. And a spring of hope seems so very, very far away -- no matter what Woodstock Willie says.

Yet, we must start working our way there. We begin by putting the physical and emotional needs of children first, not making their schools a battleground.

Children have endured nearly two years of uncertainty brought on by the pandemic. They've ping-ponged between at-home learning and classroom instruction. They've missed out on school traditions, suffered through teacher shortages, listened in as bitter battles over remote learning and masks raged around them.

Should they really have to worry about bullying over masks?

Speaking to WBEZ, Barrington mom Jackie Zagrans recounted stories about students who felt peer pressure to take off their masks and a child pulling masks off younger students.

'œThere were threats made,'ť she said. 'œThere was a great deal of ugliness in the hallways, in the classrooms and at the lunch table.'ť

However deeply parents are divided on masking, we hope they can agree on this: Children should not be threatened for choosing to wear a mask -- or not to.

This kind of ugliness has no place in our schools.

Listen, getting through a school day can be difficult for many kids as it is. It does none of them any favors to compound the problem.

In addition, we must tone down the rhetoric aimed at teachers and other school officials caught in the middle of lawyers, state leaders and angry parents. They have a right to feel safe in their classrooms. If they can't, how can they help our children? And how can we retain top-notch educators when we treat them so poorly?

No, we are not in the best of times -- by anyone's definition. But wallowing in the worst, especially when it involves children, is hardly the solution.

___

Chicago Sun-Times. February 9, 2022.

Editorial: Keep SAFE-T Act reforms, but hold those who start gun battles accountable

The change in the felony murder law does raise the question of how to charge those accused of instigating gun violence that leads to homicides.

Republican leaders last week amped up their calls to repeal the state's SAFE-T Act, outraged over two cases in which the men who allegedly instigated deadly gun battles won't face first-degree murder charges.

The outrage is understandable. Two people - a 54-year-old woman on her way to buy a lottery ticket in one case, a young man attending a house party in the other - are dead.

And the two suspects who allegedly started the gunfights that led to those deaths are not, as yet, facing anything more than weapons charges.

Travis Andrews and Tayvon Powe would have faced murder charges if the felony murder law had not been amended under the SAFE-T Act, Assistant Cook County State's Attorney James Murphy told two separate judges during hearings at the Leighton Criminal Courthouse last week.

With two people dead, it's easy to feel anger that Andrews, 26, and Powe, 22, at this point are only facing weapons violations, though those crimes could land them in prison for over a decade if they are convicted, as the Sun-Times' Matthew Hendrickson reported.

In a city beset with deadly gun violence, it is imperative that those who set violence in motion pay a steep price under the law. But the SAFE-T Act need not - and should not - be repealed to accomplish that.

The criminal justice reforms included in the bill, such as a requirement for all police officers in the state to wear body cameras, are too important to scuttle.

Prosecutors' hands aren't tied

Included in the SAFE-T Act was a change in the felony murder law, which took effect over the summer. Previously, if a person was inadvertently killed by a third party while a crime was being committed by others, those others could be charged with the murder.

The SAFE-T Act removed that provision. This has raised the question of whether Andrews and Powe, and others accused of instigating gun battles that lead to homicides, can face murder or similarly serious charges.

That can still be done, according to University of Illinois-Chicago law professor Kim D. Ricardo.

The SAFE-T Act does not tie the hands of prosecutors, Ricardo said. The state's attorney's office could seek involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide charges against Andrews and Powe, without relying on the felony murder rule.

Ricardo also noted there is a first-degree murder charge, in which the accused knows his or her acts 'œcreate a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.'ť

It's hard to argue that someone who starts a gun battle isn't fully aware that someone is likely to be gravely injured or killed.

A needed reform

Criminal justice reform advocates have pointed out why the felony murder statute, in its previous form, needed to be changed.

Consider what happened to college football player Timothy Jones, who was sent to prison for nearly 30 years in 2016 for the murder of motorist Jacqueline Reynolds.

Reynolds, who was on her way to a funeral, was killed when Chicago police crashed into her car as they chased Jones, who had just stolen electronics, Air Jordans and $93 from a man he knew from high school.

Reckless, yes - but a far cry from instigating a gunfight on the street.

At his sentencing, Reynolds' friend said she would have been upset knowing Jones was used as 'œa sacrificial lamb'ť in her death.

In fact, the felony murder law has not been fully eliminated, as some have wrongly suggested. If a suspect kills a victim during the course of a robbery, home invasion or other serious offense, their accomplices can still be charged with murder even though they didn't pull the trigger.

That's in line with what other jurisdictions are practicing across the country. Rescinding the SAFE-T Act - which stands for Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity Today - would be taking a step back.

Without the modification in the felony murder law, too many people, especially young Black men like Jones, risk being locked up for murders they didn't commit or didn't plan to happen.

But it's easy to draw the line when the alleged actions involve instigating gunfire.

Andrews started a gunfight that led to the death of 54-year-old Melinda Crump, who was killed in Austin on Dec. 18, 2021, prosecutors said.

Powe and another man allegedly began shooting at partygoers in Englewood on New Year's Day after their friend, Antonio Rankin, told Powe he had gotten into a fight there. When someone returned fire, Rankin was struck in the back and died, prosecutors said.

Starting the shootouts created a domino effect that ended in the deaths of Crump and Rankin.

Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx said her office will be pursuing 'œaccountability'ť in these cases. We hope so.

The loss of innocent lives demands it.

___

Champaign News-Gazette. February 11, 2022.

Editorial: Judicial-elections dispute tests extent of legislative authority

The General Assembly's partisan political gamesmanship will be subjected to legal scrutiny.

When political battles turn into legal disputes, circumstances can get pretty complicated pretty fast.

That's exactly the case with a lawsuit brought by Madison County State's Attorney Tom Haine, who is challenging the constitutionality of recently passed legislation that gerrymanders circuit courts in a number of Illinois' 102 counties.

Last week, Haine, a Republican, persuaded a Sangamon County judge to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the new law from taking effect in Madison County. This week, a state appeals court in Springfield overturned the order, finding that the judge's decision was premature because Haine's clients will not suffer 'œirreparable harm'ť in its absence.

In other words, the appeals court's ruling was not about the fine points of the disputed legislation, but instead about the fine points of issuing an temporary restraining order .

But set aside that issue for a moment, and let's get down to basics.

The legislation both creates judicial sub-circuits in some of the state's 23 judicial circuits and eliminates at-large elections of circuit judges in others.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker and supermajority Democrats passed the bill to ensure the election of more Democrats in areas that are perceived as currently more supportive to Republicans.

For example, Champaign County has evolved from GOP to Democratic territory. So Democrats figure that three local circuit judges who were elected across the six-county Sixth Judicial Circuit will become Democratic once those posts are elected solely by Champaign County voters.

Democrats took a different approach in Madison County, dividing it into sub-circuits and ordering that their decision take effect immediately.

That means two appointed Republican judges, under the new law, will be required to run in a Democrat-friendly sub-circuit rather than across all of Madison County.

Haine, acting at the behest of his county board, is challenging the legality of that move, arguing, among other things, that the law's lack of clarity and the election costs it would impose cause severe hardships that ought to be halted while his legal challenge undergoes scrutiny by Judge Ryan Cadigan.

But, as the appeals court noted, these types of restraining orders are 'œextraordinary remedies reserved for emergency situations.'ť

The appeals court concluded that the trial court erred because it focused on the wrong issue of 'œharm.'ť

'œThe inquiry should have been whether (Haine's clients) would suffer irreparable harm if a temporary restraining order did not issue before the merits of the claims could be adjudicated. Applying the proper standard, we conclude (Haine's clients) did not make the requisite showing,'ť wrote appeals court Justice James Knecht, who was joined in the decision by justices Robert Steigmann and Craig DeArmond.

So it's back to the trial court for Haine, who bears the burden of demonstrating the law's constitutional defects.

While the appellate court expressed 'œno opinion'ť either way about the law's viability, it said the trial judge 'œwould benefit from a more thorough analysis from all parties on the issue of whether the General Assembly can eliminate all at-large circuit judgeships within a particular judicial circuit.'ť

While the political positions espoused by Democrats and Republicans can be crystal clear, this pending dispute again demonstrates how complex legal disputes spawned by those political differences can be.

END