State will let couples in civil unions file joint tax returns

By Jamey Dunn

UPDATED: Equality Illinois released a statement regarding the Illinois Department of Revenue's decision on state tax returns. See below.

Illinois couples in civil unions will now be required to file their state tax returns in the same way as married couples. The new plan is a reversal from a previous policy, under which couples in civil unions could not file state taxes together.

The Illinois Department of Revenue had decided that such couples would have to file separately because they could not file their federal taxes together. Sue Hofer, spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Revenue, said the agency looked to New York, which legalized same sex marriage this year, when trying to find a way to allow couples in civil unions to file joint state taxes.

Hofer said partners in a civil union would fill out the federal form as if they were married, and then fill out the state form as a married couple.  The federal return would be sent only to the state, along with the state form, to be used as a dummy to base the state return upon. Those in civil unions would still have to file separate federal returns as single because the federal government does not recognize their partnerships. Couples who do not wish to file a joint return would still file as married but would be able to file separate state returns.

Hofer said joint filing for state taxes will not result in large tax benefits for couples -- the substantial benefit comes at the federal level for couples with disparate incomes. If one person has a much smaller income, it can move the household into a lower tax bracket than the individual was in. “In Illinois because we are a flat tax state, you really aren’t going to see any significant change to your taxes. … With the state, everybody pays a 5 percent flat tax. But there will be some benefits.” She said that exemptions such as for property taxes or education expenses, could be applied a couple’s total income instead of just an individual’s earnings.

Randy Hannig, director of public policy for Equality Illinois, declined to comment specifically on the change because he said the group had not received an official announcement from the department. However, he said he is “cautiously optimistic.” UPDATE: From a prepared statement released by Equality Illinois Monday night: "Since the beginning of June when same-sex couples first started entering into civil unions, no one could speak with certainty about how this new status would affect state tax policy," said Hannig. "We immediately reached out to the Illinois Department of Revenue and started the process of figuring out a solid solution to this problem. Illinois law specifies that couples in a civil union are afforded the same rights and benefits as married spouses, so why should same-sex couples' state tax status be any different?” Illinois is the 10th state, including the District of Columbia, to allow same sex couples to file joint tax returns, according to Equality Illinois.

Hofer said the department will work in the coming weeks to get the word out about the change so couples in civil unions know what to do when filing their returns early next year. “We realize we had to make a decisions before the end of the year,” she said. “We will be talking with advocates and folks that this will impact.”

Rep. Greg Harris, a sponsor of the law that legalized civil unions in the state, said he did not know whether the department had created a final policy on the issue. “I do know in having talked to tax partners in a number of major law firms ... that this change would bring us in line with what other states do,” Harris said. He said the problems the department had in sorting out tax policy for couples in civil unions highlight a disparity that exists at the federal level. Harris, a Chicago Democrat, said because the federal government does not recognize civil unions, couples will miss out on tax benefits and have to jump through “additional hoops” to file state taxes together. “There’s still an inequality in the way relationships between same sex couples are treated and the way relationships between opposite sex couples are treated.”

Catholic Charities to end fight over foster care

By Jamey Dunn

Catholic Charities has given up its fight to administer foster care and adoption services in the state of Illinois.

The Thomas More Society announced today that it plans to drop its lawsuit against the state. The organization argued that the state did not have the right to end contracts with Catholic Charities to provide adoption and foster care services.

The dispute was over placing children in the homes of couples who have a civil union. Church representatives said it went against the organization’s belief system to place children with unmarried couples. Catholic Charities pushed for legislation that would have allowed them to refer couples in a civil union to another adoption and foster care provider, but the measure was shot down in committee. Kendall Marlowe, a spokesperson for the Department of Children and Family Services, said the agency did not renew the contracts because representatives of Catholic Charities voiced the organization’s intention not to comply with the state’s new civil unions law.

Opponents to ending the contracts say that provisions in the civil union law itself should protect religious-based organizations in situations like the one Catholic Charities is facing. “The dismantling of Catholic Charities’ foster care ministry marks a tragic end to 90 years of foster care service by some of the most effective child welfare agencies in Illinois,” Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, said in a written statement. “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies. Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections. This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising ‘religious protection’ in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises.”

However, civil rights advocates argue that when an organization—religious or otherwise—goes into business with the state, it must treat everyone equally and fulfill all requirements set out by state law. “When a private organization — even a private religiously affiliated organization — performs what is really quintessentially a government function, such as screening foster homes for licensure or caring for the wards of the state, it must abide by the laws that bind the government. If the religiously affiliated organization does not want to abide by these laws, it should exercise its choice not to accept those government duties,” said Mary Dixon, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled in August that Catholic Charities was not entitled to new contracts. “No citizen has a recognized legal right to contract with the government,” the opinion said. The Thomas More Society has filed an injunction trying to halt the end of contracts with Catholic Charities affiliates of the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, Belleville and Peoria. But the group said it now plans to end its legal battle.

Catholic Charities continues fight for state contracts

By Jamey Dunn

Catholic Charities organizations are appealing a court ruling that said the state has the right to end contracts with the organization for foster care and adoption services.

Kendall Marlowe, spokesperson for the Department of Children and Family Services, said the state did not renew contracts with the group because representatives of Catholic Charities voiced the organization’s intention not to comply with the state’s new civil unions law. The organization planned to refer couples in civil unions seeking to be foster or adoptive parents to another provider. The contracts are renewed on an annual basis. “We were unable to enter into contracts with them for Fiscal Year 2012,” Marlowe said.

The Catholic Conference of Illinois pushed for a bill during the spring legislative session that would have allowed them to refer couples in civil unions to other providers, but the measure was shot down in a Senate committee. When the state informed the organization that it would not renew the contracts, the Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, launched a lawsuit against Illinois. Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled that the organization was not entitled to a renewed contract. “No citizen has a recognized legal right to contract with the government,” the opinion said.

The Thomas More Society today asked the court to stay the ruling and plans to file an appeal based on the fact that the ruling did not touch on the religious rights of Catholic Charities. “Catholic Charities is one of the lead providers of foster care services in the state. They have been valued partners for decades. Clearly the intent of the civil union law was not to force the state to end these contracts and force the transfer of thousands of children’s cases,” Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria said in a written statement.

Human rights organizations say Schmidt made the right decision. “The court correctly concluded on procedural grounds that the state could decline to renew its contracts with four dioceses of Catholic Charities. The state chose not to renew their contracts because they insisted on violating state and federal law by refusing to place children in the homes of couples in civil unions. Illinois correctly determined that this practice was bad for kids, could deny many of them their best opportunity for a better life, and that the state's obligation was to make the transition to other providers as seamless as possible,” Camilla Taylor, director of Lambda Legal’s Marriage Project, said in a written statement.

DCFS has been working on a plan to shift all of the approximately 2,000 foster care and adoption cases administered by Catholic Charities to other social services providers. The department already moved 300 children to a new agency in June after Catholic Charities of Rockford announced it would no longer handle the cases. Marlowe said that ideally, children and families aren’t even aware of the shift because caseworkers move to a new agency as well. “The only change that the child and foster family may perceive is a different logo at the top of the letterhead. All that has to change is the agency supervising the case.” Marlowe said that the department is moving forward with its work and plans to have all cases moved to new agencies by the fall “We would obviously respect any court orders that come down. But in the meantime, our orderly process goes forward.”

Judge: State can end contracts with Catholic Charities

By Jamey Dunn

A court ruled today that Illinois does not have to continue contracts with Catholic Charities organizations across the state because the group said it would not place children with couples in civil unions.

The state ended contracts with Catholic Charities in Springfield, Peoria, Joliet and Belleville after the organization said it would not provide adoption or foster care services to couples in civil unions. The organization, which is paid by the state to provide social services, said it would instead refer such couples to other providers. Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled today that the state was within its rights to break a contract with a provider that is not abiding by the law. “No citizen has a recognized legal right to contract with the government,” the opinion said.

“Today, Illinois Circuit Court Judge John Schmidt ruled against Illinois Catholic Charities in their pursuit to continue their 100 years of service to Illinois families and children with foster care and adoption services,” said a prepared statement from the Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization that was representing Catholic Charities in the lawsuit. “The ruling does not address Catholic Charities' contention that the state of Illinois cannot refuse to contract with someone based on that person’s exercise of religion. Thomas More Society attorneys are reviewing the ruling and considering next actions with the charities.”

Those who advocated for civil unions, which went into effect in June, can take some solace in the fact that the new law survived its first legal challenge, though most felt the issue was clear from the start of the dispute. “When a private organization — even a private religiously affiliated organization — performs what is really quintessentially a government function, such as screening foster homes for licensure or caring for the wards of the state, it must abide by the laws that bind the government. If the religiously affiliated organization does not want to abide by these laws, it should exercise its choice not to accept those government duties,” said Mary Dixon, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

State says couples in civil unionscan't file joint Illinois tax returns

By Jamey Dunn

Less than a month after civil unions became available in Illinois, one state agency says it cannot allow for a benefit that lawmakers promised would come along with the partnerships.

The Illinois Department of Revenue says it will not allow couples in civil unions to file joint state income tax returns because Illinois residents must file the state return the same way they file their federal one, and the federal government does not recognize civil unions. Married couples who file separate federal returns must file their state taxes separately. However, married couples not required to file a federal return can file a joint Illinois return. An explanation of the policy on the department’s website cites the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which President Barack Obama’s administration has said it will no longer defend against legal challenges.

Chicago Democratic state Rep. Greg Harris, who sponsored legislation that legalized civil unions in the state, said the Department of Revenue’s decision came as a surprise. He says lawmakers intended for couples entering into civil unions to be afforded all the same rights and obligations that the state gives to married people, including filing a tax return together. “On the face of it, it seems to contradict the intentions of the legislature. … The lawmakers in debates in discussion of this bill explicitly said it [would allow couples to file joint state tax returns,]” said Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of the advocacy group Equality Illinois.

“I think they’re taking the easy way out,” said Jill Metz, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois' board of directors. “Other states have disagreed with their position that they have to stay in line with the federal tax policy.” Other states that have civil unions or domestic partnerships, such as California and New Jersey, do allow couples to file joint state returns. Metz said in such states, couples create a joint federal return that they do not file, but they use the joint income number calculation to plug into their state returns. The Illinois Department of Revenue maintains that there isn’t a monetary benefit to filing as a couple on the state level. “Illinois has flat tax, and so whether you are single or married, you will pay the same amount of tax,” said Sue Hofer, a department spokeswoman.

“I don’t know how the state of Illinois could possible know all the circumstances of people’s lives to know whether there is or isn’t a benefit to filing a joint state tax return,”Metz said. Anthony Madonia, an adjunct professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said there are some potential benefits to filing state taxes as a couple. “There’s no ladder to climb as far as rates go. … I guess the difference is, if one of the members of the civil union is not working, then their exemption is wasted.” He said if someone did not have income, they could apply their personal tax exemption, as well as other potential exemptions, to their partner’s income.

“Prior to this, we were planning on filing joint returns for clients who are in civil unions,” said Madonia, His Chicago-based firm, Anthony J. Madonia & Associates, focuses on tax and business law. “We thought that there would be a joint return. We just did.”

Metz said many people are willing to take an extra step to calculate their combined income as if they were filing a federal return, so they can put the number on their state forms and file as a couple, regardless of the benefits. “It’s about the recognition. It’s about the inclusiveness. It’s about the respect,” she said.

Harris said that the department’s argument illustrates the need to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He said until the federal government recognizes the unions of same-sex couples, legal disputes such as this one will continue to pop up across the country. “This just shows why we still have such a long way to go in terms of marriage equality in this country.”

Harris said he hopes the issue can be resolved, but he said it might take a lawsuit against the state from a couple in a civil union. “I look forward to somebody filing it.”

Cherkasov and Metz both say their organizations are looking into ways the department could allow couples to file together. Metz called on the department to rethink its policy to avoid lawsuits. “They could make the right decision and keep the promise that is in that civil unions bill. … I think somebody in the Illinois Department of Revenue needs to take a second look.”

Cherkasov said there is still time to ensure that couples in civil unions can file their first joint state tax returns next year. “It’s alarming that this is their opinion. … But at the same time, the 2011 tax returns for the state of Illinois have not been printed yet.”

 An analysis of the department's decision from John Marshall Law School assistant professor Anthony Niedwiecki is available here.

DCFS says it can handle a Catholic Charities exit from foster care

By Jamey Dunn

The Illinois Department of Child and Family Services says it can make other plans if Catholic Charities pulls out of its contracts to administer foster care and adoption programs in the state.

Catholic leaders are pushing a bill in the General Assembly that would allow them to refer to another agency couples who have civil unions and are seeking to become adoptive or foster parents. Senate Bill 1123 failed to get enough votes in a Senate committee last month to make it to the floor for a full vote. Bob Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said there is enough support to pass the legislation if it came before the full Senate.

Gilligan said without passage of the bill, Catholic Charities would no longer be able administer foster care and adoption services for DCFS because it would be forced to place kids with couples who are “cohabitating” under civil unions instead of a marriage, and this would violate the church’s values. “We want to continue to contract with the state of Illinois to provide foster care and adoption services, but if the law is not changed we’ll be faced with the very real possibility of being forced out of providing these services to very poor and vulnerable children,” Gilligan said.

“We are preparing for that possibility,” said Kendall Marlowe, spokesman for DCFS. Marlowe said the state has a model of how to make do without the organization. He said the department had to transfer about 1,000 children to other providers after Catholic Charities in Chicago stopped providing the services in 2007. The organization made the move after being dropped by its insurance provider.

Marlowe said most people are not aware that the number of children in the system has shrunk dramatically in recent years — from about 52,000 children in 1997 to about 15,500 today. More than 2,670 of those children are currently under the care of Catholic Charities. He said the decrease in the overall number is a product of the department’s work to find permanent home placements for more kids. “We got much better at getting kids out of the system that didn’t really need to be there.”

He added, “Illinois has one of the most highly privatized child welfare programs in the country.” Marlowe said with more than 80 percent of the system handled by private entities, DCFS would have a large network of providers to help pick up the slack. He said there are areas in the southern part of the state where Catholic Charities is the only provider. “We would transfer the cases to existing agencies but it would be a significant challenge. I don’t mean to candy coat that or underplay that in any way,” he said. If Catholic Charities were to stop providing care, he said DCFS would likely need existing agencies to expand their services to some areas. “It is a significant challenge, but we would meet it.”

Marlowe said currently Catholic Charities, along with other faith-based agencies in the state, refer same-sex couples to other entities for adoption and foster care licenses, a policy he calls an “awkward compromise.” The Illinois Attorney General’s office, DCFS and Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration are currently reviewing the practice. “DCFS and the Illinois child welfare system serve children and families without regard to sexual orientation,” he said. “There is the question of whether private agencies can use public money to discriminate in this way.”

Representatives of the church say it is not seeking to discriminate but instead to continue practicing its values by referring couples who are in living situations that it does not condone to another provider or to DCFS. They note that same sex couples are currently adoptive and foster parents in the state.

“Gay individuals and gay couples right now in the state of Illinois are adoptive parents and they are foster parents. And…they were in no way impeded because of our belief from becoming foster parents or adoptive parents. They’re out there, and they’re doing a good job as far as we know, and that’s fine,” said Steven Roach, executive director of Springfield Catholic Charities. “After civil unions [goes into effect,] no civil unions couple will be denied the opportunity to become a foster parent of an adoptive parent. There will be no change. … This bans nothing. And when you hear words like discrimination please keep in your mind not one — not one — civil unions couple will be denied the opportunity to become a foster parent or an adoptive parent in the state of Illinois because of our belief.”

But equal rights activists say that the church is asking for the right to discriminate while administering state-funded programs. “I think no matter how you look at this question … it is just outrageous,” said Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois. “They are trying to replace the best-interest-of-the-child standard with their own religiously based and sometimes biased standard.”

Gilligan said Catholic Charities is not setting an ultimatum for lawmakers, but instead urging them to make the change. He said they have not yet made a final decision on the issue. “We don’t want to get to that point. That’s why we’re urging the General Assembly to pass this legislation. … June 1 [when civil unions go into effect] is an important date,” Gilligan said.

Marlowe said any entity that contracts with the state is agreeing to uphold Illinois law. He said if Catholic Charities cannot do that, they may be unable to contract with DCFS. “That would be an unfortunate outcome, but it would be a choice that they are making.”

Catholic Charities may stop providing foster care

By Jamey Dunn

Some faith-based organizations that provide adoption and foster care services for the state say they may have to stop if they are forced to place children with same-sex couples.

Senate Bill 1123, which would allow religious organizations to deny placement of a child with a couple who has entered into a civil union, failed to gain the needed support to pass out of a Senate committee today. Under the measure, if an organization turned a couple away, it would have to provide them with information about an alternative adoption and foster care program, such as the Department of Child and Family Services.

The bill has an unlikely sponsor. Sen. David Koehler, who also sponsored the law that will allow both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions starting in June, is backing this measure. Koehler, a Peoria Democrat, said in supporting civil unions, he did not intend to start a religious battle that would take a toll on Illinois children.

“I guess amongst my many faults is that of being a pragmatist. I’m very proud to have been the sponsor of the civil unions bill and would like to see that work,” Koehler said. “Fighting on the fronts of what I would call religious wars in terms of who has to do what is really not where I would like to see our activity. I’d like to see our activity in terms of really embracing the rights of gays and lesbians in the state.”

Koehler noted that hospitals run by religious groups are allowed to decline non-emergency services that go against their parent organizations' religious doctrines.

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference, said the six Illinois Catholic Charities  organizations and other religious-based groups are responsible for about 3,000 of the 16,000 children in foster care in Illinois. He said children needing foster care are assigned to Catholic Charities based mainly on their regional proximity to Catholic Charities versus other foster care providers.

Gilligan said that same-sex couples would still be able to be foster parents or adopt, and the legislation would simply allow religious groups to refer them to another program.

“I don’t think we can continue providing foster care and adoption services to the most poor and vulnerable in the state of Illinois if this legislation does not advance. I don’t see how we’re going to be able to do that,” Gilligan told the Senate committee. He added that if the church did stop contracting with the state for foster care, the greatest impact would be felt in central and southern Illinois.

Mary Dixon, legislative director for the ACLU, says the bill could keep children from being placed with gay family members or family members who have decided to opt for a civil union instead of a marriage, even though such a placement could be best for the child. “This legislation could in fact prevent a child from being with a loving lesbian aunt, grandmother or grandfather who would be unacceptable to a private agency because of [being] unmarried and in a civil union.”

Dixon cited studies that have found that gay and lesbian couples are equally effective parents as heterosexual couples. She said any policy that limits the pool of potential foster parents is harmful for children needing homes.

“When a private organization--even a private religiously affiliated organization--performs what is really quintessentially a government function, such as screening foster homes for licensure or caring for the wards of the state, it must abide by the laws that bind the government. If the religiously affiliated organization does not want to abide by these laws, it should exercise its choice not to accept those government duties,” Dixon said.

Dixon said while the ACLU traditionally advocates for the rights of religious groups to practice their beliefs without governmental interference, an organization that has contracted to provide a service for the state must treat everyone equally while providing that service. She says anything short of that would be “state sanctioned discrimination.”

Gilligan said after the committee vote that he did not know when Catholic Charities would decide whether it will continue providing foster care for the state.

This is one of the first major legal debates to emerge since the legislature approved civil unions last December.

“It’s never over until it’s over,” Gilligan said. The measure was one vote shy of passing in the committee and could come up for consideration again “We can’t put our guard down. The gay community [and] people who believe in fairness cannot put our guard down,” said Rick Garcia, former political director for Equality Illinois and longtime gay-rights activist.

Quinn signs civil unions bill

By Jamey Dunn

Same-sex couples in Illinois will soon have the opportunity to seek protections under state law, thanks to a bill Gov. Pat Quinn signed today.

“We believe in civil rights, and we believe in civil unions,” Quinn said in Chicago as he signed the bill. “Many people … all over Illinois, worked so hard for not just in the last few days or weeks or months but literally, for many people, almost their entire lives.”

Starting in June, same-sex and heterosexual couples will be able to enter into civil unions. The unions will provide couples with the same rights that come with marriage under state law, such as shared property rights, hospital visitation and the ability to file joint state tax returns. Illinois will also recognize civil unions — or same-sex marriages, which will be considered civil unions — from other states. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government.

The General Assembly passed the civil unions bill in December. During debate, opponents argued that giving same-sex couples rights equal to married couples would be morally wrong and a danger to heterosexual marriage. “The reason marriage exists is that sexual intercourse between men and women … produces children. If intercourse did not actually produce vulnerable children who add to the population of a country, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions,” said Sen. Chris Lauzen, an Aurora Republican.

While many from their party opposed the measure, Republican Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka and Treasurer Dan Rutherford — who as a state senator cast the lone Republican vote in favor of the bill — were on hand at today’s bill signing.

Chicago Rep. Greg Harris said at the Chicago event that approval of the bill marked Illinois offering “basic equality and fairness” to all couples. But he added that more needs to be done to protect people’s civil rights regardless of sexual orientation, both in Illinois and around the world.

“But as great a victory as we celebrate here today, there’s more work to be done,”
Harris said. “Things can get better. … There are forces, powerful forces, who want to turn back the clock. Who still actively [em]brace intolerance and work to take away rights that generations of Americans have fought to protect and we, we must not let them succeed.”

Civil unions bill heads to the governor

By Jamey Dunn

Same-sex couples are a mere pen stroke away from having the option for civil unions in Illinois.

The Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 1716 today,after a long debate about family, religion, insurance and pension benefits.

Sen. David Koehler, a Peoria Democrat, said he wanted to sponsor the bill because his lesbian daughter does not have the same rights in Illinois as his other two daughters. “I see this issue now through the eyes of a father who has a gay child.”

Koehler’s daughter, Maggie, watched from the gallery with her partner, Brennan Kramer. The couple are engaged and plan to hold a ceremony next September.

“I am one of the proudest children in Illinois today,” Maggie Koehler said after the vote.

Sen. Koehler said couples who enter into civil unions would get all the “legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois that relates to spouses.”

The measure is intended to give same-sex and heterosexual couples who opt for civil unions rights such as the ability to be involved in their partners’ health and end-of-life decisions, as well as hospital visitation and shared property rights.

Some opponents argued that the legislation was same-sex marriage by another name. Sen. John Sullivan, a Democrat from Rushville, said he voted against the bill because many of his constituents do not support it, and he couldn’t determine a difference between the civil unions described in the measure and marriage.

Others said it was morally wrong and would damage marriage as an institution between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a stable environment for children.

“The reason marriage exists is that sexual intercourse between men and women … produces children. If intercourse did not actually produce vulnerable children who add to the population of a country, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions,” said Sen. Chris Lauzen, and Aurora Republican.

He added: “What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is the sex, not love and commitment. Marriage exists to solve the major challenge that arises from sexual intercourse between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender — what to do about its potential generation of vulnerable children. ”

Sen. Dan Rutherford from Chenoa was the only Republican to cross the aisle and support the bill. “The people of Illinois, they don’t want discrimination. There’s going to be a bunch said about this legislation, I understand that. But one thing that I do know, it’s the right thing to do,” said Rutherford, who is leaving the Senate to take office as state treasurer in January.

Some Republicans said they support the concept but could not back the bill because it would require the state to give same-sex couples pension benefits and may require insurance companies to offer spousal coverage to gay and lesbian couples. “Our cup of debt is full, and we cannot take one more drop of financial strain,” said Sen. Dan Duffy, a Lake Barrington Republican.

However, Koehler said Illinois already offers health care benefits to domestic partners. He also said people pay a small amount into the pension system to potentially cover a spouse, and if they are not married when they retire, they get the money back. “In a sense, everybody has been paying into that all along.”

“The fiscal impact … I don’t see it,” said Kathryn Eisenhart, a professor of legal studies at the University of Illinois Springfield and a member of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Committee for the Illinois State Bar Association. “The state budget is a horrible mess. It was a horrible mess before this got passed. It will remain a horrible mess after this got passed.”

Eisenhart said that from a legal point of view, the bill would likely not result in drastic changes for same-sex couples. She said she would advise all couples to take some of the steps that same-sex couples have — in lieu of being granted explicit recognition — to access legal protection, such as getting power of attorney or a living will, to protect themselves in emergency situations.

She added that same-sex couples may still find themselves in the situation of having to “show their papers” to visit their partners in the hospital or make medical decisions — a situation that was used as an example of unfair treatment during the debate in the House.

“If you [are part of a heterosexual couple] and show up and say, "I am Mrs. so-and-so," they aren’t going to ask you for a marriage license,” she said. “If you are of the same sex, they can still say, ‘Where’s your papers?’ … It’s much more likely to happen.”

Eisenhart characterized the bill as a first-step toward equality for same-sex couples. “It’s a beginning. … [Some advocates are] pretty excited about the fact that we have a governor who will sign it and a Senate who is pretty strongly willing to support it.”

She added, “The fight starts again on Monday, and the reality is that this is just a beginning.”

Gov. Pat Quinn has pledged to sign the bill. If he does, it would go into effect June 1.

Public Employee Evaluations
The Senate overrode Quinn’s veto on House Bill 5154, which would seal public employee evaluations. Quinn changed the bill so only evaluations for law enforcement personnel would be sealed, citing safety and security reasons.

Maywood Democrat Kimberly Lightford, the sponsor of the bill, said she supports making employment information such as salaries available to the public. But she thinks open evaluations go too far.

Proponents of the original legislation have said that opening the evaluations will make managers hesitant to be honest in evaluations, for fear of negative comments making it into the public sphere. Opponents say they legislature is already chipping away at newly enacted transparency laws.

The House already overrode the measure, so the original version of the bill, which exempts public employee evaluations from the Freedom of Information Act, becomes law.

Gaming Expansion
With virtually no floor debate, the Senate passed a large gaming expansion package before it adjourned this evening.

If it becomes law, the measure would allow for new casinos in Chicago, Rockford, Danville, Park City and a yet-to-be-named location in the suburbs south of Chicago. Operating casinos would be able to increase the number of gaming positions to 1,600 each and 2,000 each in 2013. Horse racing tracks would also be allowed to have slot machines.

Sen. President John Cullerton said SB 737 would bring in $424 million immediately and higher levels of gaming revenue in the future.

The money would go to pay down the state’s backlog of overdue bills and capital projects. The legalization of video poker throughout the state, which was one of the major funding mechanisms of the capital bill, has stalled in getting off the ground and may not bring the revenues that were originally projected.

Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Republican from Hinsdale, said he supported the bill because putting slots in at race tracks would help the agricultural sector — specifically horse breeding and training. “When these jobs are lost, they are next to impossible to replace in rural Illinois.”

Dillard added that he thinks the bill is still being negotiated and will not pass in the House without some changes. “This is not the final product. This thing is going to be back.”

Waukegan Democratic Sen. Terry Link, the sponsor of the bill, characterized it as a “huge” expansion but said something needs to be done to address the state’s “huge deficit.”

Gov. Pat Quinn said at a news conference earlier in the day that he did not support “top-heavy” gaming expansion. He said he has yet read the bill but that is strikes him as “top heavy.”

Redistricting
The Senate also passed SB 3976, which would change the redistricting process used to reconfigure legislative and congressional boundaries after each census.

The measure, which passed with bipartisan support, would add protection for minority populations and require public hearings on the process throughout the state. These provisions were included in the Democrats' redistricting bill, which failed to pass in April. The lack of those provisions is also the reason Democrats cited for voting down the “Fair Map” amendment, which was backed by Republicans and the League of Women Voters.

On Thursday, the Senate plans to take up a measure to reform police and firefighter pensions. The House in not scheduled to return until January.

Civil unions passes as House has a big day

By Jamey Dunn

Same-sex couples are one step closer to having the option of civil unions.

The Illinois House passed Senate Bill 1716, which would give gay and lesbian couples access to the same rights as married couples in Illinois. Legislators also considered other hot-button issues today, including legalizing medical cannabis and repealing the death penalty.

“This legislation is a fair, moderate center. It does not change the definition of marriage. It provides basic legal rights to our citizens. It’s a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of respect. It’s a matter of equality,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Greg Harris, the sponsor of the civil unions bill.

The measure would grant same-sex couples rights such as the ability to be involved in their partners’ health and end-of-life decisions, hospital visitation, state tax benefits and protection under domestic violence laws.

Rep. Ron Stephens, a Greenville Republican, said Harris equated granting same-sex couples civil unions to the righting of an ethical wrong. “Many of us sincerely believe that that’s not true,” Stevens said.

However, not all Republicans agreed.

“I’m in my seventh decade of life," said Rep. Bill Black, a Republican from Danville. "People my age have difficulty with this. Younger people do not. For many of us in public life this is an issue that quite frankly, if we can speak honestly, we wish it would go away. It isn’t going to go away. ”
Black, who is leaving the General Assembly on December 22, then called on members of his side of the aisle to support the bill and follow in the footsteps of former Illinois U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen when he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Some opponents say the bill is just same-sex marriage by another name, and others say it is a foot-in-the-door to seek approval for same-sex marriage.

“If this should ever pass, the next bill will be legalizing marriage between … members of the same sex, and I just think that’s wrong. … Just call me an old-fashioned traditionalist,” Stevens said.

Harris said as much as he would support legalizing same-sex marriage, that is not what this bill does. He said he realizes there is not support for a marriage bill and that is why he is advocating for civil unions at this time. “Illinois law specifically prohibits same-sex couples from being married. That’s in statute. … That will always be the law in this state until this General Assembly sitting in this room at some point in the future casts its votes to change that law.”

Gov. Pat Quinn, who has been lobbying lawmakers to support the bill, stood by Harris on the House floor for part of the debate. After the vote, Quinn said he hopes the Senate will take up the bill tomorrow.

"Whatever it takes. We really want to make sure that we enact this important civil rights law."

Death penalty abolition
A House committee approved a bill that would abolish the death penalty in Illinois.

The state has not used the death penalty since former Gov. George Ryan called for a moratorium in 2000 after several death row inmates were exonerated. He cleared Illinois’ death row in 2003 when he pardoned four inmates and commuted more than 150 sentences to life without parole.

Those in favor of the repeal say the lengthy appeals process associated with death sentences is a waste of the state’s resources, especially during a budget crisis. Jeremy Schroeder, executive director of the Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, says the state cannot afford the $20 million a year it spends on prosecutions and the appeals process in capital punishment cases.
SB 3539 requires that the money from the capital litigation fund, which was established to help defendants build their case when prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, would go to fund support for homicide victim’s families and police training.

Opponents say the issue has nothing to do with financial woes and say pitching the repeal as way to save money is a red herring. “The fact of the matter is, this is not a cost issue. It’s a question that [legislators have] to decide: Are there certain crimes that are just so horrific, that have such an affect on the community, that the death penalty is the only appropriate sentence? I submit to you that that is the case. There are some crimes that just cry out for it,” said Robert Berlin, chief of the criminal bureau under the DuPage County state’s attorney.

“After study, reforms and dialogue, we still have not fixed this system, nor have we ended it. It’s time to end state-sponsored homicide in Illinois. It’s not a deterrent. It risks executing the innocent,” said Maywood Democratic Rep. Karen Yarbrough, the sponsor of the bill.

Schroeder said the moratorium is convenient for politicians, who can support the death penalty while knowing that no inmates will be executed as long as it is in place. He said that is unfair to others involved, such as victims and those sentenced to death.

Cathy Crino, whose sister was murdered in Texas in 1995, said the death of her sister’s murderer, who committed suicide, was not a comfort to her, and the state can offer better options to help victims’ families. “The void doesn’t go away. The death of the perpetrator is never going to fill that void. … I can tell you there is no closure. You just learn to live with it, and it doesn’t end for you. And the death penalty drags victims’ families through between 13 and 15 years of court proceeding after court proceeding after court proceeding. That re-traumatizes them. … What would help victims are broad-based services that help people deal with the trauma of this kind of loss.”

Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Elmhurst Republican, called on legislators to slow the process and hold hearings throughout the state on the issue.

Opponents of the repeal echoed Reboletti’s concern that it is being pushed through the General Assembly without an adequate amount of debate. They say recent reforms have gone far to rehabilitate a damaged system.

“The reforms that were put in place years ago are working,” Berlin said. “The defendants who are now on death row since those reforms have been put in place truly are the worst of the worst. … and they’re there because of horrendous crimes that they have committed.”

He added: “The fact of the matter is, this is not a cost issue. It’s a question that [legislators have] to decide. Are there certain crimes that are just so horrific, that have such an affect on the community, that the death penalty is the only appropriate sentence? I submit to you that that is the case. There are some crimes that just cry out for it.”

Medical marijuana
A measure that would allow residents with chronic or debilitating illnesses to gain access to medical marijuana failed today to gain the votes needed to move on to the governor’s desk.

Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang, the sponsor of SB 1381, said people who are in pain should be able to consult with their doctors and consider the drug as a treatment option.

Under the bill, residents seeking the drug for medical treatment would have to be approved and registered with the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH).

A registered patient would not be allowed to posses more than two ounces of dried cannabis and six marijuana plants—only three of which could be mature plants. A primary caregiver could be licensed along with a patient, but the same limit would apply, so if a patient were not well enough to grow plants, the caregiver could do it. However, they could not between the two of them have more plants or usable cannabis than the above limits.

Lang said that under the legislation, which passed in the Senate last year, licenses could be issued by IDPH for dispensaries that would sell plants.

Opponents said the bill is a precursor to fully legalizing the drug in Illinois.

“This … goes way beyond medical use, medical treatment. This is about the legalization of marijuana. … We’re sending the wrong message to our children,” said Rep. David Reis, a Willow Hill Republican.

Republicans raised concerns about how employers would deal with a worker who is eligible to use medical marijuana and might be intoxicated at the workplace.

While no employer is allowed to bar an employee from using medical cannabis, Lang said the rules a business currently has about being under the influence of a substance on the job would apply. Lang used the example that a forklift driver who is now barred from operating machinery while on a prescription pain medicine would also not be allowed to drive a forklift while under the influence of marijuana.

Rep. John Fritchey, a Chicago Democrat who will not return to the House for the new session in January, said he had not planned to attend session this week but returned weigh in on some of the controversial issues up for a vote today.

“This is about people who are in debilitating pain, people that have minimal quality of life, people that are terminally ill looking for compassion, not a high — looking for relief, not a cheap high,” Fritchey said.

Both he and Lang believe a majority of House members support the measure in principle but that many are afraid that voting for the bill could hurt their chances when they are up for reelection. “Like the sponsor of the bill, I have talked to a number of people that said they support this bill wholeheartedly but they're afraid of the political fallout from voters.”

The bill needed 60 votes to pass. When voting was open, the “yes” votes climbed to as high as 56, finally setting at 53 “yes” votes, 50 “no” votes and one “present” vote.

“I thought I had close to 60 [votes], and I had lost a couple of people who were going to be yes and decided that it wasn’t going to get the 60 and just took their vote off the board. I lost a couple of people who didn’t tell me the truth. I lost a couple of people to cowardice,” Lang said.

Lang used a procedural move to hold the bill for a possible future vote. “I’m not ready to pass this today or tomorrow. I’ll have to take my chances in January, and if I don’t get to 60 votes then, I’ll have to start over [in the new legislative session].”

Police and firefighter pension reform
When the legislature passed pension reform for most government employees during the regular session, the pensions for police and firefighters were not included in the measure. Negotiations fell apart at the end of session, but they have picked back up this week. The House passed SB3538, which would make changes to the retirement benefits for law enforcement officers and firefighters hired after January 1.

The retirement age would move from 50 to 55, and 30 years on the job would be required to claim full benefits, though workers could receive a portion of benefits at age 50 if they had worked for at least 10 years. The maximum salary used to calculate pensions would be $106,800, and eight of the last 10 years of the employee’s service would be used to determine benefits.

Local municipalities have been lobbying for changes to the police and fire pension systems because they are responsible for most of the funding.

“[These changes] start addressing the most serious problem that affects all of our municipalities across the state,” said Orland Park Democratic Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the sponsor of the bill.

Tenaska
The Illinois House also approved plans for a so-called clean coal plant slated for construction in Taylorville. Under SB 2485, utilities Commonwealth Edison and Ameren would have to buy power from the plant.

Opponents say higher energy costs resulting from the plant could hurt the job market in the state. Supporters of the plan say the power generated by the new technology, which is intended to reduce carbon emissions, would cost more. But, they say it would probably be a negligible increase of less than $2 a year to households.

Both Quinn and Brady out of step with voters on some social issues

By Jamey Dunn

Both Sen. Bill Brady and Gov. Pat Quinn hold positions on major social issues that do not align with the opinions of Illinois voters, according to one poll.

During last night’s debate at Elmhurst College, Brady said that as governor, he would lift the moratorium on the death penalty, which former Gov. George Ryan put in place in 2006 after DNA evidence exonerated prisoners on death row.

According to a recent poll of 1,000 registered voters by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, Illinois residents agree with Brady. More than half of respondents, 56 percent, said Illinois should reinstate the death penalty. However, 36 percent said the moratorium should remain in place. The poll has a 3 percent margin of error.

“The people of Illinois have spoken, and they have said that this is the law of the land,” Brady said at the debate. He added that Illinois has the “utmost obligation to make sure that innocent people aren’t put to death.” But when Brady was asked how he would avoid such errors, he did not give any specifics.

Meanwhile Quinn — who does not want to abolish the death penalty but does want to keep the hold in place — said at the debate that he has Illinoisans' backing. “I think the people of Illinois really do support the moratorium and support me.”

He said more time is needed to see whether reforms that have been put in place are effective before the state starts using capital punishment again. “I think we should take a pause and make sure the reforms are working, so not one human being is wrongfully executed.”

“If you contrast the two governor candidates, Brady is on the side of public opinion on that one, and Quinn is on the side of public opinion when it comes to gay marriage and civil unions,” said John Jackson, a visiting professor with the public policy institute.

Brady’s stance on civil unions does not match up with poll numbers. Almost 68 percent of participants in the public policy institute poll supported some form of legal recognition from same-sex unions — with 33.6 percent supporting marriage, and 33.9 percent backing civil unions. About a quarter of respondents said there should be no legal recognition for same-sex couples.

But Brady said during the debate that he did not think he was out of step with Illinoisans when he backed a constitutional ban on civil unions. “My beliefs are what they are, and I believe a lot of people in Illinois respect those beliefs.” Brady then changed the subject to economic issues.

Jackson said Brady has “skillfully” avoided making social issues a substantial part of the campaign. “I agree that the budget is by far the bigger thing right now,” Jackson said. However, he said Brady has been “very, very vague” on his intentions regarding social issues if he is elected governor.

Respondents to the poll also weighed in on a national issue that has made recent news. More than 70 percent favored openly gay and lesbian soldiers serving in the U.S. military, while 19 percent were opposed. Last week, a federal judge ruled the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy on gay and lesbians serving in the military unconstitutional and ordered that it should no longer be enforced.

Budget not the only thing in limbo

By Hilary Russell
Just as the state’s operating budget is in limbo with five days left in the fiscal year, many substantive bills were left in the lurch at the end of the regularly scheduled spring session. The following is a list of measures that Illinois Issues magazine covered in our monthly “legislative checklist” throughout the spring. See the full list in the July/August print edition. In the meantime, here is a list of bills that stalled but that could come up in this fall’s or next spring’s legislative sessions:

HJRCA 31 The constitutional amendment sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks, a Morengo Democrat, would give voters the option to remove a sitting governor from office. The resolution would require voters to decide whether they wanted to change the state’s Constitution to include a so-called “recall” provision. The bill passed the House, but it didn’t get called for a final vote in the Senate. Senate President John Cullerton recently said he would not call the measure for a vote until Gov. Pat Quinn signed another ethics reform measure, HB 7, which would cap the amount individuals, businesses and political organizations could contribute to candidates. Franks’ recall measure doesn’t have to be approved until May 2010, and he said he expects that it would pass without problems before then.

HB 2643, SB 1292 Newly hired state employees and teachers would receive less generous pension benefits than current employees. Quinn proposed the so-called two-tiered pension plan as a way to save the state money in the next fiscal year and to reduce the mounting pension liabilities in the long run. But public employee union members strongly oppose the idea and argue it ultimately won’t save the money projected by the governor’s office. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, an Orland Park Democrat, and Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, stalled in both chambers.

SB 1381 A bill allowing the limited use of medical marijuana, sponsored by Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat, narrowly passed in the Senate, marking the first time in Illinois’ legislative history that such a proposal won approval. The clock ran out before House sponsor Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat, presented it to the full chamber. Lang said he didn’t have enough votes to pass it and that he plans to lobby for the bill and could call it in the future.

SB 744, sponsored by Sen. Terry Link, proposed opening new casinos in Chicago, Danville, Rockford and Waukegan, as well as adding gaming positions at existing riverboats and allowing slot machines at horse racing tracks. According to Link, a Waukegan Democrat, the gaming package could generate as much as $1 billion a year. While the Senate approved the measure, the House sponsor, Lang, said he chose not to call the bill and would like to make changes so the bill would not specify where the gaming facilities would have to be built.

HB 2234 would recognize civil unions and give same-sex partners some of the same legal rights, including power-of-attorney, as married couples. Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat, sponsored the legislation. It narrowly passed out of committee but wasn’t called on the floor because, Harris said, he didn’t have enough votes to ensure passage. He added that new legislation in Iowa that now legitimizes same-sex marriage could help pave the way for passage of Illinois’ bill in the future; however, Harris’ civil unions measure would not be the same as same-sex marriage.

HB 397 redefines stalking. The measure amends the 1961 criminal code by defining stalking as a behavior intended to terrorize or endanger another person through intimidation or threats. Rep. Dan Brady, a Bloomington Republican, sponsored the measure. The bill stalled in the House. Brady said the measure is undergoing further negotiations between the state’s attorney’s office and the attorney general’s office. He expects to present it again during the 2010 spring session.

HB 2633, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Julie Hamos of Evanston, called for stricter rules to define how and when inmates in minimum- and maximum-security prisons were transferred to Tamms Correctional Center in Alexander County. Questions about the treatment and living conditions of the prisoners prompted Hamos to write the bill, which she said is on hold because a new director recently took over the center. She said she wants to wait to see what kind of changes will come about as a result.

HB 288 proposes that public schools could give students a few moments before class begins to observe a moment of reflection. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Fritchey, a Chicago Democrat, and Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat. The moment of reflection would be determined on a school-by-school basis. Fritchey’s definition of a moment of reflection would replace the existing Student Reflection and Student Prayer Act, which requires every school to have a moment of silence during which students could either reflect on the day ahead or pray. Because the law lacked consequences for not observing the moment of silence, some schools observed it while others did not.

Controversy has surrounded the moment of silence issue because federal court deemed it unconstitutional to require public school students to pray during school hours.

The law invited a lawsuit. Fritchey, who voted against the original moment of silence bill, proposed the new version that would remove the “student prayer act” from the name and allow teachers to choose whether to honor the moment.

Haine said the role of the government is to encourage freedom of expression, not force it on individuals who may hold different beliefs, but he said he didn’t know if he could get enough votes for the bill to pass next session.

Civil union bill advances

By Hilary Russell

The fight to legalize civil unions in Illinois won a small victory today when it advanced out of committee by a vote of 4 to 2. Whether it will be called for a vote on the floor, though, remains to be seen.

Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat, is sponsoring a bill that would afford heterosexual and homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples.

Currently, whereas a spouse would typically have the right to serve as a power of attorney in medical decisions, a person in a same-sex relationship would not.

The bill would not legalize same-sex marriage, which, depending on the state that the couple resides in, affords the same state and federal rights as a heterosexual married couples.
Harris wouldn’t say how many votes he has secured or if he’s close to calling the bill in the next few days, considering the legislature is scheduled to wrap up the spring legislative session.

“We continue to count votes in the House,” Harris said. The problem, he said, is that opponents fear giving rights to same-sex couples would open the door to same-sex marriage. “It appears that people have a concern with the intermingling of religious and civil marriage, but the vast majority of people believe that all couples deserve basic rights.”

While one victory took place here, the California Supreme Court today ruled that civil unions will remain legal, but same-sex marriages remain illegal since voters enacted a ban in November 2008. Fifty-two percent of voters supported Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Proposition 8 materialized with a ballot drive, but opponents of the civil unions claim that it takes more than voter initiative to change the state’s Constitution. Changing the state’s Constitution requires two-thirds of the General Assembly to approve that the question be placed on the ballot in the general election. Then a majority of voters must ratify the change.

For more context about what is happening in other states, see the National Conference of State Legislatures

Civil unions measure advances

On the same day that the California Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that defined marriage in that state’s constitution as being between a man and a woman, an Illinois bill that would create civil unions advanced to the House floor.

The bill, proposed by Democratic Rep. Greg Harris of Chicago, would create civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, giving them the same state and local rights as married couples. According to Harris, however, the bill could not address the more than 1,000 rights and responsibilities that the federal government grants to married couples.

Churches in opposition to same-sex civil unions could not be forced to perform any kind of civil union ceremony.

Opponents to the bill call it a backhanded attempt to legalize same-sex marriages in Illinois. Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said the legislation “is all about same sex-marriage” because it would redefine the term “spouse” by including anyone in a civil union.

Gilligan also expressed a concern that faith-based organizations that oppose homosexuality would be forced to acknowledge civil unions when making hiring decisions and giving benefits.

Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, said that this bill is identical to efforts in other states that set off judicial battles over same sex-marriage. “There is no doubt that a legal challenge will follow,” he said. If that happened, the Illinois Supreme Court would face the decision of legalizing same-sex marriage. “You very well may see a same sex-marriage decision in Illinois. … Obviously, that would happen without the consent or will of the people,” Nimocks said.

Those in favor of the bill say it is important to grant all couples the same rights in situations such as medical care decisions, hospital visits and funeral planning for a life partner. Harris said these rights are necessary “so that no one is left a legal stranger at the time of need in a loved one’s life.”

Rev. Suzanne Anderson-Hurdle, a Lutheran minister from Romeoville, said she agreed with opponents of the bill on the desire to keep the government from telling her church what to do, but she also said that sometimes the “secular or governmental world might be ahead of us believers and can challenge us to do what we should be doing.”

Anderson-Hurdle, whose church welcomes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, said that the bill was about equality, not religious faith. “This is not and should not be a religious discussion. This is a matter of legal, civil and human rights.”

Harris tried to advance an identical bill last year, but he said his effort was derailed by the impeachment proceedings of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But it also was subject to several delaying tactics by the opposition.

Human rights, ethics and impeacment

Illinois’ first openly gay legislator and the man who championed the state's law to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation died yesterday. Larry McKeon was 63.

The Democrat announced his retirement in 2006 after 10 years in the House, where he represented northern Chicago neighborhoods. But Rep. Gregory Harris, who replaced McKeon, says his work resonated statewide. “I think a lot of people expected him to come down here and sort of be a single-note guy. He proved that he had the ability to represent the City of Chicago, he had the ability to represent the people of his district, he had a strong voice for people who were dispossessed and underserved all across this state — and really distinguish himself as a leader on a lot of key issues.”

House Speaker Michael Madigan described McKeon as a “tireless advocate on a wide range of social, health care and human rights issues,” including services for people with HIV and AIDS, as well as housing, mental health and developmental disabilities.

“He never shied away from confronting tough issues or seeking to bring disparate forces together,” Madigan said in a statement. “I admired his tenacity and his intellect.”

Born in Idaho, McKeon earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from California State University at Los Angeles and worked toward his doctorate at the University of Chicago. His 42 years of public service included working as a special adviser to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and an infantry officer in the U.S. Army.

He was diagnosed with AIDS and colorectal cancer in 2005. (See Illinois Issues magazine, September 2006, page 35.)

Civil unions
Harris also said he expects to call a measure that would allow civil unions in Illinois, which would grant legal rights related to emergency medical decisions, nursing home and hospital visits and funeral arrangements. In a Statehouse news conference, Harris joined senior citizens in advocating for the measure. He also said it would apply to same sex couples, although it's not the same thing as same sex marriage. He tried to advance HB 1615 last year but didn't get very far.

This is different. He said same-sex marriage is "off the table" this time around.

"There’s clearly not support for that. What I did hear from people is that they understood that committed couples need certain basic legal rights and responsibilities related to hospital visitation and health care decision making and funeral arrangements and those kinds of basic life issues. And that’s what civil unions is addressing.”

Ethics on the move
Sen. Don Harmon, sponsor of long-awaited ethics reform, said he hopes to call the “pay-to-play” legislation Thursday on the Senate floor. After a Senate committee advanced the measure this afternoon, Harmon said he couldn’t imagine too many people voting against it. We’ll have to see that to believe it.

“Impeachment” is a buzzword around the Capitol
by Patrick O'Brien
Four state lawmakers and about 150 state workers rallied on the steps of the Capitol today and called for the impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. In a rally organized by Springfield radio station WMAY, central Illinois Republicans criticized the governor over the slow pace of budget talks and the proposal to move 150 state jobs in the Illinois Department of Transportation from Springfield to southern Illinois.

Sen. Larry Bomke, a Springfield Republican, already sent a request for an impeachment trial to House Speaker Michael Madigan. Bomke accused the governor of playing political games with workers’ lives.

Note: Yesterday, the House approved a measure that would supplement the Illinois Department of Transportation budget. The agency is struggling to meet demands after the particularly harsh winter and increasing gas prices. The measure, sponsored by the governor’s floor leader, Democratic Rep. Jay Hoffman of Collinsville, includes extra money for the IDOT branch in Springfield.