Featured Resource: OpenPensions.org
While we don’t normally write about public finance, we support any efforts to increase government transparency. Cook County Commissioner Bridget Gainer’s Open Pensions website does just this. Commissioner Gainer is chairwoman of the County’s pension oversight committee.
The site addresses an important but politically fraught question: how do correct impending Cook County pension insolvency? County employees can see how different pension plans will affect them individually and the County as a whole. It also shares raw data for the more analytically minded visitor or researcher.
OpenPensions.org positions itself to be a one-stop-shop for news, resources, and legislative updates regarding the County’s pension problem. Check it out, and be sure to take the survey so legislators know the public’s thoughts.
Links of Interest: April 9 -13, 2012
Judicial Performance and Elections
- A post at the Georgetown Public Policy Review examines the DISCLOSE Act, legislation aimed at improving transparency in campaign-related spending. As the 2012 election season continues, expect questions about the role of money in elections and the propriety of anonymous money in elections to gain prominence.
See our previous post on public financing of judicial elections.
Criminal Justice
- This week lawyers for former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley announced he would give a deposition about the systemic abuse and torture under former police commander Jon Burge, who was convicted in 2010 on three counts of obstruction of justice and perjury for lying about the torture in a civil lawsuit.
Read the Chicago Tribune archives about the matter or check out Human Rights at Home, a project of the University of Chicago, for more information.
- President of “Families Against Mandatory Minimums” guest blogged at the Crime Report, applauding bipartisan opposition to expanding number and punitiveness of federal criminal laws.
Federal criminal law, once reserved for serious misconduct that required the greatest punishment, is now used to punish a broad scope of conduct. In fact, many federal laws today impose steep mandatory punishments even in cases where the defendant acted without criminal intent.
- Randolph Stone, Director of the University of Chicago Law School’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Project and former Cook County Public Defender, forecasts an optimistic future for indigent criminal defense:
To exercise the privilege of defending the poor, all lawyers will meet minimum standards of performance. . . . The administrative structure of the indigent defense system will ensure appropriate caseload limits, supervision, and sufficient investigative, clerical, social service, and other support. An effective system will feature early entry and vertical representation (meaning a single attorney represents a client from arraignment through trial). Finally, staffing of the public defender office will reflect the diversity of the community.
Read more in The Sentencing Project’s 25th Anniversary Publication, “To Build a Better Criminal Justice System (pdf).”
Community Justice
- The National Women’s Law Center is hosting a “blog carnival” to mark National Equal Pay Day on Tuesday, April 17. Sign up to participate no later than this afternoon or just follow along next week.
- The ACLU released an infographic “The Facts about Voter Suppression.”
Read more about the latest developments affecting voters’ rights at the Brennan Center.
From the IABG Blog: Small Dollar Lending Guidelines from the CFPB
This post originally appeared the Illinois Asset Building Group Blog.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released “Examination Procedures: Short-term, Small Dollar Lending,” (pdf) which are guidelines for examining small dollar loan products. The guidelines are written for financial institution examiners, but offer insight into the CFPB’s expectations for five key areas affecting small dollar lending:
- Marketing
- Application and Origination of Loans
- Payment and Processing and Sustained Use
- Collection, Accounts in Default, and Consumer Reporting
- Third-Party Relationships
Publication of the guidelines accompanied a January 19, 2012 CFPB press release announcing the agency’s first-ever field hearing on the payday lending market. In that release, newly appointed CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that the CFPB “will be giving payday lenders much more attention.”
The release states that the CFPB is authorized to regulate small dollar loans made by all institutions, including payday lenders. It says:
“The CFPB will be implementing its payday lending supervision program based on its assessment of risks to consumers, including consideration of factors such as the volume of business and the extent of state oversight. The CFPB also will be coordinating with federal and state partners to maximize supervisory capability and minimize regulatory burden. If a violation of a federal consumer financial law has occurred, the CFPB will determine whether supervisory or enforcement actions are appropriate.”
In Illinois, a state law passed in 2011 offers consumers certain protections against payday lenders. The law prohibits unlimited rollovers and requires loans are based on a borrower’s ability to pay. Even with these reforms, payday loans still are expensive. The APR on a payday loan can run as high as 400%.
Illinois consumers who can’t pay off a payday loan when it’s due are entitled to enter into an interest-free repayment plan after more than 35 days. It is against the law for lenders to issue a new payday loan if it would indebt a borrower for more than 45 days in a row.
The CFPB guidelines offer a comprehensive overview of all laws and regulations affecting small dollar lending. They also hint at practices within each topic the CFPB deems particularly important to examiners:
- Marketing: Fair marketing methods, especially with respect to the use and compensation of lead generators.
- Application and Origination of Loans: Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) and Automated Clearing House (ACH) authorizations, fair and straightforward disclosure of loan terms, repayment terms, and consumers’ rights to dispute.
- Payment Processing and Sustained Use: Traditional compliance with Regulations B and Z, with an eye toward lenders’ use of “rollovers” and other potentially unfair or deceptive practices that may encourage debt dependence. Regulation B prohibits lenders from discriminating against credit applicants, establishes guidelines for gathering and evaluating credit information, and requires written notification when credit is denied.Regulation Z requires uniform methods for disclosing credit terms and costs.
- Collections, Accounts in Default, and Consumer Reporting: Compliance with existing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and use of ”deceptive means” to collect debts.
- Third-Party Relationships: Adherence to Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy safeguards in place with both affiliate and third-party vendor agreements.
The Illinois Asset Building Group is currently developing a small dollar loan toolkit. The toolkit will offer guidelines as well as a profitability model, enabling mainstream financial institutions to add small dollar loans to their portfolios.
Learn more about the Illinois Asset Building Group, of which Chicago Appleseed is a partner.
Featured Resource: Cost-Benefit Knowledge Bank for Criminal Justice
A project of the esteemed Vera Institute for Justice, the Cost-Benefit Knowledge Bank for Criminal Justice creates and consolidates resources for conducting economic analysis criminal justice initiatives.
Technology advances are making data collection easier and cheaper, enabling evidence-based policy-making. Cost-benefit analysis can answer some important questions like:
- What reentry programs provide the greatest return on investment?
- If we need to cut services, which services can we reduce or eliminate without jeopardizing public safety?
- Which mental health treatments deliver the “biggest bang for the buck”?
- Where should we allocate our limited dollars in policing, jails, or pre-trial detention services?
For beginners, the CBKB offers a “CBA Basics” page, as well as a Toolkit to step through economic analysis of criminal justice policies.
Learn more at: http://cbkb.org/
Links of Interest: April 1 – 6
Judicial Performance
- Elected judges across the country are increasingly uncomfortable with the demands–and implications–of fundraising. The Washington Post covers the perils of campaign finance and the judiciary in the era of the Super PAC.
While deep-pocketed super PACs and ultra-wealthy donors have attracted plenty of attention in the presidential contest this year, they are also making waves further down the political food chain. The mere possibility that a rich benefactor or interest group with endless amounts of money could swoop in, write massive checks and remake an entire court for ideological reasons has prompted judges here in Florida and elsewhere to prepare for battles they never expected to fight.
See our previous posts on judicial ethics.
Criminal Justice
- Illinois’ supermax prison, Tamms, has a reputation for housing “the worst of the worst” offenders. But with 1/4 of its population is over age 50, is that still a fair description? via Suntimes Backtalk Blog
There have been attempts to tweak prison policy for years. But this session, the Illinois General Assembly is going to take a crack at comprehensive prison reform, including the way prisoners are classified for maximum or minimum security. We’ll see how that affects Tamms and other prisons, prison policy, public safety and the Illinois budget.
Related: Vera Institute for Justice’s Tina Chiu, “When again in place means aging prison.”
Community Justice
- Cook County President Preckwinkle, Chicago Mayor Emmanuel, and Governor Quinn announced a new website converging data from a number of important areas including public safety and education. We’d love to see web-based access for Cook County Clerk information as the next step.
Anyone is now able to find, explore and share online resources across jurisdictional boundaries using a single web interface based on common themes such as healthcare, public safety, housing and education. By bringing the data together it ensures that the three governments can begin to speak a singular “data language” and further exemplifies all three governments’ commitment to open government.
Research Capsule: A History of Bail & Pretrial Release
Article: A History of Bail and Pretrial Release (pdf)
Author/Publication: Timothy Schnacke, et al / Pretrial Justice Institute
Summary
Bail reform is a work in progress: the origin of pre-trial release pre-dates the Magna Carta (1012 ad)! And it was created to address–what else?–overcrowded jails. That means we’ve been trying to strike the balance between criminal accountability and individual liberty for over a millennium. Conditions for pretrial release may not be excessive and should aim for the least burdensome bail to ensure appearance at preliminary hearing.
Takeaways
- Change is possible. Bail standards have varied considerably over the centuries–from a standard of virtually no bail to The status quo need not prevail.
- The US Constitution does not guarantee a right to pretrial release–only that bail may not be “excessive.”
- Non-monetary bail is effective. There is no demonstrable benefit to setting low bail rather than release on recognizance or electronic monitoring. Bar associations, civil rights advocates, and academics have urged a default standard of releasing defendants without monetary bail.
- Commercial bail bonds drive up the average bail amount. Illinois is one of just four states to have outlawed commercial bail bonds.
Learn more at: www.pretrial.org
Serving the Needs of Both Immigration Courts and the People Appearing in Them
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice has signed on to a letter to Congress (.pdf) supporting expansion of the Legal Orientation Program established by the Executive Office for Immigration at the Department of Justice in 2002. The LOP provides funding to state and local organizations that work with detainees, helping them understand their rights and responsibilities with regard to immigration court and removal proceedings. Over 65 institutions and individuals concerned with immigrant rights, human rights and access to legal representation also signed the letter, including National Appleseed and Texas Appleseed. The letter was drafted by Human Rights First and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
80% of immigration detainees do not have legal representation and there are more than 100 detainees for every one full-time non-government attorney providing legal services to detainees. As a consequence, immigration proceedings are highly inefficient—and therefore, costly—because the courts must take responsibility for informing unrepresented detainees of their basic rights, the general rules of the removal process, and complex immigration laws. Because the LOP offers the same instruction to detainees in advance of their hearings, the LOP significantly shortens immigration proceedings, improves the quality of the proceedings, and relieves immigration judges and Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys of additional burdens in hearings.
Chicago Appleseed is committed to improving the removal process and working for reforms that protect the legal rights and basic human rights or persons in immigration detention. Programs like the LOP improve the quality of our immigration courts and safeguard the help safeguard the people subject to their proceedings. Expansion of the Legal Orientation Program serves the public good.
Links of Interest
What we read this week, March 19-23, 2012
Judicial Elections and Judiciary Reform:
- There have been a number of good pieces on PAC money in elections and the Citizens United decision lately. In case you missed it, back in December, Montana’s Supreme Court upheld (.pdf) Montana’s ban on political expenditures made from the general treasury of a corporation, a part of its anticorruption laws. The ruling is directly contrary to Citizens United. Last month, the Supreme Court of the US stayed the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling, while it considers whether to review the case.
Criminal Justice Reform:
- Foreign Policy wrote about ending the drug war.
- The American Civil Liberties Union of California issued a report on realignment in the California prison system, which examines jail overcrowding and how to fix it, the state’s bail system, and surveys effective alternatives to incarceration. Silicon Valley’s Mercury News, the California Watch, and San Diego’s KPBS discuss the report.
Other Links of Interest:
- Thursday, March 22, was World Water Day. Water, from the Atlantic’s In Focus photo series.
- A trial court in New York dismissed a case filed by former law students claiming employment statistics published by school is misleading and fraudulent. Despite dismissing the Complaint, in part because the damages were too speculative, the Court noted the collective responsibility the profession has toward new lawyers and those considering going to law school.
- Speaking of the responsibility the profession has toward young lawyers and persons considering becoming lawyers, Indian Tech University has been given approval for a law school. The school “will place a heavy emphasis on practical experience, and the on-campus location will facilitate the establishment of legal clinics to serve the Indiana Tech community”. A system of legal education focused primarily on practical coursework and clinical experience would change the dynamic between new graduates and the legal community.
Finally, a big thank you to everyone who attended our Spring Fundraiser at the Paris Club, and thanks again to our honorees for all the work they do:
Thoughts after the Primary Election
In the run up to yesterday’s primary race, Appellate Justice Aurelia Pucinski was a vocal critic of the role of campaign financing in judicial elections. Judge Pucinski was particularly critical (audio link, relevant portion at the -1:20 mark) of the role of PAC money and money from donors and organizations with little or no connection to state of Illinois. Campaign contributions in the Supreme Court primary this year reached 1.6 million dollars. Self-described “long-shot candidate” Thomas Flannigan was alone in accepting no campaign contributions in the primary race. Judge Pucinski did not win yesterday’s primary race; current Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis did. In the interests of full disclosure, Justice Theis received a “Highly Qualified” recommendation from our partner organization, the Chicago Council of Lawyers, but Judge Pucinski did not.
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice has long been an advocate for judicial election reform and supports public financing for judicial campaigns (.pdf link). Public financing of judicial campaigns levels the playing field for qualified candidates and eliminates barriers for judicial candidates without a political affiliation. It relieves judges of the conflicts created by soliciting contributions from parties and organizations who may appear in their courtrooms. Public financing also fosters public confidence in the impartiality of judicial candidates and focuses electioneering on prior judicial performance and qualifications rather than hot-button issues.
Public opinion polls from the early 2000’s show that more than 70% of Americans feel judges are beholden to the parties who donate money to their campaigns and that campaign contributions influence courtroom outcomes. In a 2002 poll, 46% of state court judges themselves agreed, believing that campaign contributions have at least a little influence on courtroom decisions. As spending in elections continues to rise, public confidence in the judiciary will almost certainly continue to decline.
Campaign financing, campaign contributions, and campaign spending all degrade public confidence in the judiciary and the impartiality of judges and justices because judicial officers are meant to be beholden to the law, not constituencies.
To combat this, in 2002, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates adopted a resolution urging states that elect judges to consider public financing of judicial campaigns, based upon a report of the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence (.pdf). Like the ABA, the Brennan Center, Justice at Stake and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform also support public financing for judicial elections. Chicago Appleseed is in good company suggesting that Illinois adopt public financing for judicial campaigns.
As we have often remarked, public confidence in the judiciary arises from judicial excellence, judicial independence and judicial impartiality. Ensuring impartiality and independence in a jurisdiction with elected judges can be problematic, particularly as campaigns raise and spend ever larger amounts. Poll results reported by the American Judicature Society in 2002 show that in Illinois more than 85% of voters believed campaign contributions influence judicial decisions. Three out of four voters favored limits on campaign contributions to judicial candidates, and over 60% supported a voluntary system of public financing of judicial campaigns. Chicago Appleseed also advocates for public financing of judicial elections. In a 2003 report on judicial reform, we examined the process of judicial elections in Cook County, and our research found that judicial fundraising in Cook County increased from an average of $7,400 in 1988 to more than $30,000 in the 1998 subcircuit election.
More recent research by other groups demonstrates that campaign spending in judicial elections continues to rise. For instance, a 2010 study by the Brennan Center reported that non-candidate spending in state high court elections nearly doubled as a share of total costs, compared to the previous off-year election, including “a flood of non-candidate TV advertising, making this the costliest non-presidential election cycle ever for TV spending in judicial elections.” The report also showed that nearly one-third of all funds spent on state high court elections came from non-candidate groups ($11.5 million out of $38 million in 2009-10) and that nearly 40 percent of all funds spent on state high court races came from just 10 groups, including national special interest groups and political parties. It is extremely troubling that so much money funding judicial elections comes from national organizations, when state judicial officers are bound not only to uphold state and local law, but also to rule from the standards of the communities where they sit.
Illinois should seriously consider preserving the integrity of its judiciary by adopting a system of public financing for judicial races, particularly at the Supreme Court and Appellate Court levels.
Illinois & Cook County Primary Judicial Election Results
As of today, our Voteforjudges.org website received 518,000 hits since the beginning of this judicial evaluation season with about 17,000 unique visitors. This is exciting evidence of a concerned electorate!
Below is a table showing election results for Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois Appellate Court, Cook County, and Cook County Subcircuit races. Alongside the winner is the rating given to the candidate by our affiliate public interest bar association, the Chicago Council of Lawyers.
The key for ratings is: NQ = Not Qualified, Q = Qualified, WQ = Well Qualified, NR = Not Rated because the candidate refused to participate in the evaluation.
An asterisk* denotes that the candidate ran uncontested.
All in all, just TWO “Not Qualified” candidates running in a contested race won their primary.
(Click for larger/clearer image.)
Cook County Subcircuit Court Election -- Winners and Chicago Council of Lawyers Ratings
Illinois Supreme & Appellate Court, Cook County Circuit Court Elections -- Winners & Chicago Council of Lawyers Ratings
