Archive for April, 2008
April 30th, 2008
When the chief judge of Lake County was stopped recently for DUI, he reportedly refused to take a breath test.
Lake County Chief Judge David Hall refused to take Breathalyzer and field sobriety tests Saturday morning when he was pulled over for allegedly weaving across the center lane, according to Lake County court documents.
It’s no wonder. Judges know the law.
Last spring, in an examination of cases in which Illinois judges are stopped for DUI, the Register Star found that judges generally do not blow.
Illinois law encourages motorists arrested for DUI to consent to breath tests, and it penalizes them when they refuse. Under the law, anybody arrested for DUI in Illinois has given “implied consent” to testing of his or her breath, blood or urine to determine blood-alcohol concentration.
If you’re arrested for DUI and refuse a breath test, your driver’s license is automatically suspended for six months. A misdemeanor DUI conviction, on the other hand, means up to a year in prison, loss of driving privileges for a year, 100 hours of community service and a fine of up to $2,500, according to the Illinois secretary of state’s office.
With each subsequent conviction, the penalties grow.
Drivers who know the law know it may be in their best legal interest not to blow.
“You’re depriving the state of that evidence, so you’re enhancing the chances that you will avoid criminal sanctions that will ensue if you’re found guilty of criminal charges. And in exchange, you’re willing to accept the enhanced penalties — license penalties, not criminal penalties — because you refused,” said Larry Davis, a Des Plaines lawyer specializing in DUI defense.
“You’re not going to go to jail for refusing a breath test or a blood test or a urine test. You will go to jail if you are found guilty of DUI.”
The field sobriety test is another matter. Though there is a mandatory suspension for refusing to blow, there is no such mandatory suspension for refusing the field sobriety test. Interestingly, the Lake County chief judge reportedly refused the field sobriety test, too.
From the Register Star:
The question, as defense lawyer Davis sees it, is not so much whether to refuse to blow but whether to refuse field sobriety tests. He says the results of these tests can give police probable cause to arrest a DUI suspect, which in turn gives an officer the right to ask for a breath test.
Illinois law does not mandate a license suspension for refusing a field sobriety test.
“If you refuse a field sobriety test, you enhance the chances that the officer is not going to have probable cause to make the arrest to begin with,” he said. “If I am telling somebody at a cocktail party what you want to do to avoid a DUI, it’s ‘Don’t take the field sobriety test.’ ”
April 24th, 2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has long channeled Elvis. During campaign stops, public events or parties, the governor’s aides would play Elvis. Or the governor would talk about Elvis. Or both.
The governor proudly displays a statue of Elvis in his otherwise vacant Capitol office. Heck, the governor’s mop of a hairdo even looks like Elvis.
Now that the feds are closing in on him, the governor has a new tune. On Wednesday, at the end of his appearance at his annual prayer breakfast, the governor recited the words of “Men With Broken Hearts,” an old Hank Williams tune.
“You never stood in that man’s shoes or saw things through his eyes, or watched with helpless hands while the heart inside you dies,” the governor said. “So help your brother along the way, no matter where he starts, because the same God that made you made him too, these men with broken hearts.”
Talk about melodramatic. The closing words, coupled with Blagojevich’s tone of humility, is striking.
A link to audio of the governor’s speech, which runs about nine minutes, is here. The governor’s brooding, compliments of Hanks Williams, is in the last 30 seconds.
And if you want to hear the song, here’s the “Men With Broken Hearts” with Hank Sr., Hank Jr., and Hank III:
[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/fmafEWm_KT0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
April 23rd, 2008
Another week brings another witness putting Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the center of an alleged pay-to-play scheme in his administration.
A former top official in Gov. Blagojevich’s administration said Tuesday the governor gave him a $127,000-a-year state job in exchange for pouring cash into Blagojevich’s campaign fund, including tens of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket.
That bombshell from Ali Ata came as the onetime director of the Illinois Finance Authority pleaded guilty in a deal in which prosecutors plan to have him testify in the ongoing corruption trial of former Blagojevich fund-raiser Tony Rezko.
Ata, in his plea agreement, one-upped other witnesses by claiming that cash changed hands in front on the governor. Stuart Levine, the federal governments lead witness in its prosecution of Blagojevich pal Tony Rezko, and Joe Cari, another witness, previously testified they had conversations with Blagojevich in which, according to their interpretations, the governor offered state business in exchange for campaign contributions.
Back to Ata, from the Sun-Times:
Ata placed the governor at a meeting where money was exchanged and a reward — his future state job — was promised. Ata said that, in 2002, he met with Blagojevich at Rezko’s Chicago offices and gave the governor a $25,000 check for a campaign contribution. Rezko placed the check on a conference table, according to Ata’s plea deal. Then, according to Ata, Blagojevich “expressed his pleasure and acknowledged that the defendant had been a good supporter and good friend.” The governor, “in the defendant’s presence, asked Rezko if he [Rezko] had talked to the defendant about positions in the administration, and Rezko responded that he had.”
Yet Blagojevich continues to act as if he has no idea what anybody is talking about when they ask about such matters. His spokeswoman on Monday continued to insist that Public Official A is not the governor.
“As we’ve said many times before, we don’t endorse or allow the decisions of state government to be based on campaign contributions,” she said.
In a telephone call, she further pointed to previous statements from the governor’s office saying that Blagojevich doesn’t do business in the ways being alleged in federal court and that, based on the descriptions arising from the case, the governor is not Public Official A.
But as the Tribune pointed out, the world already knows that Public Official A is Blagojevich:
It is obvious from the details and descriptions contained in Ata’s plea agreement that “Public Official A” could only be Blagojevich. Campaign contributions detailed by Ata track with donations he made to Blagojevich that are listed in public records. The governor’s name has come up frequently during testimony in Rezko’s trial, and before that proceeding began, prosecutors had used the pseudonym to refer to the governor in court documents.
Three cheers for pointing out the obvious, even when the governor pretends reality is something other than what it is.
April 15th, 2008
In a decision that appears to not bode well for public officials facing federal corruption probes, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today ruled against Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s patronage chief:
The defendants created an illegitimate,
shadow hiring scheme based on patronage and cronyism
by filling out sham interview forms, falsely certifying
that politics had not entered into their hiring, and covering
up their malfeasance. These are the hallmarks of a fraud.
From the AP story:
Witnesses testified at trial that “patronage armies” had been formed in city departments and deployed into the city¹s wards and precincts on Election Day to round up votes for Daley and candidates he supported.
Testimony indicated Sorich and those under him faked test scores and job interview evaluations to make it appear the rules barring political affiliation as a factor in hiring decisions were being followed — but that people who took part in the patronage armies would get jobs.
City officials are banned by the long-standing Shakman Decree from hiring most municipal employees based on their political affiliation.
But patronage has been part of Chicago politics since anyone can remember and the decree long went all but ignored.
The simplified question here is whether the feds must show a smoking gun — a bribe changing hands, for instance — to prove a public corruption case. The appeals court said that in this case, the feds do not.
The defendants’ argument that any private gain must go
to the defendants themselves is not without basis, for
we and other courts have not always been consistent
with our description of the requirement. Although
McNally itself and the key portions of Bloom refer to
“private gain,” Bloom also once uses the phrase “personal
gain,” 149 F.3d at 657, and in United States v. Hausmann,
345 F.3d 952, 956 (7th Cir. 2003), we used “personal gain”
exclusively. Other circuits have also described our requirement
as a “personal gain” or “personal benefit.” …
The semantic difference between “private”
and “personal” gain may be insignificant, but to the extent
that “personal” connotes gain only by the defendant, it
is misleading. By “private gain” we simply mean illegitimate
gain, which usually will go to the defendant, but
need not.
Imagine scenario (A) in which a mayor surreptitiously
channels city contracts to his cronies in the business
community; they get a windfall whereas he has merely
helped his friends and takes no money. Or imagine scenario
(B) in which an attorney bribes a court in order to
obtain favorable results for his clients in their lawsuits. Or
scenario (C) where a union boss sells union property to
a senator even though the senator did not offer the
highest price, and in exchange receives the senator’s vote
on a matter that concerns the union. In all three scenarios
the public has been defrauded of the honest services of its
public servants: the mayor, the court, and the senator.
Moreover, in all three scenarios the defendant—the mayor,
the attorney, and the union boss—was not the one
who stood to gain financially. Certainly the defendants all
received something: in (A), the mayor received the gratitude
of his friends; in (B), the attorney could boast to
future clients of a high success rate, which is good for
business; and in (C) the union boss curried valuable favor
with the senator. But the money went to another party. All
three scenarios have played out in the federal courts and
have resulted in convictions for mail fraud. …
These cases are the exception to a rule of human nature
rather than of law: usually someone up to no good will be
out to enrich himself, not others. It is thus with a hint of
irony that we stated in United States v. Spano, 421 F.3d 599,
603 (7th Cir. 2005), that “[a] participant in a scheme to
defraud is guilty even if he is an altruist and all the benefits
of the fraud accrue to other participants.” The defendants
seize on Spano’s “other participants” language and
contend that fraud exists when private gain goes to other schemers, as in the above three examples, but not when it oes to third parties. We disagree. It is much less likely—but
no less culpable—that fraudulent schemers will share the
proceeds with third parties rather than amongst themselves. …
In Hausmann, 345 F.3d at 954, 956, an attorney
referred clients to a chiropractor friend in exchange for a
percentage of the business brought in by each referral; he
did not tell his clients about his take. The chiropractor
made good by paying the attorney’s creditors and his
favorite charities, and we affirmed the attorney’s conviction.
Id. But suppose the attorney had stated that he only
wanted the kickbacks to go to charities, or, for that matter,
to his estranged brother, about whom the attorney had
always felt guilty. Unlikely scenarios, maybe, but mail
fraud nevertheless. Robin Hood may be a noble criminal,
but he is still a criminal. “In the case of a successful
scheme, the public [or client] is deprived of its servants’ [or
attorney’s] honest services no matter who receives the
proceeds.”
UPDATE 1
The Tribune has more:
In a key win for federal prosecutors, an appellate court in Chicago on Tuesday upheld the convictions of four former top aides to Mayor Richard Daley who were convicted of rigging hiring and promotions at City Hall.
Former Daley patronage chief Robert Sorich and co-defendants were found guilty in 2006 of doling out jobs to reward members of political armies who campaigned for favored candidates.
On appeal, lawyers for the former city aides argued that they could not be convicted of criminal fraud because they took no bribes or kickbacks in the scheme. But a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
April 14th, 2008
It’s the greatest of perennial questions at the Illinois Capitol: What’s Mike Madigan Up To?
He is the Capitol sage, a man widely regarded for political acumen but difficult if not impossible to read. So it goes that last week when Madigan antagonized House Republicans, Capitol insiders found themselves again asking themselves and each other this question.
The speaker’s strategy over the last week doesn’t make sense on the surface. It doesn’t seem rational. Here we are, less than two months from the formal May 31 end of session, and Madigan and other state leaders have not even a basic framework for the next state budget. Yet Madigan acts to divide the parties in his own chamber — thereby making the prospect of a budget deal even more elusive.
He is already facing off with Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones Jr., his fellow Chicago Democrats, and now he is poised to fight House Republicans too. Is he yearning for a long, ugly summertime session — just like the one last year, only worse? It’s one thing to relish a good fight. It’s quite another to invite additional opponents into the fight against yourself.
Theories on Madigan’s motives abound among political insiders: Perhaps he is trying to supercharge the Democratic base in advance on the Nov. 4 general election. Perhaps he is trying to whip the House Republicans into line. Perhaps, amid a toxic political climate, he is getting paranoid.
It’s not clear when we’ll know what Madigan is up to, or when the mess is Springfield might work itself out. But I’ll do my best to sort through some of the variables at play, and maybe, just maybe, I can put some of this chaos into order:
- The Obama factor. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama may appear light years away from his days in the Illinois Senate, but as a candidate for president he may do much to shape the politics of Illinois this year. If the ultra-popular Obama leads the Democratic ticket in the November general election, he could pull other Democratic candidates upward. In other words, Democratic and independent Illinois voters likely will turn out in droves to vote for Obama, if he is the Democratic presidential nominee, and in doing so they are more likely to support other Dems on the ballot. And that means the Dems controlling Springfield may have substantial wiggle room this year. They may be able to take risks — such as a brutal, intra-party, summer-long fight over the budget — and not suffer losses in the November general election.
- The Rezko Factor. Tony Rezko, a former top fundraiser and adviser to Blagojevich, in on trial for allegedly using his insider clout to shake down firms seeking business with the state. As I noted in my Saturday column, Blagojevich has been MIA for much of the last two years as the feds closed in on his inner circle. (Chris Kelly, another former top Blagojevich fundraiser and adviser, also is under indictment on federal tax-related charges.) If Rezko is convicted, pressure will build on Rezko and Kelly to share with the feds any dirt they have on Blagojevich, who has already been named as “Public Official A” in the Rezko case. I would expect Blagojevich to head even deeper underground; he won’t want exposure to rank-and-file lawmakers, the public or the media. If Rezko is acquitted, Blagojevich could feel emboldened and be much more enthusiastic about a high-profile fight at the Capitol.
- Madigan v. Jones. The intensity and sincerity of the animosity between Madigan and Jones cannot be exaggerated. These two men are locked in a political battle of the titans — a brawl dominating state government matters large and small.
- Jones & Blagojevich. At least until further notice, Jones is in lockstep with Blagojevich.
- More cash to spend. If Madigan and Jones agree on anything, it’s that they both have expressed support for income tax hike to generate more state revenue. Jones is a longstanding proponent of a tax hike to help public schools with more state money. Last spring, Madigan kicked off the spring session by saying it was time for the state to take responsibility for its pension debt and other fiscal problems (you can’t pay off this debt without raising more money). Last summer, he went a step further by actually suggesting an income tax hike.
- Blago’s tax-hike pledge. Blagojevich continues to insist he won’t raise taxes on “people.” His no-tax-hike pledge, in fact, is the pledge from his races in 2002 and 2006 that he has most often repeated. Only, he violated that pledge by approving a sales tax hike for the Chicago-area early this spring, as part of an effort to bail out mass transit systems. Will he now support an income tax hike?
- Supermajority after May 31. The formal end of spring session is May 31. After that, lawmakers must produce a three-fifths majority to approve any bill with an effective date prior to the following June 1. A budget for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning July 1, obviously must be effective before then. Passing a budget after May 31, therefore requires a three-fifths majority. It is not possible to achieve a supermajority in the House without at least four Republican votes, and that’s assuming every one of the 67 Democrats in the chamber sticks together. Jones does have a supermajority in the Senate, but he failed repeatedly to keep his own members together last year. Even with his supermajority, Jones failed to steamroll Senate Republicans when it really mattered.
Now, back to the question of what Madigan is up to. What if he is three steps ahead of everybody else at the Capitol, as he is so often said to be? What if he is acting in accordance with a rational plan to advance his political objectives?
All of the conventional theories of Madigan’s motives assume he will continue his fight with Blagojevich and Jones. They discount the possibility of the three Democrats making a deal.
Is it possible that Madigan is trying to signal to Jones that he is prepared to make a deal, perhaps on a tax hike, by pushing the Republicans away? It’s a radical theory, but I’ve certainly crazier ones.
Madigan, Jones and Blagojevich could make a budget deal by May 31, and approve it without a single Republican vote. Come June 1, they do need Republican support, and it’s anybody’s guess what that might mean — particularly if the parties are divided in both chambers.
Then again, the lines of communication between Madigan and Jones, just as between Madigan and Blagojevich, and now between Madigan and House GOP Leader Tom Cross, are dead, sources say. Any deal among the Dems appears a long way off, at best.
And the summer fast approaches.
Last summer, work at the Capitol resembled the scene near the end of “Animal House”where frat guy Stork wanders into a parade, shoves aside a drum major, and then leads the marching band into a dead-end alley. The band members, still playing their instruments, march themselves into a wall, crushing each other.
Last summer, Blagojevich and lawmakers repeated this scene twice daily.
April 11th, 2008
Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, has emerged this spring as perhaps the Legislature’s greatest proponent of re-opening a shuttered Illinois horse slaughter facility.
The DeKalb plan, known as Cavel, shut down last year.
The shutdown in September of the DeKalb Cavel plant, the nation’s last horse-slaughtering plant, ended an operation that at one point slaughtered 40,000 to 60,000 horses a year. The horsemeat was sold primarily for human consumption in overseas markets.
A series of lower-court decisions upheld a law signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in May that effectively ended the operation by banning the import, export, possession and slaughter of horses for human consumption in Illinois.
Cavel, which is based in Belgium, challenged the Illinois ban on constitutional grounds, claiming the law violated interstate and foreign commerce rules because the meat is shipped overseas. The plant had been in operation for about 20 years and had 60 employees.
The plant reopened for a time during the summer while court challenges were heard, but closed in late September, after the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Illinois law was similar to state bans on bullfights and cockfights meant to protect animal welfare.
Sacia worked this spring to re-open the facility. He said American farmers were shipping horses to Mexico, where workers brutally euthanize them by stabbing them repeatedly in the spinal cord. Killing a horse with a bolt to the head — the practice employed at Cavel — is far more humane, Sacia said.
“Rather than being humanely terminated with a bolt to the head, as they were in Cavel International in DeKalb, they are now stabbed with a spear into their spine while they are alive,” Sacia said on the House floor.
“A hook comes down, grabs a hind leg, pulls it into the air, and the animal’s throat is cut. And yet there are individuals who profess to love animals who now think it’s OK to send 40,000 (horses) a year into the country of Mexico. What a travesty.”
After introducing a bill pertaining to the humane transport of horses, Sacia amended his bill to repeal the state law that effectively shuttered Cavel. His bill synopsis:
Amends the Illinois Horse Meat Act to repeal a Section added by Public Act 95-2 that makes it unlawful to slaughter a horse if the meat is to be used for human consumption.
Once amended, his bill was defeated by a committee. Two members voted for it, five members voted against it and four members voted present. Opponents of horse slaughter were not moved by Sacia’s point that closing Cavel meant horses met a less humane death south of the border.
Meanwhile, Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, moved forward with her own version of a horse transport bill. Like Sacia’s initial plan, her bill would prohibit any person from transporting “any equidae in a vehicle or trailer containing 2 or more levels, one on top of the other.”
Osmond said her bill was in response to an accident last fall involving a tractor trailer jammed — on two decks — with 59 horses en route to an auction. The crash injured many of the horses, who were euthanized. Others went to a nearby farm.
Sacia opposed her bill, and spoke passionately against it. He said lawmakers must deal directly with the crux of the matter — horse slaughter.
“Just a year ago, ladies and gentlemen, you outlawed, this state outlawed, Cavel to slaughter horses in the state of Illinois,” Sacia said on the House floor.
“So, did that mean no more horses were killed? Absolutely not. We now stuff ‘em into trailers, send them thousands of miles into the great country of Mexico, where they are terminated and it is not a humane end of life.”
He continued, “When we had our plant in Illinois, we didn’t have to worry about double-decker horse transportation because they could be taken right down the road to Cavel.”
Sacia became a co-sponsor of Osmond’s bill on April 1. But the following day, he took his name off the bill. He told me he decided against co-sponsoring the bill when Osmond refused to accept an amendment offered by the Illinois Farm Bureau.
The draft amendment, which is here, would allow the transport of horses by double-decker trailer if the vehicle is “specifically designed for the transportation of equidae.”
“We don’t want to totally prevent the opportunity for double-decker transportation,” Sacia told me. The amendment he favored, he said, would give “future technology the opportunity to deal with this (transport) issue.”
April 10th, 2008
The Rockford School District is working with Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey’s administration on a plan to give the administration unfettered “real time” access to the school district’s truancy data.
The school district and city have for months been at loggerheads over the matter, so the fact that they’re now working together appears to represent significant progress toward a resolution.
First, some background from the Register Star:
Under existing law, students caught skipping class in Rockford are referred to an intervention plan run by the School District. The schools refer students to the city only when they’re truant more than four times.
Rockford ordinance prohibits even a single instance of truancy, but city officials can’t issue citations to students when they don’t have their names.
And this:
(City Legal Director Patrick) Hayes said the city doesn’t necessarily want to prosecute every truant. Rather, he said, city officials need the additional information to more effectively craft and execute a citywide anti-truancy policy.
And this:
Morrissey is frustrated by what he views as the School District’s slow pace in sharing information about truants. In the first five months of this school year, the city issued 400 fewer citations than during the same period last year.
But rectifying this discrepancy is no simple affair. The city must navigate a federal privacy law limiting the student information that schools may share and a state law describing protocol for truancy intervention.
The federal privacy law at issue is FERPA. More background here. The basic idea is that the law restricts the information concerning students which a school district may share, even with other government bodies.
In response to inquiries from the city as well as other Illinois officials, the U.S. Department of Education last fall offered its view on how to reconcile conflicts between FERPA and state law and city ordinance. An August letter is here and an October letter is here.
The city wants “real time” access to the school district’s truancy information, as Hayes put it. But as the school district reads FERPA, together with city ordinance and the state law enabling that ordinance, the city is not entitled to all of the school district’s truancy information. Instead, the school district shares the names of truant students only after students are truant more than four times.
So the city wants to change state law in order to make clear that it is entitled to the get all the truancy information it wants — when it wants it. Only, until now, the city and school district weren’t having much in the way of constructive communication concerning the matter.
When I talked to school district general counsel Stephen Katz for a story published in early April (linked above), he said he wasn’t aware of the city discussing its plan with any school district official. The city retorted that it had notified the school district in a resolution it provided in early spring. In crafting that story, I acted as much as a mediator between two adversaries as a reporter.
But this morning, Katz said this in an e-mail:
Assistant City Attorney Giliberti and I have prepared legislation that has been submitted to the US Department of Education for their input.
I asked him whether the proposal was consistent with what Hayes had described to me, which I had reported. He responded:
Not exactly what you reported. You reported that the amendment would address the “law enforcement” so-called exception to FERPA. Not so. It is (an) amendment of the enabling act which allowed municipalities to pass truancy ordinances and would clearly articulate that local ordinances passed under the enabling act’s authority are part of the juvenile justice system’s pre-adjudication framework. If acceptable to Dept. of ED, this would then allow school districts to share “education records” with the ordinance enforcement folks under FERPA’s “juvenile justice system” exception. Much better way to approach it.
It’s not clear when the feds might offer input on the agreed language. If the city wants to change the law this spring, it’s cutting it close. The Legislature’s spring session, which started in January, is scheduled to end May 31.
April 8th, 2008
Rockford Sen. Dave Syverson, Clare Sen. Brad Burzynski and other Senate Republicans last week unveiled a seven-point economic stimulus plan.
Let’s look at those points, one at a time. First up: The Senate Republicans say Gov. Rod Blagojevich must not “demonize” businesses. From their report:
Businesses not only provide jobs for our
citizens, they also pay the tax revenues
that fund our state budget and allow us to
implement our priorities. Since taking office,
the Governor and his administration have
repeatedly portrayed the business community
as a group of “fat cats” to be taxed and
demeaned, rather than entrepreneurs who
provide our economy with needed jobs, taxes
and investment.
Indeed, Blagojevich has repeatedly vilified Illinois businesses to suit his political needs, saying for instance that they ought to pay their “fair share” in taxes. The Senate GOP report continues:
Today, Illinois is renowned for its
hostile business climate – something which does not
go unnoticed to prospective businesses. The more the
Governor and his allies fuel this notion, the fewer jobs
and investments we will see in Illinois. In addition,
harsh anti-business rhetoric scares other companies
from coming to Illinois and expanding their business.
It’s time to stop the antibusiness
rhetoric and harmful tax-and-spend
proposals that seek to balance the state
budget on the backs of business owners and,
more importantly, the jobs they provide for
our economy.
And now for the kicker:
Demonizing the business community doesn’t
just have a negative impact on the owners of
companies. When hit with higher taxes and
fees, business owners end up passing the
new costs on to their customers – working
families. This is a point even the Governor’s
staunchest supporters concede – during
last year’s committee hearings on the GRT,
a sponsor of the measure, Senate President
Emil Jones, acknowledged: “Any costs
that businesses incur, they pass it on to
consumers.”
So here’s the question for you: Does the governor’s tone truly affect a business’ decision on whether to stay in, or relocate to, Illinois? Clearly, a business will weigh the tax burden in Illinois as compared to neighboring states. But the governor’s tone?
