The editors of the Wall Street Journal take note in a recent development in Illinois:
Progressives are on the march in Illinois, and they want to make sure their new policies can’t be overturned in state court. Solution: Pass a law that requires any constitutional challenge to a state law, rule or executive order to be filed in only two counties.
Yes, that’s really happening, thanks to Illinois Democratic Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s brainstorm. Democrats in Springfield passed it, and on Tuesday Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed it. The bill means any constitutional challenge to the Democratic agenda can only be heard in Cook and Sangamon counties. Cook includes Chicago, and Sangamon surrounds the capital of Springfield.
In case you’re wondering those are the two Illinois countries probably most sympathetic with the governor’s agenda. The editors continue:
The measure’s proponents were transparent in saying the change is meant to prevent conservative “venue shopping,†a tool pioneered by progressives and trial lawyers when seeking venues favorable to jackpot justice. In the case of conservatives, any choice of where to file would be to seek judicial brakes on the Democrats’ legislative steamroller.
Mr. Raoul’s spokesman says the change is appropriate because “inconsistent court decisions about important public issues have repeatedly caused confusion.†Yes, but that’s how the judicial system is meant to work. Conflicting lower-court decisions are resolved through appeals.
Mr. Pritzker’s infamous plan to end cash bail was rejected by Kankakee County Judge Thomas Cunnington, who ruled the law unconstitutional in December. It’s now on appeal at the state Supreme Court. Mr. Pritzker is expected to sign more than 500 bills this summer, according to Capitol News Illinois, and he wants to neuter the courts.
What (sort of) amuses me about this is that very same people who have argued that having to travel to do what you want to do it an intolerable burden are now arguing the opposite.
I recall an amusing post yesterday accusing Poland’s Government of being illiberal by “curtailing the independence of the judiciary”.
It was a Springfield judge that ruled against Pritizker’s vaccine and mask mandate. Within weeks, maybe even days, the Governor dropped it.
https://www.nprillinois.org/statehouse/2022/02-04/springfield-judge-voids-pritzkers-mask-mandate-for-schools-plus-k-12-staff-vaccine-or-test-requirement
I’m not sure this is that big of a deal:
1. Venue rules tend to require lawsuits brought against state agencies to be filed where the agency is headquartered, which is mostly Springfield, sometimes Chicago. Venue is a concept of convenience to the defendant.
2. In practice “political” cases are usually filed in either Chicago (by Democrats) or Springfield (by Republicans) because both have entirely one-party circuit court judges and appellate court justices. But also because Chicago and Springfield are where the attorneys are. In practice venue involves questions about convenience to attorneys (or at least the pocketbooks of their clients).
3. Both the Kankakee case in the article and the Springfield case I referenced were consolidated in those locations by the Illinois Supreme Court. Cases arising in a multiplicity of locations likely to end up in the highest court are typically consolidated in a court with the capacity to handle them (large enough, but not overburdened). Consolidation is about convenience to the Illinois Supreme Court.
I don’t think there is complete equivalence btw/ Chicago and Springfield. The Springfield Republicans are pretty establishmentarian and will be tougher on issues of standing (judicial restraint). All of this probably ignores the issue of entirely localized harms from state action that aren’t going to ever get written up in a newspaper.