While Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker scored wins during legislative session, cellphone ban, other initiatives fell short
CHICAGO — Entering a legislative session amid questions about whether he'd run for a third term, Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker outlined an ambitious agenda that ended with mixed results.
In a State of the State and budget address in February that will be remembered mainly for Pritzker invoking Nazi Germany to describe the new presidential administration, there was also a litany of policy initiatives — some of which passed and will now have a tangible impact on Illinoisans and others that went nowhere in the spring legislative session that just wrapped up.
'You don't get everything done in one year. I think the Senate president can back me up on that, and lots of people in the General Assembly,' Pritzker said Sunday at his end-of-session news conference in Springfield, flanked by Senate President Don Harmon of Oak Park. 'Sometimes they spend two years, four years, six years trying to get something big done. I think we've been hyper-successful about getting things done in a shorter period of time than expected.'
But Pritzker's mixed scorecard also revealed tensions between his agenda and those in the Legislative Black Caucus. More than once, Black caucus members balked at Pritzker's plans as they didn't see their wants and needs fully addressed during a legislative session that focused heavily on fiscal issues and a tight budget.
Indeed, while the governor's backing puts political capital behind any policy proposal, that didn't mean it was guaranteed to pass through the sometimes splintered Democratic supermajorities in the state House and Senate.
Here are some examples of where the governor accomplished what he set out to do — and a few places where he came up short.
What Pritzker said: 'This session, I'll move forward with legislation requiring all school districts in Illinois to adopt a cellphone policy that bans the use of phones during classroom instruction. More focus on learning will bring even greater success for kids across our state.'
Status: Did not pass.
A coalition of Illinois House lawmakers blocked the measure when it came to the House late in the session over concerns about unequal disciplinary impacts, according to bill sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Michelle Mussman of Schaumburg.
Concerns about enforcement disproportionately affecting Black and brown students became more pronounced as lawmakers reviewed the phone restriction alongside another bill limiting police from ticketing students for minor misbehavior, according to Mussman. Legislators were hesitant to pass a statewide school mandate while also debating a measure meant to scale back school discipline practices, she said.
Rep. Curtis Tarver, a Chicago Democrat and a member of the Black caucus, told the Tribune in February he worried about the 'unintended consequences' of a phone ban, including inequitable enforcement.
The legislation against ticketing and fines passed both chambers and now heads to Pritzker's desk for his signature. A Chicago Tribune and ProPublica investigation found school districts used local law enforcement to fine students, and Black students were twice as likely to be ticketed at school as their white peers, a pattern lawmakers aimed to end.
Pritzker's cellphone policy will have to wait for another session when there's more time to work out the enforcement aspect, Mussman said.
The measure would have required school districts to adopt guidelines prohibiting students from using wireless devices, such as cellphones and smartwatches, during instructional time, while providing secure and accessible storage for the devices, before the 2026-2027 school year. The legislation also included a few exceptions, such as permitting students to use phones in emergencies.
In the end, negotiations around the measure came down to a 'dance' between ensuring local school boards had control over their own policies while also protecting students from 'inequitably applied' policies, Mussman said. Moreover, representatives were unsure how to implement guidance on 'how a phone might be returned if it was confiscated, or what to do if anything was lost or broken,' she added.
Also not quite making the mark: Pritzker's push to expand so-called evidence-based funding for K-12 schools by $350 million. The final plan would boost funding by $307 million, cutting $43 million that usually would go to a grant program designed to help school districts with high property tax rates and low real estate values.
What Pritzker said: 'I'm proposing that we allow community colleges to offer four-year baccalaureate degrees for in-demand career paths — like nursing, advanced manufacturing, early childhood education, and beyond.'
And: 'I propose we pass the Public University Direct Admission Program Act introduced by Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford last year. It would allow students to know before they apply whether they qualify for admission to any or all of our state's public universities.'
Status: One for two.
The Pritzker-led initiative to let community colleges offer four-year degrees didn't make it to the finish line even after the sponsor, Democratic Rep. Tracy Katz Muhl of Northbrook, filed a significant amendment following months of negotiations.
The bill was intended to create more paths for students to get affordable, accessible bachelor's degrees in areas that need more workers.
However, it initially faced opposition from existing four-year schools that warned it could duplicate degree offerings.
Toward the end of the session, Tarver told a Senate committee that the Black caucus had 'significant issues with the bill,' including how it would affect four-year institutions serving a high proportion of Black and minority students, such as Chicago State University.
A proposal on direct university admissions, however, passed, meaning high school students and eligible community college students starting in the 2027-2028 school year will automatically be offered admission to public universities if they meet specific GPA standards.
What Pritzker said: 'We're going to stop insurance companies from blocking access to mental health. We can do that by banning prior authorization for all behavioral health care. And for rural Illinois families and those who live far away from certain medical care, we'll require insurance reimbursement for reasonable travel costs associated with medical appointments' for some distances.
Status: Passed.
Building on sweeping health care legislation last year, the General Assembly this session voted on a bill to expand a ban on prior authorization for outpatient behavioral health care, meaning patients will no longer need permission from insurance companies before receiving mental health treatment in many more cases. The same legislation also puts insurers on the hook for travel costs in some instances where closer options aren't adequate.
What Pritzker said: 'I'm introducing the Prescription Drug Affordability Act to rein in the unfair practices of PBMs.'
Status: Passed.
Critics often blame large so-called pharmacy benefit managers, such as CVS Caremark and UnitedHealth Group-owned Optum Rx, for inflating prescription drug costs while pushing independent pharmacies out of business, and Pritzker was largely successful this session in barring these practices, as a bill carrying language to restrict PBM costs passed the legislature with broad bipartisan support.
The bill now heading to Pritzker's desk would prohibit PBMs from charging insurance companies more for drugs than they are paid by pharmacies and pocketing the difference; prohibit them from giving better reimbursement rates to pharmacies that the same company owns; and require them to pass along rebates negotiated with drugmakers to health plans and patients.
Pritzker indicated Saturday that he would sign the measure, which would also require PBMs to submit annual reports on pricing and other practices to the Illinois Department of Insurance. The measure would charge PBMs an annual $15-per-patient fee, with the first $25 million collected going to a grant fund to support local pharmacies. Supporters of PBMs during the session argued Pritzker's plan was flawed, as they see PBMs as saving patients and employers money partly by negotiating with drugmakers.
What Pritzker proposed: As part of the package of policies he announced in February, Pritzker said he'd push several other initiatives, including funding to remediate dilapidated state sites and an easier path for voters to reduce or eliminate local township governments.
Status: State site funding passed; township idea stalled.
Pritzker received his requested $500 million in state capital funds for two key programs on state sites, including $300 million to remake five or more largely abandoned properties, which would help develop properties 'sitting idle' in areas that are 'ripe' for economic growth, according to his budget proposals.
The state's previous investments in site readiness have generated over $1.5 billion in private investment and the now-passed initiatives could attract more than $4.7 billion in investment, the governor's office said in February.
Yet an effort to consolidate smaller townships across the state did not gain much traction as neither bill in the House nor the Senate made it out of committee.
Pritzker's office said in February that many of the more than 1,400 townships operating across the state — which levy over $750 million in property taxes — provide services that are duplicative or could be managed more efficiently by municipalities or counties.
Townships often provide maintenance and services for rural areas, such as road maintenance and transportation for seniors. Still, several Illinois townships have been tangled with corruption, such as the recent federal investigation of Dolton Mayor and Thornton Township Supervisor Tiffany Henyard over improper spending of taxpayer dollars. The idea of consolidating townships has faltered for a century, partly due to opposition from politicians seeking to preserve their power, as well as concerns that downstate rural areas could lose their civic identity.
____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Bill C-5 passes in the House, as Carney vows to consult Indigenous groups
OTTAWA — Facing concerns and warnings of Indigenous resistance against a key part of his governing agenda, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged Friday that 'more fulsome conversations are needed' to choose the development projects his government wants to fast-track through controversial new legislation, Bill C-5. Speaking moments after the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons, Carney pledged to hold meetings in the coming weeks with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and experts in a series of summits to 'launch the implementation of this legislation in the right way' in 'full partnership' with Indigenous communities. This will be the 'first step' in the process to choose which projects will be chosen through the new legislation for the fast-track to approval within the government's goal of two years. The Liberal government's major projects bill has passed the House of Commons thanks to help from the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Mark Carney calls the legislation the core of his government's domestic economic response to U.S. tariffs (June 20, 2025 / The Canadian Press) Carney also repeated pledges earlier this week, as the Liberal government rammed the bill through the House over the objections of some Indigenous , environmental groups and opposition parties, that the new process will respect Indigenous rights to consultation and 'free, prior and informed consent' under the United Nations Declaration to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government House Leader said this week they expect the bill to pass in the Senate next week. 'These projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities. This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself,' Carney said Friday. 'We all agree that more fulsome conversations are needed to select the nation-building projects and to determine the conditions that they must fulfil. In other words, the real work begins now.' In the April 28 election, Carney's Liberals won a minority government while promising to fast-track development projects like mines, pipelines and ports to boost economic growth, make Canada a 'superpower' in clean power and fossil fuels, and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian goods. Carney acknowledged the bill sailed through the Commons quickly, but argued Friday that speed was needed to confront the 'crisis' of the American trade war. 'This is the response. This is us being in charge of our destiny. That's why we pushed it,' Carney said. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty — a former grand chief of Eeyou Istchee in Quebec — said the promised summits are a 'serious signal' that Indigenous communities are going to be 'at the table' in deciding how projects will be chosen under the new process. 'There have been more projects selected. It is something that we will define together,' she said. The bill passed through the House of Commons Friday in two votes, after House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia ruled to split the legislation into two parts. All parties supported a less contentious section to lift federal barriers to trade and labour movement inside Canada. The other, more controversial part dealing with major projects also passed with Liberals and Conservatives voting en masse in favour, and Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green MPs voting against. Toronto Liberal and former cabinet minister MP Nate Erskine-Smith also voted against the national projects part of the legislation . The version of the bill now moving to the Senate came with a suite of amendments, including some that the government supported, aimed at increasing transparency and restricting some of the powers the legislation would create. This includes a provision to obtain the written consent of affected provinces and territories before the government chooses to fast-track a given project, and to ensure the new process that the law would create respects ethics rules and can't override legislation like the Indian Act. The changes also created a new requirement for the government to publish a suite of information about the projects — from the contents of any studies and assessments about their impacts, to all recommendations about them from the civil service — at least 30 days before it officially puts them into the fast-track process. Business groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have also supported the legislation, arguing that a thicket of government regulations has delayed major projects, and that there is now an urgent need to build new infrastructure for energy, critical minerals and other sectors. But Bill C-5 remains controversial, including with predictions this week from some Indigenous leaders that it could inspire resistance and protest like the 2012 'Idle No More' movement because of a lack of consultation on the new powers. MPs have also condemned the national projects part of the legislation as a troubling expansion of power that risks trampling environmental protections and Indigenous rights. After the amendments Friday, the bill retained its proposal to allow the cabinet to choose projects to fast-track based on 'any factor' it considers relevant, and to skirt laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Species at Risk Act when reviewing projects to speed up. 'This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our prime minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it's a bad effort,' said Green Leader Elizabeth May. Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire accused the government of reproducing the 'condescending and colonialist spirit' of the last century towards Canada's Indigenous Peoples. And Don Davies, the NDP's interim leader, alleged the bill creates 'Henry VIII' powers that allow the government 'to override laws by decree. 'It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens Indigenous rights,' Davies said. 'This bill will end up in court.'
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
Republican Party has nearly five times more cash on hand than the Democrats
The Republican National Committee has almost five times the cash on hand as its Democratic counterpart, as Democrats seek to regain their footing following a disappointing 2024 cycle. The RNC reported having $72 million on hand at the end of May, compared to just $15 million for the DNC, according to campaign filings out Friday. While the RNC has for months held a cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee, the $57 million gap is the widest disparity between the two parties since at least July 2020, according to California Target Book's Rob Pyers. It's still early, but the GOP's cash edge could give the party an early boost as it looks to build out campaign infrastructure ahead of next year's midterms. "The single most important thing the DNC can and should be doing right now is raising money," Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod told CNBC. The filings come as the DNC has faced internal tension since President Donald Trump's return to the White House. Earlier this month, leaders of two large labor unions each declined their nominations to continue serving on the committee, dealing a blow to Chair Ken Martin. Martin has also overseen internal divisions over ex-DNC Vice Chair David Hogg's bid to challenge sitting Democratic incumbents. Hogg stepped down from his role earlier this month amid backlash. Some Democrats say that the fundraising gap underscores deeper concerns within the party. "The base of the party and donors alike do not have confidence in the direction of the party," said Cooper Teboe, a Democratic strategist in Silicon Valley. Teboe said that the party has not presented "a positive, inspiring vision." The DNC, however, points to a surge in grassroots support. The party says it raised roughly $40 million in individual donations since Martin became chair in February, a record for that four-month period. The contributions go to a range of areas, according to the DNC, including "building up critical infrastructure from tech to organizing to in-state investments for critical, target races." "This is only the start, but it's a record-setting start that allows Democrats to meaningfully invest in every part of the country," Martin said in a statement. The DNC's war chest is roughly double what it held during the same period in 2017, suggesting there is time for them to catch up. "The goals Chair Martin has set out — investing in all 50 states and building the state of-the-art infrastructure necessary to win back the White House in 2028 — are ambitious and necessary, but they can only be achieved by raising money," Elrod said. Looking ahead, Teboe said that Democrats may be successful in next year's midterms "as a reaction to Trump's overreach but it will take a new generation of voices to get the party out of this mess." "Those voices will emerge in the 2028 primary and we will have the chance to rebuild a stronger Democratic Party outside of the influence of the old guard that seems incapable of understanding what motivates normal Americans," he said. The Republicans' money advantage comes after a 2024 election cycle during which Tesla founder Elon Musk poured nearly $300 million into helping elect Republicans. Musk's surge of donations to help elect Trump certainly took some pressure off the rest of the party's fundraising apparatus. It's unclear what the RNC might have decided to pay for last year's elections, were it not for Musk's millions. Musk last month said that he was going to do "a lot less" political spending in the future. It's also unclear how Trump will use the millions he has raised in a group of PACs since he won the November election. Should Trump choose to donate to Republican candidates and get out the vote efforts next year, the RNC could again find itself under less pressure to shell out cash than the DNC. But Trump's financial support has traditionally not been geared towards helping the party at large. Rather, Trump has contributed relatively small amounts to help elect his closest allies. He has also played a significant role in Republican primary races, endorsing MAGA candidates who, in some cases, have struggled to win the backing of moderate Republicans and independent voters.
2 hours ago
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and "to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
