SB0108 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to expand and clarify the process for waiving court-ordered criminal assessments, which are fees and costs imposed on criminal defendants under the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act. The bill revises the definition of “assessments” and removes a prior county-specific provision that had applied only in counties with populations over 3,000,000, replacing it with statewide waiver rules. It also keeps the existing framework for determining whether a defendant is an indigent person, but adds more detailed income-based waiver tiers for defendants who are not fully indigent.
Under the bill, defendants may apply for a waiver within 30 days after sentencing, and courts must grant full or partial relief based on income relative to the federal poverty level and the defendant’s assets. For certain criminal offenses, the bill requires full waivers for indigent defendants and graduated partial waivers for applicants with income up to 400% of poverty level; for traffic and petty offenses, it sets a separate partial-waiver schedule. The bill also requires clerks to provide waiver applications, mandates bilingual courthouse notice in English and Spanish, allows courts to order installment payments or deferred payment for good cause, and preserves the right to court-appointed counsel.
The bill’s impact is to make assessment-waiver procedures more uniform and more accessible across Illinois, while reducing the financial burden on low- and moderate-income defendants. It affects criminal defendants, court clerks, and judges by creating clearer statutory standards for waiver eligibility, documentation, and notice, and by shifting some discretion into defined income brackets and hardship findings. It also removes the temporary, county-specific language that previously singled out the state’s largest county, suggesting a broader statewide policy approach.
The general sentiment reflected by the voting history appears supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed the Senate 34-19 and the House 70-40, indicating meaningful bipartisan or cross-faction support but also substantial opposition. With no committee transcripts available, the recorded votes are the main indicator of sentiment, and they suggest the measure was viewed favorably by a majority while still drawing concern from a significant minority.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the bill goes too far in waiving court assessments, the fiscal impact on court and local government revenue, and whether the income thresholds and mandatory waiver percentages are too generous or too rigid. Another possible issue is the administrative burden on courts and clerks to process applications, verify income and assets, and provide bilingual notices. Supporters likely emphasized fairness and access to justice for defendants who cannot afford assessments, while opponents likely focused on revenue loss, discretion limits, and implementation costs.
The bill amends Section 124A-20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/124A-20) to revise statewide rules governing waiver of criminal assessments. It changes the definition of assessments, eliminates a prior county-specific provision tied to counties over 3,000,000 population, establishes mandatory full and partial waiver schedules based on poverty-level income and hardship, and adds procedural requirements for applications, notices, and court handling. It affects criminal defendants subject to assessments, court clerks, and judges, and it preserves separate rights to appointed counsel under other law.
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable legislative support. It passed both chambers with clear majorities—34-19 in the Senate and 70-40 in the House—suggesting that many lawmakers supported easing the burden of court assessments on low-income defendants. At the same time, the size of the nays indicates notable resistance, likely from members concerned about fiscal effects, court administration, or the scope of fee relief.
The likely controversy is over the balance between access to justice and government revenue. Opponents may object to mandatory waivers and partial waivers for defendants up to 400% of the poverty level, arguing that the bill reduces assessment collections and constrains judicial discretion. Supporters likely argue that assessments can create undue hardship and that clearer, statewide standards are needed. Additional friction may come from the requirement for clerks to distribute forms and post bilingual notices, as well as from the bill’s removal of the prior county-specific provision, which changes how assessment waivers are handled across jurisdictions.