|
 Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker is making a second attempt to
criminalize business owners who fail to enforce his mask rules, despite a
previous failed attempt. He again is pushing so law enforcement can use criminal
fines up to $2,500 to enforce his emergency orders.
Under Pritzker’s new rules, mask enforcement would be directed at businesses –
not individuals. The businesses would be punished if their customers or staff
were not wearing a mask after repeated warnings.
“They need to be reminded and reminded and then fined if they are not following
this rule for the state of Illinois,” Pritzker said Aug. 7.
Pritzker’s order “lacks in common sense and is a slap in the face to the
thousands of retailers who have sacrificed so much during this pandemic while
actively supporting ever-changing health and safety guidelines adopted by the
state,” said Rob Karr, president and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants
Association. “If the goal is to put public health above politics, the
administration will amend the rule to focus enforcement efforts on individuals
who are not complying instead of punishing and attempting to demonize innocent
businesses.”
Pritzker’s emergency order takes a three-step approach to gain compliance with
the mandate he issued May 1 requiring masks to be worn inside all public places.
First, businesses will receive a written warning for failing to comply with the
order. If they don’t comply, customers would be asked to leave the business for
public health reasons. If that still does not work, businesses can be charged
with a Class A misdemeanor and receive a fine up to $2,500.
Pritzker said he did not want to punish people for not wearing masks, which is
why his rule applies to businesses and not individuals.
In Sangamon County, both the county health department and city of Springfield
have already begun fining businesses $250 for improper social distancing or
failure of their employees to wear masks.
 Linda Johnson, owner of Village True Value in Western Springs, said business
owners should not be treated like criminals for the actions of individuals.
[ to
top of second column] |
“We definitely, absolutely, support individuals
wearing masks. That goes without saying. But if the governor
believes individuals are not complying, I believe the enforcement
should be on the individual. We can’t control what they do,” she
said.
This is not Pritzker’s first attempt at imposing
criminal penalties to get people to follow his orders.
Pritzker on his own in May amended Illinois Department of Public
Health rules so business owners could be charged with a Class A
misdemeanor, including up to a year in jail, for violating his
closure orders. He made the change without consulting the Illinois
General Assembly.
The rule never took effect, however. Pritzker withdrew the order
hours before a vote May 20 when it was clear he didn’t have the
support of the state lawmakers on the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules, or JCAR, which has oversight of such rules.
Significant public backlash caused many lawmakers to quietly abandon
support for Pritzker’s moves, and the legislative session ended
without him being able to get lawmakers’ backing for any criminal
penalties to add teeth to his executive orders.
Now, JCAR will again be asked to pass Pritzker’s proposal on mask
compliance when it meets during the week of Aug. 10. Eight of the 12
lawmakers must vote to reject the rule to keep it from taking
effect.
The COVID-19 economic downturn and Pritzker’s mandates have already
left workers and businesses damaged, with more than 1.5 million
unemployed and $86 billion lost from the Illinois economy. Pritzker
is looking to add more pain Nov. 3 by pushing his “fair tax,” which
would impose tax rates up to 47% higher on more than 100,000 small
businesses in Illinois that create the bulk of the state’s jobs and
are struggling to remain afloat.
Taking a heavy-handed approach with the business community left
Pritzker licking his wounds once. The 12 members of JCAR will decide
whether he goes back to the drawing board once again.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
