Remove your tinfoil hat, please
Thursday, Jul 23, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* WUIS…
As a candidate last year, Rauner talked a lot about term limits. Now that he’s governor, he’s pushing for lawmakers to sign on. The governor often repeats his goal of removing power from what he calls the “political class” — in particular from, House Speaker Michael Madigan whom he charges “controls” legislators.
The governor’s also calling for changes to redistricting, the process for determining what neighborhoods will comprise a legislative district.
Madigan, a Democrat, says Rauner’s plans are pure politics.
“They were Republican Party campaign issues, designed to be used in Republican campaigns. They haven’t changed. That’s the purpose of the Rauner advocacy of those two issues: Republican Party campaign purposes.”
* Today…
The biggest contribution reported today was $100K from Sam Zell, a bigtime Rauner backer.
But Robert Judelson was also listed as contributing $20K. Judelson and his company have given to Republicans over the years, but also to some Democrats, including the Illinois Senate Democrats.
* It would be nice if, for once, the Democrats could finally get themselves out in front of a “reform” idea. I get why they don’t want to do term limits. But remap reform is long overdue in this state. Calling it a Republican plot is just plain silly.
- Tone - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:28 pm:
Hurray for our host, I agree!
- Juvenal - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:31 pm:
Mail-in voting, early voting, and motor voter were huge election reforms championed by Illinois democrats and staunchly opposed by Republicans, Rich.
- Juvenal - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:33 pm:
And same-day voter registration.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:36 pm:
Juvenal, when politicians are choosing their voters instead of the other way around, those reforms you mention mean very little except in statewide races.
- thunderspirit - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:44 pm:
I’m not a big fan of term limits — politics, like most things, is typically best practiced by those with experience — but I’m totally behind non-partisan redistricting. Sign me up.
- Connect the dots - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:44 pm:
The Democrats would be wise to sign on to re-districting now because it could hurt them more next time around if they have less power. They could pick this neutral issue and champion their reform credentials without having to move on unions or term-limits.
- A guy - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
The Speaker doth protest too much when he back end loads the ballot with referenda the easy way and negates the effort of the referenda that was accomplished the hard way. Very rich irony there.
So many here talk of how the map “wouldn’t change anything”. Well…then jump on board on this one if it’s so painless. No one could ever argue any step in that direction would be “more” fair than the hyperpartisan process now in place.
- Bogey Golfer - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
I have previously indicated favoring term limits. But I would drop it if we could at least have a less-biased way of drawing district maps going forward.
- Anonin' - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
Pretty sure the Ds will wait for an actual “reform” May a requirement that NFP 990 schedule B become public.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:04 pm:
Fair maps is the one I would choose if I have to choose one.
This would be the time too for the Democrats to get behind this since the Dems are far better at the micro aspect of politics here in Illinois. Today.
Get a head start, lol.
- Norseman - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:11 pm:
Yes, Rich you’ve tried to warn the Dems. They’ve benefited from the old system, but this time the odds are that they’ll face a coin flip. Do they feel lucky?
The best thing for them to do is craft their own similar commission approach that “takes into concerns minority representation” and pass it. Doing this puts them on the side of angels and takes the wind out of Rauner’s and his caucus’ sails.
- Apocalypse Now - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:11 pm:
=Madigan, a Democrat, says Rauner’s plans are pure politics.= And the tinfoil hat award goes to Mike Madigan.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:12 pm:
I haven’t voted for a Republican in decades and I’m a fervent supporter of fair maps. In most states it’s the Republicans who gerrymander against the Democrats. Voters in deep blue California voted for, and defended, fair maps there, against the Democrat establishment’s wishes. Voters in deep red Arizona voted for fair maps against the Republican establishment.
As for term limits, polls show that Illinois voters overwhelmingly support them - regardless of whether a person does or not, it shows how sick this state’s quasi-democracy is that it can’t get put to a vote, either directly or through the legislature.
- Losing My Edge - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:16 pm:
I’m going to voice my ignorance on the specifics of this reform. What protections are being proposed to safeguard majority-minority districts?
- Very Fed Up - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:16 pm:
At a minimum, Rauners proposal that an open vote be taken to put fair maps/term limits on the ballot is the way to go. Stop allowing legislators to hide behind Madigan on this issue and put their resistance out there in the open against the overwhelming will of the voters.
- Jimmy CrackCorn - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:17 pm:
I’ll sign on to Independent Maps when a nationwide effort is launched, or at least a similar effort in Texas.
I’m not comfortable with Texas donors funding and remap reform effort in the one state that was able to draw bluer Congressional districts
- AC - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:18 pm:
I’m sure Rauner supports term limits and redistricting out of pure altruism, not because he sees them as beneficial politically. /s
The Democrats really do need to get out in front of these issues for political reasons, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the motivations behind redistricting and term limits.
- burbanite - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:22 pm:
How long would it take to do something like that? I agree it is the concession they should make, but can it be done in a time frame not that far out? With the hostages and all?
- Not it - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:30 pm:
The reason why term limits are popular is because we have entrenched politicians that in many cases choose their voters, the solution to that is to have real, competitive races. The way to do that is redistricting reform.
And it shouldn’t be just for the State, it should apply to local governments too.
- Lt, Guv - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:52 pm:
Agreed. I am a very partisan D, but redistricting reform is something I would engage in discussion. I don’t have the answer, but there has to be a better way.
- Capitol View - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 3:56 pm:
If it gets implemented, add a provision of no mid-decade further redistricting as was done last decade by the Texas party in control to grab another seat or two on congress.
- Strangerthings - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 4:06 pm:
If the biggest issue people have with term limits is that it depletes the pool of experienced politicians then just make it a non permanent term limit. You can only serve 4 consecutive terms before you are ineligible for state office for minimum 4 years.
Sounds good to me.
- Concerned - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 4:17 pm:
I will whole-heartedly support independent maps as soon as the red states do so as well.
- ZC - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 4:20 pm:
This has always seemed to me like the best exit ramp, because Rauner has to save face somewhere.
Redistricting reform is probably not a good idea, but it’s probably not a disaster and it might just be an improvement if handled well. The dominant poli sci finding on redistricting reform isn’t that it actively hurts the democratic process - it just doesn’t do much, period.
Term limits have a more actively negative effect, so if we concede something, concede what’s likely to be the wash, and stay away from term limits which is a far worse idea. Madigan can learn to play with a new map law.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 4:20 pm:
Those with power rarely cede any except at the point of an election (would have said sword but, too much violent imagery, right?).
If you don’t have to, don’t. If you don’t want to, don’t. What’s the upside? Folks think you’re egalitarian? Why would MJM care about that?
- Juvenal - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 4:33 pm:
Rich -
I believe that Iowa’s rate of contested legislative races is only negligibly higher than Illinois, and they were the very first state to enact redistricting “reform.”
- Just Me - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 4:59 pm:
When a legislator can go into a back room and draw his district to make sure it includes his friends, favorite restaurants and businesses (aka contributors), and carve out his political enemy into another district, that is just inherently wrong.
I would argue it is even more disgusting than anything Rod Blagojevich ever did. The bit about “protecting” minority districts is laughable.
- walker - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 5:08 pm:
Ironically, the same idealistic pro-representative-democracy values that call for non-partisan remapping, also oppose term limits.
Give the voters a fair opportunity to be represented, then trust their choices.
- Very Fed Up - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 5:11 pm:
No one can defend a situation where all you need for a supermajority is to gather only slightly over 50% of the vote. No one should want the republicans drawing partisan maps anymore than the democrats.
- Mama - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 5:29 pm:
The legislature passed a workers-comp bill a few years ago. Workers-comp is one of Rauner’s Turn-Around items. Rauner doesn’t know that item had already been passed.
- Just Me - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 7:40 pm:
Of course it’s a Republican plot! If we do it fairly it will help Republicans! I say we keep it corrupt, doing things the corrupt way has worked for us so far, why change?
- G'Kar - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 8:06 pm:
If redistricting is just at legislative level I am for it. If it also includes the congressional map, then I am agin it.
- Anon - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 8:12 pm:
This seems like something Madigan could get behind. He’d still have plenty of leverage over his legislators even if he won’t be drawing their districts. And of course under the current rules the Republicans might be drawing them next time anyway.
But redistricting is related to term limits, which is likely a much greater concern for MJM. Term limits is a higher profile issue and apparently more popular. So one might ask, if MJM supports “fair” maps, would Rauner give him credit for compromising, or would Rauner just ratchet up the pressure on term limits? If Madigan is unsure of the answer, then it’s understandable that he’d oppose “fair” maps. And the level of trust, once can safely say, is low.
- Austin Blvd - Thursday, Jul 23, 15 @ 9:04 pm:
What Jimmy CrackCorn said.
- CallingBSonRauner - Friday, Jul 24, 15 @ 5:24 am:
== Rauner talked a lot about term limits. ==
I remember just this spring, “career politicians who treat politics like a family business.”
But yesterday CF reported that the governor worked hard to make sure Darin LaHood didn’t have any serious primary opponents.
Second generation politician in the LaHood family business?
I’m confused,I thought the governor was against such things.