* Pearson…
The [group allied against the remap proposal] People’s Map has alleged, among other issues, that the [group pushing the remap reform] Independent Map proposal does not meet the narrow window for petition-driven initiatives, which is limited to making “structural and procedural” changes in the legislature.
In its response, the Independent Map group contended that since the court allowed the 1980 Pat Quinn-led effort to reduce the size of the Illinois House by one-third and create single-member House districts, its new redistricting amendment proposal also should be constitutional.
“If changes to the number and size of districts are ‘structural’ changes, then it necessarily follows that changes to the criteria for drawing those very same districts every 10 years would also be structural,” the Independent Map group said.
“Similarly, if a proposal to convert from multiple- to single-member districts addresses a procedural subject … then so too does a proposal to fundamentally alter the process by which redistricting is accomplished every 10 years,” the group said.
Click here to read Independent Map’s full filing.
*** UPDATE *** A snippet of the latest ILGOP press release…
ICYMI: “Redistricting reform heads to court as Madigan forces try to block it from ballot”
Double-Talking Democrats Silent on Madigan’s Attack on Voters
“Illinois Democrats have a peculiar habit of saying one thing in their districts and doing another in Springfield. Now, they have turned to silence on Madigan’s effort to prevent fair legislative maps. Democrats cannot credibly claim to support redistricting reform when Mike Madigan, the chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois, is sponsoring a lawsuit to get the Independent Map Amendment thrown off the November ballot. Until this shameful lawsuit is dropped, Democratic candidates should refuse financial support from the Madigan-controlled Democratic party. Otherwise, it is clear that Democrats who claim to support redistricting reform are simply paying lip-service to get elected.” – Illinois Republican Party Spokesman Steven Yaffe
Reps. Mike Smiddy, Sam Yingling, Michelle Mussman and Kate Cloonen claim to be supporters of redistricting reform, but they have all refused to condemn Mike Madigan’s lawsuit to get the Independent Map amendment thrown off the ballot.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 9:50 am:
I dunno. Reading Judge Mikva’s opinion, they’ve got tough sledding. Giving new duties to the auditor general, supreme court and board of elections are not structural and procedural general assembly matters.
- John Rawls - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:07 am:
Burying the lead here Rich! This is a Madigan-backed lawsuit intended to protect his power
- Pretend Lawyer - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:09 am:
Let’s say the Independent Map folks survive this challenge in state court, isn’t the bar even higher for them in federal court?
Their proposal gives consideration of municipal boundaries the same weight as respect for minority representation rights. That lowers the current standard (which places minority rights higher than other considerations,) which could be seen as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Though, instead of acting pre-emptively and killing the referendum, a federal judge would probably want to see what the actual map looks like before taking action. That’s could be a complete mess. Drawing a Voting Rights-compliant map is going to be super challenging given the decline of Chicago’s African-American population:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160528/ISSUE05/305289992/chicagos-black-population-is-declining-while-its-white-population-is
- Juvenal - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:11 am:
“….ergo a petition to institute a graduated income tax and impose campaign finance limits, which would necessarily alter who is elected to serve in the General Assembly and how they campaign, must be both ’structural’ and ‘procedural.’”
I believe this is what Constitutional law professors refer to as the “Billy got a popsicle, so I want a Candy Factory” argument.
- Chicagonk - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:16 am:
I would lose faith in the Illinois Supreme Court if they found this unconstitutional. There have been some curious rulings lately.
- Ghost - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:20 am:
Legaly i think ind maps is correct.
- AlabamaShake - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:23 am:
**There have been some curious rulings lately.**
Like what? They’ve been pretty consistent in upholding the State Constitution, imo.
- jack28 - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:30 am:
Maybe the first thing that should be argued is “how does the lawyer for the Dem State Committee have standing?”
- Ron Burgundy - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 10:43 am:
I think this should pass muster, but whether it will is a whole different story. Seems silly, or worse, to write criteria in for referenda and then interpret them so narrowly that nothing (save one) meets the criteria in 45+ years.
- Graduated College Student - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 11:02 am:
===“If changes to the number and size of districts are ‘structural’ changes, then it necessarily follows that changes to the criteria for drawing those very same districts every 10 years would also be structural,” the Independent Map group said.===
No that doesn’t follow at all. The cutback amendment changed the process for electing the legislators AND changed the size of the state house. That’s structural and procedural, because it changed the very structure of the legislature. Y’alls are proposing to keep the existing number of legislators and the same methodology for election (single-member districts). Changing how the districts are drawn isn’t changing the structure of the legislature.
- walker - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 11:40 am:
The two arguments quoted above are pretty weak on their face. They are not self-evident as claimed.
Still, I think they will prevail in court, given the language of the judge who turned them down last time.
- Last Bull Moose - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 11:58 am:
Why have the reform groups not gone back to multimember districts? It seems an elegant solution to so many problems.
- anon - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 12:01 pm:
=== Double-Talking Democrats Silent on Madigan’s Attack on Voters ===
In 2014, the large majority of voters supported the advisory referendum on the millionaire’s tax. But when the proposed amendment came up for a vote in the House, not a single Republican voted to allow voters to make the decision in a ratification vote. Isn’t that an “attack on voters” too?
- Michael Westen - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 1:58 pm:
Gobbledygook. Voters have never made remap a high priority-even if they fully understand the issue-which lots don’t. If they did, the “Fire Madigan” approach of the last several elections would have seen even a little success.
- Read It - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 2:39 pm:
All of those professing this is legal or illegal, have you researched this or are you basing your opinion on what you’ve read? If you read the cases about constitutional initiatives by amendment it becomes very hard to say this will be upheld. The framers were purposely trying to prevent this very type of initiative.
Even more imperative, have you read the actual text of the proposal and do you know what it means? I’ve read it 5-6 times and I still can’t fully grasp all of the changes. The group says this takes mapmaking out of the hands of the General Assembly, but it kinda doesnt. Leaders still make appointments to the committee. Leaders and can remove people from the eligibility list. Worse, it’s does more than purport to take remap away from legislators. It’s also changes how maps are drawn in several ones, the most interesting being to keep local units together. That is intended to give the mapmakers ability to draw all of Chicago in a few districts; all of Aurora in 1-2 districts; all of Rockford in 1-2 districts. The effect of that is to dilute minority rights. It’s subtle, but that’s the result and i presume the intent.
- Annonin' - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 2:48 pm:
That Yaffe Yodel is a gooooood one
Now show of hands if you voted for the millionaire tax and your rep dropped the ball do you drop them in November, 2016?
How about a big yea or nay in November 2022?
- Chicagonk - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 3:23 pm:
@ReadIt The reasoning behind the limited allowance for “structural and procedural” changes to the constitution via initiative was the thought that the General Assembly wouldn’t otherwise propose these changes. My worry is that just as I feel the court wrongly ruled 4-3 in 1994 against the term-limit initiative, they will similarly rule against this initiative.
- jake - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 3:59 pm:
I am not a lawyer, but if one interprets the language of the constitution and of the proposed amendment to mean what they say in plain English, then the amendment should go forward on to the ballot.
I am a Democrat with a large D, because I largely favor greater equality of opportunity, environmental protection, and social liberalism, all directions that the Democrats favor on their better days. But I am also a democrat with small d and as such favor the amendment.
- MadiganBot - Monday, Jun 20, 16 @ 5:22 pm:
**Democrats cannot credibly claim to support redistricting reform when Mike Madigan, the chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois, is sponsoring **
Good to know. So we can assume that Republicans support 100% of Rauner’s union busting turnaround agenda, right?