47 Comments - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:56 am: It’s like the batter who strikes out swinging turning to the ump and asking: Was that a strike? Yes, yes it was. Slow walk back to the dugout. - Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:58 am: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise - DuPage - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:01 pm: More Turnaround Agenda - “as soon as they reconvene this fall”. This looks like more of the same from Rauner, with no budget in sight. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:02 pm: ===Our bi-partisan coalition collected more than 563,000 signatures on petitions to place the amendment before voters and to allow voters to decide whether to change the redistricting process, which now gives legislators the power to draw their own district boundary lines – a clear conflict of interest and one of the reasons there is only one candidate running in 60 percent of this year’s legislative elections.=== This is NOT a legal argument. 500,000 or 5 million signatures, the amendment itself had serious constitutional flaws. That’s the issue. This pivoting, riffing off “what about the signatures” is pandering to the voters that counted on a well-written amendment that could pass muster. Instead, those same voters were then given a Tee-Vee ad campaign, to tout politics, not a solution to the fair maps issue. It’s as though someone can make a case that spending high six-figures on ads for a flawed amendment and make the politics “un-stale” and “fresh”. - walker - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:11 pm: Is this what passes for a public apology? - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:14 pm: voters have been denied the right to vote for something illegal?…. um how does one have a right to vote to break a law? voters have also been denied the right to vote on a number of illegal activities…. mostly because there is no right to support illegal actions. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:15 pm: If the remap proponents had hired attorneys who can read and comprehend English, this wouldn’t have happened. Rauner has had just terrible luck with his referendum inititiatives, hasn’t he? Seems almost impossible to mess it up so badly time and again. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:17 pm: =Seems almost impossible to mess it up so badly time and again.= Unless he meant to….Being the victim has been good business for the governor. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:19 pm: To this Update… ===“The court again sided with the political machine against the people of Illinois who overwhelmingly support redistricting reform. Now is the time for Democrats to show their independence from Mike Madigan and pledge to allow a vote on the Independent Map Amendment during the veto session this fall.” - Illinois Republican Party Spokesman Steven Yaffe=== Hmm. Sounds more like the want of a “fresh” political issue than the desire of getting the reform. Yaffe makes it clear, it’s a political issue for the campaign, calling for a vote this fall, making “fresh” this possibly purposeful “failing” of writing language that will pass muster. Nothing like playing the voters for fools, only later to pretend to have concern for a ginned-up campaign issue “ripe” for an alleged fall vote in the GA… These aren’t accidents. Spending high six-figures on ads instead of spending those monies on legal eagles in preparing the amendment… Hmm. - Keyser Soze - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:23 pm: With all due respect to the apologists, it doesn’t matter what the petition said, it wouldn’t have made it past the four Democrats. The fix was already in. Why pretend otherwise? - Nick Name - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:27 pm: “With all due respect to the apologists, it doesn’t matter what the petition said, it wouldn’t have made it past the four Democrats. The fix was already in. Why pretend otherwise?” Victim card alert. - Nothin's easy... - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:27 pm: Indiana, Wisconsin & Michigan draw districts the same as Illinois. Why isn’t there a GOP driven movement to draw “fair” districts there? The hypocrisy is maddening. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:28 pm: ===it wouldn’t have made it past the four Democrats.=== What legal argument do you ha dvrfaf it should? Even in the dissent, it wasn’t the legality of the amendment, it was the “people spoke”… and far less the argument pertaining to leg silty. ===The fix was already in.=== If it was, under what legal argument are you going to use to say the justices refused to follow the constitution? If there’s a fix, the legal argument should be easy to make, I mean, a fixing constitutes ignoring the legal truth, right? ===Why pretend otherwise?=== The legal argument isn’t pretend, it’s actually constitutionally based… - The Captain - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:29 pm: I liked the first draft better with the original opening paragraph: “We just paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to a team of lawyers that couldn’t even foul off a pitch much less bunt themselves a single, so I need to vent …” - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:29 pm: “… have that it should… “ - AC - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:30 pm: Keyser Soze, if that’s the case then why give the courts a valid reason to reject the proposal by not meeting the constitutional requirements? - J - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:34 pm: We do have a vote. We can leave this horribly corrupt State for one that treats taxpayers and voters fairly. - Union Man - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:34 pm: People who want to believe the ILGOP spin are going to believe the ILGOP spin. Just accept the court found something wrong with the construct of the petition, not the idea behind the petition. Calm Down! - Anon - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:40 pm: “We didn’t follow the instructions and we’re going to call you names because you didn’t let us break the rules.” is pretty much the Rauner way. - TheDude - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:46 pm: J, don’t let the door hit you in the way out. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:47 pm: I’ve never seen the Illinois Republican Party so eager to expand Frank Mautino’s official duties. - Huh? - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:49 pm: ILSC - What don’t you understand about “No”, the “N” or the “O”? - Finally Out (and now very glad to be) - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 12:59 pm: If the ILGOP is so worried about the welfare of the people of Illinois, what about “the people of Illinois who overwhelmingly support a millionaire’s tax?” Put that on the ballot! - Archiesmom - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:02 pm: Michelle is en fuego today. Just sayin’. - The Dude Abides - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:08 pm: Independent Maps, what a waste of time and money. With some thoughtful legal scrutiny you could have presented a plan that the court would have approved. You failed to do that and now the ILGOP says that the ILSC is corrupt instead of stating the truth. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:10 pm: - Michelle Flaherty - You just put @GrantWherli on full “Tilt” with the Mautino quip. To the Post, I guess worrying that the attempt to get an unconstitutional amendment to pass muster might be seen as just politics not an honest attempt at change… that will get many to say things to cover where there was lacking. That’s the “simple” truth to the responses. “Please, take our tries seriously” Yikes. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:16 pm: I live in a heavily gerrymandered district whose politicians, I believe, don’t represent my interests at all. It hasn’t been enough to make me move, though, although I certainly could. Like most folks, there are other factors which affect where I live, so I’ll keep an eye out and try to be supportive of the next initiative that comes along-and there will be one, I’m sure. - Deft Wing - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:21 pm: It was a 4-3 decision, both times. Many here seem to have forgotten that inconvenient fact. What’s more, simply dismissing the substantive dissent of Justice Karmeier, or conflating it with the far less substantive and far more incendiary dissent of Justice Thomas, is not legal reasoning or high-brow discussion. Rather it’s a partisan’s perspective of an approved outcome. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:28 pm: ===It was a 4-3 decision, both times. Many here seem to have forgotten that inconvenient fact.=== Really, how so? ===Rather it’s a partisan’s perspective of an approved outcome.=== Except for that pesky constitution and referencing it in the opinion that threw out the alleged honest attempt… … except for that. lol - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:28 pm: Anyone arguing that the “will of the people” has been thwarted clearly doesn’t understand how our system of government works. We don’t set aside the Constitution just because a majority of the people want something done. So please stop with such nonsensical arguments. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:32 pm: ==It was a 4-3 decision, both times. == And your point is? Last I checked that’s all the votes that are needed. Comments on court cases amuse me sometimes. The Court is the greatest thing since sliced bread . . . so long as the Court shares “our” opinion. If not, well then the Court is a sham. - Not It - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:51 pm: This issue infuriates me. The current map is blantantly corrupt, using sophisticated computer software to carve up horrible districts. Proof that the voters are of little concern to those in power. It is because of this corrupt map and our corrupt elections that people favor term limits. I once asked my State Rep if he favored redistributing reform and his response is that is a hard worker and having a campaign would take time away from his official duties. - Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 1:58 pm: Possibly the Independent Map people were counting on something in the penumbra of the constitution. Maybe Pat Quinn is a better lawyer than people think. He did get an amendment on the ballot. - Union Man - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:03 pm: Right On, Finally Out 12:59!! - Steve Rogers - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:11 pm: It makes me laugh that they continually hang their hat on the 563,000 signatures. That’s 4% of the Illinois population, and 8% of the registered voters. Or for you national election watchers, those are roughly the poll numbers for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. - Annonin' - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:25 pm: Maybe the 1%ers and IL Gopies…oh wait that us redundant…should try HJRCA 58 and work on aonething that aolves problems before 2023 after the end of BigBrains 2nd term…if there is a 2nd rerm - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:30 pm: oh there are plenty of so called citizens groups way more in love with themselves than this group. but they all share one thing….the purport to represent the people when what they represent is some people, and as Steve Rogers points out, a small percentage of the people. AND they don’t understand that a list makes a law. stunning in their shortsightedness. collaborate not soap box an issue. - Avid Reader / Seldom poster - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:37 pm: While I am sure that drawing maps a certain way can affect a very few districts. No matter how you draw the map, the votes have to be there. This cannot affect the outcome in a large way. As big a margin as the democrats have in this State, the republicans can never have a majority. The voters are just not there! This is just another attempt to stir up anger. If the republicans had good ideas and worked with people as much as the work with business, then they could win more seats. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 2:40 pm: I think the court could have provided more guidance on what would be considered legal. To Michelle Flaherty’s first post, a more appropriate analogy would be for the batter to ask the ump where the strike zone is so they can better play by the rules. Unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that this was designed to fail for a campaign issue, it seems fair for the court to give a better explanation of would be legal given the number of legitimate signatures and polling numbers. This post is not to defend the current proposal as legal, that is far beyond me, just think the court could have given more guidance on legality. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 3:09 pm: ===…it seems fair for the court to give a better explanation of would be legal given the number of legitimate signatures and polling numbers.=== There’s nothing legitimate in legal terms to the number of signatures gathered vs. the constitution. Your argument has no legal footing. The number of signatures, “legitimate” or even not, have no bearing on what is owed. Ugh. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 4:00 pm: I love how the Madigan genuflectors are suddenly such great legal scholars that they know, with 100% confidence, that the 4 justice majority’s “Article IV penundrums” argument was right and the 3 justice minority’s argument was wrong. The fact that the same majority refused to answer questions about whether ANY ballot initiative on redistricting is constitutional might give one a clue as to how much legal jurisprudence vs. politics was at play. - orzo - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 4:13 pm: The press release was written by someone who didn’t read the majority opinion. They don’t analyze the legal issues; they just keep whining about how they got (paid for) all those signatures. - Mr. Smith - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 4:16 pm: === lake county democrat @4:00 === Maybe you can consider your problems with “Pot. Kettle. Black” while you are genuflecting to Rauner… - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 4:20 pm: ===Madigan genuflectors=== … or the Strict Constitutionalist, or understanding the argument as to why it failed… LOL - Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 4:20 pm: === … that the 4 justice majority’s “Article IV penundrums” argument was right and the 3 justice minority’s argument was wrong. === Is there an appendix somewhere that gives the answers to all court challenges? Whether you consider it right or wrong (your subjective opinion), the court’s opinion was the “winning” one. What I’ve been reading are comments from folks who’ve read the opinion and understand what was written. Whether you agree with it or doesn’t matter. Others have pointed to the irrelevant statement by proponents that 500k people signed it. - West Side The Best Side - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 4:31 pm: The Supreme Court often points out - in cases having nothing to do with “political” matters - t they do not issue advisory opinions. An example of that would be People v. Aguilar decided in late 2013 dealing with gun laws. That dealt with only one section of the Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons statute. It left open numerous other issues dealing with guns, much to the frustration, at least in Cook County, of trial lawyers and judges who would have liked an opinion that dealt with every possible section of the AggUUW, UUWFelon and the Armed Habitual Criminal statutes. Cases are still being argued as a result of Aguilar because of the limited issue raised in that case. I don’t think anyone considered Aguilar was limited “because Madigan.” Maybe if the drafters of the amendment had paid more attention to the sort of advisory opinion issued in the first case by Judge Mary Mikva there would have been a different result. Or, has often been suggested, maybe they didn’t pay attention so they could get the result they really wanted. - The Fool On The Hill - Tuesday, Sep 13, 16 @ 11:45 pm: The SBAC will be apoplectic. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.