Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Big construction money starting to flow
Next Post: Revenue site, phonelines down on tax day
Posted in:
* There is a huge amount of rhetoric on both sides of the redistricting reform battle. From yesterday’s Senate debate…
Republicans like Senator Kirk Dillard say they oppose Raoul’s plan because, as in the current process, lawmakers get first crack at drawing the map.
DILLARD: Your plan is the politician’s choice.
Dillard supports an alternate plan that would give initial mapmaking power to a commission appointed by the four legislative leaders. But Democrat Raoul dismissed that proposal, which he says would consolidate power instead of keeping it in the hands of lawmakers elected by the voters.
RAOUL: The people get to choose who would draw the map under this scenario, not the legislative leaders.
Sen. Raoul is right that giving the leaders even more authority is probably not the way to go. But it would be an equally divided commission, plus a chairman elected by the commission. Instead of just two leaders from the same party drawing the map, it would be all four plus an independent chairperson.
But there are legions of problems with the GOP/reformer’s proposal. New maps would have to be approved by two-thirds majorities. The only way that will happen is if the maps actually protect huge numbers of incumbents. It’s also doubtful that the bipartisan commission could even elect a chairman. Failing all that, the process moves to the Supreme Court, which would be given unprecedented legislative powers to draw the new maps.
The Republicans have the luxury of an alliance with the reformers. They don’t have to actually pass anything because they know they can jam the Democrats no matter what. So, they can pretty much say whatever they want, and the more incendiary, the better.
The editorial pages are heavily invested in the “Fair Map” proposal and some blasted away at the Senate Democrats for approving the Raoul measure, called “Citizens First.” The Champaign News-Gazette was particularly harsh…
Citizens First ought to be titled Citizens Last because its real intent is to keep the current majority party in power for another 10 years no matter what the voters want. The proposed amendment is the functional equivalent of lipstick on a pig. It’s a ruse, a ploy, a con designed to placate legitimate public anger over the state of the state of Illinois.
Nothing will change if the politicians who created the state’s current dysfunctional politics are charged with coming up with solutions. But that, of course, is the idea.
The Daily Herald called out suburban Democratic Senators by name today, claiming they had “failed their constituents” by voting for the amendment…
Taking the map-drawing power away from those who seek to serve is a crucial and necessary step toward fixing the problems that have fostered corruption, centralized power and almost guaranteed incumbents’ re-election regardless of performance.
The edit boards always forget about the Republican map that was drawn in 1991. The House Democrats managed to hold their majority for eight out of ten years under that GOP map. The Senate Democrats came this/close to picking up the majority in 1996. And there was huge turnover in the House in both 1994 and 1996. Yes, the new map is strongly Democratic, but this state has moved solidly into the “D” camp since it was drawn in 2001. The fact that House Speaker Madigan is so frightened of passing a tax hike this year ought to be some indication that he’s worried he could lose his gavel again.
* John Bambenek points out another problem with the Senate-approved proposal via press release…
Surely, someone could file suit to challenge redistricting like this you say? “Citizens First” however, limits who can file suit to challenge redistricting. In fact, only one person would be allowed under the state constitution to sue if the maps broke state law… the Attorney General. Do any of you think Lisa Madigan will sue dear old dad over redistricting? Me either. Illinois would be the ONLY state in the entire country that only allows the Attorney General to sue to protect the rights of citizens under redistricting. Here is the text from Citizens First that accomplishes this:
“(h) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions concerning redistricting the House and Senate, which shall be initiated in the name of the People of the State by the Attorney General.”
Valid points all.
* Expectations are low for passage in the House, however…
For all the bluster during [yesterday’s] floor debate, the amendment has an uncertain future as it moves to the House. Constitutional amendments must pass each chamber by a 3/5 majority, a margin Democrats don’t control in the House.
This whole debate is probably a moot point.
* Here’s your roundup…
* Quinn signs pension overhaul, cautions against changing it
* Quinn opposes any pension law changes
* Quinn signs pension reform into law
* Quinn signs pension reform into law: Quinn said he doesn’t know what his action will cost him in terms of union support in this fall’s election, but said “the public will be appreciative of someone, a governor who never flinched from doing something really meaningful.”
* Gov signs pension reform legislation
* Gov. Quinn signs pension reforms into law
* Quinn approves lower pension levels for future state workers
* Lawmakers may strip DuPage Water Commission of sales tax
* Illinois pondering major rewrite of telecom rules in Age of iPhone
* Ill. business leaders want telecommunication rewrite
* News-Democrat: Rape victims need this law
* Action on Illinois venture capital bill sought
* Illinois Governor Orders Major Change to Juvenile Prison System
* D204 parents, students protest in Springfield
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 12:24 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Big construction money starting to flow
Next Post: Revenue site, phonelines down on tax day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Republicans have the luxury of an alliance with the reformers. They don’t have to actually pass anything because they know they can jam the Democrats no matter what. So, they can pretty much say whatever they want, and the more incendiary, the better.
And you forgot to mention that this election is moving their way, so they are expecting to pick up seats in the GA. It is better for the GOP to wait until they get a better position to deal with Speaker Madigan.
No - there will be nothing settled because it is not in the best interest of too many people to settle it.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 12:39 pm
Actually, I’d like to see this taken out of the hands of the incumbents as much as possible.
My master’s thesis was on mathematical programming techniques for optimization, and I can assure you that a system and methodology could easily be developed to meet any set of racial and geographical parameters you choose to ensure compliance with the Civil Rights Act.
The reasons that politicians fight this approach tooth and nail is because making one of the parameters for drawing the map “saving incumbents jobs” would not play well in Peoria.
The “coin flip” simply doesn’t provide enough of a consequence for mappers to avoid corrupting the process and gerrymandering.
The courts drawing the map objectively by programming fair parameters, fair racial representation and population but NOT the political affiliation of residents or address of current incumbents, would certainly provide enough incentive to at least make a reasonable and fairer map.
You’re not going to see this come from the GA. The courts are the only hope here.
I’d say meeting fair racial representation standards, which shouldn’t be difficult considering how segregated we are in Illinois, along with keeping municipal communitites together as much as possible should be about the only parameters that should enter into the objective map programming.
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 12:42 pm
What if a state employee working under the current pension benefit plan is laid off sometime after January 1st (budget cuts, etc.), only to be brought back under the new plan? Are there benefits grandfathered in?
Comment by Corey Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 12:47 pm
SJRCA121 also does NOT require districts to be contiguous… that could lead to truly invidious maps.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 12:47 pm
Off topic: Someone has to tell the speaker that no one has pagers anymore unless they’re a medical doctor (when he opens session).
Comment by disgusted in chi boogie Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 12:48 pm
To improve the mapping process, I hope that Illinois will pass the Put-Back Amendment, in Nov. It would ensure that redistricting is done by a computer program, which wouldn’t consider incumbents, parties, or ethnic groups. This would ensure more competitive elections. The Put-Back Amendment would also implement term limits, on state legislators, require the legislature to vote on bills that are sponsored by at least 25 members, and require the legislature to consider each bill for at least a week.
Comment by Conservative Veteran Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 12:58 pm
Or for more clarity, SJRCA121 doesn’t require contiguous maps (and we’d be the only state that didn’t), but there is federal case law that seems to indicate federal courts could force the issue
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 1:01 pm
Why would the Supreme Court agree to choose the tie breaker for a remap? They would have to rule on the outcome of the committee’s map as far as being in compliance with the state and federal constitutions. This would prejudice the ruling on that ultimate review.
It would seem that these bills are unconstitutional.
Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 1:47 pm
It doesn’t matter if the legislators themselves, or a commission appointed by legislative leaders, draw the map–both choices are the “politican’s choice.” How about a computerized algorithm that minimizes the ability to gerrymander and other designed intended to keep incumbents in power?
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 2:17 pm
Point of Information:
“SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING
The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions concerning redistricting the House and Senate, which shall be initiated in the name of the People of the State by the Attorney General.”
Source: Constitution of the State of Illinois,
ARTICLE IV, THE LEGISLATURE
Comment by Charlie Wheeler Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 2:29 pm
does anyone know if and when the House will vote on SJRCA121 if Madigan gets the votes? I heard he needs one Republican to vote for it. Also heard that Madigan will not bring it for a vote because he doesn’t care about the amendment.
Comment by Suburban voter Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 2:48 pm
Charlie, are you saying that a “politically blind” map could be drawn by objective computer methodology by judicial fiat?
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 2:48 pm
Charlie-
I’m fully aware that clause is also in the existing constitution… we’re still the only state that has a constitutional restriction to prevent people from seeking redress for constitutional or legal violations regarding redistricting under state law.
The. Only. One.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Apr 15, 10 @ 3:11 pm
I don’t see the Supreme Court stepping in. I mean, they’re the “politicans’ choice” too; and worse yet, there aren’t any avenues of redress with them–they aren’t elected and they seem to do whatever they want. For example, as Rich has previously indicated, they routinely resisted audits; and I have indicated before, they seem proud of the fact that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to them (Yet they have no other provision in their rules that addresses freedom of information for things like contracts with vendors, etc.)
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Apr 16, 10 @ 12:25 pm