Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: What Rauner’s money and people are bringing to the GOP’s table
Next Post: “Foreign” hack attack on state voter registration site
Posted in:
* This passage from a Trib editorial on yesterday’s failure by the remap reform amendment is just plain intellectually dishonest…
It ought to go without saying that this appeal deserves the prompt attention of the state’s highest court. But two years ago, the justices showed a shocking disregard for the hundreds of thousands of voters who signed petitions in support of a different amendment.
Illinois isn’t California. We can debate forever the legal arguments on this particular case, but just because hundreds of thousands of people sign a petition it doesn’t change the fact that our state Constitution drastically restricts any and all proposals for change. And in 1988 and 2008, Illinois voters soundly rejected calling a constitutional convention. I wrote numerous columns leading up to that 2008 vote supporting a convention, mainly to get remap reform on the table, but the question lost 3.1 million to 1.5 million.
3.1 million voters trumps 564,000 petition signatures in my book, as much as I strongly disagreed with their overwhelming decision.
* That having been said, there is a most definite political downside to Democrats with this ruling, as today’s Chicago Sun-Times editorial clearly shows…
But the power to reshuffle that stacked deck lies, perhaps more than ever now, in the hands of the very people uninterested in any change — the state’s Democratic legislative leaders. The court ruled that the remap plan, which would have assigned new duties to the state auditor general and Supreme Court, went beyond constitutionally allowed “structural” and “procedural” changes to the Legislature.
Today’s court ruling was a defeat for democracy and a victory for House Speaker Mike Madigan and Company, who have consistently put their own political interests above the power of your vote.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Democrats need to get out in front of this issue with a real proposal of their own. If they don’t defeat Rauner in the next election and don’t maintain their super-majorities in both chambers in the next two cycles, then he’ll veto their remap bill and they’ll only have a 50-50 chance of drawing the next map.
And then all heck will break loose. I seriously doubt the GOP will make the same sort of mistakes that they made when they drew the map in 1991.
* Related…
* Mark Brown: Dems’ stance on redistricting reform will catch up to them
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 10:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: What Rauner’s money and people are bringing to the GOP’s table
Next Post: “Foreign” hack attack on state voter registration site
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Where is there support for the millionaire’s tax that “hundreds of thousands” of voters support.
If they are so populist where is there support for that one.
Rauner and the Tribbies he controls.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 10:44 am
you are so wrong. Ask voters to list their 10 top concerns and I’ve never once seen remap reform.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 10:47 am
–But two years ago, the justices showed a shocking disregard for the hundreds of thousands of voters who signed petitions in support of a different amendment.–
I’m quite certain that you could get hundreds of thousands of registered Illinois voters to sign petitions for a Constitutional amendment declaring Christianity the state religion.
Perhaps if the tronclodytes had attended the second day of 8th grade Constitution class, they’d understand the role of the Supreme Court in these matters.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 10:47 am
Rich, can you elaborate on the mistakes you say the GOP made in 1991?
Comment by Parts and Labor Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 10:49 am
===I’ve never once seen remap reform===
So? It’s just one more thing added to the pile of “Because… Madigan!”
Wake up.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 10:49 am
I have to agree. Sad but true, most people have no idea what ‘independent maps’ are and have to have someone explain it to them before they sign the petition and then promptly forget about it. If it’s not on the ballot, they won’t notice. Just like too many people think once a bill is introduced it’s already become law. We play inside baseball here, folks. It’s time we learned that and moved on to things we can fix.
Comment by Not quite a majority Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 10:50 am
To the Post,
Rich is on it. Denocrats need to get way ahead of this, and if and when Rauner wins a second term (odds are in Rauner’s favor) if you think Rauner won’t sign a budget, Rauner won’t sign any map that he can’t win. Period.
Rauner will destroy social services for collective bargaining, Rauner will destroy Illinois before signing any map he feels he can’t win.
I’d love to see, and I would work very hard for an independent map, 59 Districts, 1 Senate, 3 at-large House seats.
Here’s the rub.
It has to be Constitutionally legal in presentation and criteria.
That’s not ambiguous. It needs to be written constitutionally. Period.
Rauner spends millions touting a Fair Map and can’t find a single lawyer in the State of Illinois that can draft constitutionally passable language? Not one?
Someone put up the idea I support above, I’ll support it all day, no matter the proposer.
Enough already.
This Map issue come “New Map” time could cripple Illinois even worse than Rauner’s hostage taking
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:01 am
== I’d love to see, and I would work very hard for an independent map, 59 Districts, 1 Senate, 3 at-large House seats. ==
The House elections also could be done without a primary - - file petitions in August, vote for 3 in November and the top 3 win even if 17 candidates are on the ballot.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:05 am
===and the top 3 win===
It has to be partisan to work properly, as no more than 2 of the three can be of the same party.
At least I think that’s what OW had in mind, a straight-up repeal of the Cutback Amendment.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:08 am
I’d happily “settle” for a straight-up repeal of the Cutback Amendment especially since it would be difficult for the judiciary to strike down a citizen led referendum to Put-back the Cut-back.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:11 am
===It has to be partisan to work properly, as no more than 2 of the three can be of the same party.
At least I think that’s what OW had in mind, a straight-up repeal of the Cutback Amendment.===
100%
I was using a very lazy shorthand.
Absolutely, that IS my want and desire, and marry that with a conplete and honest map and mapping process that not only takes into consideration demographics and balance, but also allows true districts that reflect, as close as the can, municipal and county realities, not districts that shave and cut and paste ameba results.
I’ll work for that, support that, and support the person or group honestly proposing that, with credible drafters of the petitions and the amendment.
Thanks - 47th Ward - for your clarification. You are 100% correct.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:15 am
My reaction to the decision yesterday was similar to how I felt when pension reform was struck down — disappointment from a policy standpoint, but grudging acknowledgement that the court was just sticking to the plain language of the constitution.
Politically, I’d like to see the Dems revive the Franks Map proposal, offer it as a face saving “win” to Rauner in budget negotiations, and put it on the ballot in 2018.
Comment by Freed Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:23 am
I don’t think it’s fair to compare the Constitutional Convention Question to the Fair Map Amendment. I voted no on the Con-Con and signed the petition for Fair Maps and my reasons for voting against the Con-Con were very specific in that in 2008 we still had Emil Jones and Blago as Governor and they would have a very large say in the new Constitution. Additionally, I didn’t really see the need to have a Con-Con for one issue when so much else would then be a stake.
Additionally, if the Con-Con question were held today, I would still vote no because the delegates to the Convention would be voted on by the current map which is rigged, so how would we have a fair election to elect delegates? That to me poses a conundrum.
To the post about the Dem’s getting in front, I couldn’t agree more. This is still a blue State and Illinois Republican’s are going to get drug down by the national party, Illinois Democrats shouldn’t be afraid of fair elections.
While this isn’t part of the post, I would add that we need to have equal protections for independents and third parties instead of rigged laws against them.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:27 am
Keep it as simple as possible. Anything beyond the repeal of the Cutback Amendment creates judicial risk.
And sign me up for the team.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:30 am
While we’re at it, let’s do a unicameral!
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:31 am
I remember the con-con being close in my mind because I was worried about opening the door to a ban on gay marriage. I ended up voting no.
Comment by atsuishin Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:41 am
There is not a thing I disagree with in this post. I think if you really want to cast blame, you should cast it with the people who drafted this proposal. It almost makes you wonder if they sabotaged themselves deliberately as to cast blame on the “entrenched interests.”
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 11:46 am
Rich, even if the dems got in front of it, Rauner/ILGOP would still say that it doesn’t go far enough or find another issue with it.
We saw it already during Franks’ remap (although the dems eventually stupidly killed it on a criss-cross).
Comment by Dee Lay Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:03 pm
===if the dems got in front of it, Rauner/ILGOP would still say that it doesn’t go far enough===
Not an excuse for inaction. Period.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:15 pm
I just don’t understand why the hoopla about this….Why not accept the ruling and move on. I’m sure it won’t be long till there’s something else to be all torqued off about!
Comment by cgo75 Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:16 pm
=Ask voters to list their 10 top concerns and I’ve never once seen remap reform.=
Tom must be talking to trees or something. Remap falls right behind “get rid of Madigan” in the collars where I work and its the same when I get back home in southern Illinois.
Comment by Big Muddy Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:17 pm
In this day and age, a Con-Con will lose on a referendum (even if desperately needed) on one factor — cost.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:29 pm
Putback the cutback!
(And Con-Con for merit selection of judges, at least in Cook County, as well as reapportionment reform.)
Comment by Keyrock Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:34 pm
they just need to bring back out Franks proposal to get ahead of this.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:35 pm
I really do not understand the benefit of a new mapping procedure. Hard work, funding, and a good candidate with an agreeable message for a given constituency should have as good a chance under the current map procedure. Under a Repub map, the House Dems were in the minority for only two years in the 1990s. Maps don’t create better legislators.
Comment by My New Handle Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:44 pm
Agree with Ducky regarding casting blame. The first time this was tried the Remap people were told what was legally and constitutionally wrong. Don’t they have lawyers who can read and follow along with the ruling?
Comment by West Side The Best Side Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:49 pm
I appreciate the sentiment of advocating for the repeal of the cutback amendment, but that would add 59 more state representatives in an era when every single editorial board, good government watchdog group, and “taxpayer advocate” group is screeching for less government elected offices, not more. You’d get into an argument of whether they should get pensions, same salary, etc. I just don’t see that getting 60% of the vote.
Comment by Conn Smythe Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:50 pm
===I appreciate the sentiment of advocating for the repeal of the cutback amendment===
Not sure it could survive US Constitutional muster now.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:52 pm
Well said. Plenty of legislative candidates blamed the decision on the judge played machine politics, but ignore the constraints of our constitution on ballot initiatives. You can certainly criticize those restrictions, but I take issue with people ignoring reality.
The argument that the GOP and Rauner wouldn’t accept a Dem remap proposal assumes they have the option of going through the ballot initiative process. This very court process may show it can’t be done, so they’d be just as wise to accept some sort of remap reform as Dems would be for offering one and putting votes behind it.
Comment by John Gregory (ex-IRN) Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 12:54 pm
@Conn Smythe, Correct. If I remember correctly, Pat Quinn successfully used that argument when he championed the Cutback Amendment in the 70’s.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 1:00 pm
===Not sure it could survive US Constitutional muster now.===
(Sigh) That has been a back of the head fear I’ve had, trying to reconcile possible solutions to a “Map”, but I’m glad it’s out there.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 1:01 pm
The question of constitutionality could just as easily been decided the other way, albeit not in a Cook County court. This routine has grown stale, as has the sheer lack of fundamental fairness employed in drawing up the serpentine maps that form our “compact” voting districts.
Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 1:05 pm
1. I think that multi-member districts would pass Constitutional muster more easily than single member districts.
2. We could shift to fewer districts. I would like 40 districts each with three members. But that preference is not a hard line.
3. Shift the Senate to multi-member districts also. Say 20 Senate districts.
4. I think we will get better legislators. The process drives each party to compete for the middle. Also, I thought Judy B Topinka said she would not have been elected from a singlemember district.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 1:30 pm
Sometimes good government initiatives actually help democrats in the long run. I know IL is not California (for many reasons) but if you take a look at the redistricting issue, it created more democrat-friendly areas.
Comment by Bleh Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 1:54 pm
== @Conn Smythe, Correct. If I remember correctly, Pat Quinn successfully used that argument when he championed the Cutback Amendment in the 70’s. ==
Except fewer state legislators causes each individual state legislator to be more powerful.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 2:20 pm
Talk about over stating an issue. People do not understand “fair maps” and of course they are going to say they want fair maps because opposition implies you are for “unfair maps” whatever that is. This is an insider debate that has very little impact on the trail.
Comment by Obamams Puppy Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 2:47 pm
=== People do not understand “fair maps”===
I think you’re underestimating people. Check the last Paul Simon poll.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 2:50 pm
Believe that Rauner has already announced that Redistricting Reform moves back to a top TA demand. How that plays out in our ongoing budget impasse, might be the bigger news here.
Plus, I might be stupid, but think the ISC still could go the other way.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 4:17 pm
If a clean plan that removes partisanship from redistricting could be ratified, then Democrats would retain their majority in a blue state.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 7:46 pm
If the language that was on the amendment site is the language that they put on the ballot, I’m against it. I want an explicit statement that State House and Senate district boundaries must include whole counties if at all possible. And that counties like Cook which encompass multiple House and Senate districts will have a maximum of one (1) district which extends out of the county.
Do it like Iowa does.
Comment by Odysseus Thursday, Jul 21, 16 @ 9:55 pm