Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Moody’s likes the TRS move, but says it’s still $1.5 billion short
Posted in:
* From a Peoria Journal Star editorial on remap reform…
Perhaps Quinn has a magic incantation to use on the Supreme Court, starting with using “simple, clean, and pristine” language impossible to poke constitutional holes through even by the most motivated. We just have three questions regarding the referendum Quinn hopes to get on the ballot in 2018, in time for the 2021 map:
Will Madigan still be speaker of the Illinois House? Will Madigan still be chairman of Illinois’ Democratic Party? Will the Supreme Court still have a Democratic majority?
If the answer is “yes” to all three, well, good luck to Quinn, but he’ll forgive us for not holding our breath on any map “reform” worthy of the word.
What that editorial board wants is not remap reform, but a Republican state. Talk about a “magic incantation.” Sheesh.
I mean, if the maps are drawn fairly and without political considerations, who’s to say that Madigan would definitely lose control of the House? This is, after all, a Democratic-leaning state, despite Gov. Rauner’s 2014 win. How are you gonna “fairly” draw lots of Republican districts in Chicago and the south suburbs? And, remember, Madigan kept the gavel eight out of ten years of a Republican-drawn map in the 1990s. So, if he can win under a relatively unfair, partisan map, how is he supposed to be guaranteed to lose under a fair, non-partisan map?
And how are fair legislative district maps gonna end Madigan’s chairmanship of the Democratic Party of Illinois or change the balance on the Illinois Supreme Court?
If this is the bar they’re setting, they should also thunder against the current fair map proposal.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:12 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Moody’s likes the TRS move, but says it’s still $1.5 billion short
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Remap reform has become a political symbol with emotional impact far beyond its practical potential.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:17 am
You might be misinterpreting the Editorial. I think they’re saying that if the Dems remain in control, which they will, then Quinn’s proposal will never get thru the courts regardless of its content.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:22 am
===Madigan kept the gavel eight out of ten years of a Republican-drawn map in the 1990s.===
This.
Like Bear Bryant, Madigan has the skills to beat “his with yours” and then turnaround and beat “yours with his”.
Maps are just the deciders how Madigan can do it.
Raunerites throughout Illinois are ALL the same. Their talking points and voting records say it’s so.
Madigan chooses candidates that fit districts, Raunerites “sell” candidates that sell out their districts.
“Simple”.
Rauner winning in 2018 will decide the maps, but that doesn’t mean Raunerites will control the state.
Quinn’s proposal doesn’t guarantee Raunerites controlling Illinois either.
Four out of five with a map designed to defeat you? Madigan evolved in his candidate choices as the demographics helped. The Republicans just got caught with old demographics and unrealistic candidates matching them.
Ball game.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:23 am
The 1991 legislative map was drawn by the Senate Republicans whose sole purpose was to ensure a republican Senate. Thus there was less consideration of Republican control of the House, hence the House only went Republican for 2 years.
Comment by D Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:29 am
walker, I’ve read that a dozen times and in no way do I see your possible angle.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:30 am
Agree with walker. I think the point was even in Quinn’s proposal there is room for a court majority to find a hyper-technical reason to reject it if that is what they want to do.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:31 am
D, that’s an interesting piece of spin, but not at all what I recall from the time or what I’ve read.
Keep in mind that if a grand total of just a few hundred votes had gone the other direction in two races (Radogno and Luechtefeld), the Senate Dems would’ve won the majority in 1996.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:32 am
The PJS is interested in reaching specific conclusions, not in changing the process.
That being the case, they’re better off taking the 50-50 shot that the GOP will draw the map under the current system after the census, assuming Rauner will be re-elected.
I suspect that’s what the GOP is going for, anyway, considering the strangely incompetent lawyering that went into the last two redistricting efforts, plus the failed term-limits ballot initiative.
Keep those issues alive for the elections.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:33 am
Proposing how the court may or may not rule on whatever Quinn, or anyone else, offers is pure speculation. The PJS has always, in my experience, been a haven for simple minds longing for simple solutions.
Comment by My New Handle Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:33 am
I interpret it the same way as walker and R.B.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:33 am
===…find a hyper-technical reason to reject…===
Is that “code” for obvious constitutionality questions?
If the language brought forth isn’t crisp and direct to the Constitutionality, it’s going to be shot down.
These proposals need to pass muster, no matter the number of signatures attached to the unconstitutional language.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:34 am
===If the answer is “yes” to all three, well, good luck to Quinn, but he’ll forgive us for not holding our breath on any map “reform” worthy of the word.===
How does that mean what the dissenters here say it means?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:36 am
Sure, they need to pass muster OW. But this court seems to go to great lengths to avoid saying how. If they have a way in mind, let’s see it. Instead we get a new nugget of insight every two years, and a whole new reason to shoot it down, which could continue to play out ad infinitum. My point is, if they don’t want it to pass muster, there are plenty of creative ways to make sure it won’t, no matter what it says.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:37 am
- D -,
I think I would’ve taken my chances with that map in the 1990s versus a Democratic map, no matter what alleged spin makes it “heavy” for one over the other.
Seriously, with that map, only 1 win, even after reassessing the ramifications of demographic changes?
That’s on Daniels’ Crew, not on a GOP Senate-leaning map.
With respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:38 am
===But this court seems to go to great lengths to avoid saying how.===
So Judicial Activism, legislating from the bench is “fine” here?
I think the seperation of powers needs to be consistent, not cafeteria-like.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:41 am
===If the answer is “yes” to all three, well, good luck to Quinn, but he’ll forgive us for not holding our breath on any map “reform” worthy of the word.===
How does that mean what the dissenters here say it means?
Because as long as Madigan has ‘control’ of the House and, presumably, the SC, no real reform will pass. It’s more of the “Because….Madigan” cynicism.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:41 am
-How does that mean what the dissenters here say it means?-
I think they are trying to say, perhaps inartfully, that if those three things are true, then they don’t think anything is getting through this particular Court.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:42 am
Rich: I didn’t say it was clear. LOL
Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:43 am
- Ron Burgundy -,
With respect,
Are you also saying there are no legal minds in Illinois skilled enough to clearly make a “clean” amendment, given the multiple rejections as a template?
I can’t believe the millions spent for this can’t attract a competent attorney, or attorneys, that understand where the last two failed?
Attorneys are victims to not understanding the constitution?
Again, with respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:44 am
=== then they don’t think anything is getting through this particular Court.===
I just don’t see it.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:49 am
I am not saying that, OW, but in return are you saying that elected judges are not capable of moving the bar constantly to reach the decisions they want to reach, no matter what the attorneys put before them? So that, perhaps, only one amendment passes muster in over 40 years?
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:50 am
=find a hyper-technical reason to reject it=
I’d suggest re-reading the decision and re-reading the dissent. Those that voted in the affirmative pointed to the language in the constitution. Those that dissented used political arguments. Was it a partisan decision sure. But you can’t call a strict reading of the constitution as “hyper-technical”. The law is the law. As much as I dislike Quinn and question his motives he’s at least acknowledging that.
Comment by pundent Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:52 am
Given the language and source, well, good luck to the reader, but we won’t hold our breath waiting for an interpretation worthy of repeating.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:58 am
===… are you saying that elected judges are not capable of moving the bar constantly to reach the decisions they want to reach, no matter what the attorneys put before them?===
I don’t see this or the recent decisions at moving any bar at any time. These rulings are technicalities or unknown language.
These decisions default to strict constitutional interpretation.
Nothing ambiguous by going strict constitutional.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:58 am
“aren’t”
Ugh. Apologies.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 9:59 am
Who paid for all the TV commercials for “independent” maps? You can bet anyone appointed to the “independent” group will have strings attached, and will owe political favors that will be called in.
What if Ken Dunkin is appointed? Would he be counted as a Democrat?
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:01 am
What other occupation would be best served by firing the experienced help and hiring all newbies? The concept eludes me. So let’s get a lot of inexperienced folks in there and everything will be better? Hard to justify with logic.
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:12 am
One last point on remap and then I’ll stop beating this dead horse.
All of the focus has been on General Assembly remap reform and none on the Congressional map making process. The GA map is a zero-sum game, every map has the same number of districts so if you add to one district you have to take from somewhere else. Partisans can only make one area stronger by making one area weaker, zero-sum.
Not so with the Congressional map. We currently have 18 CD’s, down from 19 a decade ago and down from 20 the decade before that. Partisans drawing the congressional map when it went from 20 districts to 19 or from 19 down to 18 had a tremendous advantage because it’s not zero sum. This is the least fair part of our map making process and it receives very little attention if any at all and was not part of either of the last two proposed referenda.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:13 am
Unclear on the concept?
Try unclear between the ears!
This editorial is full of so many holes and assumptions, it does a disservice to those of us in favor of reforms.
Biased foolishness that had I handed it in to Professor Green would have been forced down my throat in little pieces.
What if the folks there knew a little bit about how our government works before they let the rest of us know how little they know?
Did someone get paid for that?
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:13 am
Gerrymandering works by “packing” and “cracking”
In a successful gerrymander, the opposition party wins districts by large margins and loses districts by small margins while the dominant party wins everywhere by solid but not landslide margins.
Winning an uncontested race wastes votes.
Therefore, f the party in control gives itself large numbers of uncontested candidates that is evidence that the gerrymander is less efficient than it could be - in other words large numbers of Democrats running in uncontested House races is statistical evidence against effective gerrymandering rather than statistical evidence of gerrymandering.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:19 am
I think that what Rich Miller is trying to tell us is the entire remapping issue boils down to one word: “trust.”
No one trusts anyone else on this subject. And forget trusting Quinn or even giving him a chance on this, Quinn had the opportunity to throw that gerrymandered map back into the face of the legislature but instead, leapt to sign it like a good puppy dog rewarded with a belly rub for being obedient. Why wait to hear what he had to say? He has zero credibility on this subject these days.
And the reformers cannot be faulted for following the “roadmap” hinted at by Judge Mikva, because the Illinois Supreme Court was free to disregard or substitute their own roadmap. Roughly 600,000 signatures, millions spent and the result remains the status quo. The public, the pundits, the press, all feel that justice was swept out the back door with the rest of trash in the alley. I’ve read the 4-3 Supreme Court decision several times now and whatever “roadmap” exists in our Illinois Constitution is at best, speculative. The Supreme Court is dropping no hints here, nor is it required to. Justice Thomas’ sarcasm in his dissent resonates for that reason.
Madigan may very well remain “King” (as several columnists and editorial pages have called him) even with a “fair remap” but that is all speculation. The Democratic Party of Illinois may very well keep their veto proof majorities in both chambers with a fair remap, that that too is all speculation.
What is clear is that unfair maps of legislative districts and “gerrymandering” has been completely pinned on the Democratic Party of Illinois, Speaker Madigan (and as Chairman of the Party) and President Cullerton (to a lesser extent). Pinned may be the wrong word here, maybe “superglued” to their foreheads is more accurate.
All attempts at deflection (The Democrats would have won anyway) (Reformers stupidly packaged their last effort) (Republicans not running candidates in every single district) fail.
Gerrymandering and the current system equate to cheating. The Democrats here in Illinois can thank their national party for pinning the cheating label on Republicans in other states on redistricting gerrymandering. Gerrymandering = cheating. Gerrymandering = unfair. Gerrymandering = Democrats in Illinois.
Get over it Democrats. You’ve won. Celebrate your victory and stop being so damned defensive about it. Elected officials in Illinois pick their voters. Voters do not pick their elected officials. Why aren’t all the Democrats in this state celebrating this judicial victory right now?
Greg Hinz in Crain’s said it best: “Thank you very much, Illinois Supreme Court. We can get to democracy in some other century.”
So stop the deflection Democrats. Own up and embrace the status quo on mapping legislative districts. And revel in the glory of victory!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:19 am
Oh - Louis G Atsaves -
===Roughly 600,000 signatures, millions spent and the result remains the status quo.===
This is not a legal argument. Signatures do NOT equate constitutionality.
But… you already knew that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:25 am
Willy, I didn’t make a legal argument there. You are correct and thank you for pointing out the extremely obvious. It was a political argument.
Let the Democrats wear this one like a “Scarlet Letter” during their campaigns. They asked for it. They are all celebrating, right? Right? I see no flood of celebratory press releases from any of them praising the Illinois Supreme Court. All I see is some lame deflection attempts.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:35 am
- Louis G Atsaves -
The reason I can’t share in your mocking glee is exactly why I know Rauner is a phony in this process, maybe more phony than Quinn.
Rauner is willing to spend millions and point out, as you did, the political.
Yet, Rauner AND the Fair Maps Crew can’t find language that can pass muster?
It’s not about fair maps for Rauner, here, no, it’s about making fresh stale arguements, with no legal argument to make it possible.
When I see amendments that can pass at least the smell test, I’ll share your “glee” at “Blame… Madigan”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:45 am
There’s no way Illinois is ready for the Republicans to take over the House or Senate. I’m a fairly consistent GOP voter and even I can admit that would be disaster! I agree that’s what the PJ Star is angling toward and it’s the wrong move.
Comment by cgo75 Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:59 am
“Yet, Rauner AND the Fair Maps Crew can’t find language that can pass muster?”
If I am reading the majority opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court correctly, they cannot. Their “strict construction” of that provision seems to rule out any real efforts in the form of referendums. Thus, the sarcasm of Justice Thomas does resonate.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:02 am
===Their “strict construction” of that provision seems to rule out any real efforts in the form of referendums.===
I guess then none can.
Maybe Rauner can “cutback” then on finding an amendment?
Right? Exactly right.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:06 am
“Maybe Rauner can “cutback” then on finding an amendment?”
From what I’m reading, Rauner’s recent speeches statewide seem to be pointing towards “pressure your legislators” to support such reforms, and not “pressure the court.”
So, you may be right, although the Fair Maps group is asking for a rehearing, so I guess at the very least, the matter will remain in the news when the “rehearing denied” order comes out and the press rehashes the whole story again. Then there will be another press release or statement from the governor and . . . and . . . and . . . probably right around early voting time!
Either way, I don’t see this issue is going away. Voters are going to be constantly reminded of it one way or another. And gerrymandering = cheating and gerrymandering = Illinois Democrats . . . ouch!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:21 am
If only it was 1980 and the Cutback justices still comprised the Court. A bipartisan opinion with a bipartisan dissent.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:28 am
Rich and Oswego Willy, from conversations I had back in 91/92 with those involved, the Republican Senate staff ran the Republican remap operation and kept the House Republican staff basically out of the process. Also during that time and since the House Campaign operation was not as good as the Seante’s.
Comment by D Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:54 am
===Also during that time and since the House Campaign operation was not as good as the Seante’s.===
So…
It’s the map’s fault… that Daniels’ Crew wasn’t as solid?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 12:05 pm
Well, - Louis G Atsaves -
Don’t let it be said you’re for reform… over politics….
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 12:31 pm
” . . . Don’t let it be said you’re for reform… over politics…. . . .”
If such political action leads to reform, then let the end justify the means.
In the meantime, party on with your status quo pals!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 12:42 pm
===
If such political action leads to reform, then let the end justify the means.
In the meantime, party on with your status quo pals!===
“I’m frustrated too, but reforming Illinois is more important than a budget”
I know you want to hurt people… if it’s worth it… to you.
The status quo now is destroying social services and higher ed.
Do you want me to quote Crain’s on Rauner and Illinois is worse with him as governor.
Cheer the destruction of Illinois, - Louis G Atsaves -
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 12:49 pm
Nice deflections there Willy! When you lose the argument you change the subject. I’m impressed. Well, sort of, but not quite.
This is Illinois. Reform takes a back seat to the status quo. Always. The status quo is good. The status quo is what makes Illinois so exceptional. The status quo is why everyone living within its borders is thrilled and happiest as can be. No deficits. Everyone paid on time. No one from Illinois was ever left behind.
And then Bruce Rauner was elected and everything immediately fell apart! The status quo Democrats and their party leader called their greatest accomplishment the past 18 months was maintaining the status quo!
Gerrymandering = cheating = Democratic Party of Illinois.
So if repeat that line 100,000 times, do I get to change my name to “Lake Forest Louie”?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 1:25 pm
===This is Illinois. Reform takes a back seat to the status quo. Always. The status quo is good. The status quo is what makes Illinois so exceptional. The status quo is why everyone living within its borders is thrilled and happiest as can be. No deficits. Everyone paid on time. No one from Illinois was ever left behind.===
Crain’s…
“By nearly every measure, the state is worse off since Rauner took office.”
That Rauner, when he fails, he takes everyone down…
===And then Bruce Rauner was elected and everything immediately fell apart!===
Crain’s…
“By nearly every measure, the state is worse off since Rauner took office.”
Hmm.
===So if repeat that line 100,000 times, do I get to change my name to “Lake Forest Louie”?===
Up to you how you want your name.
But, you can’t change that…
“By nearly every measure, the state is worse off since Rauner took office.”
That repeated enough for ya?
The status quo now… Rauner, by nearly every measure Illinois is worse off since… Bruce Rauner.
So… you play politics, hurt people… hostages…
I’ll wait for language that’s constitutional, and hope that when it passes muster it’s not held hostage.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 1:42 pm
@Willy, you forgot to comment on this line: “. . . The status quo Democrats and their party leader called their greatest accomplishment the past 18 months was maintaining the status quo! . . .”
Or maybe you didn’t forget. It just doesn’t fit your narrative in deflecting away anything that doesn’t fit your narrative.
I await your words of wisdom.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 2:38 pm
Louis - You seem to grasp the larger point. I believe that most of us that post here, including OW, have recognized over the years all the problems associated with the status quo. At issue is Rauner’s deliberate and intentional efforts to make things worse and the notion that it’s somehow justifiable. The status quo was bad, Rauner purposely made it worse.
Comment by pundent Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 2:47 pm
Oh - Louis G Atsaves -, LOL…
Governors own.
You know that, “Pat Quinn failed”
I didn’t forget it, I was actually hoping you’d have Rauner play victim again.
Crain’s understands. You don’t. Unless it’s Pat Quinn.
Right on time, you played victim as I figured. “Thanks!”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 2:55 pm
It’s saying that, as long as Madigan is Chair of the party and the majority of justices are Democrats, the Court will not approve any meaningful reform. Basically, Madigan and the Supreme Court he controls won’t allow it.
Comment by Twirling Towards Freedom Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 3:27 pm
To bring this ALL back…
If the goal is the political until November, then a lot of people got duped in a purposely flawless-written amendment.
If you cheer this “failure” as leverage instead of feeling frustrated AND duped, you may be a Raunerite.
If you want something on the ballot, write it right the first time.
Superstars, those who never failed at anything ever, they aren’t failing here, except at failing to be an honest broker to bring change.
Lastly, get me a clean, constitutional amendment, then let’s talk about the merits. Discussing 569,000 signatures is disingenuous to the discussion of the constitutionality.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 3:27 pm
“flawed”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 3:29 pm
“What that editorial board wants is not remap reform, but a Republican state.” True dat.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 5:47 pm
Illinois will likely lose two more congressional reps in upcoming census. The state is losing population while most are growing.
Comment by Ron Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 10:09 pm