Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » This just in… Special session in September? *** Cullerton: “No commitment” *** Collins: “We’re not demanding a special session” *** May 29th adjournment? ***
* 12:03 pm - Reform Commission member Brad McMillan said today that he believes a special legislative session will be called this September to deal with the redistricting issue. Reformers (myself included) believe the General Assembly absolutely has to abandon its gerrymandering process and try something new, like computerized redistricting a la Iowa.
The quote…
“In conversations with Sen. Radogno and Sen. Cullerton and the Governor, they are looking to call a special legislative session the third week of September where we’ll focus exclusively on redistricting and getting it right.”
The video…
More as it comes in.
*** 12:11 pm *** The Senate Democrats’ spokesperson just called. Here’s her quote…
“We have not committed to a special session at this point.
“Our intent is to hold special hearings over the summer in the new Senate Redistricting Committee. Among the things to be discussed will be the Iowa model and other proposals. But that’s our intent at this point.”
*** 12:35 pm *** It sounds like McMillan talked out of turn. I just got off the phone with reform commission chairman Patrick Collins, who tried to make one thing clear…
“We’re not demanding a special session.”
Collins said that the governor “talked about a process that could include a special session,” but that neither Cullerton nor Radogno used that specific phrase.
Collins said that there just isn’t enough time before the end of May to take up the redistricting question, but that both Cullerton and Radogno committed to action over the summer, including a vote (possibly a committee vote).
More from Collins (rough quotes)…
We have had discussions with the govenor where he told us that he was supportive of a post May 31st session that focused on redistricting. Cullerton has told us that he is amenable to summer hearings that would focus exclusively on redistricting. Sen. Radogno the same day last week, in referencing a Cullerton conversation, said she was supportive of hearings on redistricting.
I’m currently awaiting a call-back from the governor’s press office.
*** 1:06 pm *** The guv’s office chose to send an e-mail which doesn’t really answer my question, but here you go for now…
Statement from the Governor’s Office:
Governor Quinn is committed to ethics reform in state government and fully looking into each of the Reform Commission’s proposals. Given we are in the remaining weeks of session, he is leaving the door open to working on the Commission’s recommendation on redistricting this fall.
*** 1:22 pm *** Senate President Cullerton’s office is confirming to reporters my subcriber-only story this morning about Cullerton’s desire to adjourn the Senate for the summer by May 29th. From Melissa Hahn’s Twitter page…
From Sen. Pres. Cullerton’s flak: ethics bills out Tues; budget, capital plan, ethics to start moving next wk; Senate adj. May [29th].
* 3:48 pm - From Senate GOP Leader Radogno’s office…
The Reform Commission and others believe there may not be time to address the redistricting reform issue during the next two weeks.
Given the complexities — and the public commitments that the entire report of the Illinois Reform Commission will be addressed — there is probably going to have to be summer hearings and a special session to deal with the specific issue of redistricting reform.
Leader Radogno has discussed the possibility of both with Senate President Cullerton and Governor Quinn. Both have been amendable to the idea – which will be discussed further as the legislative process moves forward.
There must be public hearings and a public vote on the proposal put forth by the Commission – sooner rather than later — to take the map-making responsibilities out of the hands of politicians.
Anything less than that cannot be acceptable to the Reform Commission or the public.
Color me skeptical on this one. Entrenched incumbents on both sides of the aisle have too much to lose.
Of course, all the more reason why it should be strongly considered.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 1:27 pm:
Reformers seem to be working against themselves here.
More competitive districts mean more lawmakers facing more expensive elections, giving deep-pocketed special interests more sway over the political process, and thus policy.
Do we REALLY want to put the insurance industry in the position of threatening Mary Flowers with a well-financed opponent every time she files a bill?
More competitive districts also means more “targets” on both sides of the aisle, meaning it’ll be LESS likely that we’ll ever get anything necessary but unpopular done.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 1:32 pm:
Finally, let me say that the redistricting proposal, like Quinn’s cutback amendment, seems to me to reflect Quinn’s deep-seated dislike for politicians in general and the legislature in particular.
He always seems to want to “clean house,” but we all know that nature abhors a vacuum.
Who fills the power vacuum when seasoned, experienced, and yes - powerful - lawmakers are swept from power?
Not “The People,” as Quinn would like us to believe.
Bureaucrats within state government and Special Interests outside of state government fill that void.
YDD, disagree. Gerrymandering is a crucial issue if we citizens ever expect decent significant changes in our represenation. This issue is one of the most important of all the reforms.
Comfortable, safe incumbents who are not really beholding to their constituents but instead to party or caucus leaders need to be replaced.
Same goes for limiting contributions to candidates either. Including what party leaders can receive and then dole back out.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 2:49 pm:
YDD-
We might as well name legislators for life, then. Perish the thought that anyone should have to defend their record, or to convince us they are the right person for the job, in a public forum.
There’s always the distinct possibility that Madigan is allowing the Senate Dems to float this redistricting idea, with the full intention of never letting it see the light of day.
YDD - the special interests already throw wads of cash at and exert significant influence over legislators. The redistricting proposal can be a critical component of meaningful reform, but it’s not a panacea.
The redistricting issue is more important than all the other ethics issues put together. There is no campaign finance reform that can’t be worked around by clever folks, but there is no workaround for actually being accountable to a logically defined competitive electorate, which is as compact as the local population density permits. The Iowa system does work; they do have relatively competitive elections and relatively clean government.
–Anything less than that cannot be acceptable to the Reform Commission or the public.–
As a member of the “public,” I don’t recall electing the “Reform Commission” to speak for me about anything. I have voted for members of the GA, though.
This commission is awfully full of themselves. It’s a democracy, folks. All are welcome to participate, but don’t presume your non-elected positions make you uniquely virtuous or wise.
- this old hack - Saturday, May 16, 09 @ 11:43 am:
the way it currently is, there are a handfull of competitive districts. if there is computerized redistricting, you will have many more competitive district, thereby increasing, rather than decrasing, the amount of money in politics.
Again, another likely outcome that the Collins Commission (none of whom have spent a day in state government) has not thought of.
- Just Wondering - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 12:16 pm:
Rich
Do you know if there is some webpage or access on a state website to these special hearings?? I really would like to view the entire mtg.
Thanks
- 2ConfusedCrew - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 12:19 pm:
Looks like the Quinn Commissioners want to be lifers.
- Ghost - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 12:42 pm:
Along with redistricting they need to visit voting by mail like Oregon.
- 2ConfusedCrew - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 12:45 pm:
How about voting on McMillan’s state central committee?
- The Doc - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 1:15 pm:
Color me skeptical on this one. Entrenched incumbents on both sides of the aisle have too much to lose.
Of course, all the more reason why it should be strongly considered.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 1:27 pm:
Reformers seem to be working against themselves here.
More competitive districts mean more lawmakers facing more expensive elections, giving deep-pocketed special interests more sway over the political process, and thus policy.
Do we REALLY want to put the insurance industry in the position of threatening Mary Flowers with a well-financed opponent every time she files a bill?
More competitive districts also means more “targets” on both sides of the aisle, meaning it’ll be LESS likely that we’ll ever get anything necessary but unpopular done.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 1:32 pm:
Finally, let me say that the redistricting proposal, like Quinn’s cutback amendment, seems to me to reflect Quinn’s deep-seated dislike for politicians in general and the legislature in particular.
He always seems to want to “clean house,” but we all know that nature abhors a vacuum.
Who fills the power vacuum when seasoned, experienced, and yes - powerful - lawmakers are swept from power?
Not “The People,” as Quinn would like us to believe.
Bureaucrats within state government and Special Interests outside of state government fill that void.
- Macbeth - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 1:44 pm:
A year without a threatened shutdown would be welcome.
- RobRoy - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 2:01 pm:
YDD, disagree. Gerrymandering is a crucial issue if we citizens ever expect decent significant changes in our represenation. This issue is one of the most important of all the reforms.
Comfortable, safe incumbents who are not really beholding to their constituents but instead to party or caucus leaders need to be replaced.
Same goes for limiting contributions to candidates either. Including what party leaders can receive and then dole back out.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 2:49 pm:
YDD-
We might as well name legislators for life, then. Perish the thought that anyone should have to defend their record, or to convince us they are the right person for the job, in a public forum.
- Lincoln Parker - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 2:50 pm:
Is it really realistic to do the budget & capital plan in 2 weeks? It would be great if it gets done, but I’m not holding my breath.
- The Doc - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 2:53 pm:
There’s always the distinct possibility that Madigan is allowing the Senate Dems to float this redistricting idea, with the full intention of never letting it see the light of day.
YDD - the special interests already throw wads of cash at and exert significant influence over legislators. The redistricting proposal can be a critical component of meaningful reform, but it’s not a panacea.
- The Fox - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 3:29 pm:
YDD looks like you’re tankin’ for Madigan if you are not already gorging at the p.r. trough.
- jake - Friday, May 15, 09 @ 3:54 pm:
The redistricting issue is more important than all the other ethics issues put together. There is no campaign finance reform that can’t be worked around by clever folks, but there is no workaround for actually being accountable to a logically defined competitive electorate, which is as compact as the local population density permits. The Iowa system does work; they do have relatively competitive elections and relatively clean government.
- wordslinger - Saturday, May 16, 09 @ 10:20 am:
–Anything less than that cannot be acceptable to the Reform Commission or the public.–
As a member of the “public,” I don’t recall electing the “Reform Commission” to speak for me about anything. I have voted for members of the GA, though.
This commission is awfully full of themselves. It’s a democracy, folks. All are welcome to participate, but don’t presume your non-elected positions make you uniquely virtuous or wise.
- this old hack - Saturday, May 16, 09 @ 11:43 am:
the way it currently is, there are a handfull of competitive districts. if there is computerized redistricting, you will have many more competitive district, thereby increasing, rather than decrasing, the amount of money in politics.
Again, another likely outcome that the Collins Commission (none of whom have spent a day in state government) has not thought of.