* The League of Women Voters has set the bar pretty high for reforming the way legislative redistricting is done in Illinois…
Both [Jan Czarnik, executive director of the League of Women Voters] and Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno agreed any proposal that would allow the legislature to draw the map would not be a genuine step toward reform.
But the Democratic chairman of a committee overseeing redistricting reform said the push announced Thursday goes around the existing bipartisan efforts to reach a compromise on the controversial topic.
“I was quite frankly offended and taken aback because this was being put forward as reform,” said state Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat. […]
Jan Czarnik, executive director of the League of Women Voters, disputed Raoul’s contention that he’d somehow been left out of their plans. She said she’d met with Raoul shortly after he’d been put in charge of the redistricting committee and told him the league was considering a public petition drive.
Czarnik said Raoul’s Republican counterpart on the committee contacted her, but Raoul never did. “That is the fact of the matter,” Czarnik said.
Ummm. Raoul is the chairman of the committee, so perhaps a bit more diligence on the League’s part was in order.
* Raoul also pointed out to reporters that the League’s redistricting plan was actually drafted by a couple of lawyers on the Senate Republican staff, but that didn’t make anybody’s coverage. Watch the IL Statehouse News video…
If you watched the video, you know that Raoul also talked about a lack of protection for minority districts. Here’s more on that topic…
[Raoul] said he believes the plan that Czarnik and Republican state senate leaders are pushing does not take minority areas of the state into account.
He said changing the wording of the Illinois Voting Rights Act to prevent lawmakers from drawing boundaries is not enough. He said the legislation should protect areas of Illinois where a boundary change could smother minority influence.
“Instead of putting specific voting rights language into Illinois statute, we would protect communities of interest, we would say you have to be compliant with federal law,” Raoul said. “There would be a certain priority of principles that would have to be observed.”
“I couldn’t get any specific answers as to what minority groups had been consulted for this plan that’s supposedly so protective of diversity. It would seem that, if we are speaking transparency and openness, that such groups would be consulted before the proverbial train had left the proverbial station,” he said.
Czarnik said that Raoul did not follow up with her organization on the issue after the Senate committee hearings. However, Raoul said that when he asked about the plan in December, after hearing about it in news reports, he was told that it was too late to make any changes.
The proposals would remove the map-drawing power from the legislature and put it into the hands of a nine-member advisory commission.
Under the plan, the four legislative leaders would each choose two members to serve on the committee. Those members would choose a ninth member to head the commission.
Lawmakers could approve the commission-drawn map with a two-thirds vote. If that doesn’t happen, the chief justice of the Supreme Court and a justice from a different party would choose a “Special Master” to make a decision by Sept. 30.
That’s flipping around the current system, where lawmakers and the governor take the first shot. It then heads to a special committee and even to a name drawn out of a hat to end the political dispute.
Todd Maisch, a lobbyist for the Illinois Chamber of Commerce said the history of redistricting usually falls in favor of the incumbent. Since the last legislative remapping 10 years ago, less than 3 percent of elections were won by the challenger, Maisch said.
“Under this map, when you look at the fact that tested incumbents have won 536 elections and 11 losses…,” he said. “That is really compelling data.”
I don’t like the current status quo way of allowing the legislature to choose us, instead of allowing us to choose the legislature.
We need to do this differently.
Mr. Raoul has put a lot of effort into this job, and while it doesn’t seem fair that he’s questioned about this now, he has to be aware of how controversial this procedure is, and shouldn’t act surprise.
As to protecting minority districts - well, that just in and of itself a questionable tactic that should change. We know how people vote. If we don’t appreciate being grouped by our political party preferences, then why should it ever be acceptable to be grouped by race?
Good heavens Chicago Democrats - take a look in the Oval Office to see how far we’ve come from that way of thinking!
I am happy to report I collected 137 signatures last night for the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. If Kwame doesn’t like it, I’m sorry. But I can’t reasonably expect, after watching Illinois politics for the last ten years, that the Democrat majority will put forth any proposal that is either fair or jeopardizes in any way their political power. I mean seriously people, these are the Illinois Democrats we’re talking about here.
===The proposals would remove the map-drawing power from the legislature and put it into the hands of a nine-member advisory commission.
Under the plan, the four legislative leaders would each choose two members to serve on the committee. Those members would choose a ninth member to head the commission.===
Seems to me this is hardly different than the current process, it simply changes the names of the people involved. I anticipate a lot of 4-4 votes before a 9th member is picked.
Maybe they can add a provision that after a series of tied votes, each side then draws a name out of a hat to be the 9th member. Clearly they’d compromise before risking a winner-takes-all result? (snark).
In all seriousness, how is this new proposal an improvement over the current process?
Which only allows the legislature to create a scoring system. Anyone, INCLUDING the public, can submit a map. It also requires using competitiveness as a criteria.
I can’t speak for others but I’d be happy to work with anyone on building legislative districts where voters pick the representatives instead of politicians picking their voters.
We’ve a proposal, petitions are being circulated and I see no alternative out there. Sen. Raoul should put his proposal forward before he criticizes other citizens for taking action.
Oh this is gonna be fun to watch…I think the LWV has a ton a of credibility with the General Public…Kwame is a good fellow, but is also a good soldier for business as usual…I’d tread carefully if I were him…
Yeah John Bambanek you are supporting something that has NO chance of happening. All you are doing is standing in the way of something that actually has a chance.
Back in ‘08, the LWV was saying the state constitution was fine and dandy. Now they want an amendment because, lo and behold, the constitution is as screwed up as I and many others kept saying back then. Kinda burns me up.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:17 am:
Red herrings — if there was a voting rights act problem or the Iowa law would have been struck down long ago. Kwame Raoul is just trying to blow smoke.
I’ve signed already, but what the LWV needs most is money to hire professional canvassers to gather petitions.
The League and ICPR are being used by Republicans’ by allowing them to reframe their efforts to get a more favorable map as “Reform.”
The redistricting process is ripe for change. But the most important factor in my mind is ensuring that communities receive effective representation. That is the purpose.
What harms that goal the most, especially in urban and semi-urban areas, are districts that are drawn so squiggly that the average voter doesn’t have a good sense of who represents them in Springfield - an already little-noticed office.
When your votes and activities are not well-known by your constituents, you can get a little complacent, and your inner evils can come out more easily.
If you have that goal in mind when you talk about redistricting, it isn’t just redistricting reform, it is reform in general.
Like Heet 101, I disagree with Kwame. Race shouldn’t be considered in drawing the districts. Each candidate should receive votes because of his or her ideas and experience. No one should consider skin color.
It’s too bad this has turned into a GOP plan. I would have liked the Democrats to jump on board too. It’s a good idea to not let legislators draw thier own maps.
Plus, correct me if I am wrong - this doesn’t appear to even address congressional redistricting…
- Jonathan Goldman - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:38 am:
One thing that needs to be addressed in either the status quo or the Fair Map proposal is the timeline. As noted above, the Fair Map proposal requires a decision by September 30th, and I believe that the current process calls for a decision about a week later.
With our early primary, the petition passing period starts in early August. This year the last day to submit petitions was Nov. 2nd. Either way, there would only be about one month to circulate nominating petitions before filing, since it’s kind of hard to pass petitions when you don’t know what district you’re in.
Does anyone know how this proposal compares to the Iowa plan?
I understand that works pretty well.
I also understand that the redistricting problem could be solved by statute setting criteria which the maps must meet, written in such a way that minimizes gerrymandering.
The same approval process would be used, just the map drawing rules and restrictions would be better defined such that a court would have an apolitical basis for ruling whether a given map is legal or not.
Anyone know if this is being pursued?
Also, considering that Illinois is perhaps the most segregated state in the country, there should be few “minorty representation” problems if roughly rectangular districts were formed.
If you want to see the extreme of gerrymandering, look at the 35th state house district that created for Kevin Joyce. It’s about the worst I’ve seen, and I vote in that district.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:56 am:
Rich is correct, Iowa’s plan of having a computer draw districts doesn’t run afoul of the Voting Rights Act - which says boundaries can’t be drawn in a way that diminishes minority representation - because minority representation isn’t an issue in Iowa, which is about as white as a glass of Vitamin D Milk.
Furthermore, what the League of Women Voters, Republicans, and just about everybody else continues to ignore is that the Iowa redistricting scheme requires legislative approval.
The computer draws three successive maps in Iowa, and the legislature votes on each one. But if the vote all three down, the legislature draws the map.
I’ve got a strong sense that everything the League of Women Voter’s knows about the Iowa scheme has been gleaned from the Tribune editorials. Which have been consistently wrong on this point. Which is not surprising, since the editorials are based on GOP talking points.
Here’s another reason I have a big problem with the Iowa scheme. One of its overarching goals is compactness…that is to say, legislative districts are discouraged from crossing municipal boundaries or county boundaries.
What you end up with in effect then is more lawmakers who only represent the interests of the City of Chicago, or ONLY represent the interests of suburban Cook. Or ONLY represent the interests of Lake County. And fewer lawmakers who bridge the divide between Chicago and suburban Cook, or suburban Cook and the collar counties.
The end result is a more partisanly-divided, more parochially divided legislature just at a time when we need a General Assembly that can bridge those divides to solve the big problems facing Illinois.
BTW, like Illinois, state spending in Iowa has grown by more than 40% this decade, and despite across-the-board cuts of 10% implemented by Executive order, Iowa still faces a $1.4 billion budget deficit.
So tell me, what exactly does redistricting “reform” get us?
===The League and ICPR are being used by Republicans’ by allowing them to reframe their efforts to get a more favorable map as “Reform.”===
Bingo.
Look where the money, minuscule as it may be, is coming from (Stephens and the GOP leadership). Look where the political support is coming from (GOP). Look who wrote the amendment (lawyers for the GOP).
The ILGOP saw how easily the reform groups can be played after watching the campaign finance deal be struck last session. Now they want their turn and I can’t really blame them.
- Jonathan Goldman - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:07 pm:
YDD -
For what it’s worth, the comparison to Iowa was addressed during the press conference, and it was clearly stated that the Fair Map proposal is NOT the same plan as in Iowa, specifically because of the point you raise. Under Fair Map, if the legislature votes down two proposals, the commission draws the map without legislative approval. This was pointed out by the LWV speaker.
I would strongly disagree with you about the benefits of “compactness” and “nested” districts (not crossing boundaries.
If this election showed us anything, it is that voter awareness is very low regarding their representatives in Springfield.
People identify far more with their county, city, and school district than any legislative boundaries. Those other boundaries have meaning - whereas current legislative boundaries do not.
I say - make it easier for voters to know who represents them. It will improve citizen participation.
This is not about taking the advantage from one party to another, but instead giving people back their advantage in having government that serves them—and not the other way around.Contrary to popular belief, the role of Senators, Congressmen and women is not to be reelected—it is to represent their constituents. And the Fair Map Amendment would make our representatives more accountable for what they do here in the capital and within their own districts.
The system proposed in the Fair Map Amendment provides for the public to submit maps, as well as, making meetings of the committee open and transparent to the public.
But of course, that law was written when the US was 90% white, 10% black.
Now, with mass immigration, you can’t really expect that standard to hold up. No reason why minority districts should be any more protected than white ones.
This state was blanantly gerrymandered - it was so ridicious I literally could walk three blocks on one street in Springfield and enter three seperate districts and neither of them were on a corner of another - they were PARALLEL! The worst was the one zigzagging from the Quad Cities to Decatur to prop up left-wing hack Lane Evans who couldn’t get elected in a square shaped district.
It provides public meetings, yes. But as we saw with the Gitmo hearings, public meetings just means politicians talking, not them actually taking anything the public has to say to account.
Can you point the clause that allows the public to submit maps? Did I miss that?
any member of the GA or general public may submit a plan to be considered by the Commission and for public viewing. All documents submitted to or plans considered by the Commission shall be made available to the public within a reasonable time period.
Ok I did miss it. But nothing requires that they consider it in any way. Mind you, my day job is finding ways to stop criminals, so my first perspective at look at things is how to get around them.
Both Fair Map and the existing constitution restrict ANY litigation around redistricting to ONLY the Attorney General (save federal law, of course).
Put-Back requires that every map be scored, even those submitted by public. If they don’t, anyone can go to court.
While my approach might be somewhat cynical, I think Springfield has merited the approach of leaving them no “creative” means of getting around restrictions.
This is true JB, but there are certain times to be cynical and certain times to be practical, while it is nice to require all maps be scored the practicality of this when deadlines loom is something that must be taken into account
The question that hasn’t been addressed is how many districts will be “put in play” if this proposal is law. The vast majority of Dem districts will stay Democratic. The vast majority of Repub districts will stay Republican.
Just a few more districts will be competitive in the general election.
The biggest effect of the new map plan is that incumbents may be put in the same districts. that is what the hue and cry is all about. Frankly a shake up of incumbents every ten years in itself would be worthwhile.
The Voting Rights Act doesn’t guarantee that districts which have elected minorities, but are not majority minority citizen districts have to protect those incumbents. Illinois has met the intent of the Voting Rights Act already.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:24 pm:
First, whatever the LWV said in the past, the state con’s plan IS messed up. To that and to George’s point: the 4th Congressional district has nothing to do with neighborhood boundaries *other* than the coincidental ethnic makeup of a such boundaries.
To Jonathan’s point: Fine, but the Dems have the power to pass the Iowa plan if they want — if they do, I’ll vote against the fair map plan in the fall referendum, but I sure want it there as a backup. Mike Madigan promised this would be taken up last fall — obviously the fear of this going to the voters has put the fear of Democracy in them. Does anyone really expect that this commission would ultimately spit in the face of their guidelines and produce a twisted/contorted mess like what we have now?
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:26 pm:
PS — point on Iowa’s lack of voting rights issues taken.
Point about dates is taken, however, alot of that can be done electronically. More importantly, the reason the deadlines loom is because moving the primary up two months put the deadline under any proposal and the current constitution about a week before petitions are DUE.
Right now, politicians only know what district they’ll be in about a week and change before they have to file their petitions.
With all of the technology we have at our disposal, why can’t there simply be a computer program created that specifies the number of districts, the number of people in each district, the maximum area of a district, the district area has to be logical in shape and size (not convoluted as in some cases now), etc. Push the button and Voila! If there’s currently a Legislator in the new district, great, if not, someone will run. If they are Dem or Rep - who cares - it will work out for the people in the district during the election. Would save tons of time and money!
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:06 pm:
Consider This: Excellent point — even a computer generated districting that created some unfortunate splits (say a small town part in one district part in another — though I think that happens sometimes — defintitely with counties) would be far preferable to the voter de-powerment of drawing districts for the sole sake of predetermined election outcomes.
In my humble opinion, I believe a solid redistricting plan is needed, and the Put-Back Amendment has a good plan for that. However, I believe the expansive scope of JB’s amendment is more susceptible to legal challenges, and the brevity of the Fair Map Amendment is not.
As far as legal challenges, I assume you mean challenging whether it’s constitutional to stay on the ballot?
Simply put, Fair Map WILL be thrown off the ballot for being unconstitutional. There is no structural change. 100% chance of fail there.
Put-Back has a better shot because I wrote it with the case law in mind. I worked with attorneys who argued on BOTH sides of previous amendment efforts and the ensuing litigation and they agreed I’ll probably get by (there are no certainties).
Politically speaking, of course, having a simple one-issue amendment is ideal. Unfortunately, the constitution doesn’t allow that.
The one thing you need to keep in mind when talking about the Illinois Constitution is that it was written to protect government from the people.
IIRC, the LWV didn’t think the constitution was fine and dandy, only that the process of opening the entire thing up would be expensive and there was no guarantee that it would generate any reform. Instead, the better option was to use the amendment process, and that’s what they are doing.
So. If the goal is to keep Mike Madigan in power and keep gridlock in Springfield for as long as possible, then by all means, oppose the amendment.
I wonder if Cross and Radogno are truly committed to the principle of reform. A way to find out is to ask them if they’ll commit to voluntarily abide by this proposal in the event Brady is elected and the GOP wins the draw!
- VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:28 am:
I don’t like the current status quo way of allowing the legislature to choose us, instead of allowing us to choose the legislature.
We need to do this differently.
Mr. Raoul has put a lot of effort into this job, and while it doesn’t seem fair that he’s questioned about this now, he has to be aware of how controversial this procedure is, and shouldn’t act surprise.
As to protecting minority districts - well, that just in and of itself a questionable tactic that should change. We know how people vote. If we don’t appreciate being grouped by our political party preferences, then why should it ever be acceptable to be grouped by race?
Good heavens Chicago Democrats - take a look in the Oval Office to see how far we’ve come from that way of thinking!
- fedup dem - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:38 am:
Sen. Raoul has a valid concern. The proposal being put forth could run aground in federal court as violating the Federal Voting Rights Act.
- heet101 - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:44 am:
I am happy to report I collected 137 signatures last night for the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. If Kwame doesn’t like it, I’m sorry. But I can’t reasonably expect, after watching Illinois politics for the last ten years, that the Democrat majority will put forth any proposal that is either fair or jeopardizes in any way their political power. I mean seriously people, these are the Illinois Democrats we’re talking about here.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:46 am:
===The proposals would remove the map-drawing power from the legislature and put it into the hands of a nine-member advisory commission.
Under the plan, the four legislative leaders would each choose two members to serve on the committee. Those members would choose a ninth member to head the commission.===
Seems to me this is hardly different than the current process, it simply changes the names of the people involved. I anticipate a lot of 4-4 votes before a 9th member is picked.
Maybe they can add a provision that after a series of tied votes, each side then draws a name out of a hat to be the 9th member. Clearly they’d compromise before risking a winner-takes-all result? (snark).
In all seriousness, how is this new proposal an improvement over the current process?
- wordslinger - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:47 am:
Is the League in cahoots with the GOP? That’s a non-starter.
- Niles Township - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:48 am:
I’m a Dem, and I’m supporting these efforts. Sorry, Kwame, your on the wrong side of the fence on this one.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:52 am:
I’m supporting an actual redistrincting and legislative reform…
Put-Back Amendment
Which only allows the legislature to create a scoring system. Anyone, INCLUDING the public, can submit a map. It also requires using competitiveness as a criteria.
- Greg B. - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:54 am:
I can’t speak for others but I’d be happy to work with anyone on building legislative districts where voters pick the representatives instead of politicians picking their voters.
We’ve a proposal, petitions are being circulated and I see no alternative out there. Sen. Raoul should put his proposal forward before he criticizes other citizens for taking action.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:59 am:
Oh this is gonna be fun to watch…I think the LWV has a ton a of credibility with the General Public…Kwame is a good fellow, but is also a good soldier for business as usual…I’d tread carefully if I were him…
- heet101 - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:01 am:
Yeah John Bambanek you are supporting something that has NO chance of happening. All you are doing is standing in the way of something that actually has a chance.
- The Doc - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:02 am:
I’m cynical and highly skeptical that the redistricting process will be reformed in any meaningful way, simply because MJM is strongly opposed.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:06 am:
Back in ‘08, the LWV was saying the state constitution was fine and dandy. Now they want an amendment because, lo and behold, the constitution is as screwed up as I and many others kept saying back then. Kinda burns me up.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:17 am:
Red herrings — if there was a voting rights act problem or the Iowa law would have been struck down long ago. Kwame Raoul is just trying to blow smoke.
I’ve signed already, but what the LWV needs most is money to hire professional canvassers to gather petitions.
Rich, stay on this!
- George - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:19 am:
The League and ICPR are being used by Republicans’ by allowing them to reframe their efforts to get a more favorable map as “Reform.”
The redistricting process is ripe for change. But the most important factor in my mind is ensuring that communities receive effective representation. That is the purpose.
What harms that goal the most, especially in urban and semi-urban areas, are districts that are drawn so squiggly that the average voter doesn’t have a good sense of who represents them in Springfield - an already little-noticed office.
When your votes and activities are not well-known by your constituents, you can get a little complacent, and your inner evils can come out more easily.
If you have that goal in mind when you talk about redistricting, it isn’t just redistricting reform, it is reform in general.
- Conservative Veteran - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:20 am:
Like Heet 101, I disagree with Kwame. Race shouldn’t be considered in drawing the districts. Each candidate should receive votes because of his or her ideas and experience. No one should consider skin color.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:21 am:
===or the Iowa law would have been struck down long ago===
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not believe there are any minority voting rights issues in Iowa.
- Ahoy - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:21 am:
It’s too bad this has turned into a GOP plan. I would have liked the Democrats to jump on board too. It’s a good idea to not let legislators draw thier own maps.
- George - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:22 am:
Rich - its soybean farmers vs. the corn farmers.
- George - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:25 am:
Plus, correct me if I am wrong - this doesn’t appear to even address congressional redistricting…
- Jonathan Goldman - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:38 am:
One thing that needs to be addressed in either the status quo or the Fair Map proposal is the timeline. As noted above, the Fair Map proposal requires a decision by September 30th, and I believe that the current process calls for a decision about a week later.
With our early primary, the petition passing period starts in early August. This year the last day to submit petitions was Nov. 2nd. Either way, there would only be about one month to circulate nominating petitions before filing, since it’s kind of hard to pass petitions when you don’t know what district you’re in.
- PalosParkBob - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:55 am:
Does anyone know how this proposal compares to the Iowa plan?
I understand that works pretty well.
I also understand that the redistricting problem could be solved by statute setting criteria which the maps must meet, written in such a way that minimizes gerrymandering.
The same approval process would be used, just the map drawing rules and restrictions would be better defined such that a court would have an apolitical basis for ruling whether a given map is legal or not.
Anyone know if this is being pursued?
Also, considering that Illinois is perhaps the most segregated state in the country, there should be few “minorty representation” problems if roughly rectangular districts were formed.
If you want to see the extreme of gerrymandering, look at the 35th state house district that created for Kevin Joyce. It’s about the worst I’ve seen, and I vote in that district.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:56 am:
Rich is correct, Iowa’s plan of having a computer draw districts doesn’t run afoul of the Voting Rights Act - which says boundaries can’t be drawn in a way that diminishes minority representation - because minority representation isn’t an issue in Iowa, which is about as white as a glass of Vitamin D Milk.
Furthermore, what the League of Women Voters, Republicans, and just about everybody else continues to ignore is that the Iowa redistricting scheme requires legislative approval.
The computer draws three successive maps in Iowa, and the legislature votes on each one. But if the vote all three down, the legislature draws the map.
I’ve got a strong sense that everything the League of Women Voter’s knows about the Iowa scheme has been gleaned from the Tribune editorials. Which have been consistently wrong on this point. Which is not surprising, since the editorials are based on GOP talking points.
Here’s another reason I have a big problem with the Iowa scheme. One of its overarching goals is compactness…that is to say, legislative districts are discouraged from crossing municipal boundaries or county boundaries.
What you end up with in effect then is more lawmakers who only represent the interests of the City of Chicago, or ONLY represent the interests of suburban Cook. Or ONLY represent the interests of Lake County. And fewer lawmakers who bridge the divide between Chicago and suburban Cook, or suburban Cook and the collar counties.
The end result is a more partisanly-divided, more parochially divided legislature just at a time when we need a General Assembly that can bridge those divides to solve the big problems facing Illinois.
BTW, like Illinois, state spending in Iowa has grown by more than 40% this decade, and despite across-the-board cuts of 10% implemented by Executive order, Iowa still faces a $1.4 billion budget deficit.
So tell me, what exactly does redistricting “reform” get us?
This is all a smoke-and-mirrors distraction.
- just sayin' - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:57 am:
Tom Cross is such a screw up, it won’t matter how the lines are drawn. The house gop caucus will still keep losing ground.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:00 pm:
===everything the League of Women Voter’s knows about the Iowa scheme has been gleaned from the Tribune editorials===
Heh.
- Obamarama - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:01 pm:
===The League and ICPR are being used by Republicans’ by allowing them to reframe their efforts to get a more favorable map as “Reform.”===
Bingo.
Look where the money, minuscule as it may be, is coming from (Stephens and the GOP leadership). Look where the political support is coming from (GOP). Look who wrote the amendment (lawyers for the GOP).
The ILGOP saw how easily the reform groups can be played after watching the campaign finance deal be struck last session. Now they want their turn and I can’t really blame them.
- Jonathan Goldman - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:07 pm:
YDD -
For what it’s worth, the comparison to Iowa was addressed during the press conference, and it was clearly stated that the Fair Map proposal is NOT the same plan as in Iowa, specifically because of the point you raise. Under Fair Map, if the legislature votes down two proposals, the commission draws the map without legislative approval. This was pointed out by the LWV speaker.
- George - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
YDD -
I would strongly disagree with you about the benefits of “compactness” and “nested” districts (not crossing boundaries.
If this election showed us anything, it is that voter awareness is very low regarding their representatives in Springfield.
People identify far more with their county, city, and school district than any legislative boundaries. Those other boundaries have meaning - whereas current legislative boundaries do not.
I say - make it easier for voters to know who represents them. It will improve citizen participation.
- Springfield-DB - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
This is not about taking the advantage from one party to another, but instead giving people back their advantage in having government that serves them—and not the other way around.Contrary to popular belief, the role of Senators, Congressmen and women is not to be reelected—it is to represent their constituents. And the Fair Map Amendment would make our representatives more accountable for what they do here in the capital and within their own districts.
- Springfield-DB - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:20 pm:
@ John Bambenek
The system proposed in the Fair Map Amendment provides for the public to submit maps, as well as, making meetings of the committee open and transparent to the public.
- Pat Collins - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:30 pm:
Minority voting rights
But of course, that law was written when the US was 90% white, 10% black.
Now, with mass immigration, you can’t really expect that standard to hold up. No reason why minority districts should be any more protected than white ones.
Might as well fight that fight now.
- Segatari - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:37 pm:
This state was blanantly gerrymandered - it was so ridicious I literally could walk three blocks on one street in Springfield and enter three seperate districts and neither of them were on a corner of another - they were PARALLEL! The worst was the one zigzagging from the Quad Cities to Decatur to prop up left-wing hack Lane Evans who couldn’t get elected in a square shaped district.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:42 pm:
Springfield-DB:
It provides public meetings, yes. But as we saw with the Gitmo hearings, public meetings just means politicians talking, not them actually taking anything the public has to say to account.
Can you point the clause that allows the public to submit maps? Did I miss that?
- Springfield-DB - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:55 pm:
John Bambenek
Sec. 3, Clause c:
any member of the GA or general public may submit a plan to be considered by the Commission and for public viewing. All documents submitted to or plans considered by the Commission shall be made available to the public within a reasonable time period.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:02 pm:
Ok I did miss it. But nothing requires that they consider it in any way. Mind you, my day job is finding ways to stop criminals, so my first perspective at look at things is how to get around them.
Both Fair Map and the existing constitution restrict ANY litigation around redistricting to ONLY the Attorney General (save federal law, of course).
Put-Back requires that every map be scored, even those submitted by public. If they don’t, anyone can go to court.
While my approach might be somewhat cynical, I think Springfield has merited the approach of leaving them no “creative” means of getting around restrictions.
Yesterday’s “joint caucus” is a case-in-point.
- Springfield-DB - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:15 pm:
This is true JB, but there are certain times to be cynical and certain times to be practical, while it is nice to require all maps be scored the practicality of this when deadlines loom is something that must be taken into account
- Tom Joad - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:15 pm:
The question that hasn’t been addressed is how many districts will be “put in play” if this proposal is law. The vast majority of Dem districts will stay Democratic. The vast majority of Repub districts will stay Republican.
Just a few more districts will be competitive in the general election.
The biggest effect of the new map plan is that incumbents may be put in the same districts. that is what the hue and cry is all about. Frankly a shake up of incumbents every ten years in itself would be worthwhile.
The Voting Rights Act doesn’t guarantee that districts which have elected minorities, but are not majority minority citizen districts have to protect those incumbents. Illinois has met the intent of the Voting Rights Act already.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:24 pm:
First, whatever the LWV said in the past, the state con’s plan IS messed up. To that and to George’s point: the 4th Congressional district has nothing to do with neighborhood boundaries *other* than the coincidental ethnic makeup of a such boundaries.
To Jonathan’s point: Fine, but the Dems have the power to pass the Iowa plan if they want — if they do, I’ll vote against the fair map plan in the fall referendum, but I sure want it there as a backup. Mike Madigan promised this would be taken up last fall — obviously the fear of this going to the voters has put the fear of Democracy in them. Does anyone really expect that this commission would ultimately spit in the face of their guidelines and produce a twisted/contorted mess like what we have now?
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:26 pm:
PS — point on Iowa’s lack of voting rights issues taken.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:36 pm:
Springfield-DB:
Point about dates is taken, however, alot of that can be done electronically. More importantly, the reason the deadlines loom is because moving the primary up two months put the deadline under any proposal and the current constitution about a week before petitions are DUE.
Right now, politicians only know what district they’ll be in about a week and change before they have to file their petitions.
Genius.
- Consider This - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 2:14 pm:
With all of the technology we have at our disposal, why can’t there simply be a computer program created that specifies the number of districts, the number of people in each district, the maximum area of a district, the district area has to be logical in shape and size (not convoluted as in some cases now), etc. Push the button and Voila! If there’s currently a Legislator in the new district, great, if not, someone will run. If they are Dem or Rep - who cares - it will work out for the people in the district during the election. Would save tons of time and money!
- lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:06 pm:
Consider This: Excellent point — even a computer generated districting that created some unfortunate splits (say a small town part in one district part in another — though I think that happens sometimes — defintitely with counties) would be far preferable to the voter de-powerment of drawing districts for the sole sake of predetermined election outcomes.
- Springfield-DB - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:14 pm:
-Consider This-
If only there was an “easy button” in life, the world would be a better place.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:17 pm:
lol
- Springfield-DB - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:24 pm:
In my humble opinion, I believe a solid redistricting plan is needed, and the Put-Back Amendment has a good plan for that. However, I believe the expansive scope of JB’s amendment is more susceptible to legal challenges, and the brevity of the Fair Map Amendment is not.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:37 pm:
Guys, computer programs will draw the maps in 2010 regardless if a redistricting reform is proposed.
The condition of using a computer isn’t important. It’s who is writing the computer program that does it.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:39 pm:
Springfield-DB:
As far as legal challenges, I assume you mean challenging whether it’s constitutional to stay on the ballot?
Simply put, Fair Map WILL be thrown off the ballot for being unconstitutional. There is no structural change. 100% chance of fail there.
Put-Back has a better shot because I wrote it with the case law in mind. I worked with attorneys who argued on BOTH sides of previous amendment efforts and the ensuing litigation and they agreed I’ll probably get by (there are no certainties).
Politically speaking, of course, having a simple one-issue amendment is ideal. Unfortunately, the constitution doesn’t allow that.
The one thing you need to keep in mind when talking about the Illinois Constitution is that it was written to protect government from the people.
- Springfield-DB - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:42 pm:
“The one thing you need to keep in mind when talking about the Illinois Constitution is that it was written to protect government from the people”
And it should be the other way around
- Joe Dokes - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:54 pm:
IIRC, the LWV didn’t think the constitution was fine and dandy, only that the process of opening the entire thing up would be expensive and there was no guarantee that it would generate any reform. Instead, the better option was to use the amendment process, and that’s what they are doing.
So. If the goal is to keep Mike Madigan in power and keep gridlock in Springfield for as long as possible, then by all means, oppose the amendment.
- Reformer - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 8:22 pm:
I wonder if Cross and Radogno are truly committed to the principle of reform. A way to find out is to ask them if they’ll commit to voluntarily abide by this proposal in the event Brady is elected and the GOP wins the draw!