|
The SJ-R’s straight talk on remap plans
Wednesday, Apr 21, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller * Editorial pages almost always parrot the reformers, even (or especially) when they don’t fully understand the issues at hand. Today’s Sun-Times editorial blasting the Democratic redistricting reform proposal and supporting the Republican-backed “Fair Map” plan is a case in point…
The state’s edit boards are basing most of their opinion on op-eds like this by League of Women Voters President Nancy Marcus…
But, lo and behold, the Paul Simon Institute thinks that both proposals qualify as reform…
That quote was contained in an editorial today by the State Journal-Register, which also dinged Ms. Marcus a bit…
The SJ-R and the Paul Simon Institute would like the Democrats to “tweak” their proposal to require a three-fifths majority to pass a new map. Doing so, they say, would protect the rights of the minority party. If the majority and minority parties could be trusted to compromise in good faith, that might not be a bad idea. But the Statehouse political waters are poisoned right now, so I’m not sure if anything would pass under that proposal. Still, it’s something, and the SJ-R ought to be commended for not falling into the old trap of believing everything reformers say. After all, the Cutback Amendment was a highly touted and very popular reform back when it was put on the ballot. It didn’t work out so well. It’s been my experience over the years that almost all reformers are good, decent people who want to do what’s right. But nobody’s arguments should ever be given a free pass in the political arena. Challenging them to make their cases shouldn’t be seen as an insult to the reformers, instead, putting some thought into proposed ideas is supposed to be the American way.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- Loop Lady - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 9:53 am:
I like thr 3/5 majority requirement for passage as well, but extreme partisanship will prevent this from ever coming to pass…I know Vanilla Man likes to make fun of my public servants for the good of the people wish, but just once, I’d like decent public policy to trump self interest and the party line…I do aim this remark at both sides of the aisle folks…
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 9:55 am:
Clearly the paper and others have been buffaloed (not the first time) Anything that has the support of noted, long time reformer Illinois State Chamber of Commerce needs to be ash canned immediately. Wonder when they will admit their mistake?
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 9:57 am:
Here’s the game.
The Republicans privately tell the “professional reformers” that they’d like to be more moderate. It’s just the system forces them to cater to the base of the Republican Party.
The Republicans further claim that if the “professional reformers” help the “moderate Republicans” both against the Democrats and against the social conservatives that the “moderate Republicans” will behave in a moderate manner.
The “professional reformers” want to like suburban Republicans because they have similar backgrounds socially and culturally.
But there’s nothing to stop Republicans from behaving in a moderate manner. It’s existentialism. The Republicans have chosen to behave the way they behave. It’s not the mission of the Democrats or goo-goos to give power to the GOP as part of a bargain for the GOP elected officials moderating themselves.
The organizations hiring the “professional reformers” should retire the old guard and replace them with new people who are better grounded in contemporary politics and not trying to relive the glory days of the 70s when the independent Dems and GOP cut a deal to oust the Machine in the Black wards.
- Loop Lady - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 10:03 am:
Touche Nyberg…very well said…
- cassandra - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 10:05 am:
Is the LWV doing a house to house or at least scheduling neighborhood appearances to make it easier for folks to sign their petition. I know they are making appearances at various public sites and having interested LWV distribute signup petitions but unless you happen to be around when they are doing that, how do you sign up. In today’s global economy, lots of us don’t have time to go hunting for a place to sign up.
Good cause, but not sure their efforts are sufficiently vigorous.
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 10:12 am:
I agree with Cassandra. I have not seen any staff in the community and their website is not much help in locating a place where petitions may be signed. Frustrating.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 10:51 am:
Game? Really? Only Republicans and the League of Women Voters are playing a game here?
Not a single saintly Democrat?
Both plans are flawed with the League plan far less flawed than that proposed by the saintly Democrats.
- Conservative Veteran - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 11:15 am:
Instead of passing the Fair Map Amendment, I hope that Illinois will pass the Put-Back Amendment. It would ensure that redistricting is done by a computer program, which wouldn’t consider incumbents, parties, or ethnic groups. This would ensure more competitive elections. If the Fair-Map Amendment passes, the legislative leaders could appoint commission members who will help incumbents, similarly to the current system in which the legislature draws their maps. The Put-Back Amendment would also implement term limits, on state legislators, require the legislature to vote on bills that are sponsored by at least 25 members, and require the legislature to consider each bill for at least a week.
- Squideshi - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 12:23 pm:
==“Our position is both of these plans are reform, and the Paul Simon Institute wants reform.”==
Change for the sake of change, regardless of the value of the change in question?
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 12:45 pm:
I remember Pate Philip and how he led when the GOP was in the ascendancy. It’s enough to keep me in a no mercy, no giveback, no compromise position to anything that might benefit the GOP.
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 1:09 pm:
ConVet, how many sigs Bambanek and the Put Back crowd have?
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 1:44 pm:
And I remember Stephen A. Douglas and how he led when the Democratic Party controlled Illinois.
- fedup dem - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 2:04 pm:
Rich, you should be commended for your closing comments here.
- @all - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 2:09 pm:
If it was at 3/5 and they didn’t agree, then the plan would be to take it out of the legislators hands and to a commission, so if they don’t agree, it’s not a complete stalemate.
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 2:24 pm:
I never did figure out why there is so much consternation at the “coin flip” tie breaker. We know that only in the rarest of circumstances would the Dems and GOP agree on something as important as redistricting. If both parties have a seat at the table, SOME method needs to be able to break the deadlock.
But if the Commission is appointed by the Legislative Leaders, its still in legislators hands and, by definition, such a Commission is not independent.
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Apr 21, 10 @ 8:48 pm:
Check out the fair map’s campaign filings. Only donors are Cross, Radogno and the mayor of Rosemont. If the names were Madigan, Cullerton and the Chicago mayor would we even toy with the idea of calling this a “fair map” plan.
That the so-called reformers would finance their efforts with GOP leadership money has forever tainted them politically. They can’t say this is nonpartisan or has no agenda. What sell outs.