Today’s number: 60
Friday, Oct 2, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a Sauk Valley Media editorial…
Last fall, 60 percent of [Illinois] state legislators faced no opposition on the ballot.
What kind of democracy is that? A broken one.
You may have heard that the nonpartisan Independent Maps coalition is collecting signatures to place the Independent Map constitutional amendment on the November 2016 ballot.
The amendment, if approved, will create an 11-member commission that will take away the once-a-decade map-drawing power from politicians. New districts will be drawn in an open, transparent manner with no regard to incumbency or partisanship.
The petition drive, which began in May, has collected more than 300,000 signatures toward its goal of 600,000, which is about twice the number necessary.
* That 60 percent figure is true. From Ballotpedia…
* Now, check this out…
Every seat was contested in Michigan and nearly every seat was contested in California. Wow.
* Also from Ballotpedia…
Independent commissions draw the lines for both state legislative and congressional districts in six states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana and Washington. Specific membership requirements for these commissions vary from state to state. Generally speaking, however, these commissions do not include legislators or other elected officials
* OK, so let’s combine these two sets of data and look at the percentage of uncontested legislative seats in those six states which have independent district commissions…
Alaska 33.33%
Arizona 40.0%
California 0.07%
Montana 15.20%
Washington 33.33%
All of them are much better than Illinois.
I don’t particularly care for this particular “fair map” proposal, but we definitely need to try something else.
- DuPage Dave - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 12:53 pm:
Whether it’s this specific proposal or some other, Illinois needs an independent re-map plan. Having 60 percent run unopposed is a bad joke.
- The Captain - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:01 pm:
Blaming the map continues to be a red herring. In 2014 Bruce Rauner won four state house districts currently held by Democrats by more than 30 points and in 3 of the 4 districts there was no Republican candidate on the ballot.
- Bogey Golfer - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:08 pm:
Where do I sign?
- GraduatedCollegeStudent - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:09 pm:
I wouldn’t cite Michigan as an endorsement of fair maps. IIRC that state’s badly Gerrymandered too.
- Last Bull Moose - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:09 pm:
Can we please go to compact and contiguous three person House districts with cumulative voting? Move to 120 House Members and 60 Senators to make the math work.
We need Chicago Republicans and DuPage Democrats to make the State work.
- Dr. Wade. - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:10 pm:
They have short term limits on legislators in Michigan.
- Phenomynous - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:14 pm:
@the Captain
Yes, we need more legislative races to spend like Rauner did to make districts competitive again. The map is totally fine…
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:24 pm:
Not that I disagree at all with this assessment… but…. If the Peoria County Democratic Chairman would do his job and find people to run, we wouldn’t have this problem to this extent. I’m sure its the same story in a lot of areas. You ain’t never gonna win, if you don’t even bother putting a name on the ballot!
- The Captain - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:25 pm:
@Phenomynous
Bruce Rauner won statewide by just less than 4 points and he got more votes than Pat Quinn in 70 state house districts, there are only 47 Republican members in the state house.
Tom Cross lost statewide by about a quarter of a point and he got more votes than Mike Frerichs in 64 state house districts, there are only 47 Republican members in the state house.
Blaming the map is, has been and continues to be a red herring.
- Formerly Known As... - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:26 pm:
Incredible. ==Something else==, por favor.
- Stones - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:27 pm:
The software used by both parties today is so precise that it’s simple to draw a map partisan to a single party. I think reform is need but not only with drawing the map but also campaign finance. While we are at it I would also like to shorten the campaign season . We don’t need 8 months between the primary and general elections.
- Anonymous - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:36 pm:
Ultimately, what is the goal of the Independent Map proposal? Is it to make as many competitive districts as possible? I don’t think it is.
Illinois is such an interesting state when it comes to demographics and geography. It has greatly diverse people and political attitudes. With that said, if you look at each region individually, Illinois looks far less diverse and much more partisan. I dont see many downstate districts becoming more Democratic with a fair map proposal and I don’t see many Chicago based districts becoming more Republican. The battelground would generally be the Chicago suburbs, but that is already the battleground anyway. Would the effect of the Independent Map be much different than our current system in terms of the competitiveness of the districts? I don’t think it would.
- GV - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:38 pm:
I may be bad at math, but 7 out of 100 seems more like 7% than .07%
- Truthteller - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:40 pm:
Does anyone have figures on primaries? Even if a district is overwhelmingly partisan, if folks are unhappy, they could run someone in a primary. What really determines competition is having the resources to run, and you can bet the rich folks pushing for an independent commission don’t want to give up the advantage that check writing gives them
- hisgirlfriday - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:42 pm:
@anonymous…
re: your comment on illinois demographics, the washington post had an analysis recently calling for illinois to be the first primary state because its most demographically similar to the nation as a whole
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/30/if-being-representative-is-your-goal-illinois-should-be-the-first-primary-state/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_fix
- Outsider - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:44 pm:
It isn’t a “map” problem…the problem is that it is too difficult to get on the ballot. The ballot rules should be changed to allow anyone to run…perhaps some minimum number of signatures like 10…and it should be like that for ALL offices…not the hundreds or thousands of signatures that are required. I’m guessing that everyone on this forum knows how difficult it is to go out and get signatures. There is a relatively short time frame and because of our election periods, they always have to be gotten in terrible weather.
- Honeybear - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:45 pm:
I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around this. Does any one know of specific races that were uncontested. What is the definition of “major party opposition”. I know that Kay destroyed Cullen Cullen but would CC not be considered “major party opposition”?
- Wordslinger - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:46 pm:
Surprised about California. The breakdown is 52D to 28R in the assembly and 26D to 14R in the senate.
- pool boy - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:50 pm:
Term limits would help as well. At least a new name would be on the ballot.
- Norseman - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 1:56 pm:
Interesting, however, a correlation on one variable does not necessarily mean causation. There could be a number of other factors, i.e. strength of party, political parity, legal, etc.
There certainly would be a uptick in competitive districts after a new map, but that occurs under the current process as well.
- Uptown Lawyer - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 2:04 pm:
I’m pretty sure California has a nonpartisan “blanket” primary where the top 2 finishers in the primary advance to the November election, irrespective of what parties they are members of (so the November election can have two Ds or two Rs, rather than one D and one R).
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 2:21 pm:
But that article shows a pressing need for reform. Illinois needs not reform a thing. Everything in Illinois is done to perfection and we are a model state for others to follow.
Just pass a budget and continue with the same old, same old! i now totally agree with this philosophy as espoused by many ostriches here.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 2:22 pm:
===perhaps some minimum number of signatures like 10===
I would like to see the rule for single seat elections be that the 3 with the highest number of signatures get on the ballot, even if that is a single signature. Couple that with a guaranteed spot on the ballot if you exceed a minimum (i.e. the existing rules) and it would create a lot more competition, albeit many would be token opposition given that they did not have to invest significant time to get on the ballot.
Even just removing the arbitrary rules which get legitimate candidates thrown off the ballot would be good. Thrown off for using a paperclip instead of staple? Really?
- Formerly Known As... - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 2:25 pm:
==60 percent of [Illinois] state legislators faced no opposition on the ballot==
==he got more votes than Pat Quinn in 70 state house districts, there are only 47 Republican members == Blaming the map is, has been and continues to be a red herring.==
28 of those 47 House Republicans faced no major party opposition on the ballot in 2014. 43 of the 71 House Democratic members faced no major party opposition in 2014.
60% of House Republicans won uncontested. 61% of House Democrats won uncontested. Politicians drawing so many districts specifically as ==Democratic= or ==Republican== is the root of this.
The odds of the map being a ==red herring== are slimmer than winning the Illinois lottery and then getting paid in 30 days.
- Anonymous - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 2:30 pm:
Independent maps should be done. There are enough examples of people winning in Districts that didn’t fit their party choice but they pulled off the win with hard work.
I would like to see open primaries.
- sal-says - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
Maybe we need to try taking the huge amounts of campaign money out of the equations. Let folks make their positions known. And see if that brings more folks out of the woodwork to be able to vote on.
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 2:51 pm:
==- DuPage Dave - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 12:53 pm:==
It matters a lot whether it is this proposal since this one might violate the Voting Rights Act.
- walker - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
We would probably have a healthier democracy with independent maps, but any visions of that alone greatly changing the partisan make up of the legislature are fanciful.
Healthier is better, of course, but I’m for it mostly to stop the victim mentality and distraction, so that we might focus on more substantial reforms.
- Stu - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 3:08 pm:
==I may be bad at math, but 7 out of 100 seems more like 7% than .07%==
Spreadsheet FAIL!
- Juice - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 3:24 pm:
The increase in competitive races in general elections in California probably has more to do with their “top two” voting system, where Dems may sometimes face Dems, and GOP face GOP. The reality here is most Chicago districts will not be competitive on a partisan basis. Nor will a district that covers Effingham. All the map proposal does is make things more competitive on the fringe. Which will then lead to more targets. Which results in greater numbers of members unwilling to vote for anything hard, and more members being completely reliant on their Leaders, which I thought was Rauner’s problem to begin with.
- The Captain - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 3:37 pm:
Draw any legal map you like and this won’t change. Under any legal map your’e going to have plenty of districts that are reliably solid for one party or the other, we have an uneven distribution of partisans so that’s how geography works.
- Roscoe Tom - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 3:38 pm:
Do you think we will have a budget by the time this constitutional amendment passes and becomes effective?
- Anon - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 3:38 pm:
==In 2014 Bruce Rauner won four state house districts currently held by Democrats by more than 30 points and in 3 of the 4 districts there was no Republican candidate on the ballot.==
I’ll assume that’s true.
It’s clear that Dems have done a better job of contesting districts than the GOP. Wherever Dems can make it a little interesting, they seem to have a candidate, while it seems like Republicans have dropped the ball in some cases. But you’d expect that with MJM in charge. This is what he does.
Maybe Team Rauner will make the playing field more even.
That said, I’d also like to see some change. The question isn’t whether the alternative is perfect; it’s whether it’s better than what we have now. But I’m somewhat less supportive when it comes to Congress.
Of the states with independent commissions, California is most like Illinois — large, blue and diverse. So it would be interesting to see whether it’s viewed as successful there.
Also, a way to sign petitions online would be nice.
- Ahoy! - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 3:48 pm:
–It isn’t a “map” problem…the problem is that it is too difficult to get on the ballot.–
Outsider is correct, having a two tiered system where independents and third parties have to have twice the signatures needed is bogus. I can’t believe it’s constitutional.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 4:08 pm:
Anyone claiming map reform is inconsequential should explain why Madigan fights so hard against it.
Rich, your complaint against the current proposal is at best overblown. You can verify what I’ve written with some quick googling - the U.S. Constitution would not permit the packing you’re concerned about with the “integrity” language. And if Illinois courts gave it a bizarre interpretation and treated it as a mandate rather than a guideline, then even without the Chicago issue the entire scheme fails (there’s no way to “perfectly fit” cities into districts - some would have to be split) and we’re back to the current system. So it may be a reason to wish for a better option, but it’s not a reason to vote against.
For the record, I’m pretty third this is the third time I’ve seen Rich post on the fair map initiative and the most prominent Madigan supporters among the commentators are either mute or make tangential comments. I think they know that gerrymandering is abhorrent and if they lived in another, GOP-controlled state they’d be against it. (In fact, they’d be against it the moment the GOP won a coin-flip in Illinois)
- burbanite - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 4:22 pm:
Dupage Dave do you pull a ballot in Dupage? Decades of unopposed Republicans on the ballot.
- Jeff Trigg - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 4:29 pm:
Illinois Constitution. Article III, Section 3
“All elections shall be free and equal”
Ahoy! - It is hard to believe the much higher requirements for independents and others is Constitutional. Many Illinois ballot access laws have been ruled unconstitutional over the years, such as Lee v. Keith in the 7th Circuit from 2005. A pending lawsuit against the requirement of “new” parties to run a full slate of statewide or countywide candidates, when the Ds and Rs don’t have to, also has a real shot at making another dent in Illinois’ antiquated election laws.
60% of GA races going unopposed isn’t new, either, it has happened almost every election for the past 20 years.
Yes, reduce the signature requirements for independents and others. Could also start giving candidates the option to pay a filing fee in lieu of signatures, like more than 30 other states do. That would bring in a little money AND reduce the costs of the unnecessary signature challenge system. 200 signatures or $200, for example.
All people should have equal access to ballot access. Illinois went 25 years without even one independent candidate being able to get on the ballot for the GA. The 10% requirement during that time violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, along with the petition deadline a year before the election, and the rule that signers of independent petitions were banned from voting the primary.
I’d like to see Democrats start living up to the name of their party instead of making it vastly harder for independents and others to get on the ballot. I’d also like to go back to 3 member districts. Independent maps will help, but it isn’t the only election reform that is needed in Illinois.
- walker - Friday, Oct 2, 15 @ 4:58 pm:
LCD: Respect your position, and the ways you express it. I support mapping reform as well.
It’s not “inconsequential.” It just would not have the big impact that some like to think.
My pure guess is that Madigan fights against it because he doesn’t want to risk losing something on the order of four seats, primarily due to this change, assuming all other factors are equal. The other factors all seem to be currently changing in Rauner’s favor, primarily due to funding and campaign staffing improvements. They will have much more impact on the political landscape than remapping. Madigan’s political environment is getting tougher without remapping reform. Why would he add to his problems?
Another reason might be that threats of being mapped out of one’s district, are an unspoken undercurrent that adds to the Leaders’ perceived power.
Again,remapping reform would be a healthy thing to do, but don’t assume miracles from it.