* The House Executive Committee unanimously approved Rep. Jack Franks’ remap reform proposal yesterday. Franks handed out this fact sheet comparing his plan to the Independent Map group’s proposed constitutional amendment…

Franks appears to have the best proposal out there right now.

* This is also good news…

Bray said the Independent Maps coalition does not have a position on Franks’ proposal.

That’s the best that can be hoped for at the moment. They should continue gathering signatures and raising money until it becomes crystal clear that the Franks proposal will be on the ballot. At that point, if Franks addresses the issues raised in committee yesterday by Republicans and good government groups, this scenario ought to be avoided…

What happens if both are put on the ballot?

Franks was asked that question at Monday’s hearing and said he’d “defer to counsel.”

What a nightmare that would be. What if they both passed? Worse, what if they both went down because of the confusion?

* This is also good news…

Five organizations filed witness slips with the Executive Committee in support of Franks’ amendment, including Common Cause, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and the state Chamber of Commerce.

If Todd Maisch is for it, then partisan sniping can be overcome…

Northern Illinois Republican state Rep. Ron Sandack says to really be fair, [House GOP Leader Jim Durkin’s remap reform] measure should also be considered by lawmakers.

“We ought to be debating something that’s been on file for a year — for a year — and let it have a full vetting and then compare and contrast,” Sandack said.

Sandack is the floor leader. He has to say stuff like that. But I think Franks is right that his is the better idea. Either way, work with Franks to amend his bill and let’s get this train moving now.

I supported a constitutional convention back in the day mainly because I believed we couldn’t get remap reform through the General Assembly. The possibility that the Independent Maps folks might succeed has prodded the House Democrats into action. I truly never thought I’d see this day, so nobody better mess it up. Seriously. Don’t mess this up!

       

33 Comments - Honeybear - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:22 am: My question is, is there something Rauner can do to throw a wrench into this? I don’t want to get my hopes up. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:25 am: Rauner is the least of my worries on this one. My biggest worry right now is Cullerton. - walker - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:27 am: Either way this goes, it is a win for the Independent Maps campaign. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:28 am: Wasn’t the prohibition of running for office or being confirmed a seat one of the legal hang ups with the last amendment? Or was that just because it did not go through the GA? - anon - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:39 am: Kudos to Rep. Franks for crafting a superior proposal. I doubt anyone who is not a partisan can read the comparison between Jack’s proposal and the Independent Maps plan and not see one is clearly preferable. - Saluki - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:40 am: I am not crazy about the “majority minority” language. I think “balance of diversity” would be a better way to put it if you are really seeking competitive districts, but whatever. Any change is better than nothing at all. - Huh? - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:42 am: So if I understand the process correctly: 1. The GA passes the bill. 2. 1.4% signs the bill. 3. The CA is presented to the voters in November. If the majority of voters vote for the CA, it becomes part of the constitution. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:43 am: Governors have no formal role in GA-proposed constitutional amendments. - Not It - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:44 am: C’mon, guys! Don’t you see you’re being played? The Speaker will muscle this thing through and Independent Maps gives up on their campaign and everyone pays themselves on the back for doing some much needed reform, then lawyers controlled by the Speaker will file suit against the very same proposal the Speaker pushed through using a tech ability that the Speaker engineered without any of us noticing in our delight to pass this, and we’ll be right back to where we are now. This ain’t my first time at the rodeo. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:44 am: ===Or was that just because it did not go through the GA? === Correct. The GA can amend more than one article at a time. Citizens can’t. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:48 am: I’m interested in how the GOP reacts. There’s a few improvements in Franks’ plan, but there’s one confusing point: Indie maps bans using redistricting to diminish minority voting power. Franks *appears* to say maximizing minority voting power is a “top priority.” So if there’s a conflict between that and geographic compactness, which wins out? Again, I think California and other states have shown that the concerns about a return to the bad old days of minimizing minority voting power are unfounded - I don’t mind having a provision like this, I just don’t want it to be a backdoor to continue gerrymandering. Yes, don’t mess this up. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:48 am: If this works, I hope Rauner can take this as a “win” and move forward on the budget. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:51 am: –C’mon, guys! Don’t you see you’re being played? The Speaker will muscle this thing through and Independent Maps gives up on their campaign and everyone pays themselves on the back for doing some much needed reform, then lawyers controlled by the Speaker will file suit against the very same proposal the Speaker pushed through using a tech ability that the Speaker engineered without any of us noticing in our delight to pass this, and we’ll be right back to where we are now.– All to get Lisa elected governor in 2026, right? I can’t believe I didn’t see that. - anon - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:56 am: As I recall, the Independent Map plan contains a provision to curb crossing borders of major units of local government (think: Chicago). That provision would dilute minority representation. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:04 am: Anon: two responses. First, not necessarily: with African-American migration out of Chicago, who knows how the final districts would go. The effect would also be limited by Supreme Court precedence: the US constitution requires approximately the same number of voters per district. But most of all: minority representation sometimes comes at the expense of minority *voter power.* Look at the US Congressional 4th district: the Hispanic voting blocks in the north and south might be able to elect their own in 2 ungerrymandered districts, but even if they couldn’t elect 1, their agenda would have immense power in both. In Chicago this is not a big deal since African-American and Hispanic interests largely align and much of the rest of the city is progressive, but the point is there’s no way of knowing if minorities might do a little better or worse. Finally, if the GOP ever won the coin flip and do a map, you can bet the Indie Map scheme would do better. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:05 am: ===…then lawyers controlled by the Speaker will file suit against the very same proposal the Speaker pushed through using a tech ability that the Speaker engineered without any of us noticing in our delight to pass this, and we’ll be right back to where we are now.=== You may want to take off your tin foil hat when you tell the groups, group leaders, and advocates that are on board this lil daydream. ===This ain’t my first time at the rodeo.=== Lots of seats at a rodeo, seems like many other seat holders don’t… share… your… perspective. I can’t help you aren’t buying in, but there’s sonething to buy in to… that’s the rub. - downstate commissioner - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:07 am: “Don’t mess this up”. You have been warned- the next step is the feared “Bite me.” - DuPage - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:09 am: I think the maps should be “color blind” and not be made to give advantage or disadvantage to any group. Franks bill is closer to that. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:09 am: ======This ain’t my first time at the rodeo.====== According to three IP address search engines, you’re posting from southern California. Come back to Illinois before commenting again. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:09 am: ==Independent Maps gives up on their campaign and everyone pays themselves on the back== ==I just don’t want it to be a backdoor to continue gerrymandering== You aren’t the only ones who remain skeptical the General Assembly and party power brokers have suddenly ==seen the light== on redistricting. If possible, perhaps we should put both the citizen and Assembly initiatives on the ballot and let the public choose? Wouldn’t that be something… - Duh - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:15 am: ==- Not It - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 9:44 am: == Is that you, Ken Dunkin? - GraduatedCollegeStudent - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:17 am: ===But most of all: minority representation sometimes comes at the expense of minority *voter power.* Look at the US Congressional 4th district: the Hispanic voting blocks in the north and south might be able to elect their own in 2 ungerrymandered districts, but even if they couldn’t elect 1, their agenda would have immense power in both. === You only have power if your candidate gets elected. Full stop. If your candidate doesn’t win in the primary, what are you going to do? Vote for the opponent in the general? Unless your voting power is enough to reliably elect your candidate in the primary, you can’t set the agenda or even put planks in the platform. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:18 am: ==Compactness is a redistricting requirement== Isn’t this a given in both plans? iirc, compactness is already required by the Constitution? Article IV Section 3a ==Legislative Districts shall be compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population. Representative Districts shall be compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population.== - atsuishin - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:23 am: ==Wasn’t the prohibition of running for office or being confirmed a seat one of the legal hang ups with the last amendment? Or was that just because it did not go through the GA?== Yes. Judge Mikva struck down the last proposed amendment in part because of an unconstitutional qualification on being a member of the GA. This was sloppiness on Franks’ part and should be removed from a final proposal. - Huh? - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:26 am: ======This ain’t my first time at the rodeo.====== But is it your first time at the county fair? Everybody knows what happens at a rodeo - the guy gets bucked off and goes flying. However, anything happen at the county fair. - A guy - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:30 am: Amen. It’s a win for everybody. Just git er done. - here we go - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 12:14 pm: Hi Rich, Can you explain why Cullerton is your biggest worry? I am trying to keep up here, so I apologize if I missed this. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 12:16 pm: ===Can you explain why Cullerton is your biggest worry?=== https://capitolfax.com/2016/04/19/here-comes-the-criss-cross/ - hum - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 1:46 pm: ==- atsuishin - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:23 am: ==Wasn’t the prohibition of running for office or being confirmed a seat one of the legal hang ups with the last amendment? Or was that just because it did not go through the GA?== Yes. Judge Mikva struck down the last proposed amendment in part because of an unconstitutional qualification on being a member of the GA. This was sloppiness on Franks’ part and should be removed from a final proposal. == Incorrect. A constitutional amendment proposed by the General Assembly can impose a disqualifier, but a petition circulated by the voters cannot. The Legislature can propose any changes to the Constitution, whereas the voters can only proposed structural and procedural changes to the Legislative Article. Prohibiting a person from running is a qualifier on serving, which isn’t structural and procedural. - hum - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 1:48 pm: == - Formerly Known As… - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:18 am: ==Compactness is a redistricting requirement== Isn’t this a given in both plans? iirc, compactness is already required by the Constitution? Article IV Section 3a == The Independent Map proposal removes compactness as a criteria. - Lt. Guv. - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 3:09 pm: ==== 3. The CA is presented to the voters in November. If the majority of voters vote for the CA, it becomes part of the constitution. ===== At the ballot the measure would need to garner either 60% of those voting on the measure OR a majority of those voting in that given election (total number of voters that election - not the total number voting on the amendment). - Jimmy - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 3:11 pm: Franks bill says: ” A commissioner is ineligible for a period of 10 years to serve in the general assembly..” Didn’t Judge Mikva say that provision was unconstitutional because it was not “structural and procedural” and in fact changes the qualifications to serve in the assembly set forth other provisions of the Constitution. Franks, or his staff or someone’s staff should know this so is this a “poison bill” to ultimately kill this effort as well…. Thus spake Jimmy. - Logic not emotion - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:47 pm: Maybe not in California. Maybe state employee or someone hiding their trail… https://www.hidemyass.com I agree with DuPage @ 10:19. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.