* The remap reformers filed their petitions the other day to put their initiative on the ballot. Opponents have now filed a challenge. Click here to read the whole thing, but it appears to boil down to these arguments…
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** From Dennis FitzSimons, Chair of Independent Maps…
“Political insiders want to deny voters the chance to reform Illinois government. Independent polls show close to two-thirds of Illinois voters are ready to vote ‘yes’ on an independent, transparent and impartial process for drawing state legislative maps. Springfield insiders aren’t willing to risk those odds and would rather cynically preempt at the courthouse what they cannot win at the ballot box.
“Plain and simple, this lawsuit is a struggle for power. It is Illinois politicians struggling to retain the power to manipulate elections versus citizens demanding reform. We knew this lawsuit would be the response to our submission of 570,000 petition signatures from Illinois voters, and we are ready to aggressively defend the constitutionality and fairness of the Independent Map Amendment.”
Lots of Tribune-style huffing and puffing, but no legal argument.
- anon - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:01 pm:
The constitution does provide only a narrow window for binding initiatives. The Supreme Court has strictly interpreted the structural and procedural requirement.
- Not It - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:04 pm:
If this remap fails I will lose all hope for my State.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:05 pm:
Judge Mary Mikva’s ruling rejected most of these arguments (while agreeing with others that killed the last redistricting initiative). http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/IL%20clark%2020140627%20opinion.pdf
- lake county democrat - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:07 pm:
Well, “vote accordingly” - unless, of course, you’re not allowed to.
- atsuishin - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:18 pm:
Is Madigan dispensing with a signature challenge and just going straight to the court? Or can both be done at the same time?
- Ghost - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:19 pm:
the challange raises excellent constitutional claims. with all the money spent on this, you would think that had a con law person look at the language….. and they would have a position paper ready on this cery topic. Rauner tried insulting the supremes and crying foul in lieu of, say, legal precedence, he didnt get far.
all this money and these people just boiled up an illgeal proposal. good thing they didnt join with franks on his legal version….
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:21 pm:
@atsuishin: looks like many of the same plaintiffs as last time. None of them are named Madigan.
- Chicagonk - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:22 pm:
Considering the spirit of the Illinois ballot initiative process was to act as a limited check on the legislature and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the Cutback Amendment question in 1980, I don’t really see the Illinois Supreme Court deciding against Fair Maps.
- titan - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:26 pm:
The Judge assigned (Judge Larson) is very good.
atsuishin - a signature challenge could still be mounted, but that will take a lot of time to prepare (close to 600,000 signatures take a lot of time in vetting, and the thing was only filed on Friday).
- lake county democrat - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:34 pm:
Ghost - many people, including former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, have been highly critical of our politicized court system. Not only do judges owe their jobs to political parties, but lawyers can contribute money to the judges they appear before and it’s not grounds for recusal (imagine if your family’s savings were wiped out by a judge who got money from the other lawyer but not yours - would you have 100% confidence there was no influence?) We’re in dire need of reform - just because Rauner says so for his own gain doesn’t make it less true.
- Norseman - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:36 pm:
Not unexpected. We’ll see if the Fair Maps folks are correct in their assertion that they’ve corrected the constitutional problems relating to “structural and procedural” changes to the legislative article.
- Storm Cloud - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:37 pm:
There is definitely a very small group of people who really like things the way they are.
- walker - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:38 pm:
The language of this effort was partly guided by the judge’s opinion on last year’s failed attempt. Odds are with the FairMap folks, I am guessing.
LCD: No one ever prevented you from voting, by determining what legislative district you live in. Never happened to anyone. No need to dramatically overstate the problem with the current system.
- Truthteller - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:42 pm:
The “political insiders” referred to in the press release have been funded by the same people underwriting the constitutional amendment.
I guess those insiders can no longer be relied upon to do the bidding of the 1%ers.
- Just Me - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:45 pm:
Changing the structure of the General Assembly composition process surely changes the structure of the General Assembly itself.
- Michael Westen - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 12:48 pm:
All 600,000 signatures do not have to be vetted. In this instance, the State Board will randomly choose 5% of the signatures filed and make a recommendation based on the validity percentage of those. Then let the fun begin after that.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 1:03 pm:
Walker: I’m saying we’re prohibited from voting on this issue. The legislature won’t let us by approving a remap amendment. Presuming this suit is correct and the Illinois constitution doesn’t allow a ballot initiative, you can’t vote on it that way either.
Same with term limits: I don’t like them myself, but polls say 80% of the voters favor them, most of them “strongly” favor them.
Gerrymandering itself doesn’t eliminate our vote, but the map-makers definitely seek to minimize voter power as much as possible.
- A guy - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 1:04 pm:
That’s still 30,000 vettings and it takes a lot of time.
- A guy - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 1:05 pm:
This is opposed by “another, distinct and different” group of 1 percenters. Weird that they’re held to a different standard. But, not really.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 1:10 pm:
===This is opposed by “another, distinct and different” group of 1 percenters. Weird that they’re held to a different standard. But, not really.===
What. Does. This. Mean?
- Annonin' - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 1:28 pm:
Guessin’ no one will mind if we don’t think this little project bein’ fronted by a Wall Street banker and a retired exec from a company that tried to get a $100 million tax break from Blagoof is on the square?
- lake county democrat - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 1:48 pm:
Annonin’ - President Obama didn’t seem to mind when he endorsed redistricting reform before the Illinois legislature. California, a pretty liberal state, didn’t mind when it adopted basically the same system. “Only in opposition” advocacy, it never ends.
- A guy - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:29 pm:
===What. Does. This. Mean?===
I guess you need to be humored a bit today. It means that aside from the uber wealthy 1%ers always being chatted about here, there’s another group of 1% ers, whose sole purpose is to maintain the political power structure that is tilted in their favor. Some are in both clubs.
- thinkin' - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 3:13 pm:
==- lake county democrat - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 1:48 pm:
Annonin’ - President Obama didn’t seem to mind when he endorsed redistricting reform before the Illinois legislature. California, a pretty liberal state, didn’t mind when it adopted basically the same system. “Only in opposition” advocacy, it never ends. ==
President Obama endorsed CONGRESSIONAL redistricting. The proposal doesn’t touch congressional redistricting.
California’s constitution allows the voters to amend every aspect of the constitution, but the Illinois constitution does not give voters that ability. It is very, very limited.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 3:14 pm:
===President Obama endorsed CONGRESSIONAL redistricting===
Yep. But the term is reapportionment. Even so, you’re right.
- Doh - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 4:50 pm:
Actually, Rich, I believe reapportionment is the process of determining how many congressional members each state gets. Redistricting is drawing the lines of those districts.