Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » A very good question
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
A very good question

Friday, May 13, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller

* From the Independent Map language

If the Commission fails to adopt and file with the Secretary of State a redistricting plan by June 30 of the year following a Federal decennial census, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the most senior Judge of the Supreme Court who is not affiliated with the same political party as the Chief Justice shall appoint jointly by July 31 a Special Commissioner for Redistricting.

* Tom Corfman asks an excellent question

Currently, if the redistricting process is deadlocked, Democrats and Republicans basically flip a coin to decide whose map is adopted. Under the new proposal by the Independent Maps coalition, if the process becomes deadlocked, the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court and the justice of the opposing party with the most seniority appoint someone to draw the new boundaries.

And if the two justices don’t agree? Maybe they can play rock-paper-gavel.

Our Supreme Court is currently a very amicable body. But things can change, especially with all the money that’s floating around out there and the importance of that single appointment.

* The Supreme Court’s changed role is the subject of a Tribune editorial

The proposed amendment falls outside the legislative realm, supposedly, because it would assign mapmaking tasks to entities outside the General Assembly. (The plan relies on the state’s auditor general to select a review panel to name the members of the redistricting commission, for example, and tweaks the Supreme Court’s role in breaking a deadlock.) […]

The language of the constitution has been twisted and tortured beyond reason by those gotcha arguments. The section that spells out how citizens can amend it might as well say that they can’t.

That’s the version Kasper is selling, at least. We hope the judge doesn’t buy it this time.

* From the Constitution

SECTION 3. CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE FOR LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE […]

Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.

Article IV.

       

12 Comments
  1. - Not Rich - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 11:51 am:

    Basically, the folks at the last Constitutional Convention determined how redistricting would work, AND, if you want to change you need a new Constitutional CONVENTION and NOT a constitutional AMENDMENT.. pretty straight forward to me..


  2. - Juice - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 11:55 am:

    BEDSHEET BALLOT!!!


  3. - Norseman - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 11:58 am:

    Yep. The attorneys they used to help craft the amendment should have addressed this contingency. Frank’s proposal had the same problem.

    Let’s hope the amendment gets to and approved by the voters for us to worry about this concern.


  4. - lake county democrat - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:17 pm:

    –Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court and the justice of the opposing party with the most seniority appoint someone to draw the new boundaries–

    Also, what if all the members of the Supreme Court are of a single party?

    Something else to keep in mind: the legislature could give the courts the jurisdiction to rule on ballot initiatives earlier in the process so, you know, people don’t have to spend millions of dollars before they can find out whether it passes constitutional muster. But that would, you know, empower voters.


  5. - Marty Funkhouser - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:33 pm:

    The Trib editorial page is not known for its concern about what the Illinois Constitution says.


  6. - anon - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:39 pm:

    “the language of the constitution has been twisted and tortured beyond all reason”

    What part of this unequivocal clause don’t they understand? “Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.”


  7. - lake county democrat - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:47 pm:

    Judge Mary Mikva rejected the argument about “structural and procedural subjects” excluding redistricting: http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/IL%20clark%2020140627%20opinion.pdf

    She must be a Raunerite. Oh wait, she rejected the last initiative on other grounds.


  8. - muon - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 1:05 pm:

    As LCD noted and Judge Mikva pointed out, redistricting was considered an appropriate topic for a citizens petition by the 1970 ConCon. The ConCon called it apportionment, but it was understood that this meant redistricting for the state legislature. That’s important, since the two words have distinctly different meanings for congressional districts at the federal level.


  9. - cover - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 1:48 pm:

    = The attorneys they used to help craft the amendment should have addressed this contingency. Frank’s proposal had the same problem. =

    Franks’ proposal would not have been subject to this kind of challenge, since it would have been initiated by the General Assembly.


  10. - Norseman - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 2:10 pm:

    === Franks’ proposal would not have been subject to this kind of challenge, since it would have been initiated by the General Assembly. ===

    Who’s relating this to the court challenge. I’m not. This is an implementation glitch should this become law.


  11. - Political Animal - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 3:04 pm:

    lol, all of section 3 is about legislative redistricting.

    The idea that the topic is somehow off limits for an amendment is asinine.

    Agree with the thought: the Madigan reading is like saying the People cannot amend their own Constitution, rather than the natural reading that the people can amend the subjects listed in Article IV.

    The fact that the Auditor General and Supreme Court aren’t in the Article doesn’t matter because redistricting is in there and thus subject to change as the people see fit.


  12. - Political Animal - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 3:06 pm:

    ===What part of this unequivocal clause don’t they understand?===

    What part of this Title don’t you understand:

    SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* Live coverage
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller