React to remap reform ruling
Friday, Aug 26, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
[This post has been bumped up for visibility.]
* People’s Map Chairman, John Hooker…
In recent months, we’ve seen laws targeted at depriving the voting rights of minorities across the country overturned one by one. Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court joins those decisions as another victory for democracy. If this effort was upheld, minority voters across the state would have had their voices and rights weakened by a misguided and dangerous effort that would have resulted in a loss of representation.
For example, the proposal would result in a loss of minority influence by its requirement that district maps follow municipal boundaries. Through this and other similar changes made under the guise of reform, the backers of this initiative were attempting to minimize the number of districts in which minorities would have a voice. Any attempt to weaken the rights of minority voters is an attack on democracy itself, making today’s ruling a victory for a fair and truly accountable electoral process.
* Gov. Bruce Rauner…
“What drives people away from Illinois is the sense that our political system is broken and our government is unaccountable to the people. The Illinois system only works for the political insiders who benefit at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the middle class.
“Today’s court decision to deny Illinoisans the right to vote on a redistricting referendum does nothing to stem the outflow or change people’s views of how the system is rigged and corrupt.
“When the General Assembly reconvenes this fall, they should put political reform - term limits and independent redistricting - at the top of the legislative agenda so that incumbents aren’t locked into power and democracy is restored through competitive general elections.
“Legislative districts should represent people based upon the community where they live. Politicians should not pick their voters by drawing spaghetti-like district lines with the sole intent of keeping one party in power regardless of how the people vote.
“Fair maps create fair districts. The system is broken and controlled by career politicians. People leave when they cannot hold their politicians accountable.
“This is not a partisan idea; this is the people’s idea. Independent redistricting has strong support from both Republicans and Democrats, including President Obama, as well as non-partisan, good government groups. More than 500,000 citizens signed the petition to allow the entire state a chance to be heard on this issue of fairness. It is an affront to our democracy that the courts struck down yet another citizen-led referendum drive to fix the system that only benefits the people in power.”
* Dennis FitzSimons, Chair of Independent Maps…
The Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling is extremely disappointing to all of us – to our bi-partisan coalition, to the more than 563,000 Illinois voters who signed petitions to put this important amendment on the ballot and to the many, many more Illinoisans eager for an opportunity to make the Illinois General Assembly more responsive to all of Illinois.
The Supreme Court rules give us the opportunity to seek rehearing and our legal team is weighing that option.
Delegates to the 1969-70 Constitutional Convention created a redistricting process they believed would encourage bipartisan mapmaking. It hasn’t worked. The result has been partisan maps, fewer competitive elections and voter dissatisfaction.
Mapmaking by legislators – the very people whose reelections depend on partisan maps – has led to a decline in competitive elections and voter dissatisfaction. The only way to end partisan mapmaking is to turn the duty over to an impartial commission as has been done in California and Arizona. Unfortunately, the only way to make that change in Illinois is by a constitutional amendment brought to the ballot by citizens.
It’s very clear the drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitution understood that dynamic, and that’s why they gave voters the power to propose amendments to change the legislative article and specifically the provisions relating to redistricting.
Drafters of the Illinois Constitution would not recognize the interpretation made by the Supreme Court majority. According to the majority, voters cannot propose sensible changes to the legislative article that would make a meaningful difference in the way legislative district boundaries are drawn.
In short, the system is broken, and the way this Court interprets the Constitution seems likely to prevent its repair.
* Illinois Republican Party…
The only thing standing in the way of political reform is Mike Madigan. Madigan and his allies sued to stop citizen-led ballot initiatives for Independent Maps and term limits, and the Speaker has used his power to stop both from passing or being voted on in Springfield. Madigan has worked tirelessly against reforms that would threaten his ability to rig Illinois’ political system in his favor. Legislators from both parties must reject Madigan’s obstructionism and demand reform. – Illinois Republican Party Spokesman Steven Yaffe
- Stunt double - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 8:30 pm:
They are right on the law. I find the statements interesting. Rauner wants district to be drawn based on communities where people live. Hooker points to that as a problem and would lead to less minority representation particularly in Chicago. This is one of the concerns I had with Independent Maps. If you want to take away the power of the General Assembly to draw the map, do that. But this did much more than what they claimed.
- Just Me - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 8:50 pm:
I don’t know if this proposal was the best way to do re-districting, but I know that the current method isn’t working.
If Independent Maps group can’t figure out a way to get the Supreme Court to agree to a redistricting proposal, next they should focus on term limits for the legislative leaders.
- The Dude Abides - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:02 pm:
So the GOP is saying that Madigan controls the Supreme Court. This is the same court that shot down Madigan’s pension reform. I’m not a lawyer but some who are stated that this might not survive constitutional muster. How about next time drafting a referendum or have the legislature pass a bill that is legal. That was the whole problem from the start with this. Next time hire some good lawyers before proceeding.
- Chi girl - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:09 pm:
Ugh. Knew this would happen. $3 million down the drain…
- Keyrock - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:13 pm:
This was entirely predictable–and likely the desired result. It would have been easy to write a clearly constitutional amendment if that’s what the Governor’s forces wanted.
They clearly didn’t mind losing this to keep an issue going.
- Rabid - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:32 pm:
“Today’s court decision…does nothing…the system is rigged and corrupt” do we need term limits for court too?
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:40 pm:
The three Republican justices all wrote individual opinions calling the ruling partisan. Hard to disagree the Democratic justices did not play politics on this one. One more reason trust in government is so low.
- Just Me - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:43 pm:
Keyrock - Not sure I agree with you there. The Supreme Court said you could figure out another way to do redistricting as long as only legislators (or their appointees) were involved in the process. The entire point of this endeavor was to remove legislators.
- Keyrock - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:44 pm:
The Auditor General’s involvement was never likely to fit within the Court’s precedent.
A commission appointed by legislators (and perhaps the Court), with qualifications and jury-style strikes, was clearly the way to go.
- IRLJ - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 12:16 am:
Seems to me this was a legal battle. The politics were on the outside looking in.
Like you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight, don’t bring a political argument to a legal fight. You’ll lose.
- Just Me - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 12:22 am:
Anyone that the legislature appoints just does whatever the legislature wants them to do as the legislature would only appoint people they completely trust.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 6:29 am:
The plain language of the Constitution is clear.
The Republican effort comes at a time when rebel flags are being raised across the country in the name of Donald Trump, whom Governor Rauner is backing.
And the efforts that would restrict minority voting do fall into a long line of attempts by Republicans to disenfranchise minorities. Albeit by a different strategy, the end result of the measure would be to segregate minority voters into as few districts as possible, just as Republican controlled legislatures have done throughout the country.
- Last Bull Moose - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 6:40 am:
Compact and contiguous multi-member districts solve many problems. Go to 40 House districts and 20 Senate districts with 3 members each.
Nobody runs unopposed. Minorities have a fair chance to be elected. And it forces the parties to run some candidates that occupy the middle.
This can clearly be done by referendum as it follows the form of the Cutback Amendment.
- Very fed up - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 7:48 am:
As a statewide party the Democrats just lost any moral highround. Any member of the legislature that tries in some way to claim to be an independent thinker or not under the thumb of Madigan should be laughed at.
- I'm not a lawyer either - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 8:17 am:
-The Dude Abides-
…have the legislature pass a bill that is legal.
Why didn’t I think of that? Genius.
- DGD - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 8:24 am:
** Anyone that the legislature appoints just does whatever the legislature wants them to do as the legislature would only appoint people they completely trust. **
Exactly, which is why the majority decision is just as partisan as the dissenters.
- Publius - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 8:49 am:
Governor Rauner, people are being driven away from Illinois to states where the GOP draw the maps like Texas? The only difference in who maps are drawn in other states is the party in charge.
Is your argument that the voters are not smart enough to vote for for the person they want to represent them and they only way to change their voting habits is to change the map? If an area is prodominately GOP should it be changed so they are represented by a Dem? That would make government better?
Your constant call that government is not working is it because it is not working for you? Millions of people were being served by the state and unfortunately because of your attempt at political genocide of labor unions and the class warfare you are waging not as many are being served
Sir the map is not the problem, you are.
Sir, the unions are not the problem, you are
Sir, the state worker is not the problem, you are
Sir, the poor and disabled are not the problem, you are
if this state was so bad for business how did you become so successful?
If businesses are fleeing the state please take your and go.
- Keyrock - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 8:50 am:
Not quite as partisan. The majority decision ma reach a result some (but not all) Democrats like, but it’s also more consistent with the language of the constitution and prior precedent.
Again, this could have been drafted differently if the Rauner folks wanted to ensure a different result.
- Anon - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 8:52 am:
===“What drives people away from Illinois is the sense that our political system is broken and our government is unaccountable to the people.”===
LOL — Says the dude that literally failed to perform his constitutional duties by failing to introduce a balanced budget for either of the two fiscal years he’s been responsible for it.
- Publius - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 8:53 am:
Keyrock
Then they would not have an issue to run on and blame madigan. It’s a sad thing in politics, you sometimes hope your proposals fail so you can raise money and have and issue for the next election.
- illini - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 9:10 am:
— Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV. —
All the strict constructionists, the legal purists, and all the laymen who continuously rant and rave against judicial activism should commend the Court for following the statutes as written.
While I agree that redistricting needs to be addressed, and that there have been ongoing problems with the current process it was fairly evident to me, as a layman, that this change could have caused problems equal to those that it purported to correct.
- Jocko - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 9:16 am:
==More than 500,000 citizens signed the petition to allow the entire state a chance to be heard on this issue of fairness. It is an affront to our democracy…==
We also signed off on the millionaire’s tax and AVR. How are those goin’?
- City Zen - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 9:18 am:
==And the efforts that would restrict minority voting do fall into a long line of attempts by Republicans to disenfranchise minorities.==
Um, have you noticed the Congressional map boundaries in Cook County? The bordering towns both north and south of my town are in different districts, who are also maybe 2 miles away from yet ANOTHER district. My town has a lot more in common with those towns, yet we’ve been segregated from them.
I can assure there are plenty that have been disenfranchised, but not who you think.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 9:21 am:
===More than 500,000 citizens signed the petition to allow the entire state a chance to be heard on this issue of fairness. It is an affront to our democracy…===
The number of signatures has never equated to constitutionality.
Never.
- Saluki - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 9:24 am:
Another prime example of how the legal standard is the lowest standard.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 9:26 am:
===yet we’ve been segregated from them===
LOL.
Appropriating civil rights terms for your perceived suburban problem is not cool.
- Norseman - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 9:41 am:
=== Um, have you noticed the Congressional map boundaries in Cook County? ===
Irrelevant to this discussion. Fair Map didn’t have anything to do with congressional remapping.
- phocion - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 10:05 am:
Seems the folks here who are defending the decision haven’t actually read it. This was a political decision, pure and simple. It rests upon no precedent. It eviscerates the ability to amend the constitution. It does not provide a roadmap to amending the constitution. It lays bare that the Supreme Court is, at the end, merely a political institution. There is nothing to respect in the majority opinion. The majority has stated that there are not three co-equal branches of government. The people may not amend the constitution if it goes against the self interest of the legislative branch. The Court has placed the legislative branch has the preeminent branch of government. Cowardly. Craven. Catastrophic.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 10:11 am:
===Seems the folks here who are defending the decision haven’t actually read it. This was a political decision, pure and simple.===
I guess all that mumbo-jumbo pertaining to the Illinois Constitution is just “filler” to get to 60+ pages?
Why not spend the monies used in promoting amendments like this on legal minds that understand the constitutional parameters needs to pass muster?
===The majority has stated that there are not three co-equal branches of government.===
Really? Page and line number where the ILSC states this.
- Keurock - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 10:23 am:
Hey, Phocion,
Go back and read the Court’s prior decisions in this area. Then come back and tell me with a straight face (or emoji) that the majority made this up. Ok?
- JB13 - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 10:31 am:
Hey, all you smart people who tell us constantly to shut up and be smarter (or get better lawyers): What do you believe is an amendment to change redistricting that would actually be constitutional and a functional change under this decision? You insist it’s possible. Tell us.
- phocion - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 10:31 am:
OW and Keuroc,
I have read the opinion and the cases cited. First, OW, the majority opinion is 21 pages. The rest of the 60 pages are those of the dissenting opinions. I would especially direct you and Keuroc to Justice Karmeier’s dissent. It cites case law, sections of the constitution that the majority ignored, and the legislative history of the constitutional convention to completely undermine the majority opinion. You’re both entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. This decision will result in the same sort of negative public confidence in the Illinois Supreme Court as the Bush v. Gore case had on the US Supreme Court.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 10:43 am:
===It cites case law, sections of the constitution that the majority ignored, and the legislative history of the constitutional convention to completely undermine the majority opinion. You’re both entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.===
You said…
===The majority has stated that there are not three co-equal branches of government.===
Where do I find that?
I’m also confused, a political decision you say… then you say that “entire to opinion” stuff..,
Isn’t it your opinion that it’s s political decision?
Hmm.
Please stay on what I said, thanks.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 10:48 am:
“When the General Assembly reconvenes this fall, they should put political reform - term limits and independent redistricting - at the top of the legislative agenda so that incumbents aren’t locked into power and democracy is restored through competitive general elections.”
So these are going to be other excuses for Rauner to hold the GA hostage in upcoming sessions?
I was leaning toward term limits, but now that I see how Rauner and a few other super-rich own the IL GOP, I don’t support it. I don’t want Rauner the plutocrat meddling in my district. I want to reserve the right to vote for whoever I want, even if it’s for multiple terms.
- Ron - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 11:07 am:
- Anon - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 8:52 am:
===“What drives people away from Illinois is the sense that our political system is broken and our government is unaccountable to the people.”===
LOL — Says the dude that literally failed to perform his constitutional duties by failing to introduce a balanced budget for either of the two fiscal years he’s been responsible for it.
LOL is right! Illinois hasn’t had a balanced budget in what? 20 years? Maybe more?
- Annonin' - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 11:56 am:
OW Makes a point, but remember BigBrain and the 1%ers insult the 600,000 Trump voters every day. So when this 500,00)+ figure out they got screwed by guys who thought amend Art 4 by amending 3 aticles the grand total will be …..drum roll….1.1 million.
- LTSW - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 12:05 pm:
“The only thing standing in the way of political reform is Mike Madigan”. Jeez, the GOP couldn’t even get anyone on the ballot to oppose Sue Scherer. You can’t win seats with no one on the ballot. BTW, whatever happened to the commenter Circular Firing Squad?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 12:06 pm:
===whatever happened to the commenter Circular Firing Squad? ===
He morphed.
- Ghost - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 12:32 pm:
FYI Illinois had a balanced budget the fiscal year before Rauner took office (not the fiscal year he was elected).
The budget was balanced, generated more the. was needed with the extra going to the backlog of bills created by wealthy investors crashing the world economy.
The GOP keeps running into the constitution and crying unfair when it is complied with on pensions and remap etc…. I thought the GOP was for strict compliance with the law and opposed to judicial activism which rewrote laws to meets the courts desire, usurping the legislative branch or plain meaning of the constitution. GOP getting hoisted by its own pitard is interesting, and shows there hypocrosy. Long live the pizzatarian party!
- Publius - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 12:36 pm:
Illinois Republican Party statement say it all this is about political reform not governmental reform. They lack the vision to be elected and cannot lead so they feel there only option for political power is to still the remap process from the people’s elected representatives and hand it over to a governor appointed panel
- Keyser Soze - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 2:17 pm:
One need not lawyer up to recognize that the justices could have read the constitution any way they wanted on this one. How can anyone be surprised that they read through politically tinted glasses?
- NorthsideNoMore - Friday, Aug 26, 16 @ 3:23 pm:
And the Beat(down) Goes On !