What really is “fair”?
Monday, Feb 3, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune editorial…
As corruption scandals worm through the establishment Democratic Party, Gov. J.B. Pritzker finds himself with new and unexpected leverage. He can push for meaningful ethics reform in Illinois government by removing the barricades his own party’s leaders erected in the past. Those Democrats are wounded. He is not.
So will he lead on real reform?
“Restoring the public’s trust is of paramount importance,” Pritzker said during last week’s State of the State address while his two chamber leaders — House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President Don Harmon — stood at the dais behind him. “Let’s not let the well-connected and well-protected work the system while the interests of ordinary citizens are forgotten. There is too much that needs to be accomplished to lift up all the people of Illinois.”
That effort starts with drawing a fair map of legislative districts after this year’s federal census. It could happen through constitutional change.
Pritzker said as a candidate for governor he supported amending the Illinois Constitution to take the process out of the hands of lawmakers: “We should amend the constitution to create an independent commission to draw legislative maps.” More recently, he said he would not sign into law an unfair map.
He issued the veto pledge around the same time, but whatevs. And fair maps could also happen with a state law: 60-30-1 is a lot easier than 71-36.
* Crain’s editorial…
Another hot topic that must have been cut from the final draft of Pritzker’s speech: remap reform, a subject that must be aired out as lawmakers prepare to redraw legislative and congressional districts after this year’s national census. Will the governor demand fair maps that give all Illinoisans a say in the state’s business no matter where they live? He missed an opportunity to call on the General Assembly to make it so.
The fairest map imaginable will not elect Republican legislators in hardcore Democratic areas nor will it elect Democrats in overwhelmingly Republican turf (2018 saw a major, if perhaps temporary, shift in voters’ party orientation, not in the maps).
What a fair map would do is make sure that legislators aren’t choosing their voters. Legislators may have large, extended family in certain parts of their districts and they may want those folks in their redrawn districts. They may have represented one area of the district as a mayor or township supervisor or whatever, or they may have a business in a town or are active in a local church or school district and they’ll want those folks who know them well in their new districts. Or they might see an up and comer and want that person mapped out of their districts. Right now, incumbents draw the maps, so they have an unfair advantage over any potential challenger (primary or general) who does not draw those maps. A fair map system would level that particular playing field.
Probably above all else, legislators also want their residences to remain within their districts. A blindly drawn map wouldn’t necessarily take that into account.
* Eric Zorn…
One definition of a politically “fair” map is one that results in a balance of power in the state legislature and the U.S. congressional delegation that reflects the partisan divide in that state. If roughly 55% of voters in any state are Democrats, then roughly 55% of the seats should be won by Democratic candidates, for example.
Easier said than done. Mapmakers have to take into account civil rights laws that guarantee majority-minority districts, and they often strive to keep natural communities of interest together. Even those with the purest of motives can end up drawing crazily shaped districts that may or may not seem “fair” to certain constituencies or governors.
But if it could be done in Illinois to be fair to Republicans, should it? Those who study the issue of gerrymandering estimate that, nationwide, the current political maps give the Republican Party at least 20 more seats in Congress than their actual voting strength ought to give them. Research published in 2017 showed North Carolina had three more Republican seats in Congress than it should if the state delegation mirrored the electorate. Republicans in Michigan had two more seats than they deserved.
Meanwhile, Illinois had one more Democratic seat than a “fair” map would yield.
The Democrats have since picked up two more congressional seats, but those were won in districts that were considered pretty darned Republican when they were drawn.
In other words, yes, we are most definitely gerrymandered here. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Democrats have given themselves an egregious partisan advantage. As Senate President Don Harmon recently noted, “Gov. Rauner won 35 or so Senate [districts]” in 2014. There are several seats the Republicans could very well be expected to pick up this year if they weren’t facing such strong DC headwinds. This is politics. Them’s the breaks.
- Scamp640 - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 11:31 am:
Illinois Democrats are smart to resist conservative calls for “fair maps” in Illinois. This is more than just a state issue. There is a national movement among conservatives to hold a constitutional convention to take the United States back to the 19th century. Read more about it here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/inside-the-conservative-push-for-states-to-amend-the-constitution.html
Until all of the states currently controlled by Republican legislatures agree to “fair maps”, Illinois needs to maintain the status quo. It is hard to imagine, but Illinois is a bulwark against some pretty retrograde ideas.
- Sue - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 11:38 am:
So why isn’t Eric Holder in Illinois suing over our gerrymandered map😆
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 11:40 am:
Just for heck of it I wish U of I or some other university would have some graduate computer people use a computer to draw a map that takes in federal requirements and makes all district as rectangular as possible. Be interesting to see
- Annonin' - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 11:43 am:
The funniest part of Katrina’s rant was the ominous vision of the “secret room”used by Madigan . Once again readers are not told ALL FOUR caucuses had the exact same funding levels, work space,etc. for remap. There was even a public area open to the media —even the Tribbies. The most important element of remap is complying with federal and state voting rights act. That even comes before “fair” We think the Tribbies are more bootlicks who will obey their editorial rants like the good old days.
- brickle - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 11:43 am:
no “fair” maps until there’s a national fix
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 11:51 am:
Rich, pointing out all the reasons legislators want certain areas is helpful. There’s a lot more that goes on than the editorialists in the ivory towers are capable of fathoming. Maybe they should get some sun (and do some research and reporting for a change).
And again, so-called “fair maps” coming from the GOP is code for “we can’t win elections in a diverse electorate, so let us rig the system.”
If the Illinois GOP wants so-called “fair maps” in the Trump environment, let’s do it California style, so they will be annihilated just like the California GOP. When there weren’t incumbent interests to protect, there were more Democratic seats created. To quote one famous Republican, “oops.”
- Joe Bidenopolous - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 11:58 am:
When Republicans give us back the gerrymandered seats they’ve taken from Democrats in states like North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio, and when Nei Gorsuch is removed from SCOTUS and replaced with Merrick Garland, we can talk about so-called fair maps. Until then, no thanks.
- Downstate Rube - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 12:05 pm:
I thought the Senate confirmed Supreme Court justices. What do the maps have to do with that?
- Joe Bidenopolous - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 12:30 pm:
=I thought the Senate confirmed Supreme Court justices. What do the maps have to do with that?=
Not much. But it’s another thing Republicans stole and if they want something from us, I want that seat back
- lake county democrat - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 12:33 pm:
Don’t forget it’s not just Dem vs. GOP seats - gerrymandering encourages fewer moderates, as more extreme candidates can win both a primary and general in a gerrymandered district.
- Just Me - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 1:37 pm:
Lake County Democrat is exactly right. Gerrymandered maps produce districts that are “safe” for Democrats and Republicans. That just makes compromise that much more difficult to achieve.
- anon2 - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 1:45 pm:
Zorn makes a reasonable proposal that would have bipartisan support: from Republicans in Illinois and from Democrats in a red state to double up with Illinois on enacting fair maps.
- muon - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 2:18 pm:
One problem with “fair” is that with single member districts the most likely delegation is not the same as the partisan division of the state. As an extreme example, consider a statewide office, where 55% of the voters prefer Ds and the rest R. If those numbers were static the D candidate would win 100% of the time - not 55% of the time.
For a state like Illinois studies have shown that for every 1% over 50% a party gets, their delegation should grow by 2%. Another way to say that is if an Illinois party gets 55% of the vote statewide they might reasonably expect 60% of the seats. Seats drawn to meet the federal VRA will shift that number, but it shows the difficulty of measuring a “fair” map on partisan grounds.
A second issue is that a map may be fair to both parties, but unfair to the voters if there aren’t enough districts where changes in voter behavior allow voters to reasonably change the composition of the legislature. As we’ve seen this decade voter preferences change in different regions with each cycle. If too many districts are drawn as locks for each party to create partisan fairness, the electorate can’t register its desire to change partisan control.
- logic not emotion - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 2:39 pm:
“Don’t forget it’s not just Dem vs. GOP seats - gerrymandering encourages fewer moderates, as more extreme candidates can win both a primary and general in a gerrymandered district.”
Is a very good point. The current primary system promotes extreme views from the parties and moderates lose out. The partisan map process does the same thing. I hope J.B. stands by his word and insists on fair maps for Illinois. It would go a long way in restoring some faith in Illinois government (and probably not change much else anyway).
- Chicagonk - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 3:35 pm:
Districts should be relatively compact and natural. When your building is drawn into an alderman’s district despite not really being in the alderman’s area just because the building demographics are favorable, that’s a problem.
- anon - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 3:37 pm:
The biggest problem with the map proposal supported by Zorn (and others) is that it compares results to the “partisan divide.” This only works well is the partisan divide is static over many years. That just is not true, see the Illinois congressional races that have flipped parties over the past 10-20 years.
- Last Bull Moose - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 3:45 pm:
I don’t care about fair. I want competitive. Every legislator should risk losing in each election.
I don’t think single member districts work. The State was better with multimember districts.
- Pelonski - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 5:24 pm:
“I don’t care about fair. I want competitive. Every legislator should risk losing in each election.”
100% agree. What’s “fair” to Democrats and Republicans is typically not “fair” to independents. I want actual choices at the ballot box.
- Anonanonsir - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 6:53 pm:
Some good-government group might do a poll about what voters think of voting in MJM-drawn and approved districts.
Durkin and Brady get some credit for taking a stand. There’s no particular reason to think that “fair maps” would help the GOP overall in Illinois. In fact, they could help Dems, as they apparently do in California and New Jersey.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 6:55 pm:
=== Some good-government group might do a poll about what voters think of voting in MJM-drawn and approved districts.===
Yeah, last election… voters gave MJM his largest majority as Speaker… ever.
This is not the path.
- Anonanonsir - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 7:17 pm:
His district is 1/118th of the state.
I was referring to statewide.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 7:24 pm:
===I was referring to statewide.===
MJM is already unpopular.
Another poll saying he’s unpopular isn’t changing much.
The merits of the idea is the stronger argument. Why muddy the argument?
- Anonanonsir - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 7:58 pm:
It could raise awareness, which is a challenge for reformers.
And it might be of interest to statewide elected officials.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 8:04 pm:
=== It could raise awareness, which is a challenge for reformers.
And it might be of interest to statewide elected officials.===
“Because Madigan” is and was already a thing.
- Anonanonsir - Monday, Feb 3, 20 @ 8:20 pm:
Well, it’s a big thing with regard to the next remap.
But right, a poll will only happen if it is deemed worth the expense.