Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Why the Democrats believe they can legally justify their new remap
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Why the Democrats believe they can legally justify their new remap

Tuesday, Oct 12, 2021

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column

The Illinois House Redistricting Committee held its first hearing last week on new congressional and judicial subcircuit district maps. Another half-dozen hearings were scheduled for the following seven days to redraw the maps, which have to be reconfigured after each ten-year census.

The hearings aren’t likely to matter a whole lot when push actually comes to shove. After all, legislators paid next to no attention to public input during the General Assembly’s own remap process last spring and summer. A new map that was passed in the spring by super-majority Democrats then was redrawn in the summer when more detailed data was released by the federal government.

But an updated lawsuit filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund could matter.

MALDEF alleges that the revised legislative district map creates fewer “opportunity districts” — where more than half the voting age population is Latino — than the state currently has. This despite the fact that the voting age population of Illinois went from 8% in the 2010 census to 11.2% in the most recent count.

This seems like a pretty straightforward argument to non-lawyers like me. But the Democrats have never seemed at all concerned that they will lose this or any court case. Even when given an opportunity to redraw the maps, not much changed. And not to mention that the chairs of both the House and Senate Redistricting Committees are Latinx.

Why the confidence?

We’ve seen a whole lot of news media coverage of the plaintiff’s case against the new maps. But the defendants mostly have stayed silent because the issue is under litigation, so their position is less understood. I decided to seek out a top source who could help me understand what the Democrats are thinking.

“Remember, you’re drawing a map for the next ten years,” the Democratic attorney with years of experience dealing with redistricting explained to me. “You’re not only looking at what the district looks like now, but you’re looking at what the districts are going to look like in the next [ten years].”

There are several factors to consider when drawing maps in Latino areas, the lawyer explained, including voting age population (because Latinos tend to skew much younger than the population as a whole), the specific area’s citizenship rates (a statistic not measured by the U.S. Census, but which can generally be estimated using American Community Survey data) and sometimes competing factions within the “Hispanic” umbrella (Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, for instance).

“If you want to ensure that Latinos can win a district,” the lawyer said, “you have to make sure that the citizen voting-age population is high enough where they will continue to be able to elect their candidates of choice. So if you have an area with high non-citizenship rates, you want to have higher levels of citizen voting-age population.”

And while several of the new districts’ voting-age populations are low, that will change over time as the districts’ residents get older and eventually strengthen Latino candidate chances long before the next Census in 2030. The Democrats also have sophisticated arguments about population movement trends to buttress their cause.

The differing factions within the broad-brush of Latino voters means voters can sometimes be played off against one another, which has to be another consideration when drawing the maps. “Latinos don’t necessarily coalesce,” the attorney continued, pointing to traditional rivalries between Mexican and Puerto Rican voters.

Beyond regional origin differences, national political trends also can have a major impact. For instance, Asian-American Rep. Theresa Mah, D-Chicago, capitalized on the 2nd House District’s strong Latino support for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary to woo progressive Latino Democrats in her bid against a “regular” Latino Democrat.

And that brings us to something I’ve mentioned before in other places. The Democrats contend the evidence clearly shows that white Illinois voters are willing to vote for candidates of color at multiple levels. This evidence, they say, is what helped them win the last legal challenge to their remap. And American University’s Allan Lichtman testified to just that evidence in his late May testimony to a joint redistricting committee hearing.

So, if the Democrats can prove-up their reasoning behind their map-making decisions and show again that Illinois elections aren’t racially polarized by white Illinoisans only voting for white candidates, they believe they’ll walk away with a court win this time as well.

I guess we’ll see.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

5 Comments »
  1. - Rabid - Tuesday, Oct 12, 21 @ 9:47 am:

    Latino republican lost to madigan maps


  2. - Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 12, 21 @ 10:20 am:

    Interesting article. Now to see if the party’s attorneys can convince the judge. They certainly failed to communicate the benefit the MALDEF.


  3. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 12, 21 @ 10:35 am:

    Rich, great stuff… especially *this* aspect, very critical to maps;

    ===“Remember, you’re drawing a map for the next ten years,” the Democratic attorney with years of experience dealing with redistricting explained to me. “You’re not only looking at what the district looks like now, but you’re looking at what the districts are going to look like in the next [ten years].”===

    This is everything, and why I look at what is signed, but most importantly, what these maps, with trends, will actually “be” in two or three cycles and going forward.

    A judge is gonna decide if the Voting Rights Act is being followed to the intent it was for protection, and argue as MALDEF and Republicans may do, maps are NOT, or SHOULD not, be snapshots and hope that districts don’t evolve or change as demographics will inevitably change.

    I’ve stated I wouldn’t like, for example, and wouldn’t think the governor would want to sign a 14-3 congressional map, but, like in that grab I took above, a 13-4 map that trends 14-3 would be more palatable, but that’s the romantic in me to understanding what is being discussed above… the idea of a map that can still be relevant in 10 years, not a map that is drawn to reflect what is here in the last 10 minutes.

    Great read. How the decision by a judge is explained my be more important than the actual decision? That may be the bigger story in the end.


  4. - Fav Human - Tuesday, Oct 12, 21 @ 11:16 am:

    certainly failed to communicate the benefit the MALDEF.

    Jam today is better than jam tomorrow. Especially since we all know it’s about incumbent protection, not incumbent creation


  5. - Lynn S. - Wednesday, Oct 13, 21 @ 12:16 am:

    The thing I keep thinking about every time this comes up:

    Latinx may be increasing as a percentage of the population, but that doesn’t mean they’re all moving to the same 10 neighborhoods in Chicago, or the same 10 towns in Cook or Will or McHenry counties.

    And if the Latina population is more dispersed, especially outside of Chicago and the collar counties, it’s going to be a lot harder to draw a Latinx majority district. Especially if you wish to avoid districts that cover 250 miles from one end to another, but average a mile or less in width.

    Kind of like people who say one of Illinois’ 2 senators should be African-American. AA is not 50% of population, and Illinois does not have the history that Mississippi or Georgia or Virginia does.


TrackBack URI

This is not Facebook, so uncivil comments, profanity of any kind, rumors and anonymous commenters will not be tolerated and will likely result in banishment.



* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Partisan breakdown of newly proposed congressional map
* *** UPDATED *** Democrats release new congressional map - More Latino strength - Newman, Casten in same district - Kinzinger, LaHood mapped together - Miller, Bost mapped together
* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* Question of the day
* The debate continues over the labor force participation rate
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Pritzker expands vax/test mandate to workers at licensed day care centers
* COVID-19 roundup
* Despite pleas and even threats, IDOC worker vax rate remains about the same
* Can't somebody at the state step in and help Dixmoor with its water problem?
* Giannoulias hit for accepting campaign money from his brothers, others
* Illinois: Tell Congress To Count All Copays
* Open thread
* *** 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
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