* Tribune…
The departure of Texas Democrats who spent two weeks in suburban Chicago evading a vote in their state on a Republican-backed redrawing of congressional district boundaries has not ended the conversation on partisan gerrymandering in Illinois.
A bipartisan pair of former high-level officials from President Barack Obama’s administration on Tuesday began their public push to stop state lawmakers from directly drawing their own district boundaries, a change they argue would mean more competitive elections and a General Assembly that better represents the will of the voters.
The “Fair Maps Illinois” proposal marks the third attempt since 2014 to reduce heavy partisan influence in how Illinois district boundaries are drawn following the once-per-decade census. Supporters argue the latest effort, which requires amending the state constitution, will be tailored to fit the narrow frame the Illinois Supreme Court has outlined for citizen-driven amendments after legal challenges struck down similar proposals in 2014 and 2016.
The group — being led by Chicago Democrat William Daley, Obama’s former chief of staff, and Peoria Republican Ray LaHood, Obama’s former transportation secretary — made its announcement just one day after Texas lawmakers headed home after their legislative walkout temporarily prevented the Texas GOP from jamming through a congressional remap and elevated gerrymandering as a national issue.
The Fair Maps Illinois effort wouldn’t affect the drawing of congressional maps and is focused just on the process of drawing district boundaries for the state House and Senate. Still, that issue has created substantial pushback statewide in the past, and backers acknowledge they once again anticipate having to fend off legal challenges.
* Change Illinois is not impressed…
As the leading organizations in the fight for Independent Maps in 2016 and opposing the gerrymandering of Illinois’ congressional and legislative districts in 2021, we know firsthand the egregious flaws and issues with Illinois’ current remapping process.
We have serious concerns with the approach and the language being proposed by the new Fair Maps Illinois initiative, which held its launch event earlier today. We are first and foremost troubled by the initiative’s lack of robust engagement during the development of the proposal with community organizations and leaders, who are most impacted by racial and partisan gerrymandering. That shortcoming has led us to question who will benefit if the proposal were to make it on the ballot and ultimately be enshrined in the Illinois Constitution.
The ballot language also misses key and necessary components to ensure the redistricting process is equitable and fair. The proposal is based on the existing flawed, politically-controlled process in our state constitution that leaves the fate of voters’ representation to a coin flip. Democracy is too important to be left up to a 50/50 chance of either major political party having complete control of the remap.
At a minimum, any changes to Illinois’ undemocratic redistricting process in Illinois should uphold and require the following principles:
1. COMPLY WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
2. COMPLY WITH FEDERAL AND STATE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
3. COMPRISE AND UPHOLD A NON-PARTISAN PROCESS
4. MAXIMIZE VOTER CHOICE, ELECTORAL CANDIDACY AND COMPETITIVENESS
5. RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST
6. ACCURATELY INCLUDE PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF ALL ILLINOISANS
7. COMPRISE AND UPHOLD A TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE PROCESS
8. PROVIDE FOR OPEN, FULL, AND MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
“The fight for Fair Maps has never been more important in light of what is happening across the country with states contemplating or starting mid-decade congressional gerrymanders to maximize partisan advantage,” said CHANGE Illinois executive director Ryan Tolley. “At the same time, we cannot abandon our principles and must ensure that reform efforts are rooted in the community organizations and leaders most affected by gerrymandering. Instead of trusting a politically-controlled process to cure gerrymandering, we should focus on empowering and protecting voters through expanding the Illinois Voting Rights Act.”
We will be convening community organizations and leaders to understand the impact this proposal would have on their ability to participate in the remap process and ensure that we collectively elevate those needs and concerns.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:11 am:
Well excuse their obtuseness over the state of our democracy. They are getting old. Simply thank them for their public service and tell them no thank you it’s not the time.
- 44 - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:16 am:
Coin flip? We wish. Weird response. And the all caps!
- Juice - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:18 am:
I get the sense that Change Illinois is more upset about being excluded than the actual substance of the proposal.
Also not sure how elected members of the General Assembly drawing maps is undemocratic. (Not saying it isn’t a problem, but it is democratic in that they were elected by the people.) Particularly in comparison to their preferred method of having Frank Mautino pick names out of a hat.
- Horace - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:19 am:
I don’t care anymore. I’m not going to tell Democrats to fight with both hands tied behind their backs while Republicans cheat their way to the goal line for the next century. It’s childish idealism at best.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:35 am:
I noticed how little the Fair Maps Illinois proposal changes from the process now. Their proposal just goes to the coin flip without the party in power being able to draw the map through normal legislative means. Strange proposal.
- Larry Bowa Jr. - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:41 am:
“It’s childish idealism at best.”
I agree this is the most charitable reading we could give it, but I don’t think Bill Daley has any idealism within him. He likely honestly believes that only certain kinds of democrats should hold office and if voters don’t elect those kinds of democrats he’d rather it be a republican.
- TNR - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:44 am:
The legal strategy behind this seems to be is: “Hey Supreme Court, please ignore the 90% of this proposal that you have repeatedly found to be unconstitutional and focus only on the part that might change the size of the General Assembly every ten years if the population of the state changes substantially.”
I’d bet every penny I have on the SC saying “you can go ahead and attempt to change the size of the GA with a separate stand-alone referendum, but you can’t throw all this other stuff in it.”
- Amalia - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:47 am:
community organizations. so organizers with time and mouth to speak. it’s sort of like why I don’t like any of the caucus states and their primaries. like the new initiative by the bipartisan guys. and Mike Dorf is involved. A very good sign.
- Horace - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:48 am:
@TNR
When courts declare Republican maps illegal/unconstitutional, Republicans use them anyway and the courts do nothing.
Who cares what the courts say anymore?
- Telly - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 9:48 am:
== Bill Daley ==
If I needed to gather a bunch of semi-retired rich dudes who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations for a summer fundraiser in the Hamptons, he’d be one of the first guys I’d called.
If I needed someone to guide me through modern day Illinois government and politics, he might be the last guy I called.
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 10:02 am:
– I get the sense that Change Illinois is more upset about being excluded than the actual substance of the proposal. –
I get the sense that the people who fund Change Illinois are more upset about being excluded.
- Leatherneck - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 10:12 am:
Why cant Daley, LaHood and all these other remap reform advocates go onto Dave’s Redistricting App and put up their “reformed” maps there? Not just congressional but also legislative.
- Juice - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 10:20 am:
One other item of note on the timing and the proposal.
This specific proposal is an attempt to fit a square peg into a round whole of the Constitution’s requirement (as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court going back to the 1980s, not just in the more recent redistricting decisions) that ballot initiatives are limited to amendments that change both the structure and procedures of the General Assembly.
Because of that reality, the language itself is never likely going to be ideal.
But two years later, the question as to whether or not Illinois ought to have a Constitutional Convention is going to be on the ballot again. Implementing a redistricting commission through that process would be far cleaner and more likely to lead to an optimal outcome. (As well as an ability to address other potential issues, such as revenue.)
It would make a lot more sense for energy and resources be placed towards that effort, which if approved by the voters has a higher chance of producing a better product, than going through this scheme that would result in a commission that’s not necessarily optimal, if it gets through the courts.
Also, the Governor did support the vote for a Con-Con in 2008. Would be interesting where he stands now.
- ZC - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 10:41 am:
I think Change Illinois would benefit from reviewing more of the academic lit on gerrymandering today.
In particular I am really unsure what it means to RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST and also COMPRISE AND UPHOLD A NON-PARTISAN PROCESS.
The problem for Democrats is that a lot of communities these days have extremely high Democratic vote %s. If you want to “preserve” those communities, by keeping them all together in the same district, you’re arguably going to wind up drawing a map that is probably going to have the impact of benefiting Republicans, and also you will not be working to promote COMPETITIVENESS in a lot of those districts. A bunch of small rectangles hovering over Chicago is essentially the approach the GOP did to Wisconsin, and how the General Assembly there could maintain comfortable majority-Republican control, even when a majority of the state electorate sometimes voted for Democrats.
It’s like CI threw a lot of attractive-sounding BUZZWORDS on the blackboard, but Gerrymandering 101 is that it’s about tradeoffs. If you bend the process to accommodate one set of value-concerns, you inevitably undercut others. You can’t have it all.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 10:46 am:
Fighting fire with fire needs to happen sometimes. It would be great if there were real, non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state, but that will never happen.
- Roman - Wednesday, Aug 20, 25 @ 10:53 am:
In order to meet the “size and structure of the General Assembly” test, this proposal would have the number of members of the GA fluctuate with the state population. The state’s population has grown by about 1.5 million since the cut-back amendment established the current size of the GA in the 1980’s.
That means if this Daley-LaHood proposal had been in place since the 80’s, the GA would have at least 6 more senators and 12 more reps than it does today. I have no problem with that, but it seems to me “we need more politicians in Springfield” is not a popular argument with the voting public. If the Daley-LaHood plan makes the ballot (and I highly doubt it does) expect that to be the main argument against it.