* I’ve been telling subscribers about this constitutional amendment push the past couple of days. There are other issues not brought up by the Republicans as well…
Illinois House Republicans allege Democrats aim to cheat with new Redistricting Amendment to Illinois’ Constitution
Springfield – Deputy Minority Leader Ryan Spain, Representative Dan Ugaste, and Representative Amy Elik on Tuesday blasted a proposed constitutional amendment from Illinois Democrats, arguing it would further weaken standards for fair legislative maps and make partisan gerrymandering even easier.
“In furtherance of their endless appetite for absolute power, Speaker Chris Welch and Illinois Democrats aim to enshrine what they once claimed was defect into future design,” said State Representative Ryan Spain (R-Peoria). Spain was criticizing a constitutional amendment filed by Democrats that would change the long-standing fairness standard in the Illinois Constitution used to judge legislative maps.
“Democrats are working to standardize what was once described as anomaly, and, in doing so, aim to make permanent in our State Constitution not best practice, but rather the worst practice in the country,” continued Representative Dan Ugaste (R-Geneva), referring to Illinois’ “F” grade for gerrymandered maps by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.
“Closed door deals. Partisan district lines. Communities split apart for political gain. Politicians hand picking their voters. And now, an attempt to change our State Constitution to make it even easier,” said Rep. Amy Elik (R-Alton). “The leadership at the top of the Democratic machine has proven time and again, they will protect themselves first and the people of Illinois last.”
House Republicans say the amendment, House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 28, was filed just this week by Speaker Chris Welch in response to concerns over a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Louisiana v. Callais. The proposal would rewrite Illinois’ constitutional standard for drawing legislative maps.
Under the current standard, maps must be “compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population.” Welch’s proposal would instead create a ranked list of five criteria.
The Amendment to amend the Legislature Article of the Illinois Constitution on decennial redistricting to require Legislative and Representative Districts to be drawn, in order of priority: (1) to be substantially equal in population; (2) to ensure that no citizen is denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice on account of race; (3) to create, where practical, racial coalition or influence Districts; (4) to be contiguous; and (5) to the extent practicable, to be compact. The current requirements are compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population.
Compactness is moved to the bottom of the list and qualified by the phrase “to the extent practicable.” House Republicans argue that change would significantly weaken the compactness requirement. They point to a lawsuit filed last year, Schrage v. State Board of Elections, which alleges maps passed by Democrats violate Illinois’ compactness standard in 52 of the state’s 118 House districts.
“Instead of accountability, we’ve gotten excuses. Illinoisans can see the results for themselves. Districts that twist and turn, communities divided, and a system that was set up to protect politicians, not represent people,” Elik continued.
House Republicans say they are concerned the amendment could move in the Illinois House this week. They are urging residents to contact their state representative and state senator and ask them to vote NO.
- Think Again - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 2:57 pm:
=House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 28=
Makes complete sense from a tactical perspective - Dems would like this to be one of the 3 possible amendments, this one for sure would drive progressives to the polls - look at the goofy redistricting amendment in Virginia - it is a naked power grab - but the narrative is being couched as fighting back against MAGA.
- HUCKLEBERRY1926 - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:20 pm:
I would say go for the mega-super-duper democratic majority. As the state continues to spiral into fiscal destruction, everyone knows who to blame.
the anti-business bills and pro-labor bills continue to mount in the 104th. Let it flood after the rain and the pouring.
- Frida's Boss - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:22 pm:
I mean, what did they expect?
They have no power; the Dems will run them over with this, and there’s nothing they can do about it but complain.
The public won’t care, just like 2020.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:28 pm:
===the Dems will run them over with this===
Depends. Right now, it’s just a bill.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:35 pm:
It’s not clear to me this will change districts much and the requirement to make racial coalition or influence districts may actually increase Republican leaning seats. Map making is good enough that the Legislature could probably overcome this, but once you have a standard to create influence districts it potentially weakens the gerrymander.
- Penny - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:41 pm:
Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But, who cares in IL, right? The criteria should focus on some community of interest among the voters in a district. Perhaps county boundaries should be the starting point–more than 1 county if pop is too small; divide a big county along community/city boundaries within. But, what do they care about fairness.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:46 pm:
==But, what do they care about fairness.==
Until everyone starts caring about “fairness” then why disarm yourself? Both parties do it. Until they both stop then this is what you get.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:47 pm:
===Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
Creating majority minority districts is not unconstitutional and is, in fact, part of the VRA which is what this proposes (though influence districts aren’t necessarily majority minority even).
- Penny - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 3:53 pm:
ArchPundit. Not quite. The point of VRA is not to dilute minority voting rights, not to obtain majority minority. A “high” percent minority voter poppulation is ok. I don’t know whether that means “majority” however. One cannot redistrict with race as primary factor.
- CA-HOON! - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 4:07 pm:
Republicans whining about the gerrymander is such naked hypocrisy. Rucho v. Common Cause was entirely the doing of the Republican-appointed justices with the Democrat-appointed justices all in dissent. The amici briefs followed a similar pattern: GOP in support, Dems opposed.
Only one party wanted a constitutionally-approved political gerrymander and boy oh boy did they get what they wanted. Which makes the GOP’s hue and cry at their opponents taking advantage of the very ecosystem *they engineered* is like music to my ears.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 4:15 pm:
Except non-dilution is the point of the majority-minority districts that are required. Race is limited to not being a predominant factor but can be a factor. The proposed amendment subordinates race to other factors just not compactness which is problematic in many ways.