Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The First Amendment
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The League of Women Voters of Illinois has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state and congressional remaps based on 1st Amendment partisanship rights, which would be a pretty unique interpretation if adopted by the courts. From a press release…
“In a series of recent decisions the United States Supreme Court has upheld the First Amendment rights of corporations and wealthy candidates. Today we are asking a federal court in Chicago to uphold the First Amendment rights of the voters of Illinois. The longstanding Illinois practice of assigning voters to districts based on their political views and voting histories violates the First Amendment rights of our members and others throughout Illinois,” said LWVIL President Jan Dorner.
Governor Pat Quinn, in signing the Congressional and General Assembly maps, pronounced them “competitive” and “fair.” The League of Women Voters of Illinois believes that the people of Illinois will achieve more genuinely competitive elections and have a more genuinely competitive political system if the Governor and General Assembly stay out of the business of picking and choosing the views they want voters to express, hear and receive in the districts where they live and vote.
The gerrymandering that both political parties have engaged in for decades has resulted in districts so tilted to one political party or the other and so rigged to guarantee the reelections of favored incumbents that voters in Illinois seldom have real choices in our elections. Our suit seeks to order the Governor and General Assembly to establish a new process for developing new legislative and Congressional districts through the selection of an impartial decision-maker or body that will ensure the least possible infringement on the First Amendment rights of the people of Illinois based on their political views, opinions, or beliefs.
* Read the lawsuit by clicking here [Fixed link]…
In violation of the First Amendment, the defendant Governor and General Assembly have placed Illinois residents into new state legislative and Congressional districts based at least in part on the partisan viewpoints and opinions such residents are likely to express or that they are likely to hear and receive. The redistricting principles set out in House Resolution 385 and Senate Resolution 249 state that each new district “was drawn taking into account the partisan composition of the District and of the Plan itself.” The General Assembly and Governor have unlawfully selected residents to speak, debate, assemble and vote in these districts based upon their political viewpoints and opinions, without safeguards against the misuse of such criteria to regulate or abridge First Amendment rights for partisan ends. […]
In the current redistricting process, no lottery took place since the Democratic Party controls both chambers of the General Assembly and the Governor is a Democrat.
Consequently, the General Assembly conducted redistricting without the limited and often ineffective safeguards of the Illinois Constitution to ensure that there is a bipartisan agreement on a map that does not favor one political group over another. […]
In creating the new districts in the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011, the General Assembly used the same redistricting principles as it used for the creation of the state legislative districts – including “partisan composition.”
36. While Democratic leaders contend that the maps are competitive, Republican leaders have denied that the maps created under House Resolution 385 and Senate Resolution 249 are “competitive” or constitute anything but traditional partisan gerrymandering.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** Greg Hinz has more…
Tom Geoghegan, attorney for the league, said this is the first time to his knowledge that a remap has been challenged strictly on First Amendment reasons. But the action is consistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions banning limits on donations by corporations and wealthy candidates as an affront to First Amendment guarantees, he said.
“Our suit seeks to order the governor and General Assembly to establish a new process,” League President Jan Dorner said, one that “will ensure the least possible infringement on the First Amendment rights.”
It’s an interesting argument. But gerrymandering — the process in which those drawing the map tilt it to their political advantage — is as old as America. We’ll see if the courts want to make some new law.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The First Amendment
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So I guess if they are successful this would mandate maps drawn by computers??
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:39 am
I love the LWV, but this is an utterly frivolous lawsuit. Three U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the last two decades have reviewed the issue. In the most recent one, four justices concluded you can’t even file a lawsuit based on partisan issues, that it is “non-justiciable”. The rest believed that somewhere, someday they might see a case that is so egregious that a lawsuit could win, but in all three cases, the persons challenging the partisanship behind a map have LOST. This is a “press release” lawsuit.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:40 am
hmmmmm….curious. Someone maybe should check out whether the League of Women Voters of Illinois recently received any big donations from some of the same Republican fat cats funding the straw-man organization set up by the IL GOP to pursue its sour grapes lawsuit.
Isn’t this the same League of Women Voters of Illinois that struck out miserably on a petition drive a year or so ago largely due to lack of resources?
I suspect the GOP was desperate to have another plaintiff since the Latino community won’t jump on board. Just sayin’.
Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:47 am
I agree in concept, but have no idea how there is any legal foundation for the suit.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:50 am
The link to the complaint does not work.
Comment by Hi Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:52 am
Very novel argument. As an attorney, I would simply say not to dismiss this lawsuit out of hand given some recent court cases, though I still think this may be a stretch of an argument, it is worth a hearing.
Comment by Niles Township Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:52 am
Yeah just sayin’ the League of Women voters has been co-opted by the GOP…
You might have a hole in your tin foil hat dude…
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:55 am
OneMan, they have been working closely with the GOP on this issue all along.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 10:57 am
i’d be interested to see if they file the same lawsuit in texas. i believe the lwv is up with a commercial attacking claire mccaskall, too…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:02 am
The suit was brought by Leon Despres old firm. Not exactly the types to be doing the handiwork of the GOP. I hope it succeeds.
Comment by Meanderthal Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:08 am
The suit may be frivolous, but it is drawing attention to a legitimate issue. Drawing district lines in a truly neutral manner would likely result in better representation, as would many other things.
I doubt the LVW thinks the suit will succeed. Heck, I would imagine that they don’t even think it has any merit. They’re trying to highlight the issue. A lawsuit like this gets a lot of ink.
I have a great deal of respect for the LVW, and I believe they are about as non-partisan as a political organization gets.
That said, as long as gerrymandering is the law of the land, I’m happy to see the Democrats taking advantage of their position to make the map as beneficial to Democrats as possible. But I’d also support an effort to make the map neutral, in the style of Iowa. I’d prefer if it was something that was put into place on a national level. If it’s piecemailed, then one party or the other will benefit by having states controlled by that party hold out. But, if the GA passed a law that said that if 40 or 45 other states pass a law to go to a neutral redistricting system, then Illinois would join them, I’d support it.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:10 am
or, reading comments that I didn’t see before, perhaps I’m wrong and the IL LWV (sorry for previously writing LVW) has been co-opted.
I still am all for neutral redistricting. Of course, the devil is in the details, so the problem is if the “neutral” system is gamed to favor one party or the other.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:13 am
1. I do not think the LWV has been co-opted by the GOP — most things I’ve heard is that the LWV leans Dem.
2. Agree with Jerry 101 that this is about raising awareness of the issue — they probably don’t think they will prevail in the courts.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:21 am
Is this the same LWV that was pushing its own remap formula?
A remap formula that benefited the Republican Party?
The same LWV that said its remap formula was non-partisan?
At the same time it was working with the Republican Party to gather signatures to put its remap formula on the ballot?
The LWV has no credibility on this issue. And by getting involved the LWV is squandering the credibility it does have.
The LWV protected Mark Kirk from answering questions about Iraq in cycle after cycle.
So, let’s be honest about the LWV’s partisan sympathies.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:23 am
Follow the money.
Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:23 am
Good for the LWV, I think this time it may have a chance. The one Quinn and the boy’s drew up is laughable. Let’s hope the court sees it that way.
Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:24 am
Of course this will go nowhere. And nothing will ever really change until the political games that inevitably result in bad financial decisions at the state and federal levels ultimately cause our entire ecomony to crash. But it’s our own fault. We keep electing these goofballs that have only one agenda: self-preservation.
Comment by cynical Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:31 am
just sayin’ is right. It’s about time to examine the financing of the League of Women Voters of Illinois.
Suspicion: a large percentage of LWV funding comes from a small number of highly partisan Republican donors.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:35 am
Press release lawsuit. Legally speaking the argument is gibberish; it amounts to LWV not liking redistricting and nothing more.
Whatever they want to pay their lawyers for I guess.
Comment by Dirt Digger Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:41 am
If they are succesful, Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker again! GOP are writing many more congressional districts than Dems this year.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 11:45 am
anon makes a good point.
Of all the states cutting maps that advantage the GOP, the LWV picks the *one* state cutting a pro-Dem map to file a lawsuit.
Wow! Some coincidence.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 12:00 pm
I was at a meeting of the LWV St. Charles chapter several years ago, and “right wing” was about as far from my impression as possible. Green Party might have been closer.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 12:17 pm
“… The gerrymandering that both political parties have engaged in for decades has resulted in districts so tilted to one political party or the other and so rigged to guarantee the reelections of favored incumbents that voters in Illinois seldom have real choices in our elections. …” LWV pr
It has been noted by others that creating safe districts makes the real election the primary. In practice, the candidate knows that once (s)he secures the dominant party nomination, (s)he will not have to ask for independent or centrist votes to win the general election. The consequence is that successful candidates tend to be representative of the end of the political spectrum occupied by the dominant party in each particular safe district.
Over many safe districts, many extreme partisan candidates are elected. The intended result is control of a legislative body.
The incidental result is population of legislative bodies by extreme partisans of both parties and by few moderates capable of legislative compromises. This empowers legislative leadership, and diminishes the representative voices of the separate members. And by extension, voters’ rights to representative government.
Comment by Anon III Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 12:27 pm
Interesting. It seems as though the LWV is trying to strike at the heart of political gerrymandering. Good for them.
They may not succeed this time, but eventually the Court will have to review the entire concept of partisan gerrymandering and determine whether or not it is fundamentally in conflict with the principles of democratic government.
History is filled with examples of practices that were accepted because that’s the way it had always been done, until the courts ruled it couldn’t be done anymore.
One need only look at the recent debt ceiling crisis in Washington to see how the institutionalized polarization of government through gerrymandering is undermining the ability of the nation to address it’s problems.
Sooner or later, an enlightened court will rule that partisan gerrymandering is not acceptable and must end. This case may not succeed, but it may at least move that day a little closer.
Comment by Voice of Experience Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 12:30 pm
There’s a leap in logic in there argument. Corp.’s and Rich People’s 1st Amend right was to be partisan in spending their money, not to be free from partisanship. If LWV correct, I can argue my 1st Amend right to assemble in a district that is drawn to satisfy my partisan preference.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 12:36 pm
This is a very interesting argument from a group that usually bugs me. I think the meat and potatoes of this suit ( which will go nowhere but raises intersting philosophical questions) is do voters have a right to express preference and expect compitition in both general and primary elections? Further, does the state have an obligation to meet that expectation?
Comment by dizzy cow Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 12:40 pm
A vote is free speech, a form of expression. A voice is muted when it is unfairly placed in a partisan fashion in a gerrymandered district based on partisanship so that voice will not be heard. This is a violation of that voice’s First Amendment rights.
That is one interesting argument and strikes at the core of gerrymandering, which many around here celebrated when the maps were released and enacted. I recall words being used such as “breath-taking” to describe the partisan nature of the maps.
Let me give credit to the attorney who drafted this complaint. It was well researched, used the element of partisanship by citing the House and Senate Resolutions and Rep. Currie and then tossed in the Illinois Constitution which makes no mention of partisanship in drafting these maps.
It does leave out other factors used in the drafting of such maps, including diversity of race. It may be some pretty tough sledding to try to prove that partisan was a major or significant factor in the drafting of those maps. They can prove it was a factor, which may not be sufficient to carry the day in court.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 1:00 pm
If your goal is nixing single-member districts and going to multi-member districts that’s a position I can sympathize with.
There’s a pathology among self-styled “reformers” that Michael J. Madigan is the root of all evil.
When reform groups solicit support from politicians they consider allies, the politicians say, “I’d love to help you, but…”
The excuse the “reformer” politicians can always get the professional reformers to believe is that Madigan is “forcing” them to be ineffective.
“Madigan will punish me during redistricting,” is an excuse that “reformer” politicians can give to avoid doing any blipping work.
The real problem is that most of the members of of the General Assembly are simply lazy. They don’t want to cultivate their own lists of donors and make phone calls that aren’t slam dunks for $500 checks. If your average contribution is $80-120 and the pol gets two “nos” for every “yes”, it’s a long road to $100K.
Once “reform” pols give their Madigan excuse enough times, LWV, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and the BGA then become easy targets for manipulation by Republican contributors. Rather than focus on the big picture goals, when a $10,000 check gets dangled, the “reformers” become lackeys for the GOP because the “reformers” have convinced themselves that Madigan is the problem rather than the sloth of “liberal” and “reform” members of the General Assembly.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 1:25 pm
If this lawsuit is based on the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution rather than Illinois law, then parallel lawsuits should be filed in many other states including Texas, Ohio, South Carolina, etc . . .
Now that would be interesting
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 1:59 pm
The premise is self-defeating. If minority-party voters’ rights are being violated bad enough to warrant judicial intervention, then by the same logic the same will happen to majority-party voters if judicial intervention occurs.
It’s bizarro logic that the “First Amendment” only applies if one’s votes happen to have not lined up with the most recent elections.
Comment by Dirt Digger Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 2:19 pm
Going after Judy Biggert gives the LWV enough ammo to stand behind their conjoined suit.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 2:52 pm
— In violation of the First Amendment, the defendant Governor and General Assembly have placed Illinois residents into new state legislative and Congressional districts based at least in part on the partisan viewpoints and opinions such residents are likely to express or that they are likely to hear and receive.
One of the problems with this sort of assertion is that it ignores that communities have similar partisan interest. So if you draw districts that match communities you also tend to draw maps that are partisan. It’s as if they think that partisanship has no relation to geography.
This is, of course, not the case given the rural/urban split we see in the United States.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 4:51 pm
My wife and I attended yesterday only because it was free. We spent more than $75.00 before we left. With the fees that the state charges vendors, I believe they ended up with more than the free admission cost them.
Comment by Nilwood Northsider Tuesday, Aug 16, 11 @ 9:17 pm
The GOP and the LWV teaming up in federal court to overturn state constitutional process. What a pair. Shopping for “activist” judges, perhaps?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 17, 11 @ 9:26 pm