Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Unsolicited advice
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** Congressman John Shimkus testified at today’s hearing…
Shimkus testified that U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello, a 23-year Democratic congressman from a neighboring southern Illinois district, came to him in early spring of this year to attempt to negotiate a bipartisan congressional map. The two later met one-on-one in Shimkus’ hometown of Collinsville, where Costello, of nearby Belleville, presented rough maps to the Republican.
Shimkus said subsequent attempts to get more detailed information about the boundary lines failed and no further negotiations ensued. “You can’t negotiate when you don’t know the lines,” Shimkus said.
Asked about his relationship with Costello, who had been the state’s longest-serving congressman, Shimkus choked up with emotion and said, “He’s retiring. He’s a close friend and confidante. I’m proud to call him my friend.” Costello announced last month he would be stepping down from Congress.
Asked about the map’s effects on his political career, Shimkus testified that the new Democrat map was “egregious” and “terrible” and would split his hometown of 22,000 people into three congressional districts after he and Costello had represented Collinsville jointly for the past 20 years.
* The hearing starts today…
Illinois Republicans will get their day in court over the state’s new Democrat-drawn congressional remap.
A Thursday hearing is scheduled on the long-shot legal challenge filed by GOP members of Congress over the map that tries to erase some of their recent gains.
Illinois Democrats dominated the map-making because they control the General Assembly and the governor’s office. The new map drew Republicans out of their districts and lumped incumbent GOP members together or threw them into Democrat-friendly territory.
* The Republicans’ argument is summed up here in their motion for a permanent injunction…
Plaintiffs have alleged that the 2011 Map (the “Adopted Plan”) violates the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act in three ways: it unconstitutionally creates a racially gerrymandered district; it intentionally dilutes the votes of Latinos; and it unconstitutionally discriminates against Republican voters. […]
While it may be true that Latino Democrats in the Illinois state legislature voted in favor of the Adopted Plan and Latino community groups have remained on the sidelines in this case, the Adopted Plan unlawfully discriminates against Latinos. The record overwhelmingly establishes that the Adopted Plan violates the Equal Protection Clause because race was the predominant factor motivating the shape of Adopted District 4 and the gerrymandered district is not narrowly tailored to comply with any compelling interest.
The record also makes clear that the Adopted Plan intentionally and unlawfully dilutes the votes of Latinos by packing Latinos into District 4, while it reduces the Latino population in neighboring Districts 3 and 5 to arrest the growing Latino community’s influence over contests in those districts.
And while political considerations often properly inform the redistricting process, the Adopted Plan takes partisan gerrymandering to an unconstitutional extreme. The Democratic-controlled Illinois government worked hand-in-hand with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to draw a map that discriminates against and penalizes Republican voters based on their political affiliations and expression of political views. Under any reliable standardfor measuring the constitutionality of political gerrymanders, including the one that Plaintiffs have proposed in their Amended Complaint, the Adopted Plan violates the Constitution.
* The Republicans claim that Democrats created “an excessive supermajority of Latinos” in the newly created District 4 (65.9 percent Latino voting age population) while they “substantially reduced the Latino VAP in neighboring Districts 3 and 5 from where it currently stands.” Here are the districts in question…
The Republican argument is that if the Democrats had spread out the Latino vote and not “packed” so many into the 4th, the Dems could’ve created another Latino district.
* Greg Hinz…
Just about no one in politics that I know believes [the political gerrymandering] challenge will get anywhere. Gerrymandering, like it or not, is a fact of life.
But the Hispanic argument has more heft because the Democrats carved out three majority African-American districts, even though the 2010 census found that Illinois actually has more Latinos.
The Dems counter that the Latino population is much more dispersed and that creating two Latino districts would dilute them so much that incumbent Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Chicago, would be endangered. Republicans dispute that, but the map they’re offering would create districts that are only 53% and 48% Latino of the “voting age” population.
Democrats are concerned that while the panel has one Democratic-appointed judge, it also includes two who were chosen for the bench by former President Ronald Reagan. Both have been brought in to hear the case from Indiana.
Congressman Gutierrez was the primary motivating factor for creating just one new district. Some believe he wants to be the only and only king of Latino politics here, some say he’s right that Latinos are too spread out to “safely” create a new district that guarantees two Latinos will be elected. A 53 percent Latino district could conceivably put Gutierrez in some political danger.
But Gutierrez was also able to prevent any major Latino organizations from supporting the Republican lawsuit, which has surely hurt the Republican case.
Then again, a two-to-one Indiana Republican majority on the judicial panel is giving the Democrats heartburn.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 12:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Unsolicited advice
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Gerrymandering for any reason is wrong. Divide the districts up into equal populations and let the rest fall into place. This map is an example of politicians picking their voters not voters being allowed to pick their elected officials. We need a non partisan way to draw districts. I would not be happy with GOP dominated maps either it takes the responsiveness away when politicians know they are safe no matter what. Danny Davis is a bigger goof than Joe walsh and has never had a serious challenger. Jan Schankowsky benefits from her husbands crimes with no voter outrage in a safe district. This is an issue that tea party and 99% should be outraged about because districts drawn to ensure a certain party the seat are the opposite of democratic representation.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 12:58 pm
**Gerrymandering for any reason is wrong.**
Maybe…but wrong and illegal are not the same thing.
Comment by Dave Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:09 pm
Have the Republicans produced a map that supports the contention that the map can be drawn to create two districts that will elect Latinos and three that elect African-Americans?
Or is the GOP case that two Latino and two African-American districts is more correct under the VRA than one and three?
Or is this suit just an exercise in whining and creating an excuse to use discovery to go on a fishing expedition?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:23 pm
Sorry, I should have read before posting.
48% Latino voting age population is not remotely close enough to enough Latinos to create a majority Latino district.
Members of the “voting age population” don’t vote. Not even all registered voters vote. The people who vote, vote.
Latinos aren’t registered to vote at a high rate b/c of citizenship. And Latino citizens vote at lower rates than other ethnic groups.
I did research on a district in California where 40% of the district was Latino and the district still elected a conservative Republican. Mexican-Americans in California overwhelmingly vote Democratic. But they don’t vote.
A 48% Latino district might elect a Latino, but if Quigley or Lipinski is the incumbent, forget about it. Nobody who has been involved in trying to elect Latinos is going to tell you 48% is near enough.
Want a local example? Ron Serpico in Melrose Park. Melrose Park has over 60% Latinos on the voting roles. Jesse Martinez ran and had plenty of support from unions with precinct walkers and money. Martinez had been an elected official. Serpico beat Martinez two to one.
The Republicans better hope they get an ignorant judge, because a judge who’s even slightly knowledgeable about elections will half little patience for the nonsense claim that a 48% Latino district will elect a Latino.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:33 pm
===The Republicans better hope they get an ignorant judge,===
Well, two of them are from Indiana.
Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:38 pm
the judge that just blew up the texas map which royally screwed those republicans was a reagan appointee, I think, so nothing is a given.
Comment by shore Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:46 pm
Live by gerrymander, die by gerrymander.
Comment by This Little Piggy Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:02 pm
Glad to see the Republican party has decided to finally stand up for the rights of latinos. I assume the scare tactics of fake immigration horror stories will stop during the next campaign…right?
Comment by L.S. Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:45 pm
I would sure rather see an assimilation-melting pot mindset growing than continued growth of ethnic-identity first, and the pandering gerrymandering does not foster those better angels of our nature. I favor the proposal to have a computer with a fair algorithm and limited deviations from a rectangle or other simple geometric draw the boundaries.
Comment by JustaJoe Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:06 pm
Only one thing to keep in mind, the way our people are moving and increasing, just because a district was 48% Hispanic at census time, doesn’t mean it won’t be majority Hispanic for most of the next ten years.
And Carl’s right, majority population does not mean majority at the polls.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:21 pm
Carl: You don’t need to have “guaranteed power to elect one of our own race” in a district to ensure that the minority’s interests will be represented. You think Quigley would risk a primary by turning hostile to Latino issues? Arguably Latino power would be greater with 2 districts that they have “power broker” numbers in rather than one.
Just as important: gerrymandering creates hyper-partisans. Louis Guitierrez, in my opinion, has hurt his cause by being uncompromising and bombastic - look what he did to wreck the DREAM Act compromise that the 3 moderate GOP senators (Collins, Snowe and Brown - this was pre-Kirk) were hinting they could support.
As for the law, I dare anyone to reconcile the Supreme Court’s view of the Equal Protection Clause in Bush v. Gore with the 4th Congressional District of Illinois.
This isn’t the era of the Civil War or Jim Crow - there’s no justification for this sickening practice to make our votes as meaningless as possible.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:33 pm
Just use that quote from Currie when she admits the map is partisan. Case closed.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:39 pm
===Case closed.===
Except, it hasn’t been illegal to use partisanship to draw maps.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:42 pm
I can’t imagine Republicans would be considered a “protected class”. With Latino groups not protesting the map, and with the DOJ not protesting either, it doesn’t seem like that argument will fly either.
Democrat leaders aren’t denying (and can’t deny, given the evidence) that they drew the map for political purposes - the lawsuit seems to be designed to embarrass them.
Comment by Robert Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:43 pm
===As for the law, I dare anyone to reconcile the Supreme Court’s view of the Equal Protection Clause in Bush v. Gore with the 4th Congressional District of Illinois. ===
Except, the justices said the case had no precedence value.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:48 pm
Remember, in Bush v. Gore 7 of the 9 justices ruled that what the Florida Supreme Court had ordered violated the US Constitution. The 5-4 vote was to deny a remand to that Court and to thus effectively end further recounts - all of which Bush had won, by the way.
Comment by Ace Matson Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:40 pm
The Democrats have the legal high ground, and they are entitled to blind, impartial justice in court. But it is a laugh to hear them expressedly worry about “partisanship” after drawing a map like this!
Comment by Bubs Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:11 pm
Oh boo hoo John Shimkus. Maybe now he has an idea how his constituents feel after he lied to them about his term limit.
What a bunch of selfish cry babies these GOP officials are. No wonder they didn’t get a seat at the Big Boy Map Drawing Table.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 6:54 pm
IF discrimination against GOP voters in IL is unconstitutional, what about discrimination against Democratic voters in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states where the GOP flagrantly gerrymandered map? Is it only wrong when Democrats do it?
Comment by reformer Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:12 pm
@reformer No one is making that argument. They have as much a right to take the maps to the courts as the Republicans do.
But it does make for a nice strawman, doesn’t it?
Comment by ChrisB Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:02 pm