Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Remap reformers say they’ve collected 400,000 signatures

Posted in:

Illinois

* Either the Democrats get in front of this issue, or they’re gonna get run over by it…

More than 400,000 Illinoisans have signed petitions to put the Independent Map Amendment on the November 2016 ballot.

These petition signers want to give voters a choice between an independent commission drawing state legislative maps in a fair and transparent manner and the current system where politicians draw the maps to maximize partisan advantage and protect incumbents.

The non-partisan Independent Maps coalition announced Tuesday that it has collected 402,109 signatures and is now more than two-thirds of the way to its goal of collecting 600,000 signatures.

“Just like in Ohio where on November 3rd a redistricting reform initiative passed 71-29 percent, Illinoisans are clamoring for change in the way state legislative maps are drawn,” said Dennis FitzSimons, Chair of Independent Maps. “After seeing 60 percent of state legislative races go uncontested in November 2014 because of slanted maps drawn to discourage competition and protect incumbents, voters want to fix a rigged system.” […]

“We reached the 400,000 mark about five months earlier than the 2014 campaign, and we will continue collecting signatures until it is time to deliver our petitions to the State Board of Elections next May,” he said. “To put an amendment before voters, the Illinois Constitution requires a minimum of 290,216 valid signatures, and our goal is to collect more than twice that number as insurance against petition challenges by the entrenched interests who oppose reform.”

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 10:36 am

Comments

Sweet. Another opportunity for the governor to declare victory on one of “his” reforms so he can get to the heavy-lifting of cleaning up the FY16 mess.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 10:40 am
Don’t kid yourselves, Independent Commission drawing state legislative maps can be purchased (rigged) to favor the governor’s party.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 10:46 am
I hope this goes through.

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 10:47 am
Assuming the courts do not help the Democrats out by ruling that only the legislature can make changes to the legislature…

Comment by Ahoy! Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 10:51 am
Word is right. Why the Governor held on to this for months, as a “nonnegotiable” structural reform, before agreeing to discuss the actual budget, is a mystery. It has been clear for months that he had another route to get what he wanted on remapping. This might have simply provided political cover for less popular demands.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 10:55 am
Anonymous above was me.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 10:57 am
Where can I sign the petition? Seriously.

Comment by justacitizen Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:00 am
Hmm, let’s see… Trust the process to an independent commission? Or to the folks that have always done it so well?
Where do I sign?

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:01 am
I would be in favor of introducing a constitutional amendment to put ALL of the following (popular items) to a public vote. If we are going there for term limits and remap, let’s have a progressive tax rate, increase the minimum wage and get some limits on campaign contributions while we are at it.

They would have to each be introduced and voted on separately, I assume. But if not…let’s offer up the package deal.

Comment by morgan Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:02 am
Rich, I understand your angst regarding Dem’s getting up to speed, but BB (before Blago) during the 26 year reign of republicans and two separate census - mapping opportunities, the same twisted gerrymandering occurred.

I think the ballot question answers the “should” part of legislative mapping, but further refinement of the law would answer the “how” part.

Comment by Captain Illini Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:05 am
Yes indeed. Where do we sign?! We may have rose tinted glasses on this matter right now, but considering the conniving, divisive process as is, I’ll put on the glasses willingly.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:06 am
Looking good. Next stop will be a court challenge. We’ll see if the group is correct when they say the new language addresses the constitutional issues.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:06 am
Perhaps I’m too cynical, but I’d rather trust a known bias that has to go through the legislative process than a “supposedly” independent one.

And, no, the current map system isn’t working for me, I’m in a district that is designed for one party’s success (and it is not the one I belong to).

Comment by morgan Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:06 am
Word and Walker - just my take, but Rich’s two cents on this is probably why Rauner did that. He will remind people in late 2016 and late 2018 that the Dems went into this process kicking and screaming and seemed to have no interest in any redistricting efforts. He will likely note that they gerrymandered Illinois to pieces in 2001 and 2011 and that they resisted change. That would be my take.

And given the cases out of Texas and Arizona, my guess is that SCOTUS would take up this issue if it becomes a court battle and drags on for a while.

Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:09 am
TS, my guess is that the governor’s interest in this issue is about the same as term limits, just to keep it alive as a talking point.

Kind of goofy that a sharp guy like Rauner flogged that obviously unconstitutional term-limits amendment last year.

But, then again, he was able to collect a lot of voter information with it, and its getting tossed by the courts kept it alive as a campaign talking point.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:15 am
Dems should get their own proposal out there that does not require mapmakers to respect municipal boundaries, thus concentrating Democratic voters in fewer districts. In a blue state, that is getting more diverse by the day, Dems would benefit from a truly fair map.

Comment by nona Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:21 am
==Don’t kid yourselves, Independent Commission drawing state legislative maps can be purchased (rigged) to favor the governor’s party.==

Exactly right. There is no such thing as an independent anything when it comes to politics and government, particularly when it comes to something as crucial as district mapping.

If they really want to get the bias out, they’d do it with a computer. An “independent” commission could, perhaps, be formed to act a some sort of backstop, but any changes to what the computer decides would have to be made in broad daylight, in front of the media and anyone else who cared to watch.

Comment by Hal Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:31 am
One thing we can all agree on. If Madigan again sends in his lawyers to try and keep us from voting on this and republicans control the process in 2020 they would have every right to draw the most extreme gerrymandered maps possible. Madigan and camp would have 0 right to argue or complain.

Comment by Very Fed Up Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:38 am
Of all the rhetoric regarding term limits and the like, I actually agree with a fair map process. Term limits would just replace the face but keep the mindset the same. If districts are competitive, hopefully legislators would not be so steeped in ideology on either side.

Comment by Thrillinois Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 11:51 am
The Courts won’t allow it on the ballot.

Comment by 4 percent Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 12:09 pm
I am one Democrat who favors this reform. It has clearly worked in Iowa. I went to the Iowa state party Jefferson-Jackson State Democratic dinner and was impressed by how different the entire feeling of the Democratic Party is in Iowa. More competitive general elections lead to more competitive primaries. They also lead to more centrist office holders from both parties, who can work across party lines when necessary.

Comment by jake Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 12:19 pm
I favor reform, as long as similar efforts are being mounted with similar enthusiasm in red states. Otherwise, this looks to me like Republican scheming to maintain their gerrymandered advantage in the House at the national level for as long as possible.

Comment by Dr Kilovolt Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 12:33 pm
As far as red states, the article says Ohio ratified redistricting reform Nov.3rd.

Comment by nona Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 12:41 pm
I hope this pass’s . Iowa does it so should we.
It’s not perfect ,but what is.

Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 12:50 pm
Why would FitzSimons cite the Ohio amendment? Redistricting experts are highly suspicious of its intent, considering it was legally worded to be gamed by a majority party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/30/1435204/-Ohio-Republicans-give-voters-a-chance-to-reform-legislative-redistricting-but-buyer-beware

Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 12:53 pm
In agreement with independent remapping. Who has a petition?

Comment by Bogey Golfer Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 1:02 pm
I agree that gerrymandering is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I don’t think independent maps is the way to do it. I’d rather make it less advantageous to game the map with multi-member districts.

Comment by Timmeh Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 1:23 pm
Not to pour cold water on this, but unless more of a balance starts to emerge between the urban and rural distribution of voters, a “neutral” map will favor Republicans out of the gate. A large part of why Madigan’s map includes so many elongated districts on the south side of Chicago was to find ways of including both Democratic and Republican voters in most districts rather than having a great many Democratic voters concentrated in a handful of vote sinks. Then again, the elongation of one of these districts (Dunkin’s) makes him more difficult to primary than you would think by including River North Rauner Republicans in what was previously a South Side district.

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 1:50 pm
It is a heckuva lot easier to say “independent commission” then to specify how you get to an independent commission.

Again, not 100% opposed but trying to lay out all the ways this could go wrong.

If you have an independent commission, then you have to figure out who -picks- this independent commission. And then you need safeguards on that these “pickers” are truly independent, and then that the process that picks the pickers who pick the commission is nonpartisan, and back you go.

Again not saying it can’t be done, but I’ve looked fairly closely at the methodology proposed and I’m not at all convinced Mike Madigan can’t game this system, if he sets his mind to it.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 2:39 pm
It is amazing that so many people are willing to sign a petition to appoint people they don’t know and haven’t a clue as to who would be members of the “non-partisan” committee. Who are these people? Who will pick them? Do they have to be vetted to find out if they are democrats or republicans? Who will do the vetting? This looks like a trap to cover a Republican takeover.

Comment by Tom Joad Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 3:05 pm
How much do you trust Frank Mautino, a Democratic representative, to be fair as he appoints the “reviewers” to appoint the “commissioners” who draw the map?

Comment by LeaLou Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 3:42 pm
Keep signing everyone. This is the most important referendum in our lifetime.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 4:11 pm
I have been seen these “gentlemen” passing at train stations in the Suburbs. A bunch of out of town roughnecks really turning people off.

Comment by Come on Man! Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 4:14 pm
“out of town roughnecks” passing the goo-goos petition?

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 4:18 pm
**It has clearly worked in Iowa. I went to the Iowa state party Jefferson-Jackson State Democratic dinner and was impressed by how different the entire feeling of the Democratic Party is in Iowa. **

Causation and correlation are not the same thing.

There are many problems with the IL Dem Party - I don’t think that the maps are the cause of most/any of them.

Comment by AlabamaShake Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 4:51 pm
Like Timmeh, I favor multi-member districts. This reads as an improvement over what we have.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 5:15 pm
They should use TIGER files(census data) to do the districts.

Comment by internal angel Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 7:32 pm
Over 400,000 signatures, eh? I wonder how many of them thought they were signing a petition to raise the minimum wage…

Comment by Triple fat Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 8:03 pm
Like it -
Where do I sign.
Term Limits Now

Comment by cannon649 Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 8:06 pm