Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

BGA redistricting forum

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* We’re coming late to this, but the Better Government Association is holding a forum this afternoon on redistricting reform. Participants…

Cynthia Canary
Senior Adviser, Committee for Economic Development
Executive Director, Independent Maps

John T. Hooker
Chairman, People’s Map

Michael Kasper
General Counsel and Treasurer, Democratic Party of Illinois

Lori Lightfoot
Partner, Mayer Brown

Moderator

Alden Loury, Senior Policy Analyst, BGA

Very interesting panel, particularly Kasper.

* I went back and pulled in all the BGA tweets from the forum and it’s still live as I write this, so have a look…

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 5:21 pm

Comments

The proponents, especially Lightfoot, greatly oversell the positive impact of an appointed commission-drawn map. It hardly puts significant power in the hands of the people versus what they through elected representatives. If a neutral map itself would increase truly “competitive districts” more than by 3 or 4, then they don’t know what those words mean.

Whatever. Even modest improvements are better than nothing. Slightly better government is still better government. Most importantly, we’d all be better off without this false excuse for victim hood.

They’ll get the signatures. The court will ok it. The public will probably vote for it. Unless the Dems coopt it by reasonable action, it will occur.

And we can go on to focusing on more significant issues.

Comment by walker Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 6:12 pm
==Most importantly, we’d all be better off without this false excuse for victim hood.==

I agree, but I’m not certain there won’t be different biases, and I’m even less certain that people will stop complaining even if it is less biased.

Comment by Timmeh Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 6:25 pm
My issue is that in terms of having independent voices in the General Assembly, the least likely places where they will come from is from competitive districts. Instead we would get even more members who are completely reliant on the Speaker or the Governor for financing. More targets will simply mean fewer members willing/able to take a tough vote, and I don’t think that’s exactly what we need right now.

Not that the current system is great, but I just worry this will have a similar impact as the cutback amendment, and further diminish the numbers of truly free-thinking legislators.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 7:29 pm
study of Florida which Rich put up here several weeks ago says it all. this will not help the cause of progressives.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 7:32 pm
“==Most importantly, we’d all be better off without this false excuse for victim hood.==”

Like my heavily Republican Lake Forest being represented by 100% Democrats and zero Republicans in the House and Senate?

False excuse? Victimhood? Or hurling nonsensical insults to cover up the real insults the current system creates?

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 7:59 pm
Louis: peace. I am on your side on this issue. Just don’t think it would produce as much change as you seem to believe. Best case, we both shall see starting in 2022.

Comment by walker Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 8:53 pm
IMO the only reason for a committee is to resolve technical boundary issues that arise in using ArcGIS that utilizes a population gravity model to draw up voting districts. Such a model is mathematically arbitrary to the political system and would be fair to both parties. Know what? Such a process will never happen due to politics hence my reticence to any appointed committee.

Comment by illinoisan Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 9:04 pm
Gotta agree with the poster some time ago who said “after Texas”. No way are red states going to do this.

Comment by JackD Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 11:17 pm
=== and further diminish the numbers of truly free-thinking legislators. ===

Juice, can you explain. I would think the opposite. Now the powers that be, if they win the extra member, can create districts that make it harder for Solons that don’t toe the line to get re-elected.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Dec 4, 15 @ 8:10 am
=== The court will ok it. ===

I’m still not convinced.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Dec 4, 15 @ 8:12 am
Norseman, I was just referring to the fact that the targets are always off the tough votes. For both parties. This would create more targeted districts, though really changing very little for the vast majority of districts.

And I’m not convinced on it passing constitutional muster, not sure how this amends both structure and procedures of the GA, but time will tell.

Comment by Juice Friday, Dec 4, 15 @ 9:29 am