Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Rauner: Blame Madigan *** Catholic Charities asking parishioners to help end stalemate
Next Post: Because… Madigan!
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s news service…
The group pushing for a voter referendum to change how political maps are drawn in the state say recent opposition to their proposals is misleading and shows the naysayers are running scared.
House Speaker Michael Madigan was asked if President Obama’s recent support of redistricting reform the Commander in Chief said should allow voters to pick their politicians and not the other way around is an easy concession for Governor Bruce Rauner.
Madigan was ready with a letter from the group The People’s Map, which raises concerns about the Independent Map Amendment Group’s proposals.
Madigan said the Independent Map Amendment proposal “has components that work against established constitutional and statutory requirements on minority representation on redistricting.”
“The Independent Map proposal would negate the protections that were put in place,” Madigan said. “There’s no questions about that.” […]
Madigan said the Independent Map group has ulterior motives.
“What the proponents of the Independent Maps want,” Madigan said, “is to change the underlying law and constitutional requirement in Illinois to advantage themselves in federal court action. That’s what they want.”
[Jim Bray with Independent Maps] said what Madigan and other opponents want is to hold on to their map making power.
So, what’s MJM talking about when he says the Independent Maps group has ulterior motives?
* The full document Madigan referenced can be read by clicking here. An excerpt, with some emphasis in the original and some added…
When drawing a map today, the General Assembly must follow federal law. Federal law requires that the map must not dilute a racial or language community’s ability to elect candidates of its choice. However, state law is more stringent in that it requires the General Assembly to also maximize the influence of racial and language minorities, including a requirement in the Illinois Voters Rights Act that the General Assembly draw influence and cross over districts.
Proponents of the Independent Map proposal claim the proposal protects the interests of minorities, but it actually reduces minority interest and establishes a lower standard than currently required in Illinois. Under their proposal, the map should not “dilute racial or language community’s ability to elect a candidate of its choice.” This is essentially the federal law, which every state is already obligated to follow and is a lower standard than current state law.
Interesting.
And nobody, but nobody has bothered to cover this because if a reformer says something it must be true.
This complaint deserves a fair hearing and I’ll post a reply on this particular topic if Independent Maps sends me one.
* Also…
The proposal eliminates the current requirement that districts be compact, which means the Commission can gerrymander and create odd shapes to pack minorities in fewer districts.
Go read the whole thing and tell us what you think.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The Independent Maps response avoids the question…
The Independent Map Amendment is entirely consistent with the state statute People’s Map is referring to and elevates the importance of protecting racial and language minorities by codifying in the Constitution specific protections for these groups during the redistricting process.
State and federal laws can be changed at any time. By putting these protections directly into our state constitution, we are creating another layer of protection for minority voting rights.
*** UPDATE 2 *** They sent another response…
The proposed amendment would put minority voting protections in the Illinois Constitution for the first time. The Illinois Voters Rights Act would remain in statute and is not in conflict with the protections in the constitutional amendment. The counter argument from the People’s Map is that the IVRA requires influence and crossover districts. Criteria #1 in the proposed amendment includes those as well. It states “(1) the redistricting plan shall not dilute or diminish the ability of a racial or language minority community to elect the candidates of its choice, including when voting in concert with other persons;” That’s what influence and cross over districts are.
Still doesn’t address the issue.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:31 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Rauner: Blame Madigan *** Catholic Charities asking parishioners to help end stalemate
Next Post: Because… Madigan!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How about covering this then:
>>However, state law is more stringent in that it requires the General Assembly to also maximize the influence of racial and language minorities
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:39 pm
Durn brackets! Cut off the rest of the post (stop cheering people!).
–requires the General Assembly to also maximize the influence of racial and language minorities–
Maximize? So how much can a minority power be maximized over a white English speaking voter’s. How much over a non-racial/language minority (Jews?) And the state is COMPELLED to minimize the power of voters on the basis of race and language?
While questioning reformers, how about questioning Speaker Madigan what specific efforts he’s been involved with to –maximize– minority voter power.
Meanwhile, the state law, presuming it’s constitutional, only provides a measure that the ultimate “fair map” would have to be evaluated against, it doesn’t state that it would be impossible to have both a non-gerrymandered map and fulfill the state law, though if the state law truly means how the letter characterizes it, I can’t imagine how it withstands scrutiny. It’s one thing to guarantee minority representation, it’s another to maximize it to make up for historic underrepresentation.
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:45 pm
On a separate point: as to the “current requirement that the districts be compact” - these people are shameless: http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2012/02/images/redistrictedMapLg.pdf
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:48 pm
==The proposal eliminates the current requirement that districts be compact, which means the Commission can gerrymander and create odd shapes to pack minorities in fewer districts.==
Now there’s a howler if I ever read it. Have they seen the shapes of some of the existing districts?
Comment by so... Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:51 pm
I’ll stick with the President on this one.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:52 pm
So that explains Guittierez’ district!
Comment by burbanite Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:52 pm
The requirements of the state and federal law violate the federal constitution on equal protection. Protecting minorities is about protecting Democratic bosses in minority neighborhoods. The only reasons some Republicans go along with it is that they cram as many Democratic voters into their own non-competitive districts and elect more Republicans elsewhere. The state constitution requires districts to be equal population, contiguous and compact. We manage to the first, barely do the second (and if you’ve ever looked closely at the districts and census tract maps you know it’s not 100 percent) and have completely failed the third test.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:56 pm
Thanks Rich, I just read the war of words in a local paper and thought to myself, “my goodness, why can’t they give me the facts behind this stuff instead of just telling what each side vaguely said about the other?”
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:57 pm
Red herring. The Independent Map Amendment must comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Comment by Bored Chairman Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 1:12 pm
Good grief can these guys find anything NOT to fight over?
Comment by Touré's Latte Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 1:26 pm
===Red herring. The Independent Map Amendment must comply with the Voting Rights Act. ===
Did you not read the freaking story???
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 1:30 pm
Why is no one criticizing the randomness of the Independent Map proposal? The legislative map is drawn by people pulled from a hat. How is that better than what we have now?
Comment by ugh Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 1:34 pm
The People’s Map might need to find someone besides Madigan to be their unofficial spokesperson.
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 1:43 pm
Rich,
1) In addition to my comment above, I’d repeat my comment that minority power is not identical to minority representation. Drawing two African-American districts is arguably less power than drawing one African-American district and two others where African-Americans are a powerful voting block.
2) Why not call out Madigan for failing to produce a fair map proposal of his own? It’s not like other states haven’t ended gerrymandering without such horror stories about minority representation happening (e.g., California).
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 1:47 pm
No one has picked up on the fact that MJM said in his budget react media avail that one possible solution would be to go to a bed sheet ballot like they did in the mid 1960’s. So every member would run statewide. In a blue state? My guess is the dems would do well.
Comment by Tom Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 1:58 pm
Just FYI, I don’t respond to “white power” arguments. And you shouldn’t be making them here, either.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:03 pm
Lake county democrat - Madigan has come out with his proposal. He views it most fair that he remain 100% in control of the process. Who could argue that?
Comment by Very fed up Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:04 pm
Also, I have consistently said that Madigan should get in front of this issue and come up with his own plan.
But that’s beside the point here.
If y’all don’t want to talk about the point, then I can’t help you.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:07 pm
Not sure the press conference statements or one and a half pager gets us much “behind the rhetoric.”
I’d be interested in the “maximize… minorities” state law citation and whether someone has or believes they could actually win in court for a violation of that state law provision. If not, then the irony is that a successful voting rights lawsuit under current Illinois law would more or less resemble one brought under the “lower” federal law standards.
And not including the language of Section 2 and 5 of the federal VRA in the state constitution petition language doesn’t mean people will lose protections under Section 2 and 5 of the federal VRA…a section 2 violation would then just take place in a federal rather than state courthouse in Illinois and I don’t think Illinois or any of its counties are “covered jurisdictions” under section 5 anyway.
There are certainly alternatives to the remap petition, but the “ulterior motive” and “lower standard” accusations should be kept in check as well.
Comment by COPN Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:14 pm
FWIW, they were circulating petitions at Food Truck Row on Wacker. They seem much more organized than the last time.
Comment by ChrisB Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:48 pm
Madigan will do and say anything, to keep himself and his party in power!
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:48 pm
I’m a little skeptical of anything that Madigan says on maps. I 100% believe he would outright lie or misrepresent facts to make sure he can continue to rig elections.
I would like to see a counter point on this post by an independent attorney or the folks from the Independent Map Coalition.
The other thing is (and Rich has said this multiple times) Madigan could get out in front of this, he’s had 40 years to improve the map making process bu the’s not going to because the current system benefits him. He will only pass election laws that continue his power. Heck, The man even holds his own daughter back to retain his stranglehold of power on Illinois.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:57 pm
===or the folks from the Independent Map Coalition. ===
They sent me a response but it completely dodged the question.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:59 pm
I think Rich is saying no one is bothering to have a real conversation about how the current law and the proposed law would impact minority voting rights - and his point is made clear by the fact most commenters want to focus on Madigan rather than the actual proposal.
Comment by the point Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:08 pm
the point +1
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:09 pm
== - COPN - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 2:14 pm:
….
I’d be interested in the “maximize… minorities” state law citation and whether someone has or believes they could actually win in court for a violation of that state law provision. If not, then the irony is that a successful voting rights lawsuit under current Illinois law would more or less resemble one brought under the “lower” federal law standards.===
See 10 ILCS 120, the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011. This was upheld by several courts when the GOP challenged the state and congressional maps.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:10 pm
I have been leery about Independent Maps since I noticed the very strong overlap between IM donors and Rauner donors, particularly among North Shore residents who never cared about such issues before.
I hate it that I’m so skeptical, but these days I have to be. I’m glad there’s an alternative remap group.
Comment by northsider (the original) Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:18 pm
Multiple districts with slight a slight majority of minorities would seem to be better than the current system of making just a few with 80 or 90% minorities.
More impact and influence in more races. But the same crew that locked Frost out of the mayor’s office might not like that much impact and influence.
Comment by m Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:24 pm
“State and federal laws can be changed at any time,” said absolutely no one who’s been watching the GA and Congress these last few years.
Comment by Conn Smythe Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:24 pm
===Multiple districts with slight a slight majority of minorities would seem to be better than the current system of making just a few with 80 or 90% minorities.===
That is exactly bass ackwards. The GOP packed black voters into districts like that. The Democrats have spread them out. Trotter’s district goes all the way down to the Kankakee city line.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:26 pm
anon @3:10pm
Thanks.
If the court said that the GOP failed to prove that the Dem drawn map violated 10 ILCS 120/5-5(a), then that’s partly my point…how do you even prove a violation of that provision?
“…shall be drawn…to create crossover districts, coalition districts, or influence districts.”
On another note, Art. IV, Section 3(a) of the constitution doesn’t necessarily with that state VRA provision, but we know that the constitutional amendment petition does go into more specifics of how to draw a district.
It’d take more energy than I have this afternoon, but that state VRA provision may not be compatible at all with the remap amendment:
http://www.mapamendment.org/uploads/mapamendment/documents/petition.pdf
If not compatible, there could be an argument for possible dilution resulting from the remap amendment…but then again I’m still not sure how a court would say a district was too diluted under the current state VRA provisions.
Comment by COPN Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:38 pm
Pretty sure the new mappers would ensure that there are no more downstate/ central Illinois Democrats. when ensuring minority representation (I.e., the Decatur-Springfield map), they have to create super GOP districts. These Dem districts are competitive, but the super GOP districts are guaranteed safe for 10 years. Where’s the equity in that?
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 3:53 pm
No honest person can look at the way Illinois divided in to districts and say this is honest and fair. The question is will enough people say “we have had enough of this and demand better” Only time will tell. Madigan will NEVER give up on this willingly. The minority issue is a cover for his greed for power.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 4:27 pm
so ind maps wants to reduce the number of minorities in govt by drawing maps t eliminate minority districts…. and they know it sounds bad sonthey want admit the truth, which means they hope to pull a fast one since they are afraid to say whatbthey really really want
Comment by Ghost Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 4:53 pm
The Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011 requires specifically the creation of crossover districts, coalition districts, or influence districts. Yet HR 385 (2011) which uses over 300 pages to describe in detail the House Districts in the current map. None are described as either crossover districts, coalition districts, or influence districts. The only statement was an amendment to the Illinois Voting Rights Act saying that the new map was in compliance, but providing no justification.
It is interesting that opponents of the amendment are now citing a need to follow the statute, though there was no evidence that it was followed in 2011.
Comment by muon Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 5:06 pm