Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: CTU proposes concrete revenue plan
Next Post: Why the hostages sued
Posted in:
* And another one’s gone…
An Illinois House plan to change the way legislative district maps are drawn in the state died in a Senate subcommittee Wednesday.
Two Democrats on a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against sending the proposed constitutional amendment to the full Senate for a vote. The lone Republican on the panel voted in favor.
The proposed amendment, which easily passed the House on Tuesday, would create an independent commission to draw the legislative district boundaries after each 10-year census. The commission would be appointed by the senior Republican and Democratic justices on the Illinois Supreme Court. The proposal also calls for extensive public hearings before a map is approved and requires that minority voting interests be protected. […]
“I am disappointed that as a result of today’s vote, the General Assembly will not offer the voters of Illinois a better way, a procedure by which constituents can choose their representatives and not the other way around,” [sponsoring state Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago] said.
The proposal was sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks and passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support.
* Meanwhile…
Independent Map Amendment Petitions to be Delivered to State Board of Elections in Springfield at 11:30 a.m. Friday
SPRINGFIELD — A yearlong statewide petition drive for a constitutional amendment to create an independent commission to draw legislative maps will end Friday when petitions with nearly 600,000 signatures are delivered to the State Board of Elections in Springfield.
A semi-truck will deliver the petitions at 11:30 a.m. Friday when Dennis FitzSimons, Chair of the Independent Maps coalition, will turn over the petitions to state officials.
The Independent Map Amendment would create an independent commission to draw Illinois General Assembly districts in a process that is transparent, impartial and fair.
Independent Maps will submit petitions with more than twice the mandated minimum 290,216 signatures of registered voters.
WHEN: 11:30 a.m. Friday, May 6
WHERE: Illinois State Board of Elections
2329 S. MacArthur Blvd., Springfield
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: CTU proposes concrete revenue plan
Next Post: Why the hostages sued
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
They should tie the remap proposal to the passage of a similar remap procedure in every other state. I’m sure all the other red/blue states will jump on board. Until they do, what is the incentive?
Comment by Delimma Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:29 am
Perhaps if Frank’s had supported the millionaire’s tax……
Comment by A Jack Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:34 am
Who are the two Dem senators who voted against it? As OW says, “vote accordingly.”
Comment by MSIX Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:34 am
The biased part of me worries that this will create more Repulican wins in the Illinois legislature. However, I do believe that districts should be drawn without any political factors involved and their shapes should not be all over the place.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:34 am
“Be on the lookout for a Tall, Bald, man in his 60s, goes by William or Bill… Known truck hijacker”
To the Post,
Ok, I’ve come around on Maps more and more, but here is what I’d hope to see…
One map. One. 59 districts. Minority and Representive criteria continues.
One Senator. 3 House members, no more than TWO from one political party.
Covers many sins, gives political minority party in these districts a voice, also allows the caucuses to then engage within districts they now dismiss as “unwinnable”.
Anyone who supports this idea, can make it better, can make it passable, I’m with you! - OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:38 am
Hard to watch this play out. Prefer Franks plan to either Senate’s or petition effort. We’re liable to end up with second best, if we’re lucky.
Comment by walker Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:40 am
You know, like a lot of people I was sympathetic to a couple of the things he wanted to do, especially redistricting reform. After watching the last couple of years with him at the helm the last thing I want is more Republicans. They’ve actually screwed up any chance they had at getting these things passed.
As bad as the Dems have been in the legislature, no one in their right mind would give Rauner and the GOP any more power and control over anything but a taco stand.
They’re going to go down big in November. Trump and the GOP may lose this state by 25 points.
Comment by Chucktownian Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:42 am
===Oswego Willy…One Senator. 3 House members, no more than TWO from one political party.===
Agreed, chicago needs a competitive republican party and downstate needs more democrats. This budget standoff has lasted so long because republican districts feel little pain over the loss of social services. when +90% of black voters supported quinn why would rauner care about about black neighborhoods. He knows they would not support him anyway. Having some diversity in the parties would help.
Comment by atsuishin Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:50 am
Well one of Cullerton’s favorite Senators, Manar, would be gone if he had to run in district that was not drawn for him, so i understand the Senate’s hesitation. They are just afraid of fair and competitive elections.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:53 am
Quelle surprise? Is one supposed to think Madigan didn’t know the outcome when he let it pass the House?
Comment by Former State Senator Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:54 am
- atsuishin -
The real problem with this solution is that its WAY to heavy a lift as I sketched it on a napkin at “Play it Again, Sam”.
Smaller government people would howl
The premise that 59 more House members, and 3 in each senate district run at-large, it should be able to garner support as you framed it, but fear… even coupled with a MUST for me, a fair map mechanism, it’s a heavy lift, might just be too heavy.
But… I’d actively work for it’s outcome.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:55 am
Kwamee Owns this one… I encourage everyone to listen to his outlandish comments. Sen. Raoul’s argument was essentially if we have fair maps in Illinois it will lead to fair legislative districts which means when they draw the congressional maps in the state house there will actually be a chance the democrats dont have a majority, so there might be a chance that republicans would re draw the lines to favor republicans in congressional races. did you follow that logic? It sure was fun going down that rabbit hole. Who needs independent maps anyways…
Comment by Goldwater Republican Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:56 am
I was hoping the real game was to beat Independent Maps to the punch, but once again, Rich is proved right. The “criss-cross” it was.
MSIX: ==Who are the two Dem senators who voted against it? As OW says, “vote accordingly.”==
Kwame Raoul and Toi Hutchinson
Comment by The Man on 6 Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 10:14 am
I would prefer a single chamber legislature with three members per district but need to focus on the possible. OW’s plan to guarantee a member from a minority party in each district is intriguing
Comment by Jay Dee Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 10:21 am
Agree with Oswego Willy: Anyone who remembers the pre-cutback days is aware that the House at that time was a far more dynamic, representative, and unpredictable body–a true contrast to the staid Senate. Chicago Republicans and suburban and collar-county Democrats, serving as the minority members in their three-member districts, furnished a kaleidoscope of viewpoints and colorful characters absent from today’s House. The cost of campaigning was much less, and would be much less even today. And even though the pre-cutback House was less susceptible to top-down control, a young Michael Madigan was still able to exercise strong direction serving as the Majority Leader under then-Speaker William Redmond.
Comment by Quiet Sage Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 10:25 am
Well, in politics you go along to get along. Unfortunately, Franks does not understand that.
Comment by Austin Blvd Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 10:28 am
Legislative games. Hard, if not impossible, not to be cynical about our state gov’t when stuff like this happens. Full speed ahead, hopefully, for Independent Maps Amendment. Surely, it’ll get past challenges this time, right?
Comment by bwana63 Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 10:41 am
Don’t make the good hostage to the perfect. If you’re against gerrymandering, you support the Independent Maps plan. For years Democrats refused to put something on the ballot. Now the anti-reform crowd is saying “oh, we’re against redistricting, we just think such-and-such plan would be better.” The Franks plan had some modest tweeks - I’d even say improvements - in it, but its 11th hour appearance was always suspicious.
California, a similar “blue” state, has a redistricting commission similar to the Independent Maps proposal. The result (from Wikipedia): “While the long-term results will bear out over time, independent studies by the Public Policy Institute of California, the National Journal, and Ballotpedia have shown that California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation, creating opportunities for new elected officials.”
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 11:02 am
===One Senator. 3 House members, no more than TWO from one political party.
I like the idea of returning to this, but now that we have so many non-party players in elections would that mean independents would run in strong partisan districts and win and just act as a member of the dominant party anyway?
It strikes me that now that the horse is out of the barn this might not work as well now.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 11:09 am
This has fundamentally, and permanently, altered my view of Senator Raoul, & not for the good….
Comment by The Historian Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 11:14 am
===I like the idea of returning to this, but now that we have so many non-party players in elections would that mean independents would run in strong partisan districts and win and just act as a member of the dominant party anyway?===
- ArchPundit -
Don’t “overthink” it, bud.
Read it as it is… No district can have more that 2.
You can have one Democrat, one Republican, one Green, or Independent, or whatever.
Just no more than 2 of one party.
Helpful?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 11:17 am
===Don’t “overthink” it, bud.
LOL–that’s what I do. The old system is quite popular in political science circles even and that’s where my question comes in–does the environment now short circuit the advantages. But I’m willing to try.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 11:49 am
- ArchPundit -
Remember, thus plan makes the Senator far more accountable to the “overall”, while 3 members, at-large, no more than 2 of one party, allow the 3 to delve into a broader picture of district and state and local constituency shared by 2 other at-large house members, even if the 3rd in the Republican from Chicago, or the Democrat from Sangamon. It allows the lower chamber a much needed change in perspectives. Perspectives lost with House Districts and the cutback.
The makeup of House Caucuses would be shaped different… as they were before the Quinn Amendment.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 11:59 am
===The makeup of House Caucuses would be shaped different… as they were before the Quinn Amendment.
I understand and think it’s worth a shot. I like the idea of having more than one party worried about a particular area at one time. It changes the dynamic and probably for the better.
I do worry about unintended consequences. I might just be playing a parlor game here, but it’s an interesting question to me.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 12:07 pm
===I do worry about unintended consequences.===
No worries, what is an unintended consequence that you fear… most.
I’d like to see 59 “Fair” districts under the minority guidelines and rules, with limited tweaking, but, 3 at-large, no more than 2 of the same party, representatives be sent to the StateHouse’s Lower Chamber in these 59 districts, and ONE representative be elected in each of these 59 districts be sent to the Upper Chamber.
It’s all good, help me flesh it out.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 12:12 pm
If the state ends up with the Independent Map plan, we can thank Kwame Raoul and Toi Hutchinson, who apparently prefer it to the superior Franks proposal.
Comment by anon Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 12:16 pm
Illinois gotta Illinois.
Comment by DuPage Moderate Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 2:07 pm
Nothing on that November ballot is going to give me more pleasure than voting for the Independent Map Amendment, flawed or not. I should have liked to have voted for a graduated income tax also, but that very excellent notion was already killed and buried by our esteemed General Assembly.
Comment by Skirmisher Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 2:34 pm
I had high hopes this bill would pass both houses with votes from both parties. What the hell happened?
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 4:30 pm
== What the hell happened? ==
Nothing, exactly as planned.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:03 pm
RNUG is right — a charade orchestrated by Madigan and Cullerton.
Comment by Anon Thursday, May 5, 16 @ 9:38 pm