Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

A very good question

Posted in:

Illinois

* From the Independent Map language…

If the Commission fails to adopt and file with the Secretary of State a redistricting plan by June 30 of the year following a Federal decennial census, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the most senior Judge of the Supreme Court who is not affiliated with the same political party as the Chief Justice shall appoint jointly by July 31 a Special Commissioner for Redistricting.

* Tom Corfman asks an excellent question…

Currently, if the redistricting process is deadlocked, Democrats and Republicans basically flip a coin to decide whose map is adopted. Under the new proposal by the Independent Maps coalition, if the process becomes deadlocked, the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court and the justice of the opposing party with the most seniority appoint someone to draw the new boundaries.

And if the two justices don’t agree? Maybe they can play rock-paper-gavel.

Our Supreme Court is currently a very amicable body. But things can change, especially with all the money that’s floating around out there and the importance of that single appointment.

* The Supreme Court’s changed role is the subject of a Tribune editorial…

The proposed amendment falls outside the legislative realm, supposedly, because it would assign mapmaking tasks to entities outside the General Assembly. (The plan relies on the state’s auditor general to select a review panel to name the members of the redistricting commission, for example, and tweaks the Supreme Court’s role in breaking a deadlock.) […]

The language of the constitution has been twisted and tortured beyond reason by those gotcha arguments. The section that spells out how citizens can amend it might as well say that they can’t.

That’s the version Kasper is selling, at least. We hope the judge doesn’t buy it this time.

* From the Constitution…

SECTION 3. CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE FOR LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE […]

Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.

Article IV.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 13, 16 @ 11:42 am

Comments

Basically, the folks at the last Constitutional Convention determined how redistricting would work, AND, if you want to change you need a new Constitutional CONVENTION and NOT a constitutional AMENDMENT.. pretty straight forward to me..

Comment by Not Rich Friday, May 13, 16 @ 11:51 am
BEDSHEET BALLOT!!!

Comment by Juice Friday, May 13, 16 @ 11:55 am
Yep. The attorneys they used to help craft the amendment should have addressed this contingency. Frank’s proposal had the same problem.

Let’s hope the amendment gets to and approved by the voters for us to worry about this concern.

Comment by Norseman Friday, May 13, 16 @ 11:58 am
–Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court and the justice of the opposing party with the most seniority appoint someone to draw the new boundaries–

Also, what if all the members of the Supreme Court are of a single party?

Something else to keep in mind: the legislature could give the courts the jurisdiction to rule on ballot initiatives earlier in the process so, you know, people don’t have to spend millions of dollars before they can find out whether it passes constitutional muster. But that would, you know, empower voters.

Comment by lake county democrat Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:17 pm
The Trib editorial page is not known for its concern about what the Illinois Constitution says.

Comment by Marty Funkhouser Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:33 pm
“the language of the constitution has been twisted and tortured beyond all reason”

What part of this unequivocal clause don’t they understand? “Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.”

Comment by anon Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:39 pm
Judge Mary Mikva rejected the argument about “structural and procedural subjects” excluding redistricting: http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/IL%20clark%2020140627%20opinion.pdf

She must be a Raunerite. Oh wait, she rejected the last initiative on other grounds.

Comment by lake county democrat Friday, May 13, 16 @ 12:47 pm
As LCD noted and Judge Mikva pointed out, redistricting was considered an appropriate topic for a citizens petition by the 1970 ConCon. The ConCon called it apportionment, but it was understood that this meant redistricting for the state legislature. That’s important, since the two words have distinctly different meanings for congressional districts at the federal level.

Comment by muon Friday, May 13, 16 @ 1:05 pm
= The attorneys they used to help craft the amendment should have addressed this contingency. Frank’s proposal had the same problem. =

Franks’ proposal would not have been subject to this kind of challenge, since it would have been initiated by the General Assembly.

Comment by cover Friday, May 13, 16 @ 1:48 pm
=== Franks’ proposal would not have been subject to this kind of challenge, since it would have been initiated by the General Assembly. ===

Who’s relating this to the court challenge. I’m not. This is an implementation glitch should this become law.

Comment by Norseman Friday, May 13, 16 @ 2:10 pm
lol, all of section 3 is about legislative redistricting.

The idea that the topic is somehow off limits for an amendment is asinine.

Agree with the thought: the Madigan reading is like saying the People cannot amend their own Constitution, rather than the natural reading that the people can amend the subjects listed in Article IV.

The fact that the Auditor General and Supreme Court aren’t in the Article doesn’t matter because redistricting is in there and thus subject to change as the people see fit.

Comment by Political Animal Friday, May 13, 16 @ 3:04 pm
===What part of this unequivocal clause don’t they understand?===

What part of this Title don’t you understand:

SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING

Comment by Political Animal Friday, May 13, 16 @ 3:06 pm