Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Deadliest Chicago day in 13 years
Posted in:
* Press release…
In a final brief presented to the Illinois Supreme Court, attorneys for Independent Maps argued a lower court’s ruling against the constitutionality of the redistricting reform amendment is contrary to both the intent of the drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitution and the plain language of the constitution’s provision allowing voters to propose amendments.
If the Cook County Circuit Court ruling is not reversed, it “would eviscerate the constitutional right conferred on the people of Illinois by the 1970 Constitution to bypass self-interested legislators and directly propose needed reforms,” according to the brief filed Tuesday.
“If you read the debates of the constitutional convention, it is clear that the drafters created an amendment initiative process to allow Illinoisans to propose changes in critical areas where legislators have too much self-interest and would resist change,” said Dennis FitzSimons, Chair of Independent Maps. “Legislators currently can draw district boundaries to help their own chances of winning the next election, making redistricting a prime example of legislative self-interest where citizens need to step in and propose reform. It is up to the Illinois Supreme Court to restore the democratic rights of Illinoisans and let voters decide whether to amend their state constitution.”
The brief argues that the lawsuit filed against the Independent Map Amendment ignores the constitutional convention debates and so narrowly interprets what the constitution allows to be amended by citizen initiative that “it would be impossible for anyone to put a meaningful proposal for redistricting reform on the ballot.”
Similar to reforms enacted by voters in California and Arizona, the Independent Map Amendment would create an independent commission to draw legislative district boundaries without regard to incumbency or partisanship. It would protect the voting rights of racial and ethnic minorities and allow the public to view and participate in redistricting.
The opposition argued in court that the amendment must be “limited to” structural and procedural subjects, and the Independent Maps briefs argues it meets that test. Redistricting is a structural and procedural subject of the constitution’s legislative article, and everything in the proposed amendment relates directly to – and only to – redistricting, according to the brief.
“The defenders of the status quo are trying to sell an argument that our amendment is unconstitutional because, for example, it involves the Auditor General and Supreme Court in the once-a-decade administration of the redistricting process,” FitzSimons said. “But the amendment does not affect the auditing duties of the Auditor General and only creates a new role limited to redistricting, and the Supreme Court would only be involved when there is a deadlock, as is the case now.
“To remove partisan politics from the redistricting process, the commission selection process must be insulated from partisan politics,” FitzSimons said. “If that’s not permitted, it will be impossible to give voters the right to the citizen initiative process envisioned by the framers of the constitution.”
More than 563,000 Illinois voters signed petitions to put the Independent Map Amendment on the November ballot, and a diverse coalition of two dozen businesses, consumer and public interest organizations has urged the Supreme Court “to allow democracy to prevail and to let the people have their vote” on the Independent Map Amendment.
The full brief is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Deadliest Chicago day in 13 years
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Madiganistas need to let go of this one. Illinois will remain a majority-blue state anyway, and what good is a supermajority that never works as one? And maybe then Baron Von Carhartt will declare a victory and start freeing hostages.
Comment by Ray del Camino Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:31 am
===More than 563,000 Illinois voters signed petitions to put the Independent Map Amendment on the November ballot, and a diverse coalition of two dozen businesses, consumer and public interest organizations has urged the Supreme Court “to allow democracy to prevail and to let the people have their vote” on the Independent Map Amendment.===
If the Amendment itself wasn’t written constitutionally, it can have 1 signature or 563,000 signatures.
It’s not the signatures, it’s the law.
Rauner spends millions on Ads but can’t find the money to find 1 competent lawyer to draft a legal amendment?
That’s mind-boggling.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:33 am
There is no such thing as an”unbiased commission”
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:34 am
Independent my (banned word)! This is being financed by Rauner and his 1% buddies.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:35 am
Don’t worry folks, Rauner, Zell, and Griffen will draw a map that is good for everyone.. Trust us!
Comment by NotRMiller Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:42 am
“urged the Supreme Court “to allow democracy to prevail and to let the people have their vote” on the Independent Map Amendment.” Let’s give that some thought. Since when do we expect a court any court to be responsive to political urging when natters of constitutionality are under consideration?
Comment by wondering Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:42 am
=If the Amendment itself wasn’t written constitutionally, it can have 1 signature or 563,000 signatures.
It’s not the signatures, it’s the law.=
Totally agree, there’s a way to get this done but this isn’t it.
Comment by Our Magician Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:47 am
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. The Supreme Court will decide what is legal not you OW.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:47 am
Did you post the opposing brief? I don’t recall seeing it.
Comment by fantasyland Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:47 am
- Lucky Pierre -,
So far, it has t passed legal muster.
That’s not my opinion, that’s a legal opinion this case is facing in front of the ILSC…
So, there’s that…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:49 am
“Rauner spends millions on Ads but can’t find the money to find 1 competent lawyer to draft a legal amendment?”
Such details are for poindexters.
Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:51 am
===Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. The Supreme Court will decide what is legal not you OW.===
Ha ha ha. Funny. Never mind that the courts have already said it isn’t legal. So now I guess only the SC can declare legal vs every other court on earth? What an absolutely silly statement. Makes me wonder what you would do if you got a speeding ticket.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:52 am
“Since when do we expect a court any court to be responsive to political urging when natters of constitutionality are under consideration?”
“No matter whether th’ constitution follows th’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns.”
Finley Peter Dunne, “Mr. Dooley Reviews Supreme Court Decision” (1901)
Comment by Whatever Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:54 am
Just because something “seems” popular, the legal and constitutional legalities remain.
I’ve yet to read…
“If a proposed law is polling above 73.6% in more than one poll within a 3 month, or 90 day, period, all legal questions to its constitutionality must be completely ignored.”.
The rule of law is what is being decided, not the proposed law’s popularity.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:01 am
Careful after the chickens hatch you may have egg all over your face.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:01 am
Whatever: Cynical view, intentionally stated to be cynical…..might even be true…..but there is a difference between following election returns and succumbing to direct political pressure.
Comment by wondering Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:02 am
@Lucky Pierre- How come your Governor isn’t “ allowing democracy to prevail and to let the people have their vote” on a millionaires tax?
I mean, he is a man of the people, right?
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:04 am
The circuit judge noted that there was little precedent for this type of amendment, and viewed it as a matter of first impression. It was clear from the outset that this needed to go to the ILSC to clarify how you can change redistricting as anticipated by the ConCon without changing the roles of officers in other articles.
Comment by muon Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:05 am
===Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. The Supreme Court will decide what is legal not you… ===
And…
===Careful after the chickens hatch you may have egg all over your face.===
Am I not suppose to count chickens before they hatch or am I suppose to fear chickens hatching and what eggs are then left after hatching?
Ugh.
I fed you. I’m done.
To the Post,
===brief argues that the lawsuit filed against the Independent Map Amendment ignores the constitutional convention debates and so narrowly interprets what the constitution allows to be amended by citizen initiative that “it would be impossible for anyone to put a meaningful proposal for redistricting reform on the ballot.”===
Again, it real “easy” to see… Spending monies on Ads is more important to Rauner than spending some $500,000 on one competent attorney to ensure an amendment passes muster.
Mind-boggling.
Don’t blame the lawyers, blame the laws?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:09 am
Constitutions mean what politicians think they mean. Right now a Dem heavy court thinks it means no remap.
Comment by Dr X Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:12 am
The overstatement about the difficulty of drafting any amendment works against them. An amendment simply repealing the cutback amendment would pass legal muster.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:20 am
Let’s have an independent map in Indiana.
Comment by The Fool On The Hill Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:23 am
I’m confused. The people spoke on the subject of taxing millionaires. They said, “Yes, let’s tax millionaires.”
Where’s the tax on millionaires?
Why is it that we’re only supposed to listen to the 563,000 voices here — the voices supporting an unconstitutional amendment — yet the people that *did* speak for taxing millionaires are ignored?
What’s the difference? And why is one ignored — while the other (unconstitutional one) is not?
Comment by Formerly Known as Frenchie M Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:33 am
Oswego, Bruce Rauner has not spent a dime on Independent Maps. Are some Republicans giving it money? Yes, it is a bipartisan initiative. Some Democrats donate as well. And Democratic Senators like Melinda Bush, Heather Steans, Julie Morrison, Scott Bennett, Tom Cullerton, and Jennifer Bertino Tarrant have endorsed the amendment. So have some Democratic state reps.
The lower court judge ruled based on her interpretation of three or four previous supreme court rulings on citizen initiatives. The IL SC hasn’t addressed this in two decades. So the lower court’s opinion doesn’t carry much weight here.
Why is it hard to draft a constitutional amendment? Because “structural and procedural” is whatever a handful of politically connected lawyers says it is. The amendment before the IL SC is almost identical to what was proposed in 2014. So this time around, the lawyers who oppose it have decided to object to a bunch of things they didn’t object to last time.
Comment by anon 1 Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:33 am
@JS Mill the millionaire tax vote failed in the GA both before Rauner was elected and after. Go ahead and blame Rauner for that not the fact that in 12 years of total control of state government it was not an issue for Democrats
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:34 am
The trial court opinion hewed pretty closely to the prior Supreme Court cases on point. It might not have been necessary to rule against the Independent Maps people on every point raised, but it looked like it was necessary to rule against them on enough to doom them.
The trial court has to follow prior cases, only the Supreme Court can reverse prior Supreme Court cases.
Comment by titan Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:50 am
===Why is it hard to draft a constitutional amendment? Because “structural and procedural” is whatever a handful of politically connected lawyers says it is.===
Don’t blame the law, blame the lawyers… again?
You are correct, this amendment has no direct monies from Rauner at this point. Direct monies specific, Rauner isn’t monetarily involved.
As part of the Turbaround Agenda, and speaking and going out of his way to dovetail off the Fair Maps in legislative races, Rauner has invested heavily to continue the discussion.
My example of the “Fix Illinois” ad and the monies spend there is an example I was using towards Ads versus monies being spent for drafting sound amendments.
I was wrong not to clarify.
But, I stand by my premise. Monies spent to tout reform in Ads instead of spending monies to ensure its legality is mind-boggling.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:51 am
“If you read the debates of the constitutional convention …”
While the recorded debates provide interesting historical information and context leading up to the final document, they do not carry the weight of law or the final adopted and subsequently amended constitution.
In the context of the lawsuit, the comment makes as much sense as saying “If you read the comics page of the newspaper, it is clear that the drafters created …”
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:18 am
this is a dem stacked court with close ties to dem establishment (Madigan). Mark my words, the will not allow this amendment to see the light of day.
Comment by atsuishin Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:19 am
===this is a dem stacked court with close ties to dem establishment (Madigan). Mark my words, the will not allow this amendment to see the light of day.===
“We’re Democrats, so we strike down this appeal”
Sad how so many are willing to dismiss the rule of law before a ruling even happens because it’s easier to be a victim to something to own the merits of anything.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:29 am
A real concern that the Court may focus on is not so much the limitation on voter initiated reform of the GA. What may be troublesome to the Court is the requirement that the Court participate in the process when there is deadlock when the Court would also be the ultimate judicial review of any legal challenge. It is hard to predict the Court, but I expect some comment on this issue in the final opinion.
Comment by Politically Incorrect Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:32 am
=@JS Mill the millionaire tax vote failed in the GA both before Rauner was elected and after.=
So map proposals have always been successful? But that has not stopped Rauner. I guess that does not fit your narrative.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:40 am
==And maybe then Baron Von Carhartt will declare a victory and start freeing hostages.==
Not a chance. Redistricting is a “pink piñata” here, not an article of faith. Redistricting polls well and it works against the opponents. If there was better traction to be had from promoting pink piñatas, that’s what would be happening.
Comment by Agricola Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:43 am
Classic case of “literalist, strict constructionist” approach to Constitutional issues, versus a more “liberal, current application of general intent” approach.
Ironically the Illinois political parties are each pushing the legal approach the other party usually favors, for this case. Ideologal stances often fold in the face of specific practical outcomes.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:45 am
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:29 am:
Rule of law? this is illinois since when as that mattered?
Comment by atsuishin Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:48 am
===Rule of law? this is illinois since when as that mattered?===
Example?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:49 am
OW this is neither about blaming lawyers or hiring suitable one. There is a real question here: in the restricting section offices defined in other articles are mentioned, and they are part of the procedural aspect of legislative redistricting. But can their roles be changed when they are themselves defined by articles outside the scope of citizen amendments? The IL SC has never spoken on this question, so until they do I don’t see how one can think that a suitably priced lawyer could know for certain how to write the amendment.
Comment by muon Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:13 pm
- muon -,
We are soon going to find out…
In the meantime some will tout, like in the release, that the number of signatures weighs heavier than having the justices weigh and decide on the rule of law.
Read the release, that’s what I’m responding to.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:17 pm
OW - I’d charge a client a lot less than $500,000 for drafting that amendment properly.
How much do you charge the Governor for writing and producing Dad’s Home State? Or does he charge you and HBO for his acting appearances?
Comment by Keyrock Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:17 pm
===Or does he charge you and HBO for his acting appearances?===
Ironically, the Governor, and the entire Cast, gets SAG Scale.
As a production company, we list the union dues and medical as auto-deduction under the title “kraft services” but don’t let any of them know, that’s just between us.
===I’d charge a client a lot less than $500,000 for drafting that amendment properly.===
I always have this odd feeling that for Rauner it doesn’t really “matter” if it passes muster right now, as long as it can be used politically by him.
But… that may just be me
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:55 pm
@ Huh?
I think the reason the Independent Maps folks put the comment in about the debates is to try and prove the intent behind the legal language.
The Court could technically rule based on the intent and not necessarily the letter of the constitution, correct?
If I’m remembering correctly, then the comment about the debates and how it establishes a certain intent is actually vital to the Independent Map folks, right?
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 1:17 pm
“Ironically, the Governor, and the entire Cast, gets SAG Scale” But if the TA passes, there would be no SAG scale so you’d be free to pay as little as you’d like.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 1:33 pm
==Constitutions mean what politicians think they mean==
That was not the case with the state retirees health insurance premiums OR the public employees pension laws passed. Both had strong support in the General Assembly, but got shot down in the Illinois Supreme Court.
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 1:39 pm
===But if the TA passes, there would be no SAG scale so you’d be free to pay as little as you’d like.===
We have a two-part episode coming up with the State Fair parade… and a “Very Special” episode for Raunerite Day at the Fair still in drafts… I’ll have to wait to see if Rauner can get 60 and 30 for the Lincolshire Right to Work Zone thing. This is a huge 10 days coming up!
To the Post,
Fair maps are my choice if I have those vs. term limits so in many ways I’m rooting for Fair Maps that can honestly pass muster. Wasting my time for posturing isn’t making me any more sympathetic, actually it makes me more frustrated that the politics of a hammer and shaking this is the goal, not the reform(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 1:46 pm
Gee OW, you must support guns and the 2nd amendment because it’s the law. Any popular opposition to it must be wrong.
Comment by Sloman2001 Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 2:14 pm
===…the 2nd amendment… ===
I support the 2nd Amendment.
Show me what you think or don’t think “attacks” or “strengthens” safety or the Amendment.
I have no idea what your point is, I don’t you do either(?)
Drive-bys…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 2:23 pm
It is a given that constitutional changes should be few and far between; elections can and should deal with 99.99% of the challenges associated with the mess of governing in a representative democracy. Sure, require extra care and require extra procedures to bring constitutional referenda questions forward. Make it hard to do, make it extremely hard actually. But it must be possible to achieve. There must be a path, and not just for those elected, but for those who consent to be governed too.
The brief attached suggests that the citizens, those who consent to be governed, have undertaken the only possible path available to bring the important matter of redistricting forward.
Whether the Illinois’ governing structure is truly rigged by and for certain people against the vast majority — those who consent to be governed — is likely the unstated, but also unmistakable, big question the Illinois Supreme Court will soon address.
It will be interesting, no doubt.
Comment by Deft Wing Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 2:42 pm
Downstater - The debate may show intent, but what the debate may not show is how the final words were drafted and inserted into the constitution.
To me, intention adds nothing to the argument. What matters are the final, adopted words. The debates are nice history but shouldn’t be taken into consideration for this or any other lawsuit.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 2:43 pm
==- muon - Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:13 pm:
OW this is neither about blaming lawyers or hiring suitable one. There is a real question here: in the restricting section offices defined in other articles are mentioned, and they are part of the procedural aspect of legislative redistricting. But can their roles be changed when they are themselves defined by articles outside the scope of citizen amendments? The IL SC has never spoken on this question, so until they do I don’t see how one can think that a suitably priced lawyer could know for certain how to write the amendment.==
Disagree. Put aside the fact the amendment changes duties of officers outside of the legislative article and changing criteria for redistricting. Why did they change the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? That change was unnecessary. I suspect that is what brings this whole thing down.
Comment by ethicsschmethics Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 2:45 pm
- ethicsschmethics -
Makes you wonder if the goal was to get this thru… or just have the political point out there and no worry about carrying the Amendment.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 2:59 pm
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:49 am:
===Rule of law? this is illinois since when as that mattered?===
Example?
Passing a balanced budget as required by Il Constitution Article IV would be one.
two, Madigan’s team fighting this failure to actually file with the State Board of Elections their donations and expenses.
three, Well, Mautino.
Shall I continue or is this enough examples of how IL politicians think they are above the law?
Comment by Big Muddy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 3:14 pm
===Passing a balanced budget as required… ===
Rauner proposing a balanced budget as required…
===Madigan’s team fighting this failure to actually file with the State Board of Elections their donations and expenses.===
ILGOP being dinged for hiding payroll, as Candidate Rauner was in 2014…
===Well, Mautino===
Well, GHR…
By the way, not one of those was a Constitutional Amendment or its legality to be considered… Which is the subject of record.
What else ya got?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 3:22 pm
The Con Con debates were cited by the IL SC in some of the pension decisions … so they probably have some relevance.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:12 pm
OW,
Propose and passing are two different things. Any gov can propose a budget with rainbows, unicorns and pixy-dust. Legislative needs something to get to 60 and 30 and PASS, remember?
And thanks for providing more examples of above the law practices. I don’t care what party does it, it’s still illegal and makes my blood boil.
Comment by Big Muddy Thursday, Aug 11, 16 @ 9:15 am
===Propose and passing are two different things. Any gov can propose a budget with rainbows, unicorns and pixy-dust.===
Nah, but good try!
The Constitution mandates the governor propose a balanced budget. It’s not ambiguous
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 11, 16 @ 9:24 am
@ Huh?
I can understand your preference for a strict reading of the constitution. That’s a valid argument. I’m more of a loose constructionist myself and I think that’s why the intent matters here.
I honestly don’t care about the Independent Maps amendment. Studies out of California show it doesn’t really change anything. However, I find the legal arguments over the amendment fascinating.
Thanks for the discussion.
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Thursday, Aug 11, 16 @ 9:53 am