Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Good luck, Tom!
Next Post: Smiddy called a Madigan “lapdog” at event
Posted in:
* After reading all the opinions on the subject and reading the various analyses, Charlie Wheeler offers up some “broad suggestions” for the next attempt at remap reform via popular referendum…
At a minimum, don’t include anything that could be construed as extraneous. No new duties for the auditor general — an office created by a different article of the constitution.
No limits on future office seeking by those drawing the maps.
Don’t tinker with the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction on remap cases, nor with the attorney general’s charge to initiate legal action in the people’s name, both issues included in the most recent failed plan.
Keep the independent commission, but find someone else to screen the applicants, somebody not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. Perhaps a legislative support body, like the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, or the office of the Legislative Inspector General. Maybe a private entity, like the Illinois State Bar Association, or a group of academics specializing in demographics, GPS tools, information systems or other related fields.
Additions? Subtractions? Etc.?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Good luck, Tom!
Next Post: Smiddy called a Madigan “lapdog” at event
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“The four caucuses represented in the two chambers of the General Assembly must approve each nominated member of the commission by a 2/3 vote of the respected caucus members.
Once a nominee receives the required 2/3 vote from all 4 caucuses, they will be seated.”
All 4 caucuses, and both parties, can’t say any member is there without 1) vetting 2) approval of both chambers, and all 4 caucuses, and not by “simple majority”
Every member of the GA now in invested in the selection, and the nominee receives a more hardened mandate to be there.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:27 am
These are good suggestions. Also don’t put the Supreme Court on both sides of the issue, i.e. they can’t rule on the constitutionality of such a referendum or any issues with the process should it become law if they are called upon to participate in the process in a meaningful way. In other words, don’t create a conflict for them.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:28 am
To paraphrase Thornton Mellon you left out a whole bunch of stuff. There’s no section on whining, there’s no section on demagoguery. Where’s the demonizing, where’s the blame game? How do you plan to get this referendum drive funded without such key, key ingredients.
Comment by The Captain Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:30 am
Don’t change the criteria for drawing the map. Only change who draws it.
Comment by interesting Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:33 am
How would Charlie judge the QUinn concept?
Comment by Handle Bar Mustache Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:41 am
“Independent” Commissions are rarely so. Instead of creating more layers to the process and will ultimately remove the process further from the people, repeal the cutback amendment and set hard caps on what can be spent on legislative races. Then you will see more competition and better representation.
Comment by Do Simple Better Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:43 am
It’s interesting to compare this decision with the pension reform decision. There you had a pretty broad legal consensus that the last efforts were unconstitutional, and both Democrats and Republicans on the court agreed. Here nobody is defending the Democrat justices on the merits OR their “discretion” to refuse to rule on the other grounds, letting reformers try to figure out what will pass muster at a cost of millions of dollars and countless worker and volunteer hours.
Nice rule of law we have in this state.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:51 am
I would not have a a private entity screen the applicants unless it was a single purpose entity created for exactly this reason with a lot of safeguards in place.
Personally (and I’m not sure how this would mesh with our courts and constitution) I would take a long hard look at California and how the top two move forward regardless of party. We already have that in place in municipal elections and it makes a lot of sense to change how our primaries are handled in Illinois.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:53 am
Go to 3 member districts with cumulative voting as we had before the Cutback Amendment. Have this for both chambers. I would suggest 20 Senate districts and 40 House districts.
Would like to see a nonpartisan primary where we could vote for 3 with cumulative voting. The top 5 would go on to the general election. Not sure if it is safe to put this provision in a Citizens Initiative. Drop it if it creates a risk.
Find a way to enforce the compact and contiguous requirement.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 9:58 am
=== Repeal the Cutback Amenment ===
Gerrymandering House districts wasn’t a big problem during the three-member district era.
Comment by anon Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:05 am
I was going to suggest the Hogwarts Sorting Hat, but I guess that may not pass muster either.
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:05 am
“Gerrymandering House districts wasn’t a big problem during the three-member district era.”
hahahahahahaha. That’s a hoot.
(The history of our state has been filled with fights over legislative redistricting. With the most amazing consequence of that being the bedsheet ballot)
Comment by Juice Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:21 am
“…General Assembly must approve each nominated member of the commission by a 2/3 vote of the respected caucus members”
How many members are respected, anyway? And respected by whom? Just teasing.
At some point, everyone has a dog in the fight and total nonpartisanship in drawing the map is as unlikely as “objective” journalism. Maybe a commission with equal numbers of Ds, Rs, and Is and a deadline, or the previous map stays in effect for another 10 years.
Comment by My New Handle Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:25 am
1)Require passage by 3/5 in each chamber–Governor cannot veto/AV
2)If it goes to commission as currently constituted and they cannot agree, go to the tie breaker BUT
3) the tie breaker only gets to determine which “side” draws the House Dists–the other “side” then gets to pair them into Senate Dists.
Comment by Madame Defarge Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:26 am
Oh, yeah.
The State Bar Association?
Why not the Trial Lawyers Association?
Let’s keep it neutral.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:26 am
Unless and until the laws of human nature are repealed, there is no way to take politics out of the redrawing these districts.
How about creating a computer program followed up with an adjustment for the minority areas?
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:47 am
–How about creating a computer program followed up with an adjustment for the minority areas?–
It’s a great idea and already exists, it’s just up to people to use it.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:50 am
If the proponents simply followed the roadmap laid out in the prior case they would have it on the ballot now. Charlie is correct.
Comment by d.p.gumby Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:53 am
I agree that the next attempt should not try to modify the roles of the AG or Supreme Court, but otherwise I think they can keep much of the current amendment intact - the ban on partisan discrimination, open meetings requirements, 11-person commission, etc.
The key difference would be using a bipartisan committee of legislators (maybe the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules) to screen and randomly draw the three person committee selection panel, instead of the Auditor General.
Comment by djm Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 10:59 am
Eliminate the provision requiring city & village boundaries to be respected. It compresses African-American districts in the City.
Comment by Rasselas Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 12:08 pm
dont use geographic boundries if they disenfranchise minority voters
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 12:24 pm
The provision requiring city and village boundaries to be respected is what this whole map amendment is about. As Rasselas says, it would compress African-Americans (and Hispanics) districts in the City. Or, put another way, compresses Democrat districts in the city. The maps amendment wouldn’t allow districts to include both the city and suburbs. If you have to do that, then it doesn’t much matter who draws the maps. It will inevitability be to the Republican’s favor. This was never about who draws the maps. That was just the political packaging. This has always been about how the map is drawn.
Comment by George Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 2:14 pm
Let the parties decide the members. Madigan and Schneider can each appoint 6 people. Require 7 votes to approve the map and give them 3 months to do so.
If there is an impasse, dissolve the commission and try again with new members. Rinse and repeat.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 2:42 pm
Political Parties should not be granted recognition in the Constitution as parties (technically) can change and it would be used to stifle third parties and independents.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 2:58 pm
You would not call out the parties by name but use existing language along the lines of the two parties with the most seats in the GA.
You could make it 3 seats each from the Speaker, President, and each Minority Leader if that makes it easier.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 3:16 pm
== Maybe a private entity ==
We are not likely to find a private entity or a public entity without a self-serving agenda.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 3:46 pm
It’s all about the checks and balances.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 5:57 pm
Leave. It alone. So time you win , other times you lose.
Comment by Bigfoot Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 8:32 pm
A discharge rule to ensure floor votes on any legislative business (bills or even GA-driven constitutional amendments) that can show a certain threshold of support (50% of chamber?) would solve many current problems, including this one.
I think that falls squarely within Article IV so surely could be a simple voter amendment.
It’s notable that gridlock practices are perfected in ILGA and exported to the US House of Representative (”Hastert Rule”).
Comment by peon Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 8:50 pm