Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Karmeier files dissent in remap rehearing denial

Posted in:

Illinois

A week after the Illinois Supreme Court’s 4-3 Democratic majority refused, without comment, to rehear its rejection of a proposed redistricting amendment to the state constitution, the Republican minority is having its say.

Justice Lloyd Karmeier, in a dissent of rejecting the rehearing that was joined by the court’s two other GOP justices, reaches into the wayback machine for a state Supreme Court decision from 1906 involving proposed changes to the state’s 1870 constitution.

Karmeier noted that the majority tossed the proposed Independent Maps amendment from the Nov. 8 ballot because it assigned new duties to the state’s auditor general. The majority ruled that proposed petition-driven changes to the constitution can only affect the legislative article and not affect other constitutional provisions.

But, Karmeier said, in the 110-year-old ruling, the justices said the fact that “articles of the constitution other than the article expressly amended are changed does not render the express amendment invalid.

“Put another way, those other matters, including the duties of the auditor general, are in no sense the subject of the proposed amendment. The ‘subject’ … is the mechanism for redistricting,” Karmeier wrote.

“The assignment of responsibilities to the auditor general and the other changes that would result from adoption of the amendment are merely ancillary to and supportive of the amendment’s core purpose,” he wrote.

* More from Karmeier’s dissent…

Second, the majority suggested that some alternative plan involving a nonlegislative actor other than the Auditor General could be formulated that would meet the requirements of article XIV, section 3. But Independent Maps, in its petition for rehearing, succinctly and correctly points out that the majority’s approach would preclude the assignment of any new role in the redistricting process to any nonlegislative actor, not just the Auditor General, because any such changes would be barred by precisely the same barriers erected by the majority to rationalize invalidation of the proposal advanced here. If the majority believes that such is not the case, it should take this opportunity on rehearing to explain why.

I think the majority’s ruling wouldn’t preclude assigning duties to any non-legislative actor who is currently mentioned in the redistricting portion of the Constitution.

* Or, the reformers could simply use my idea…

Forget about endless unconstitutional details on how the map should be drawn. Just set a few simple rules:

• No legislator can ever have any role in the actual mapmaking process.

• Mapmakers cannot take into account any previous election results.

• Home addresses of state legislators and existing district boundaries cannot ever be factors.

All these requirements are in force in Iowa, which is a national redistricting model.

The results might not be perfect, but they’d surely be better than what we have now: a system where one political party draws district boundaries to protect its majority and its legislators. Yes, it’s true: Voters should be able to choose their legislators, not the other way around.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 12:28 pm

Comments

The GOP dissent is basically judicial activism; so mucj for the party of strict constructionism….

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 12:41 pm
AGree Rich!

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 12:42 pm
Lloyd Karmeier…..the one that sits in the court’s State Farm Insurance seat? That Lloyd Karmeier?

Comment by TinyDancer(FKA Sue) Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 12:48 pm
===All these requirements are in force in Iowa, which is a national redistricting model.===

It’s fun to watch congressmen move to avoid running against each other.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 12:52 pm
The dissents are very out of the ordinary and contrary to the precedent of the many cases since the cut back amendment. The majority was rock solid no matter how much one dislikes it. It is what Con-Con intended. When one has to go back 106 years and the prior constitution to get around more recent precedent you are doing a major stretch!

Comment by d.p.gumby Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 12:58 pm
Rich, you are using way too much common sense. Your approach would create a representative map. We can’t have that! s/

Comment by justacitizen Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 1:00 pm
Everyone involved in this Illinois debate should go read David Daley’s book on redistricting, and in particular, it’s Iowa chapter.

And perhaps Democrats who aren’t in support should read the entire thing, and get a lesson on what could happen to districts if the party isn’t in total control of the process after 2020. It’s in their best interest to have both parties give up their potential political advantage on the maps process for good.

Comment by John Gregory (ex-IRN) Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 1:08 pm
I was thinking of something similar to this dissent. The majority opinion said that the Amendment was wrong because it gave new powers to the Auditor General who isn’t a legislator, but they also said there other people that could be given new powers. This seems to be in conflict.

Comment by Not It Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 1:13 pm
I am confused. How does a 110 year old ruling on an amendment to the 1870 constitution apply to this court case? Other than to obfuscate the issue, I think that this is an academic exercise in futility.

Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 1:24 pm
As Ghost said, the Republican Justice argues for liberal or loose interpretation of the current constitution to reach his desired result.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 1:51 pm
I can’t help but wonder: What if they get this on the ballot, and it fails? Who are they going to blame? Because as you know, it’s all about the blame….

Comment by HangingOn Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 2:08 pm
Yes, the Lloyd Karmeier who begins his term as Chief Justice on Oct 26.

Comment by Bluecollargal Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 2:33 pm
When every red state does the same thing, then I’m on board. I fully support the concept, but it drives me crazy that democrats push for it in red states and republicans push for it in blue states. Either it is a good idea, or it isn’t.

Comment by Delimma Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 2:34 pm
— “As Ghost said, the Republican Justice argues for liberal or loose interpretation of the current constitution to reach his desired result.” —

Point made twice, but yet worth repeating.

Comment by illini Wednesday, Sep 21, 16 @ 3:10 pm