Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Reading the tells
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, legislative Democrats need to get out front on this issue…
The statewide Independent Maps organization is getting a new leader, and the indefatigable Champaign-Urbana volunteers who collected thousands of signatures on petitions for a redistricting reform amendment are getting some recognition.
The new executive director at Independent Maps, a coalition aimed at passing a constitutional amendment to have a non-partisan independent commission draw legislative districts in Illinois, will be Cynthia Canary, who helped found the respected Illinois Campaign for Political Reform with the late U.S. Sen. Paul Simon in 1997 and served as its executive director for 14 years.
Canary replaces Patrick Brady, who was appointed head of the organization in April but recently stepped aside.
“Patrick got it through the drafting of amendment and the launch of the petition drive on the streets,” said Independent Maps spokesman Jim Bray. “His family lives in Raleigh (N.C)., and he was flying back and forth to Chicago. It just became evident that it was going to be too much time for him.”
Um, they didn’t ask the guy if he’d be commuting back and forth?
Sheesh.
I like Canary. She’s reasonable, not a screamer, not a conspiracy theorist. But this is a big, big task, so we’ll see if she’s up to it, administratively speaking.
Also, keep in mind that this is about state legislative redistricting, not congressional reapportionment. Big difference. Keep national politics out of the comment section, please.
* The reason I think Democrats ought to be backing this concept is simple: It’s in their self interest. If things remain the same and Gov. Rauner is reelected, he’ll have a 50-50 chance of drawing the new district map.
So, the Democrats need to ask themselves if they’d be happier with a remap reform amendment that they draft themselves, or would they rather Canary push through her own version, or would they prefer that none of that happened and they simply roll the dice on Rauner’s 2018 campaign. That dice-rolling didn’t work too well last year, did it?
The Democrats need to set aside their institutional arrogance and reform this process.
* Plus, I see it as a possible trade. Instead of the term limits amendment that Gov. Rauner is currently demanding, the Dems could give Rauner this issue and perhaps check a box on the governor’s Turnaround Agenda list.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Reading the tells
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Completely agree Rich. Dems are better institutionally at the campaigning process in this state and they shouldn’t be afraid of a map that’s only partially tilted in their favor. Otherwise they’re betting on a lot of things to go their way - elections, coin flips, etc.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:18 am
I support redistricting reform over term limits.
This is one of those times when I think Governor Rauner and his top staff will have to make a hard choice. I doubt that MJM and JJC would “cave” on both term limits and redistricting. They will want Governor Rauner to “pick a lane” and stick with it. But the two legislative leaders simply cannot stomp their feet and let out a toddler-pitched “NO!”, either.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:20 am
I’m not a fan of the amendment, but that makes Rich’s point more salient. If the Dems don’t do something, they might get stuck with this. The process needs reforming though I’m not sure we can find an amendment that will do it well.
That said, I don’t think the Dems are too worried–I think they believe Rauner is one and done.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:21 am
I agree with every word Rich, and I’m as partisan a Democrat as you can find. Chairman and Speaker Madigan should jump on this and put an end to the partisan redistricting that he is so skillful at.
Of all people, Madigan knows how a map can be drawn to put the Democrats in a very bad place electorally. He’s had remarkable luck with the coin flip, and his hard work overcame the GOP map that made Pate Philip Senate President. There will be a day in the not too distant future when the Illinois Democrats won’t have Mike Madigan to protect the majority. Then what? I don’t want to think about how awful a GOP-drawn map would be for Illinois. We need to take that possibility off the table forever. That’s what this fair map plan can do, and with Madigan’s help, it could be passed in Illinois.
I truly believe a fair map would help Democrats in the long term because our ideas are better. That’s why we’ll win elections, because we have better ideas on policy to move Illinois forward. When we find good candidates, we’ll be able to win and hold majorities based on that, not simply the trick of the map.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:21 am
==Instead of the term limits amendment that Gov. Rauner is currently demanding, the Dems could give Rauner this issue and perhaps check a box on the governor’s Turnaround Agenda list.==
Excellent point! They know Rauner need some “wins,” why not give him a partial win here? That plus some workers comp reform might be enuf to get signoff on income tax hike.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:23 am
Agree with every single point made above, Rich.
The impact of a truly “neutral” map would be relatively few in seats, but very big in psychology and power relationships in the Legislature. It also would remove the distraction for the public, who could be focusing on things of more substance.
And, if done well, it is good government.
Comment by walker Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:23 am
===* The reason I think Democrats ought to be backing this concept is simple: It’s in their self interest. If things remain the same and Gov. Rauner is reelected, he’ll have a 50-50 chance of drawing the new district map.===
This is the crux for me in the “political”
Heck, the Dems in both chambers have shown, time and time again, especially in the ILHouse, that the Democratic political Caucus apparatuses are better at recruitment, understanding new districts, organizing, leadership, and GOTV for the micro districts.
If you can beat the HGOP with “their” map against you, abd you understood the dynamics of “why” you went 4 of 5, roll the dice on the maps, not the term limits.
“If we keep the Chambers with ‘fair maps’, what new excuse will the GOP have?”
It’s a thought.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:24 am
I’ve stated in other posts that I’m an idealist, but has there ever been any thought put to developing districts around the census numbers of townships and counties? Wouldn’t this help prevent the rampant gerrymanding that goes on?
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:24 am
Anything that results in something better than the partisan wrangling that currently goes on when redistricting gets my vote.
Comment by thunderspirit Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:24 am
I’m all for non-partisan, independant as long as it actually IS non-partisan and independant, and not IPI “non-partisan”. IPI is about as far away from non-partisan as anything can be.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:25 am
Your idea won’t fly Rich. It makes too much sense, is without the drama that the statehouse is used to and is too easy. The GA usually makes it hard themselves. I like it though.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:27 am
A non partisan draw is much better than what we have now. However, it should be pointed out that IL has become soooo blue that the best GOP map draw would have a very tough time drawing more than 31 GOP Senate seats. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that a non partisan draw would put the Dems in a permanent majority in the Senate, although fewer than they have now. Non partisan map is still better than this system.
Comment by Map Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:28 am
So long as it involves humans, politics and Illinois, it’s hard to envision anything that could be truly non-partisan and independent. Influence always finds a way. It should not be overly difficult for a computer to do what humans, at least in Illinois, have proven they cannot do. There is no shortage of census data broken down by race, income, etc. So let’s put in the hands of a computer. Give it the necessary parameters, chief being geographic efficiency and racial proportionality, boot it up and get going. Whatever results a computer produces could hardly be more silly, and less justifiable, than what humans have done.
Comment by Hal Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:30 am
Of course independent maps are a good idea, however the notion that a commission could be selected that truly is “independent” or “non-partisan” remains naïve - the Arizona experience with an independent commission is instructive.
Big picture, the best weapon against gerrymandering is to draw large multi-member districts and allow cumulative voting.
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:31 am
===However, it should be pointed out that IL has become soooo blue that the best GOP map draw would have a very tough time===
lol
Corral all the city legislators inside Chicago. Spoke the heavy GOP suburbs into suburban Cook (the mirrored opposite of what the Dems do with their city folks). Completely reformulate the Downstate Dems into untenable districts.
It can be done.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:31 am
Seems logical so I am not holding my breath
Comment by OneMan Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:31 am
PS: The last GOP map did not anticipate the huge African-American migration to the south suburbs. That migration (some say it was pushed from way on high), wiped the Republicans out.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:32 am
But yes, Democrats do need to get out in front on this issue - if only to help design the process by which a non-partisan, independent commission gets chosen.
Comment by Bill White Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:33 am
I agree, Rich. I consider this a needed reform across the country, not just in Illinois.
Comment by Tournaround Agenda Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:35 am
===PS: The last GOP map did not anticipate the huge African-American migration to the south suburbs. That migration (some say it was pushed from way on high), wiped the Republicans out.===
Yep. Exactly.
It’s the fundamental understanding of what the map is, how understanding each district can be parced in finding a candidate most suited for the given demographics and leanings on issues and specific district nuances IS the way to make a difference in winning.
Candidate recruitment within the specific parameters of each micro district is the game.
That’s where the GOP map failed … the HGOP.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:38 am
=If things remain the same and Gov. Rauner is reelected, he’ll have a 50-50 chance of drawing the new district map.=
There will be a faction of Dems who don’t believe Rauner has a chance of being re-elected and will gamble on this in an attempt to make the re-map after 2020 more bullet-proof. Truth is the Metro area is ’slowly’ becoming homogenized with more Dems in the burbs and a few more Republicans (empty-nesters) in Chicago.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:39 am
I’ve long thought the redistricting process in Illinois was the pure definition of corruption.
Comment by Just Me Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:39 am
Excellent ideas Rich. IL is a blue state and will remain that probably for the rest of my life. But good fair competition not just Blue-Red but primaries included may keep the slug quotient in check.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:43 am
Why give Rauner anything? Not giving Obama an inch was a great strategy by the GOP during his tenure in the executive. /s
Comment by Come on man! Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:43 am
I definitely agree. Dems need to agree to this as a negotiating tool. The Governor has to feel they are compromising on something.
Comment by chiagr Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:44 am
This fantasy cost money. Where half way to a new census.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:44 am
I am probably going to get swatted but I have to ask - why assume a commission made up of random people would do a better job than legislators?
Would the average citizen apply for the unpaid job of drawing a map? Probably not. Why would they. The people who apply will most likely have some vested interest in the results. Look at the groups and people who support this. Like it or not, they all have an agenda or an outcome they’d like to see. I think applicants will probably be handpicked outsiders.
Comment by Blah Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:48 am
===Corral all the city legislators inside Chicago. Spoke the heavy GOP suburbs into suburban Cook (the mirrored opposite of what the Dems do with their city folks). Completely reformulate the Downstate Dems into untenable districts.
===It can be done.
Yep, and it wouldn’t be that hard. There is also an advantage of having Democratic votes concentrated. There are 90% Democratic districts. There are barely any 70% Republican Districts meaning they can spread their votes around easier.
===PS: The last GOP map did not anticipate the huge African-American migration to the south suburbs. That migration (some say it was pushed from way on high), wiped the Republicans out.===
That it was pushed from way on high is a bit batty as it mirrors migration in other midwestern cities.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:48 am
===is a bit batty===
The city made it extremely tough to open Section 8 homes after the high rises were torn down. It ain’t a tinfoil hat thing. They were strongly nudged southward.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:52 am
==institutional arrogance==
What a classic image flowers from those two words. Thinking it could replace “Land of Lincoln” on license plates.
Comment by Tourés Latte Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:53 am
Agreed reform the map. Terms limits are never going to happen.
Comment by Mokenavince Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:54 am
I support any redistricting proposal that embodies the principle that election districts should be contiguous and compact. Some of the districts and wards that are in place now are gerrymandered to the max.
Comment by Under Further Review Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:55 am
Maybe it would work:
http://www.mapamendment.org/uploads/mapamendment/documents/amendment_explanation.pdf
Comment by Liberty Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 11:55 am
several of the Independent Maps supporters are working on other issues, especially via DFA, and have been for quite some time. so Dem leaders should be aware that organizing is not just happening over this issue on point. the supporters are looking for any edge they can get, trying to elect ward committeemen in the next go round in Chicago, working on issues to create a public surge. they are approaching this from a leftist Dem approach. it could undermine what Canary is trying to do.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 12:01 pm
To add / follow-up on this comment and other related comments: “However, it should be pointed out that IL has become soooo blue that the best GOP map draw would have a very tough time drawing more than 31 GOP Senate seats.”
This is one of the biggest mis-perceptions about IL, especially among national policy and political folks and the media. Yes, IL is a Democratic State, but it is far from the monolithically Democratic state that some claim it is. The Democratic success is driven by numerous factors, and one often ignored fact is they win in conservative / GOP and Independent / swing areas where the national Dems simply lose. This success is driven largely by understanding the areas and running better campaigns and understanding rule # 1 in politics (and governing) - its a game of addition.
Comment by Dave Fako Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 12:01 pm
With respect to congressional redistricting, how would the pending Supreme Court case on the Arizona commission affect any plan for independent maps?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 12:05 pm
===The city made it extremely tough to open Section 8 homes after the high rises were torn down. It ain’t a tinfoil hat thing. They were strongly nudged southward.
It doesn’t fit he evidence…those who moved tend to have more economic resources. It’s at least a two step process with the tearing down of the high rises and not enough vouchers but also, people with resources moving out to the suburbs for the same reasons every other ethnic group has. It was generally the ability to move, but even those folks with resources were more economically marginal and we see the economic challenges in the south suburbs. Add to this what we call obsolete housing in inner ring suburbs and this has been replicated in many cities–Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, etc.
There’s no way to intentionally do this, but it had exactly the effect many may have wanted on high.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 12:08 pm
Dave, that is a great point. You have to be there. Campaigning from afar is silly. Howard Dean understood this well. People were angry about the Iraq War, the mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina response and the Foley Scandal. But if Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel played defense instead of offense, Denny Hastert may still have been Speaker in 2007. And if the NRCC had not done the same in the aftermath of the ACA’s passage and confusion, then Nancy Pelosi may still have been Speaker in 2011.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 12:18 pm
Could someone describe the product of all these “competitive districts” smarter kids, smoother roads, etc.
Guessin’ it produces a lot of fraidy cats or whack jobs who hate government and want to abolish as many programs and services as quickly as possible.
Not an attractive vision. Good luck Cindy — just keep your feet….
Comment by Anonin' Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 12:38 pm
== The city made it extremely tough to open Section 8 homes after the high rises were torn down. ==
Maybe, but the demolition of the CHA’s biggest projects (Cabrini, Robert-Taylor, Stateway Gardens, Henry Horner,) didn’t really get rolling until after HUD approved the “Plan for Transformation” in 2000. The GOP map began to unravel in the South Suburbs in the mid ’90s because of the slowly building migration of middle class African-American to the area — not displaced poor people from the projects, who came a bit later.
Comment by BB Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 12:39 pm
First off, I don’t think Madigan and the Dems think Rauner will be around in 2019, for a variety of reasons.
Even if he does want to stick around that long and isn’t ousted, any hyper-partisan map in Republican favor would have to start cracking up minority representation, which is really the only thing the courts care about.
I don’t think the Dems feel the pressure on this issue and I don’t think Cindy Canary is going to change that fact.
Comment by horse w/ no name Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:13 pm
===any hyper-partisan map in Republican favor would have to start cracking up minority representation===
Um, no.
If they corral all Dems in Chicago, they can make most of those into minority districts.
Poof.
Problem solved.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:19 pm
It’s balanced. Any partisan GOP map can move the same number of seats off a neutral map, as the Dem driven map — on paper. My very rough guess is 3-4 seats off of neutral. So moving Dem to GOP could be worth 6 or 7; moving to neutral half of that. That’s the ballpark we’re talking here.
I.E. A potential loss of the supermajority but not the majority.
Then it’s up to the parties to take proper advantage by new district.
Comment by walker Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:32 pm
Reform for GA and congressional(!) remaps, and term limits for the executive branch.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:50 pm
Not opposed in principle. Really important to get “buy in” on this process if possible from Dems, however. Some Dems will have legitimate concerns that some of what passes for redistricting reform (particularly the obsession some have for neat compact squares) would have that corralling effect anyways, so if forced to choose between a coin flip and an independent process that tends to corral a bunch of Democrats into 90+ districts around Chicago, they may figure, what the hey.
Also it is way easier of course to say, “Let’s have a non-partisan independent commission draw the map” than to figure out what that means, or how ever to select it. This is Illinois. We can assume both sides will try and game that commission any way they can.
None of this is to say it’s impossible or undesirable, though, just this is a reform that calls out for a lot of negotiation between the insiders and the outsiders. If it’s just the good government folks driving this, a lot of risk for unintended consequences.
So basically everything Rich said. And yes, this would be a potential reform way more worth investigating than term limits.
Comment by ZC Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:56 pm
“I truly believe a fair map would help Democrats in the long term because our ideas are better.”
Of course they are, the proof is in the pudding. Are we bankrupt yet?
Comment by Tom K. Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:28 pm
Voters don’t care how maps are drawn and it’s a bad policy
(
which I argued here
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-maps-perspec-0608-20150608-story.html
)
Comment by Tom B. Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:38 pm
== - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:19 pm:
===any hyper-partisan map in Republican favor would have to start cracking up minority representation===
Um, no.
If they corral all Dems in Chicago, they can make most of those into minority districts.
Poof.
Problem solved. ==
That would probably constitute packing. Putting too many minorities in concentrated districts creates a constitutional issue.
Comment by Blah Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:32 pm
===Putting too many minorities in concentrated districts creates a constitutional issue. ===
Chicago is a very large city. Like I said, you could turn every Chicago district into a minority-majority seat - spoke up from the South and West Sides. That ain’t packing.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:39 pm
==Putting too many minorities in concentrated districts creates a constitutional issue.==
If republicans remapped it right, there’s actually a chance that we’d have more minorities in the legislature, from districts drawn for African American or Hispanics. It’d be more the white Democratic legislators whose seats would be in jeopardy.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:57 pm
=== It’d be more the white Democratic legislators whose seats would be in jeopardy.===
Exactamundo.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:01 pm
Rich, your proposal, as logical and clear minded as it is, won’t work because of your last post. Too many legislators could lose their seats. I might also add that the legislators will want to know what’s in it for me. How do I come out ahead with this. Too bad that’s the way it is. Just saying.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:45 pm
A nonpartisan map would surely favor the Dems given where the state demography is going. In addition, the GOP will be handicapped in appealing to the steadily growing nonwhite electorate by with national Republicans such as Huckabee refusing to come out against flying the stars and bars in Charleston. And with various presidential candidates taking a hard line on immigration. In short, it would be very difficult for the GOP to carry the GA under a truly fair map.
Comment by nona Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 5:04 pm
Just one last vote. I agree with Rich completely. Now is the time to do it, while there are still three election cycles (’16, ‘18, and ‘20) for everybody to prepare for what the districts will likely look like.
Comment by jake Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 10:31 pm