Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Report: Rauner says he’s voting for Trump
Next Post: Bost up with first TV ad
Posted in:
* My Crain’s Chicago Business column…
I think there’s a much better way.
First, keep it simple—a lot simpler than former Gov. Pat Quinn’s recently proposed “solution,” which may not pass constitutional muster, either. 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.
But hey, maybe the high court could twist legal logic enough to declare even this idea unconstitutional. That’s where Plan B comes in. It’s hardball and a little bit evil, but I think both are called for in this situation.
Click here and read the rest before commenting, please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Report: Rauner says he’s voting for Trump
Next Post: Bost up with first TV ad
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Plan B is evil but its just what they deserve.
Comment by Stooges Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:34 am
oh man, I love this. Would be worth the effort just to watch the legislators and their staffs scrambling around to save their behinds
Comment by iroquois county dem Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:39 am
Evil is an understatement. Be careful - you might find a “No Parking” sign being posted next to your car wherever you go, even if you’re just stopped at a traffic light.
Comment by Whatever Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:43 am
Rich, bravo for pointing to Iowa. I’ve been a supporter of Iowa-like redistricting in Illinois since they enacted their’s many years ago. I also like your nuclear Plan B. I might also point out that I believe Nebraska is a state with a unicameral legislature, and I’d guess the average voter here would love it as much as the people there, do. The thinking when they passed it was that there is no need for multiple elected officials with basically the same job representing the same population (Reps and Senators). That’s not a bad point. Come up with a reasonable number of legislative districts (maybe 50% bigger than the Senate?) that are represented by one legislator. Now that would be revolutionary in Illinois. Probably a good argument to be made that it would make the job easier for special interests to influence either by lobbying or through more powerful staff, but nice to think about truly shaking things up with this bunch that can’t seem to follow their own constitution.
Comment by LessAnon? Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:56 am
Love it!
And Nebraska seems to do just fine with its Unicamieral legislature, although they certainly don’t have the population profile we do. I say go for it; let the Millerite Movement begin!
Comment by Northsider Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:57 am
While I’m concerned that fewer people will actually be represented by a fewer number of representatives, as a nuclear option I honestly love the idea of Plan B.
Comment by thunderspirit Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:57 am
This is a dangerous proposal that creates an ever so slippery slope. I am not sure this is the best way to get what you want.
Comment by Anonymouth Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:01 am
“This is a dangerous proposal…”
And that’s precisely why it might work!
Comment by unclesam Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:03 am
I seldom agree with Rich but on this one I’m lockstep. When do we start pushing petitions to abolish the Illinois House and Senate and go with a unicameral system? Love it!!
Comment by Big Muddy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:07 am
Ooh, that’s diabolical. *rubs hands together with glee*
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:12 am
I like it! Unicameral would be just fine with me. I am always for making government smaller. How do we move forward?
Comment by simple mind Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:13 am
I understand past redistricting reforms in democracies that addressed vast disparities in district populations and deliberate under- representation on the basis of class, race and ethnicity.
I’m indifferent to the alleged “effort” in Illinois (they sure do fail a lot from bad lawyering for all their “effort”).
What problem is supposedly being solved? In what tangible way will we see better governance if it is successful?
I got news for you — Republicans are under siege in the suburbs because they resemble more and more old Dixiecrats, not because of maps,
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:13 am
Oh by the way that Nebraska Unicameral is nonpartisan… that would really mess with their minds.
Comment by simple mind Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:14 am
– The Nebraska Unicameral is non-partisan…–
Sure it is — just like the Chicago City Council.
And they’re both made up of selfless, gentle unicorns, not hardball politicians.
There seems to be a wish in this effort to remove politics from politics. Fairy tales can be a comfort when you just can’t deal with actual issues.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:29 am
Rich, here is my issue with your plan A. The constitution currently says “the General Assembly by law shall redistrict the Legislative Districts and the Representative Districts.” You propose to completely remove every legislator from the process, which is fine. But if you don’t create some other entity to enact the map (don’t care what it is), then it is impossible to keep the legislators out because they still have to introduce and vote on a map. You could just go to the tie-breaker provision, eliminate the requirement that current members be included in the commission, but then you still have legislative involvement with the appointment of the commission.
Comment by Juice Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:30 am
I’d love to see term limits for legislative leaders.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:36 am
===All these requirements are in force in Iowa, which is a national redistricting model.===
Yes, and that’s where the reform ought to take place…at the National level.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:40 am
===then it is impossible to keep the legislators out because they still have to introduce and vote on a map===
Huh?
Like most constitutional items, it simply lays down some broad rules/boundaries. The GA would then have to implement a solution based on those hard rules.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:47 am
Terrific ideas. Lays everything out, very simply.
And, the nuclear option is….nuclear.
Comment by Belle Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:54 am
My thoughts:
Not as simple as Rich’s. But it is strictly a legislative process that responds to concerns without setting up the potential for deadlock.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 10:08 am
I am all for unicameral, although I would hate to see the number of GA members shrink since we need more representation, not less. There are 73,000 residents for every GA member and that number should be closer to 60,000.
Plan B may falter from its implications elsewhere in the Constitution. e.g., Article II, Section 7 references a House of Representatives and a Senate. What happens when the amendment consolidates the two? Given the Supreme Court majority’s penchant for striking down initiatives, I am sure they can find an excuse to use.
Can we make this a federal issue? Equal protection? There has to be something to say for the Supremes ignoring the “plain language” of the constitution on all sorts of matters: K-12 funding, citizen initiatives, candidate ballot access not being “free and equal” or “general and uniform”, etc.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 10:10 am
How about this for a nuclear idea: Make the 2 chambers the same size, say 90 seats each, with the districts for each chamber exclusive. Live in Champaign, you might have a Senator but not a Representative. Live in Effingham, you might have a Representative but not a Senator. Everyone has only 1 GA member so it is still fair representation.
Whoever draws that map might pack all the Dems in one chamber and all the Repubs in another. That could be a real (interesting) mess.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 10:18 am
===What happens when the amendment consolidates the two?===
The requirements are for structural and procedural changes. Eliminating a chamber is both.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 10:30 am
– The Nebraska Unicameral is non-partisan…–
Sure it is — just like the Chicago City Council.
And they’re both made up of selfless, gentle unicorns, not hardball politicians.
There seems to be a wish in this effort to remove politics from politics. Fairy tales can be a comfort when you just can’t deal with actual issues.
But this link shows they play a different kind of hard ball on the plains: journalstar.com/legislature/senators-remind-ricketts-legislature-is-nonpartisan/article_ffc9ee1e-bd60-5ebb-88ad-e8110f36ec3f.html
Comment by simple mind Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 10:30 am
@Northsider 8:57===And Nebraska seems to do just fine with its Unicamieral legislature, although they certainly don’t have the population profile we do. I say go for it; let the Millerite Movement begin!===
And Nebraska seems to do just fine with their state income tax rate, much higher the Illinois.
“For earnings over $29,590 you’ll pay 6.84% plus $1174.78.”
It’s not the makeup of their state legislature that allows Nebraska to “do just fine”. It is because their tax rate brings in enough revenue to pay their bills. Nebraska’s legislature is a Republican super-majority.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 10:53 am
===Eliminating a chamber is both.===
Agreed. But how do we clean up language in other sections of the Constitution that reference 2 chambers if we can’t touch anything other than the legislative section?
And if we don’t clean it up, will the Supremes throw it out because it doesn’t make sense (or “conflicts”) with the rest of the Constitution?
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 11:05 am
I like all of Rich’s ideas — including the threats.
But let’s not hold up Iowa and Nebraska as our models. Both are very unlike Illinois. Iowa’s total African-American population isn’t high enough to fill two of Chicago’s 50 wards. Nebraska’s is even lower. And yes, both tax income at a much higher rate than we do.
BTW, what’s so great about unicameral legislatures? I can’t count the number of times I’ve been happy to see one chamber clean up the other chambers mess with a well-crafted amendment.
Comment by FTR Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 11:33 am
===one chamber clean up the other chambers mess===
Is that not what the veto pen and trailer bill accomplish?
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:24 pm
This is almost as silly as Rauner sayin he is votin’ for Trump.
We say almost cause the author hold out Iowa and Nebraska as poster children for this process.
BTW this will start in Jan. ‘23….lets turn some attention to something more near term like openin’ colleges and universities in January.
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:02 pm
The only thing wrong with “Plan B” is that it should be “Plan A”. And while we’re at it, can we finally get rid of Township government?
DuPage, I’ll gladly take Nebraska’s income tax rates, providing we also adopt their real estate tax rate, sales tax rate, sin taxes, fuel taxes, etc. I currently pay close to 17% of my taxable income each year just from the “Big Three”.
Comment by Tom K. Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:39 pm
If we had multi-member House districts, the way we did for more than a century, then gerrymandering would be much more difficult.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:43 pm
FTR @ 11:33 am ==BTW, what’s so great about unicameral legislatures?==
What’s so great about bicameral legislatures? English Parliament and the federal government are the models for bicameral legislatures, and have two houses that are supposed to represent different and sometimes adverse constituencies. Nobility and commoners in England. In the federal government, the Senate was supposed to represent the governments of the sovereign states. With direct election of senators rather than appointment by state government and the notion of state sovereignty mostly forgotten, there isn’t much excuse for the senate now.
In Illinois, when we had proportional voting for the house, the senate represented the majority (or at least plurality) of the district, while the house let every major group have some input. Now, there isn’t much excuse for two houses since they represent the same voters.
Comment by Whatever Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:56 pm
=== What’s so great about bicameral legislatures? ===
It provides a check on the other chamber. Often things are introduced and passed by one chamber before affected folks realize the harmful ramifications. They then have the opportunity to raise the alarm and fight it in the 2nd chamber.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:16 pm
===passed by one chamber before affected folks realize the harmful ramifications===
You have identified the symptom. Care to treat the underlying cause?
How about we actually require a bill to be available for review in its final form for 3 days? Want to amend it? Restarts the clock.
Now can we get rid of a chamber?
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:39 pm
Might work.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:42 pm
Another option - amend the constitution so that only the House can initiate budget and taxation proposals,and the Senate reduced to advise and consent on all fiscal matters - or everything.
Comment by Capitol View Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:15 pm