Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Credit where credit is due
Next Post: Still no A-List Republican to challenge Durbin
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s Austin Berg…
That’s why it’s so encouraging that a fair maps amendment is seeing huge bipartisan support in Springfield this year.
Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 4 would create an independent 16-member commission to draw legislative maps in Illinois. It has attracted 37 Democratic and Republican senators as sponsors. That’s more than the supermajority vote needed to pass the amendment out of the Senate.
But it has not moved out of the Senate. And Pritzker has not endorsed it.
Why?
Ask House Speaker Mike Madigan, who also leads the Democratic Party of Illinois.
Madigan didn’t become the longest-serving legislative leader in U.S. history by letting someone else decide what’s “fair.”
* Aside from Senate President John Cullerton’s opposition, there’s a better explanation for why this didn’t move in the Senate, which doesn’t usually take direct orders from Speaker Madigan. A commenter explained this just yesterday…
Preserving African-American seats in the face of steep declines in Chicago’s black population is gonna be a huge challenge no matter who draws the map. African-American legislators are very worried about this and they trust Madigan and Cullerton to protect them way more than they trust the “Fair Maps” goo-goos. (Want proof? Check out Sen Morrison’s Con Amendment resolution. She’s lined-up a bipartisan supermajority of the chamber as cosponsors, but not a single black member and only one Latina has signed on.)
Senate President Cullerton almost never advances bills which don’t have a majority of his caucus’ support. In this case, there are 18 Democratic co-sponsors out of 40 Senate Democrats. And the Black Caucus is uniformly opposed to the proposal - which is also a sure-fire way to brick anything.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Credit where credit is due
Next Post: Still no A-List Republican to challenge Durbin
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If you’re not blaming Madigan, you’re not the IPI.
Again, if a person has *both* the IPI and the Rauner Administration on their resume…
…you have to consider them exactly as you’d consider things like this ridiculousness.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:22 am
Also, to that comment Rich grabbed,
If the IPI wants to ignore the racial aspects of this more complicated thought than the “blame Madigan” thingy they’re trotting out, Tillman and Co should add, “as a white male” to the mix, maybe an IPI cartoon is in order…
Where’s Diana Rickert when we need her?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:28 am
You don’t have to be the IPI to notice what lawyer represented the gerrymanderers in two challenge to petition efforts.
Fair maps is as likely to enhance African-American voting power as it is to diminish it. The Supreme Court has held that the districts have to be roughly equal in population. If you cram lots of voters of one race in a district, you enhance the likelihood the representative will be of that race, but you lose power in other districts. Latino voters could be the power brokers in two districts but instead they are stitched together by a thread to be concentrated in one.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:30 am
===You don’t have to be the IPI to notice what lawyer represented the gerrymanderers in two challenge to petition efforts.===
… and yet with *all* the money the Rauner/IPI folks spent getting names, and getting lists, and getting information on fair maps, *they* couldn’t hire competent counsel to make it legal? They couldn’t get the language right? They accidentally had flaws?
You go with that, lol
Not getting on the ballot and getting names and lists was the sole goal of the exercise.
Keep up.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:39 am
Blame Madigan isn’t a political strategy. It’s been proven repeatedly not to work.
It’s a grifting strategy - a view only reinforced by another grift, IPI CEO John Tillman’s bond lawsuit.
Comment by Moe Berg Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:40 am
If Chicago demographics have changed then the GA should change to reflect that. That is literally one of the rallying cries of Democrats - equal representation and diversity and all that. Having an unfair map that disproportionately gives power to any group should be rallied against.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:41 am
Poor Austin…he always fails to mention the real controlling factor on remap in IL…state and federal Voting Rights Act. Austin and other riding in the IPI clown car and various attached trailers give less than lip service.
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 10:50 am
Not going with any of “that” - just noting the Madigan link to blocking the bill in the senate is more than baseless conjecture by the IPI.
I’ve stated many times my opinion on the petition drives: the Democrat majority on the Supreme Court showed their true colors by opting not to rule on the underlying challenge to those petitions whether *any* petition can change the state constitution in this regard. I don’t think any defense of that refusal stands up to logical scrutiny. And I’ve long shared, and ranted about, the same politicization and unethical campaign contribution rules for our courts that Sandra Day O’Connor raised.
But all that said, I don’t claim to be an omniscient legal scholar and recognize the scathing GOP minority opinion is likely politically motivated as well. My biggest complaint is that the legislature refuses to let the people vote on the issue, despite polls showing overwhelming support for the fair maps concept. Why do so many pols/pundits who claim they support fair maps in principle focus so much more on everything but that?
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 11:04 am
===Democrat majority===
And here is where your credibly is lost in every word after this.
Thanks, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 11:07 am
We can’t have fair maps because African American lawmakers won’t support a process that forces the numbwrs of guaranteed “black seats” to square with the actual number of black voters. Seems legit.
Comment by JB13 Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 11:13 am
== demographics have changed then the GA should change to reflect that ==
Makes sense, but easier said than done. Remember what last month’s landmark Supreme Court opinion said: Partisan gerrymandering? No problem, that’s totally legal. Racial gerrymandering? Still very much unconstitutional.
A “Fair Maps” redistricting plan that follows the geographic boundaries of existing units of government, (which is one of the amendment’s provisions,) would certainly be subjected to the scrutiny of federal courts if it can be demonstrated that it may reduce the number of minority-held seats.
As we move into 2020, expect opponents to fight the “Fair Maps” proposal on these racially-charged grounds. That’s going to make a lot of the supporters, including the governor, very uncomfortable.
Comment by Roman Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 11:15 am
“person has *both* the IPI and the Rauner Administration on their resume”
With the exception of Hans Zigmund going to Alaska
Comment by Inside Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 11:15 am
===With the exception of Hans Zigmund going to Alaska===
Check out how Alaska is handling Higher Education right now… then get back to me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 11:18 am
Sorry OW, I must have miscommunicated. Hans Zigmund was an IPI contributor. He funneled stuff to them and wire points all the time. And of course he was Rauners budget director. The IPI/Rauner combo was why Donna Arduin brought him on up in Alaska as the Director of the Office of Finance, and you DO see the results of what they are trying to do, ei higher education.
I was trying to say that IPI/Rauner was the job characteristic the Alaskans were looking for.
Sorry if I still don’t understand.
Comment by Inside Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 1:51 pm
It looks good to attach your self-interest to a larger cause, but I suspect that a typical legislator’s primary concern is “my” seat.
Comment by Anonanonsir Tuesday, Jul 9, 19 @ 2:57 pm