Two constitutional amendments fall flat, while two others move forward

By Jamey Dunn

Two legislative efforts to get proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot failed today.

The push for a constitutional amendment that would allow a graduated income tax fell flat today. To meet the deadline to get the amendment on the November ballot, the Senate would have had to have approved it today. Democratic Sen. Don Harmon, who is the sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 40, said he had the votes in his chamber. But Harmon of Oak Park said he did not want to call upon his colleagues to take a tough vote if it seemed that the measure had no chance of passing in the House. “I have said from the get-go, I want to make sure the reception in the House is a warm one, and we want to make sure we have the votes lined up in the House,” Harmon said today.

Opponents of the amendment dub it a tax increase because graduated rates, which are in a separate bill, proposed by Harmon and other backers, assume that the temporary income tax rates would become permanent. The amendment itself would not affect rates but would only allow for a graduated income tax. Currently, the state’s Constitution calls for a flat tax. Supporters of the plan filled the capital rotunda today, chanting, “We want a fair tax.” Harmon lobbied House members and called on the Senate not to adjourn when it broke for committees in the afternoon, giving him more time to try to round up the votes needed. But in the end, it was not enough and the Senate adjourned this evening without taking a vote on the amendment.

The proposal faced an uphill climb in the House from the beginning of session. Republicans have been outspokenly opposed to the plan and it would have needed support from every Democrat in the chamber to pass. Marengo Democratic Sen. Jack Franks signed on to a resolution opposing a graduated income tax, and House Speaker Michael Madigan told reporters recently that the amendment was far from having the support it needed to pass in the chamber.

Meanwhile, a proposal from Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno to impose term limits on constitutional officers failed to get the support needed to make it out of committee today. Radogno said that her position on term limits has “evolved” over time as she has become frustrated with conditions in Illinois. “The public is clamoring for change. They want new ideas. They want new faces,” she said. Democrats on the committee chided Radogno for introducing the proposal so close to the deadline to get amendments on the ballot. Radogno filed her resolution last week. Additional session days would have to have been scheduled to meet the necessary timeline if the amendment had moved forward. But Radogno said that if Democrats were interested in passing it, there was still enough time left.

Republican candidate for governor Bruce Rauner is backing a push to put a constitutional amendment for legislative term limits on the ballot through a citizen initiative. The Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits, which has Rauner as its chairman, plans to turn its signed petitions in tomorrow. Yes for Independent Maps, a group spearheading a citizen initiative campaign for an amendment that would change the way legislative districts are drawn in the state, plans to turn in its petitions on Thursday. If the signatures are approved by the State Board of Elections, both proposed amendments would likely face court challenges before they would reach the ballot.

Coalition pushes changes to redistricting process

By Meredith Colias 

Groups wanting to revamp the state’s redistricting process hope to get enough popular support to add a constitutional amendment to the November 2014 ballot.

They are looking to bypass the legislature, where another citizens’ initiative for a proposal for a constitutional amendment failed in 2010. Voters can approve an amendment to be added to the Constitution by popular referendum, but supporters of the change would first need to collect at least 300,000 signatures to add it to the ballot. Reform groups attempted to collect the required signatures to get such a change before voters in 2010, but the effort fell short.

“This is the year,” said Ryan Blitstein, president of Change Illinois!, the main organization behind the latest push. Supporters believe this time have a better chance of success because they are giving themselves more time, they are better financed and have a broader coalition. Common Cause Illinois, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and other groups are backing the effort. The requirements under the state’s Constitution are spare for how legislative and congressional districts should be drawn once every decade. As long as districts are basically equal in population, they only have to be “compact” and “contiguous.” Those who want to change the current process say that the political party in power uses the Constitution’s vague requirements to draw the districts to give itself an unfair advantage to win elections. During the last process, Democrats held the power to draw the maps. If no single party holds both legislative chambers and the governor's office, the ability to set the boundaries is been determined several times by literally drawing a name out of hat.

Kent Redfield, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Illinois Springfield, said allowing one party to draw districts to its advantage was creating a more partisan environment at the Statehouse by “eliminating the middle” of the political spectrum. The reform group is proposing that the lines for legislative districts be drawn by a commission that does not include lawmakers, constitutional officers or political appointees. (Read the commission's proposed amendment here.) “Redistricting in Illinois is still a back-room process, one that fails to give the people of Illinois the transparency and accountability they deserve,” board member Sylvia Puente, executive director of the Latino Policy Forum, said in a prepared statement.  “Our nonpartisan redistricting commission would bring the process out into the open, where it belongs, clearing the way for a more diverse candidate pool of public servants to lead,” said Puente, who also serves on the Illinois Issues Advisory Board.

Senate Republicans publicly backed the proposal to change the redistricting process that failed in 2010. Patty Schuh, a spokeswoman for Senate Leader Christine Radogno, said Republicans are supportive also support the renewed push. “We welcome their effort,” she said. “If they need our assistance, I’m sure they will be reaching out.”

Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat who spearheaded the drafting of the current legislative map said, “It’s a healthy process to let citizens and advocates do just what they are doing.” He said he was less supportive of following a model, such as the one California uses, that appoints an outside commission to approve the state’s redistricting plan. “I prefer a body that the people pick, versus some other designated person decides to pick,” he said. “Who picks the pickers? How do you ensure you have representation on whatever commission?” Raoul said that no matter what method the state uses, there would be complaints. “There’s no way that you can come up with a process and a map that all legislators are happy with.”

He said the issue was not as pressing at the moment. “We just went through a redistricting process. The map is set for the next 10 years,” Raoul said. He is more concerned about issues such as pensions and concealed carry that are expected to come up in the session’s final weeks, he said. “It’s not my top priority right now. I’d rather focus on … those things right now than something that’s going to happen eight years from now.” Redistricting helped the House and Senate Democrats both win supermajorities in their chambers in the last election.

Theoretically, if Democrats voted in a bloc, they are able to do things like override Gov. Pat Quinn’s vetoes and approve bonds for new spending without Republican support in either chamber. To see what Illinois could learn from redistricting experiences in other states, see “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” by Christopher Mooney in the January 2011 edition of Illinois Issues.

Illinois Republicans search for reasons for election losses

By Jamey Dunn

After suffering crushing electoral defeats on Tuesday that left Democrats with veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, Illinois Republicans are left trying to sort out the causes for their big losses.

The new legislative map drawn by Democrats, along with voters turning out to support President Barack Obama in his home state, did not do Illinois Republicans any favors. But many agree that the party faces more challenges that cannot all be attributed to the new map.

“Obviously, the Democrat map performed as the Democrats intended,” said Patty Schuh, a spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno. “They designed the map to ensure victory, and under the process in place in Illinois, that’s how it works.” Schuh noted that in recent decades, the party that draws the map has always picked up seats in the first race under new legislative districts. She called Tuesday’s results a continuation of that trend.

However, Schuh said that Radogno does think the party needs to take a hard look at itself and the way it does business. “The Republican Party and its elected officials need to examine everything. We really need to step back and learn lessons from this election cycle.”

Republican state Treasurer Dan Rutherford also said that the map played a role. “But that’s not the only reason. The other reason is that the Republican brand is damaged.”

Dan Proft, a talk show host with WLS radio, agreed. “We don’t have a brand. The brand doesn’t exist, and to the extent it does exist in people’s minds, it’s not a brand that a lot of people are buying.” Proft, who made his own failed bid for the Republican nomination in the 2010 governor's race, said that some of the Illinois Republicans who were defeated on Tuesday were solid candidates but “lost under the weight of the Illinois Republican Party’s brand.” He said the party has fallen into a campaigning rut that has lasted more than a decade. “Republicans have quite literally run the same campaigns in the same way with the same messaging for the better part of the last 15 years.”

Rutherford said that litmus tests on social issues are hurting the party brand. Rutherford, who was the only Senate Republican who voted in favor of Illinois’ civil unions law and describes himself as pro-life, said that Republicans should not have to conform their beliefs on social issues to be considered good members of the party. “There are good-quality Republicans that are pro-choice.” Rutherford said it is Republican fiscal policies that resonate. “Where we will earn the right to once again govern is by defining ourselves with regard to taxes, debt and spending.”

Sen. Kyle McCarter, a Lebanon Republican, said that taking the emphasis off social issues was a mistake the party made in this cycle. “We should take another lesson, and that is that running from positions on social issues didn’t work, either,” he said. “Our Republican leadership in the Senate instructed a number of our candidates to not get close to, and not take a stand on, social issues. People want to know where you stand. They don’t necessarily need to agree with you on every, issue, but they need to trust you.” McCarter said he is considering challenging Radogno for the Senate minority leader position.

Another problem facing Republicans is changing demographics. Minority groups, which tend to vote Democratic, are growing. Nationwide, Republicans struggled to connect with female voters. “Part of the generic Republican problem is that the electorate is changing,” said Kent Redfield, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield. He added, “African-American and Hispanic voters make up a larger percentage of the electorate in Illinois than they do nationally.”

Rutherford attributed his 2010 win in the race for his current office to his efforts at targeting minority voters. “I think a great part of success is just showing up, and then two things when you are there are: Don’t be a scary Republican; and two, being sensitive to the fact that they care about the same things that I care about,” he said. “They want a safe neighborhood. They want to have a job and they want reasonable taxes. And I think that’s the common denominator.

Proft said the party’s lack of support from Latino voters stems from something bigger than any single issue, such as immigration. He said it comes from a perception that the party does not care about the Latino community. “What the Latino voters seem to be saying is that: ‘Republicans don’t like me. They’re not interested in me, so I’m not interested in them.’”

Redfield said that unless there is a change of course, things could only get worse for Republicans. “If the demographic changes continue through this decade that we saw last decade, then the map is probably going to get more difficult than what we’ve seen this year.” He said it is all but impossible for the party to take back the majority in either chamber in 2014. “If they pick up 10 seats in either chamber, they are still short of the majority.”

He said the losses might also make it more difficult to raise campaign funds. “People want to give money to winners, and they want to give money to people who have access to power.”

Redfield said the party would need to invest in 2014 to protect incumbents who had closer-than-expected races this time around. “It’s just a very difficult task to figure out where they’re going to spend their money and how much defense do they need to play. And whatever defense they play means less money for playing offense.”

Poll: Illinois voters have appetite for reform

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois voters support a variety of reforms to state government, ranging from tweaks to campaign finance rules to term limits for elected officials

The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale today presented results of a survey of 1,000 registered voters — part of the institute’s annual poll. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Those surveyed strongly backed legislative term limits, with 75 percent saying they support limits of five consecutive two year terms for state representatives and three consecutive four year terms for state senators.

David Yepsen, director of the institute, said widespread support for term limits is an indicator of the public’s frustration with their state government. He noted that the Tea Party has supported term limits, and that issue could become the focus of such a populist movement in Illinois. “If I am member of the legislature, I’ve got to be thinking, ‘How do I get the fuse out of this bomb?’” Yepsen said.

He said he thinks term limits cut in on the democratic process by blocking voters from choosing incumbents once their time has run out, regardless of what the popular vote might be. Yepsen said that forcing out lawmakers with institutional knowledge and experience would leave new lawmakers to turn to staff members and lobbyists for the bulk of information. “Staff people have too much power as it is, and lobbyists have too much power as it is.”

However, Yepsen said, “There’s all kinds of reasons why term limits are a bad idea, but voters are so fed up and so exasperated.”

Charles Leonard, visiting professor and polling director for the institute, agreed that term limits may not be the best public policy choice, but he said that if the redistricting process in the state is not changed, that idea could find more supporters. He said because districts are often drawn to protect incumbency, “a lot of people who might otherwise not support term limits may see it as a desperate move to throwing the bums out.”

Respondents also backed several campaign finance reform measures, including changes to the rules for judges:

•  61.4 percent favored limiting the amount of money that party leaders can give to other candidates.
• 71.4 percent supported limiting the amount of money that people can contribute for judicial races.
• 53.6 percent backed giving judicial candidates public funding for their campaigns.

Leonard said after an attempt to unseat Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride last year resulted in the most expensive retention bid in the state’s history and the last 25 years nationally, voters seem ready for changes in how judges’ campaigns are run. He said such big-spending campaigns bring the issue to a place where most voters cannot ignore it: their television screens. “I think there’s a clamor for the need for judicial reform when judicial races start to bring that sort of sludge into their living rooms that the legislative [races] bring.” Those attempting to oust Kilbride came under fire for controversial television attack ads. “I’m sure that it will turn people off, never mind it being terrible public policy that people who practice before [the court] can give them large sums of money for their retention.”

Leonard said judicial reform might be low hanging fruit for legislators because they could institute a change that does not apply to their own branch of government.

Voters who responded to the poll also supported reworking the way Illinois redraws its legislative maps every 10 years after the census takes place. A plan to overhaul the redistricting process failed in the legislature last year, and the League of Women Voters was unable to capture the needed signatures to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot to change the process. But the institute’s poll found that voters generally agreed with one of the primary components of the league’s proposal. About 65 percent of respondents said they were in favor of having a commission independent from the legislature draw the map. That number increased from 53.5 percent in favor of such a plan in 2010. Yepsen and Leonard agreed that the efforts to change the system, as well as media coverage of the legislature drawing new maps last spring, has put the issue on the voters’ radar. “I think our mass media culture is capable of keeping about four items on the agenda at any time given our short attention span, And it’s up there right now,” Leonard said.

Yepsen said another effort to put a new method on the ballot as a constitutional amendment could be successful, but it would take a lot of money and professional organization. “A ballot initiative in a state this size takes a level of sophistication that a bunch of well-meaning volunteers just simply can’t do.” However, he said attempts to get an amendment on the ballot, such as ones from the league and others, may eventually spur legislative change. “I think just the threat of these constitutional amendments might give reform-minded people in the legislature and legislative leaders reason to do something on their own on these things.”

Leonard noted that only about 15 percent of voters think the state is headed in the right direction. “I think there’s some potential for this dissatisfaction to coalesce around an issue.” Out of all the reforms those polled supported, Leonard said redistricting reform may be the most pivotal to changing state government. “I think it’s our best hope at getting reformed politics. “

Illinois' new legislative maps face legal challenges

By Jamey Dunn

Republicans and a Republican-backed organization filed a lawsuit today claiming Illinois’ new congressional map violates the U.S. Constitution as well as the Federal Voting Rights Act. This new lawsuit means that both of the state’s Democratic-drawn maps will face a challenge in court.

The suit alleges that the map dilutes the voting rights of the state’s growing Hispanic population. The lawsuit, which names 11 current Republican Illinois House members as plaintiffs, says the map “blatantly discriminates against Republican and Latino voters.” The complaint says the new map effectively reverses the results of the 2010 congressional election, which gave Republicans control of the state’s congressional delegation.

Those opposed to the map say Democrats are seeking to achieve such political goals at the expense of Latino voters. “Despite explosive growth in the state's Hispanic population, the Democrats' map intentionally discriminates against Hispanic voters by providing for only one Hispanic-majority congressional district — the same number the state of Illinois has had since the 1992 election cycle — and further weakens their voting strength by apportioning the rest of the community's population among a number of other districts drawn to specifically protect non-Hispanic white Democratic incumbents,” said a prepared statement from The Committee for a Fair and Balanced Map, which includes Dennis Hastert, former Republican speaker of the U.S. House.

“We’ve listened to advocacy groups from various Latino communities,” Chicago Democratic state Sen. Kwame Raoul, sponsor of the map, said as it was debated earlier this year in the Illinois Senate. He said no group called for two Latino congressional districts. “We have followed traditional redistricting principles in coming up with this map.”

The suit also alleges that Democrats used their control of the state legislature and governor’s office to draw irregularly shaped districts with an eye toward winning elections. “The map as a whole and several individual districts in particular represent a flexing of Democratic political muscle in Springfield aimed at creating a Democratic majority in the Illinois congressional delegation, regardless of the actual preferences of the electorate demonstrated only nine months ago,” the lawsuit says.

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton said that the districts are more compact than the previous map, which was drawn to protect incumbents. “If there’s any odd shaped districts, it’s because of the Voting Rights Act,” Cullerton said. “It’s politically fair, and you’ll see that bear out in the next 10 years.” Some experts agree with this take. “They did use the map to their advantage in some creative ways. But it’s actually less gerrymandered than the last one,” said Chris Mooney, a political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.

State Republican leaders filed a separate suit on similar grounds against the state legislative map last week. They claim the map violates the rights of minority voters, who they say would not be allowed fair opportunity to participate in the political process under the map. “The Democrats passed a map this session that we believe is in direct violation of the Federal Voting Rights Act and some of our most basic rights under the constitution,” House Minority Leader Tom Cross, said in a prepared statement. “They should be ashamed of themselves. We are optimistic that the court will agree with us and will help give our residents a fair map that accurately reflects our population, especially our growing Latino population.”

While both lawsuits include individual Latino residents, no Latino advocacy group — many of which were vocal during the remap process — has yet signed on to either complaint.

Quinn signs congressional map

By Jamey Dunn

Gov. Pat Quinn signed the Democratic drawn map of congressional districts today as Republicans decried the process as a blatant attempt to erase the gains they made in last year’s election.

“The people of Illinois provided input at public hearings for both the congressional and state legislative maps. I have carefully reviewed the congressional redistricting map. This map is fair, maintains competitiveness within congressional districts, and protects the voting rights of minority communities,” Quinn said in a prepared statement.

Republicans gained  control over the state’s congressional delegation last November. But some of the newly elected Republican U.S. representatives may not keep their jobs for long. “Governor Quinn has lost all claims to the label reformer. This bill is a crass, partisan political move to silence the voices of Illinoisans, who last November made it very clear that they wanted to fire [former House Majority Leader] Nancy Pelosi by electing a majority Republican congressional delegation from the home state of President Obama,” Illinois Republican Party Chair Pat Brady said in a prepared statement.

John Jackson, visiting professor with the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, said it comes as no surprise that Republicans on the state and national level are loudly complaining about Illinois’ map because state Democrats were able to draw it with no input from the minority party. “Illinois’ one of the few states where the Democrats are totally in charge,” Jackson said. “As far as aim toward brand new Republicans [in Congress,] it is certainly that, and that is fairly clear and expected.”

Jackson said that despite the results of the last Illinois congressional elections, the state’s demographics lean Democratic. “It was driven by a very, very low turnout. A very, very different electorate [came to the polls last year than those] that voted in 2008 in an election with a much larger turnout.”

He added: “Illinois ought to be competitive but leaning somewhat toward the Democrats. … I don’t see a lot of grounds in getting bent out of shape that the Democrats might come out with a slight advantage when it’s all said and done.”

Chris Mooney, a political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, said Democrats used their power to draw the districts in a way that will benefit their party. However, both Jackson and Mooney agreed that the previous map, which was drawn to protect incumbents of both parties, had more sprawling and oddly shaped districts. “They did use the map to their advantage in some creative ways. But it’s actually less gerrymandered than the last one,” Mooney said.

Mooney said the redistricting process is highly partisan, and if one party is left out of the process because of the power balance of state government, it can be assumed that its members will complain and likely sue in an attempt to have the map tossed out by a court. “Yes, it is gerrymandered, but that’s just the way the game is played. … [Republicans are] basically just saying that in preparation for a lawsuit,” Mooney said. “They’ll sue, and that’s always what happens.”

And Republicans seem to have every intention of fighting the maps in court. “I hope that the courts will overturn these maps as an unfair representation of the citizens of Illinois,” Brady said.

Jackson and Mooney disagree over whether or not Illinois’ map could help turn the tide for Democrats in the U.S. House. Jackson said Republicans will likely hold onto the control they gained last year, in part because so many other state governments that have also recently drafted new congressional maps came under Republican control last year. The shifts of seats because of populations changes from the Midwest and Northeast to the West and South will also likely help Republicans. Illinois lost one of the 12 seats that will be reassigned based on new census data. “The Republicans have the clear advantage nationwide because they control so much more of the total process.” Jackson called elections that come before the once-every-10-years remap process “the one election that then echoes for a decade.”

Mooney said the House has bounced back and forth between parties in recent years, and the election is too far away to predict. “Because the balance has been so close … if they can win a couple more [seats] — boom.” Mooney added that the state of the economy next spring will probably be the biggest factor in the outcomes of the 2012 election.

Quinn calls for special session to keep projects rolling

By Jamey Dunn

Calling for a special legislative session, Gov. Pat Quinn said today that lawmakers must approve spending for capital projects or construction could begin to shut down as early as next week.

“[The capital bill] was the largest investment in the history of Illinois in our roads, our highways, our bridges, our schools, our water systems, our rail systems, our broadband deployment. It was a huge public works agenda and project, and it’s the law of Illinois,” Quinn said as a Chicago news conference today. “Unfortunately the legislature went home last week without passing legislation to fund this year — this coming [fiscal] year beginning July 1 — the money necessary to pay for these projects.”

Lawmakers adjourned the regular legislative session last week without passing a bill that would approve the spending for construction projects for the next fiscal year. Senate Democrats tried to force a vote on about $430 million in spending that they wanted to tack onto the House’s budget proposal. Instead of voting on the measure, House Speaker Michael Madigan called for the creation of a conference committee, a group of members from both chambers and both parties tasked to hash out differences when the Senate and House cannot agree on a piece of legislation. Senate President John Cullerton did not follow suit, and the Senate wrapped up regular the spring session without putting its own members on a conference committee.

Now Quinn says lawmakers failed to get the job done, and he plans to meet with the four legislative leaders to “promptly” schedule a specially session to avoid what he called a “job crisis.” Quinn said that if the funding is not approved, he would have to start the process of shutting down construction projects on June 17. “This is something that has to be done. This is not a matter that’s optional. This is mandatory. These men [working on construction projects], they have to work. And they don’t want to be told on the 17th of this month that Springfield didn’t work for them and, ‘You’re off the job.’”

According to the Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association, a full shutdown would put 31,000 people out of work and cost the state about $30 million initially and $3 million a day for as long as work is called off.

Some House members say there is no need for the construction projects to be shut down so quickly. They maintain that an extension of the state’s lapse period, the time the state has after the close of the fiscal year to continue paying off bills from that fiscal year, would allow ongoing construction projects to continue. “We’ve sold bonds and the money is there. … The bond proceeds are there. The projects will continue,” Spring Valley Democratic Rep. Frank Mautino, a House Democratic budgeting point man, said on the last day of regular session.

He added that the extension of the lapse period from August through December would allow contractors on existing projects to continue submitting bills past the end of this fiscal year, and the state can continue paying for ongoing work. “So now, all those projects that are ongoing can just continue without a re-appropriation. … So we don’t need to do that bill.”

Steve Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, echoed Mautino’s take on the issue. “The lapse period would allow the state to continue to pay bills and beyond that, we will continue to cooperate with the governor.” When asked if he thought lawmakers would return to the Statehouse next week, he repeated, “We’re cooperating with the governor.”

However, Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said that the House’s attempt to use lapse period spending to keep the capital projects going won’t fly. “You appropriate money for a certain period of time, and that’s the authorization to spend, and once that’s up that’s up. … You can’t engage in new spending after July 1 because it’s a new fiscal year, and you don’t have any statutory authority.”

Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka said she has asked her legal counsel to review the issue and determine how long she can continue to pay bills for capital projects. “My office will continue to pay state contractors for as long as legally possible, but ultimately, this question must be addressed by the General Assembly and governor. If that means calling an immediate special session, so be it. One thing is certain: Our families and businesses are already struggling and paying more than ever before to state government; they deserve better than to be subjected to a high-priced game of legislative chicken over the capital bill,” Topinka said in a written statement.

None of the legislative leaders would give specifics on when they might return for a special session. “It is our understanding that there is a bill in the Senate that would give the governor the authority to continue the capital program for the next fiscal year. We encourage the senators to pass that bill as soon as possible. Unfortunately, at the end of session last week, Senate Democrats tried to tack on an extra $400 million of extra spending, which was unacceptable in the House. We are always willing to discuss our options, but the clearest one at this point is for the Senate to pass [House Bill] 2189, without additional spending amendments, to the governor. This bill appropriates funds for the FY12 capital and road programs immediately. This important jobs creation bill should not be held hostage by additional requests for more spending in the budget,” Sarah Wojcicki, spokesperson for House Minority Leader Tom Cross, said in a written statement.

But Quinn today continued to back the Senate Democrats’ call for additional spending. “I think the General Assembly gets an incomplete when it comes to their budget. I don’t think they properly invested in important things like schools and other things that matter to everyday people.”

Redfield said, “[The issue at hand ] is obviously not the capital bill. It’s about the Senate Democrats and the governor wanting to appropriate additional dollars for education and human services.”

But adding more spending seems even less likely in a special session, when Republican votes would be needed to pass the appropriations for the capital bill. “They’ve already taken the tough votes. They’ve already voted to cut this stuff,” Redfield said.

He predicts there may be minor concessions on both sides, but that the dispute will instead likely be pushed off into the fall veto session, when there will likely be a clearer picture of how much money lawmakers have to work with. “This is a lot easier to play out in the fall, where you know where you are on gaming, and you know where you are in revenue.”

Quinn has yet to act on a large gaming package passed in the last days of the session that could potentially bring in billions of dollars in new revenue. While he supports a casino in Chicago, he has said that he thinks the bill, which calls for five new casinos and slots at horse racing tracks, may be too large of an expansion.

Quinn also lost a large potential bargaining chip when he signed off on the new legislative districts for state lawmakers last Friday. When asked about the move today, he told reporters, “This isn’t a matter to bargain.”

Redfield said the short time frame Quinn is giving could make it very hard for lawmakers to do more than pass a bill that extends capital spending into the fall and possibly take up the issue later. He said Quinn’s oft-repeated tactic of threatening to cut off a popular state program or service to spur the legislature to action does not have a track record of success. “That’s just a recipe for disaster. Either because you’re always kind of wimping out, or you’re going to blow something up with horrendous consequences because this time you’re really serious and nobody thinks you are.”

He added, “We’ve got a mess that they are going to have to clean up somehow.”

Senate Democrats send congressional map to Quinn

By Jamey Dunn

Senate Democrats sent a proposed map of congressional districts to Gov. Pat Quinn, while Republicans decried the process as partisan and unfair to the state’s Latino community.

Democrats lost five congressional seats in the last general election, and Republicans accused them of drawing the new map with an eye for targeting Republicans' electoral victories. “The people at the ballot box said they were immensely unhappy with what was going on in Washington, [D.C.,]” said Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican. He said Democrats are trying to nullify “ballot box decisions” made by “real people.”

Dillard complained that only one Latino congressional district was drawn, saying he thought Democrats could have created two if they had not “substantially [diluted] Latino representation” in some areas. Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, sponsor of the map, said, “We’ve listened to advocacy groups from various Latino communities.” He said no group called for two Latino congressional districts. “We have followed traditional redistricting principals in coming up with this map.”

Republicans characterized the process of drawing of the map as partisan and lacking transparency. However, Senate President John Cullerton said the creation of a congressional map was much more transparent than it was 10 years ago, when state lawmakers let congressional incumbents draw their own districts. “The problem was that it was the incumbents getting together doing their own deal,” he said. Cullerton pointed to the current 17th District as the “most amazing, snakelike gerrymander that has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act.” Cullerton also noted that for the first time, voters had a chance to look at the proposed state and congressional maps online.

He said the current map splits 31 counties and “looks all crazy,” while the proposed map splits 18. “If there’s any odd shaped districts, it’s because of the Voting Rights Act,” Cullerton said. “It’s politically fair, and you’ll see that bear out in the next 10 years.”

Democratic map on the way to the governor

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois Democrats pushed their state legislative map through both chambers today as Republicans decried what they say was a lack of transparency in the redistricting process.

“I believe the map is politically fair, but we certainly recognize that partisan concerns did play a role,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, who sponsored Senate Bill 1177 in the House. Senate sponsor Kwame Raoul, also a Chicago Democrat, said nothing the legislature does can escape being part of a political process.

Democrats presented resolutions in each chamber, House Resolution 385 and Senate Resolution 249, that they say explain many of the choices they made for drawing district lines. “They are a number of other factors that go into any redistricting plan, and all of these were considered in balance one with another. The principles include preserving core of existent districts, preserving communities of interest, respecting county, township, ward boundaries — in the sense of making sure that political divisions are taken into account — maintaining incumbent constituent relationships, proposals that came from testimony both oral and written … incumbent requests and respect for geographic features like rivers,” Currie said.

But Republicans faulted the majority party for not allowing time for the public to digest the changes made to the proposed maps. New versions of the maps were posted online after 6 p.m. Thursday. “Where is the public supposed to go to on the final version of this map for input? … How can the general public in a transparent way have input on the final version of this map when it’s filed and we’re voting on it … hours later,” said Hutsonville Republican Rep. Roger Eddy.

Republicans said the resolutions filed in the record today that offer explanation for the maps came too late. “Do you think three hours is sufficient for the people who live in the state to have the foggiest notion about why you drew this map the way you did?” Sen. Dale Righter, a Charleston Republican, asked on the Senate floor.

“I think the point is that we’re providing a narrative at all.” Raoul said. “I think we’re going well beyond what has ever been done.” Both Raoul and Currie argued that the Democrats’ approach to drawing the map was a historic step for transparency. “I think this has been the most transparent, the most accountable, the most open redistricting process in the history of the sate of Illinois.”

However, Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the historical bar for openness in the process was set pretty low. “Compared to nothing, yes, this is more open. There’s no question about it.” Redfield said there were public hearings a decade ago when the current map was drawn. However, he added, “there was more public activity this time around.”

But Redfield said that both then and now, the result is the same: a partisan map that attempts to satisfy the interests of party leadership, incumbents and certain interest groups while not violating state and federal law.
Currie said the map released late Thursday night is not “significantly different” than the maps proposed last week. “But it does represent our effort to make sure that people who brought legitimate issues to us were given an opportunity to be heard.”

After receiving public criticism from many organizations representing minorities, Democrats bolstered the numbers of minority populations in some districts.

“We heard from many Latino groups at the hearings, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. They were concerned that some of the districts that had majority Hispanic populations didn’t have enough to make those effective opportunities for Hispanic populations to have an impact on electoral outcomes. So we made some changes to voting age populations in several districts,” Currie said.

The United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations (UCCRO) has crunched the demographic numbers on the new map. Josina Morita, executive director of UCCRO said the number of minority majority districts increased under the proposal that passed today. Morita said the number of House districts where African-Americans make up more than 55 percent of the voting age population went from eight under the plan released last week to nine under the legislation passed today, and the number of Senate districts increased from two to three. Hispanic House districts with more than 65 percent of voting age population went up from four to five. Morita said the map also creates three districts where Asian-Americans have the potential for political influence. “Working with the state legislature and over 50 community organizations, we drew a map that creates the first Asian-American influence districts, dramatically increases the number of Latino majority districts and maintains the strong representation African-Americans currently have in Springfield,” Morita said in a prepared statement.

The changes Democrats made may not have been enough to satisfy at least one minority organization. Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for MALDEF, said the Democrats’ original proposal violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of minorities. The group’s current concern apparently is the splitting of the Little Village neighborhood in Chicago into multiple legislative districts. Raoul said the move was made to create stronger Latino districts. According to a release sent out by Senate Republicans, MALDEF is urging Gov. Pat Quinn to veto the map because it “fractures communities of interest and weakens the voting strength of Latino neighborhoods.”

According to the release, Perales said: “We cannot support a map that splits one of the most important Latino communities in Chicago. In our proposed map, MALDEF kept Little Village together, created additional Latino majority districts and ensured the preservation of Black majority districts. MALDEF’s proposed map demonstrates that the Legislature elevated incumbency protection over respect for the Latino community."

MALDEF spokespersons did not return telephone calls seeking to confirm the statement.

Democrats also released a proposed map for congressional districts that apparently is directed toward making up for ground lost in the 2010 election, when Democrats lost several suburban districts. “It’s a much more partisan map than 10 years ago,” Redfield said of the proposal. He said the 2001 map was drawn by the incumbents to protect their seats, compared with the current proposal that is intended to increase Democrats' chances in future elections. “They clearly would like to eventually shift five seats by getting rid of one and taking control of four others.” Illinois lost one congressional seat because of the population loss in the 2010 census. Redfield said there is no guarantee that Democrats in the U.S. House will be able to pick up that lost seat in another state, such as Texas or Florida, which gained congressional districts because of  growing populations.

Quinn would not comment today on whether he will sign the Democrats map proposal for state legislative districts. He only said that he is encouraging lawmakers to be “fair” in the redistricting process.

Democrats roll out changesto their remap proposal

By Jamey Dunn

UPDATE MAY 27, 2011 Democrats released a proposed U.S. Congressional Map late last night. Democrats revealed a tweaked version of their proposal for a legislative map today, while Republicans unveiled a map that they say was drawn without political considerations but which may only serve as fodder for a future legal challenge to a Democratic map.

Republicans say they say they did not look at incumbent legislators' addresses and did not take political data into account, except when drawing districts to protect the voting power of minority groups. In the House, their method led to 17 members of each party being mapped into a district with at least one other incumbent from their party. The balance in the Senate is not as even — four Republicans share districts, compared with 14 Democrats. The proposed Democratic map calls for 19 House Republicans in shared districts and six Democrats. It would put eight incumbent Republican senators in shared districts. No incumbent Senate Democrats share a district under their proposal.

Sen. Dale Righter, a Charleston Republican, said that in the GOP proposal, the ratio of Senate Democrats sharing districts to Republicans mirrors the overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the Senate. He also said the population shifts of the last decade are illustrated because lawmakers who would share a district under the map have lost population in their current districts.

Republicans say their map complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act while trying to follow county and municipal borders wherever possible. “The maps … demonstrate that you cannot concern yourself with where incumbents live and not concern yourself with what Republican/Democrat numbers are … and draw a map that is constitutional.”

However, Dr. Leon Finney, co-chairman of the legislative redistricting committee for the African American Leadership Roundtable, said the Republican map “creates an illusion of fairness.” He said while the number of minority/majority districts is important, so is the way they are drawn. He said the plan reminds him of a proposal from the 1991 remap that “packed” districts with African-Americans and diluted their political voice. “Having gone through this in 1991, I am very painfully aware of the need to unpack those districts.”

Republicans and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund both said Democrats’ previous map proposal violated the federal Voting Rights Act and diluted the voting power of minorities.

“The adjusted boundaries we’re releasing today aim to address many of the recommendations brought to our attention during the public review process,” said Sen. Kwame Raoul, chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee.

MALDEF pledged to unveil a reworked version of its own proposed Latino districts earlier this week, but the plan never materialized publicly. Whether the new proposal goes far enough to satisfy the group’s legal complaints remains to be seen. Several calls to MALDEF throughout the week, as well as today, have not been returned.

Josina Morita, executive coordinator for the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations, the group that created a so-called unity map that is backed by a coalition that bridges several interest groups, said the Democrats’ new proposal makes many of the previously proposed minority districts stronger by increasing the percentage of minority residents above voting age. She said “improving the percentages in key areas” was a priority for members of her coalition. Morita said she could not predict whether the new plan would find broad-based support from the groups that unified behind her organization’s proposal. She did say, “All of us would say that this is an improvement, and we feel like this is an accomplishment.”


Some observers have noted that Republicans — who are effectively shut out of the process because Democrats control both legislative chambers and the governor’s office — are likely trying to build a legal case against whatever map Democrats eventually approve. Righter acknowledged that today’s proposal from his party could help bolster a future case. “That may depend on which attorney to which you speak,” he said. “There is some belief that this could make a difference in our court challenge, but I’m really hesitant to go beyond that because I am not that embedded in the legalities.” A spokesperson for Senate Republicans said they are reviewing the Democrats' plan, which was posted online after 6 p.m. today.

Democratic legislative map may face legal challenges

By Jamey Dunn

A legislative map proposed by Illinois Democrats would violate the rights of Hispanic voters, according to one Latino legal organization.

A representative of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) said the map Democrats have proposed for the Illinois House doesn’t do enough — according to federal law — to ensure that the growing number of Latino voters in the state will have enough political voice. “We believe that [House Bill 3760] does not create a sufficient number of districts for Latino electoral opportunities to comply with the Voting Rights Act,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for MALDEF. A House committee approved the bill today along partisan lines. A separate but similar proposal by Senate Democrats was held in committee. Chicago Sen. Kwame Raoul, sponsor of his chamber’s Democratic map, said he wants to give Republicans and other interested groups time to review the plan and proposes changes.

Perales said that the biggest problem with the proposed map in the House can be found on the south side of Chicago, where she says it both splinters some Latino populations into several districts and packs others together “in a way that is diluted and denies Latinos an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.”

She said the map proposal creates three districts on the south side of the city with Latinos making up 65 percent or more of the voting age population, while MALDEF has identified five potential Latino majority districts in the area. Perales cited case law that she says determines that creating a 60 percent  to 65 percent Hispanic district is one way to ensure that districts in the Chicago area would give Hispanics a chance to elect the candidates of their choice. She said her organization believes that Latino majority districts require more than 50 percent of the population to be Latino for several reasons, including lower voter registration than some other groups and undocumented members of the population who are counted in the census but cannot vote.

Perales said the group plans to release its own map of the Chicago area, the second it has put forth. “We feel that it’s important to provide alternatives in order to demonstrate that there’s more than one way of complying with the Voting Rights Act. … There’s no magic that a particular line be in one place or the other. The goal here is to create Latino majority districts that offer the opportunity to elect,” Perales told the committee.

When asked whether MALDEF would sue if the current map is the one that becomes law, she said, “We don’t announce litigation.” However Perales did say that “MALDEF has been very engaged in redistricting litigation in Illinois and in other states.” She said that by waiting until the closing days of the spring legislative session, lawmakers make it more difficult to correct any potential legal problems with the map that outside groups might bring to light. “It is a very legitimate concern when redistricting plans are rolled out, and then hearings are scheduled without sufficient time to analyze the plan fully. We have done what analysis we can.”

When asked whether she thinks House members will incorporate suggestions from MALDEF, as well as other groups representing minority communities, on how to ensure the map complies with the federal Voting Rights Act, she said she cannot predict what lawmakers will decide in the end. “They have their own legal counsel; I’m quite sure they know what they need to do.”

During the hearing, Republicans joined the chorus of witnesses who said that Democrats were moving the process along too quickly and not supplying the public with enough information.

Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, sponsor of the House map, said that the Democrats' map fulfills all the proper legal requirements. “It’s all a balance. It’s all trying to take into account a variety of factors. … I think we’ve done a very good job of trying to meet the basic principles of redistricting,” Currie said.

"We don’t have anything to show that to us, that those factors have been balanced,” said Rep. Mike Fortner, a West Chicago Republican and the minority spokesman on the House Redistricting Committee. “This is an action that will have an impact for the next decade on the state of Illinois.”

Currie encouraged Republicans to present their own map. As of yet, the minority party has presented no concrete plan to draw the legislative lines. “I don’t anticipate that we’re necessarily going to vote tomorrow. I’m keeping my powder dry and my options open.”

Republicans tried to pin witnesses down on legal issue,s such as what population thresholds would be needed to ensure that minorities have influence in a given district. Allan Lichtman, a history professor for Washington, D.C-based American University who advised Democrats on their current proposal as well as the process in 2001, said no answers can be applied across the board. He said that figuring out whether a district has been drawn to give a minority population a voice involves many factors, including the voting history of the district and minority group as well as the location of the district.

Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said Republicans are trying to build a case to challenge in court whatever map Democrats ultimately approve. “There’s not much political strategy because the Democrats have the votes and the governor’s chair. It’s all about building yourself a record in terms of court challenges. … If the Republicans are going to get to an alternative map, it would probably have to be through some kind of federal court challenge.”

Redfield said Democrats' actions in the coming week will likely determine whether minority groups eventually sue  over the final map. “The question is whether [MALDEF’s statement on the proposed map] is a negotiation strategy, and there’s some kind of accommodation, or whether or not they’re at an impasse.”

He added, “The assumption is we’re going to be in the courts. It’s just a question of who the plaintiffs will be.”

Senators hear feedback on remap plan

By Jamey Dunn

Minority groups had mixed reactions to the Senate Democrat’s proposed legislative map as reform organizations called today for more time and information to review the plan.

Senate Democrats released their proposal for new legislative districts on Thursday and held their first hearing for public feedback on the map today in Chicago. Since Democrats control both legislative chambers and the governor's office, they have the ability to control the process of redrawing legislative boundaries, which happens every 10 years after new census data is released.

Juan Rangel, chief executive officer of the United Neighborhoods organization, endorsed the map on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Fair Redistricting. “We believe that the proposed map fairly balances changes in population and the stakes other communities have in the Illinois legislature,” Rangel said. “Revising the current district boundaries is a tremendous assignment with many moving parts.”

Members of the coalition were encouraged by the treatment of the Chicago neighborhood of South Lawndale, also known as Little Village, near Cicero, which was at one time split into four Senate districts. Under the Democrats’ plan, the predominately Latino community would be represented by one state senator.

However, the Hispanic community known as Back of the Yards, located on the south side of the city near the former location of Chicago’s storied stock yards — now an industrial park — would be split in half under the plan. “We are now asking you to allow us to be one voice in the eyes of the legislature,” said Jose Alonso, speaking on behalf of the Committee for a Unified Back of the Yards. “We are really only talking about blocks here. We’re not asking for a new district. We’re talking about blocks.”

C.W. Chan, executive director of the Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community, said his organization was happy to see that Chinatown was relatively intact in one district under the map. He said about 90 percent of the community would be in the same district, though he noted, “We’re not getting everybody in.” Chinatown, which was split among five Senate districts under the last remap, according to the Asian American Institute, has become a high-profile example of a community of interest that has had its political power diluted. “Ten years ago, Chinatown was the most convenient victim of redistricting,” Chan said. He joined other representatives of the Asian American community in asking the committee to reconsider their proposal to split up some Asian communities in northern Cook County.

Overall, several representatives of the Latino community said lawmakers had not done enough to create more Hispanic majority and influence districts in light of the 32.5 percent Hispanic population growth in Illinois according to U.S. Census data.

“Our analysis indicates that Latino residents are being shortchanged by the current proposals,” said Sylvia Puente, executive director of the Latino Policy Forum. She said more districts could have been created on the south side of Chicago, with Latinos representing over 65 percent of the voting age population. “They do not have to come at the expense of African-American majority districts.”

Members of several minority organizations said they continue to support the so-called Unity Map created by the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations.

Reform groups told lawmakers that they need to do more to inform the public about their methods for drawing the map, including releasing demographic and political information about the districts, as well as explanations for why the lines were drawn as they were under the proposal. Whitney Woodward, policy associate for the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said legislators had months to analyze such information when drawing the map and said the public needs more details and more time before lawmakers take a vote. “We don’t see any reason to believe that the map released Thursday has put community interest above political interests.”

She called the fact that the public has not seen a proposal for a U.S. congressional map “unacceptable.”

“The public has not been invited to sit in the audience, let alone at the table,” Woodward said. “We know that you can do better than offering an unexplained map and two premature hearings.”

Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, the chair of the Senate Redistricting committee, said Senate Democrats plan to present a resolution explaining their proposal. Senate and House Redistricting committee have a joint hearing scheduled in Springfield at 9 a.m. Tuesday.  “We will take all comments and suggestions under advisement in the coming days,” Raoul said.

House Democrats release their proposed district map

By Jamey Dunn

The Illinois House released its proposed legislative map today as Republicans decried what they saw as a lack of transparency in the redistricting process.

Watchers of Illinois politics got a brief chance to peruse proposed legislative districts posted on the House Democrats' website this morning, only to see the map disappear. Copies floated around various news outlets today as House Democrats declined to comment on whether the map was the real deal. House Democrats released an official copy of their proposal late this afternoon.

Committee hearings are scheduled for this Sunday in Chicago and Tuesday at the Statehouse. But Republicans say more time and information, such as the demographic makeups of the districts, are needed for the public to have a chance to make informed comments before the map is approved — likely next week.

“It is disingenuous for the House Democrats to release this map late in the afternoon on a Friday with very limited access to demographic data and an analysis that explains why they drew the boundaries where they did. How can the residents of our state have time to access the information …digest it and be prepared to testify at a hearing in Chicago on Sunday afternoon? A hearing in Chicago and one in Springfield is not enough; we are calling for more statewide hearings in the next few weeks before a vote is taken,” House Minority Leader Tom Cross said in a written statement.

Chicago Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, chair of the House Redistricting Committee, was coy at a hearing this morning when asked whether the Democrats will supply more data and analysis to go along with their map. “I don’t have a timetable, so I can’t really let you know when and what [may be released].”

For the first time since 1971, one party controls both legislative chambers and the governor’s office. That means Democrats can pass a map much as they have other controversial pieces of legislation recently: without any Republican support. “They can run the thing like a straight bill, pass it, get it signed — if they can all stay together, which is often a question with Democrats in particular. But I think they probably will in this case. … They can do what they want, and they can do it during the regular session,” said Christopher Mooney, a political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.

When the party balance was split during several redistricting attempts in past decades, the General Assembly was not able to come to an agreement on a map, so the decision of which party chose the districts came down to a so-called coin toss. But that process also delayed the final decisions on the map well past the regular legislative session. “That is a completely different time in the legislative year…that’s September. The regular session is way over,” Mooney said.

The accelerated timeline this year means the drawing of the legislative lines, upon which lawmakers depend for their political lives, could potentially serve as a big political bargaining chip as legislators try to put votes on controversial bills such as workers’ compensation reform, changes to pension benefits for current state employees and politically unsavory cuts to the state budget.

“If I was running one of the chambers and I had some difficult bills that I wanted to get done — whether they be these very serious cuts to human services or local government and education or the pension changes that are very dramatic and very impactful on current and future state employees … if I was running the party and I wanted to get through the next election, one way I would do that is try [to use the map] to force some of the other party members onto those bills and therefore take the steam out … the partisan angst out of those bills,” Mooney said.

Some Senate Republicans yesterday referred to the map Democrats proposed in their chamber as a “shocker map” to be used as a scare tactic. They said that they expected the plan to change over the coming days.

However, Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said he does not expect drastic changes to the map because Democrats hold all the cards and need to pass a map in the next week to keep it that way. If a map is not passed by the end of May, Republican votes would be needed for it to go into effect before the 2012 primary election. “My guess is that there’s not going to be a lot of difference, and they don’t have a lot of time.”

He said he does not expect that testimony given at the upcoming committee hearings will do much to sway Democrats. “We’ll have some dog and pony shows before the Democrats are going to pass what they’re going to pass.”

Redfield said that Democrats will likely do well in the next elections under whatever map they pass, but the shrinking population of the city of Chicago may have dashed some hopes of a map that could have been even more favorable to the majority party. “The Democrats are going to do fine on both maps. But I think their expectations were a lot higher until they saw the census figures.’

He said the population shifts away from stronghold Democratic Chicago districts and into the suburbs made Democrats consider “plan B in terms of protecting incumbents.” The House Democrats’ map, like the proposal from their Senate counterparts, places several pairs of incumbent Republicans in the same districts. That would leave them with the choices of facing a primary challenge, running in a different district and moving if they won, or retiring.

He added that every 10 years, mapmakers look to predict the future in terms of population and political shifts, to varying degrees of success. “The map that the Republicans drew in the '80s, they really badly guessed what was going to happen with population in suburban Cook and Will [counties,] and [House Speaker Michael] Madigan was able to retake the chamber.”

Redfield added: “They didn’t anticipate the population growth and the political shift in the suburbs. And who knows how well the Democrats will guess this time?”

Senate Dems' map could send Republicans packing

By Jamey Dunn with Lauren N. Johnson contributing 

Illinois Senate Democrats released a proposed map of legislative districts today that would likely leave several Senate Republicans weighing their options and considering renting moving vans in the near future.

Since Democrats control both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office, they could pass a new legislative plan without the backing of a single Republican, assuming both chambers can agree and Gov. Pat Quinn signs off on the end product before the end of May. The legislature technically has until the end of June to pass a bill, but after May 31, Democrats would need some Republican votes for the map to go into effect before June 2012.

It is this unmitigated power to draw the map that has left many Republicans with a bitter taste in their mouths about the process. Sen. Dale Righter, the top Republican member of the Senate Redistricting Map Committee, said that he and his party had no more input in the map released today than any other citizen. “I don’t know whether they’re smoking in there or not, but clearly, they’re in a closed-door room drawing the lines. And I would suggest to you that if you didn’t know who drew these lines and you just looked at the map, it wouldn’t take you very long to figure out which party had drawn them,” said Righter, a Mattoon Republican.

Righter said this map, along with other from the recent past, illustrate the need for a change to the process. Republicans and Democrats proposed competing revamps of the redistricting process last spring. Neither plan was approved by the legislature. “I think the evidence of the last three remaps certainly demonstrates that that’s what happens when you leave the process in the hands of incumbent legislators — I don’t care what party. When you leave it in the hands of incumbent legislators, the lines are going to be driven politically, and I think that’s what you’ve seen again here,” he said.

However, Senate President John Cullerton said that the map was not drafted with an eye for putting incumbent Republicans out of a job. “We’re flowing the voting rights act. We’re following the Illinois voting rights act as well as the federal voting rights act. And we’re complying with the people that testified [at redistricting hearings held throughout the state] in favor of certain configurations,” Cullerton said. “It follows the law, and it’s fair.”

Under the proposal, some pairs of Republican incumbent senators would live in the same legislative districts — meaning that if they wanted to run in the districts where they currently reside, incumbents would have to battle it out in a primary. Perhaps the most notable paring up in a district is Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno from Lemont and Republican freshman Sen. Ron Sandack from Downers Grove. They would share the 41st Senate District.

“I’m just trying to evaluate it,” Radogno said. “I’m not alarmed by it. I’ve been in this situation before. Other members have as well. Everyone looks at all the opportunities…so just looking at where peoples’ houses are on the map doesn’t represent every opportunity that they might have.”

Downstate Illinois lost population, so the result was a proposal with larger districts. And many downstate Republicans found they would be left out of their current districts if the Senate Democrats' map is approved. “Most of the southern Illinois Republicans were drawn out of their district. … And this has happened before, but that doesn’t make it right. This I think proves that the way we draw a map is corrupt, political and kind of despicable, really. … This was strictly political, and it always has been, and to claim that it is not is just not being honest,” said Sen. David Luechtefeld, a Republican from Okawville who would be shifted from his district under the proposed map.

“Five out of six southern Illinois Republicans were drawn out of their map, strictly drawn out of their district. That just didn’t happen by accident,” he added.

Kent Redfield, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the shrinking downstate population coupled with a political shift toward Republicans in the region led Democrats to draw some “creative” districts to try to hold onto their numbers. He pointed to the Democrats' proposal to split Sangamon County, where Springfield is located, into three Senate districts. The county currently has one state senator. To create the three districts, map drafters pulled in populations from the Decatur and Bloomington areas. “Those kinds of things really highlight how unimportant communities of interest — cities and counties — really are in terms of crafting a map.” Redfield said that under the plan, some Springfield residents could potentially have a senator from Decatur or Bloomington who they may not believe shares their community’s interests. “It makes sense from a partisan standpoint, but most citizens don’t think of it that way. … It’s not particularly healthy if we want people to understand politics and have a sense of community,” he said.

Incumbents who find themselves mapped out of their current districts do have options. In the 2012 general election — when all seats in the General Assembly are up for grabs — they can run in any new district that contains any portion of their old district without actually living there. A lawmaker elected for a two-year term to represent a district that he or she does not live in would have about six months to move into that district to be eligible for reelection. Those elected for four-year terms would have about 30 months to relocate.

Redfield said that in some cases, the party in power might put two minority party incumbents in the same district simply to cause tension and force them to chose between relocating or potentially losing their seats. “There will probably be instances where they’ve drawn them in ways — it’s safe districts, but some Republicans have to move, even though there is no advantage to Democrats. It’s just screwing around with your opponents.”

 “Republicans would have done the same thing as the Democrats” if they controlled the legislature, he added.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle said they saw the map released today as a jumping off point, and they expect some changes. Cullerton said he encourages those unhappy with the map to submit amendments with potential changes. “We have at least a week before we vote on it, so people can offer amendments if they want.” The Senate Redistricting Committee has a hearing scheduled on Saturday in Chicago and another on Tuesday in Springfield.

The Senate Democrats' map did not include House districts. House Democrats are expected to release their proposed map tomorrow.

Christopher Mooney, a political studies professor with the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, explained: “The House districts are nested in the Senate districts, and that means that they basically cut the Senate districts in half population wise. And that will be another shock to the system around here.”

For some localized takes on the Senate Democrats' proposal see:

The State Journal-Register

Belleville News-Democrat

Herald & Review

Senate Democrats release a legislative map

The Senate Democrats have released their proposed map for Illinois legislative districts. The map is available on the Democrats’ website as pdf files, or a more interactive version can be found on Google Earth. (A link to download Google Earth is available on the website.)

Two hearings are scheduled for public feedback. One will be in Chicago at noon on Saturday at the Michael A. Bilandic Building in committee room C-600, and another will be in Springfield at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the Statehouse in committee room 114. Senate Democrats plan to have live feeds of the hearings on their website.

“Today’s release is part of the aggressive effort we’ve taken to engage the public in the redistricting process. Because of the advances and availability of web-based technology, anyone with an Internet connection can view this proposal,” Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee, said in a prepared statement.

Illinois House Democrats are working on a plan for the legislative districts for their chamber. Their map proposal has not been released. We will have more on the Senate Democrats' proposed map later today.

Redistricting hearing comes to Springfield

By Jamey Dunn

Representatives of several regional, racial, ethnic and religious interest groups appealed to members of the Senate Redistricting committee today, asking that their communities not be split among several districts when the new legislative map is drawn. However, reform advocates questioned whether the public hearings will have much bearing on the map that will ultimately be approved.

The Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community has called on multiple occasions for Chinatown in Chicago to remain in one legislative district. The neighborhood was split into several districts under the current map approved 10 years ago, and as a result, Chinese community leaders feel that the community is underrepresented. “We are all by now familiar with the example of the greater Chinatown area in Chicago, a cohesive community that has experienced unfair fragmentation,” said Ami Gandhi, legal director for the Asian American Institute. However, Gandhi’s organization has identified concentrated Asian populations in northern Chicago, Des Plaines and near Skokie that they say should also not be split among districts.

However, lawmakers on the committee raised concerns that some of the areas the group has highlighted as having growing Asian communities have also seen a growth in Hispanic populations and said they would also have to consider the interests of those residents. Gandhi said that she agrees that the considerations of both groups are important to the process.

While the state’s Hispanic population grew by 32.5 percent and the Asian population increased by 38.6 percent, the African-American population decreased by 1 percent statewide and 17.2 percent in Chicago, according to U.S. Census data. With those shifts in population, the potential loss of at least one traditionally African-American legislative district looms.

“The right to vote is meaningless if one’s vote isn’t effective,” said Phyllis Logan, a representative of the Westside Branch of the NAACP of Chicago. “The 2001 map was a success from the standpoint of African-Americans and indeed from the standpoint of history. … Please do not tamper with this African-American success story, which is also an American success story. African-American voters and legislators are now ingrained in the fabric of the political legislative processes in Illinois.”

Logan argued that the demolition of low-income housing units in Chicago has forced some groupings of African-Americans to become disperse, and therefore lose some political power. “Respecting existing relationships [between voters and their representatives] also means being cognizant of the effect of political decisions of the past decade that have dispersed black populations that resided in large housing complexes [that] the city of Chicago chose to eliminate.”

Logan also called on lawmakers to count prison inmates in their home communities for census data instead of the location of the prison where they are incarcerated. Legislation that would make that change failed to receive the necessary votes in the House but was held by sponsor Chicago Democrat La Shawn Ford for a potential future vote.

“Certain commentators and media outlets have portrayed as a foregone conclusion that Illinois’ slower population growth and diversifying demographics means that black representation must be decreased,” Logan said. She said it is unfair that the media is focusing only on the shifts in African-American populations as a justification for eliminating representation in the black community. “Whites, not African-Americans, have experienced the greatest decrease as a proportion of the state's population. ... The most accurate characterization of the census data is that Illinois is less white.”

While most of the jockeying for districts will likely occur in the northern part of the state, some downstate representatives also appealed to the committee.

Dennis Fisher from Shelby County in central Illinois asked that the county not be split into multiple districts.
Fisher said the county of 20,000 people has four state representatives, three state senators and two U.S. congressmen. “I’m here today to seek less representation,” Fischer said. “Most of our people are confused [about] where to go [and] who their representative are."

Transparency advocates have called on the committee to present potential maps to the public for review.

Whitney Woodward, a policy associate for the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, questioned whether information and testimony submitted at the public hearings would be used in the process. “Is that information submitted from the public going to be taken into consideration by the map drawers, and will their comments be incorporated into the new map? Or will the hours of testimony already taken by this committee, the additional hours yet to come and the public comments solicited by this committee's website be disregarded when the borders are finally constructed.”

Woodward said that if legislators are truly concerned with making the process open, they must make drafts of the maps they intend to vote on available to the public for at least two weeks before a vote. “It’s not only the quantity of the committee hearings but the quality of those hearings that matters.”

The Illinois House has scheduled 15 redistricting committee hearings. The Senate has five scheduled hearings and committee members say the group plans to schedule more in the future.

Quinn signs redistricting changes

By Jamey Dunn

Gov. Pat Quinn signed a measure today geared at preserving the power of geographic pockets of minority populations in the upcoming redistricting process.

The law will require those who draw new legislative districts — a move required every 10 years after new U.S. Census data comes out — to consider the presence of racial or language minority populations and so-called communities of interest, which are often neighborhoods. Mapmakers would be charged with attempting to avoid diluting the power of those groups as a voting bloc by not splitting them into several districts.

Other considerations, such as the requirements for districts to be compact, equal in number and contiguous, would take priority over preserving so-called crossover, coalition or influence districts. A written statement from the office of Gov. Pat Quinn defines those districts: “A crossover district is one in which a racial or language minority group makes up less than a majority of the voting age population but is large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with some support from larger groups. A coalition district is one where several racial or language minority groups may join together to elect a candidate of their choice. An influence district is one where a racial or language minority can influence the outcome of an election, even if its preferred candidate cannot be elected.”

An example of a potential influence population is Chicago’s Chinatown. Advocates for the area have tried to raise awareness about the dissection of their community under the current map. They say that splitting their neighborhood between several districts has taken away political power from the Chinese-American community in the city. The voting population of Chinatown may not be large enough to elect a representative to the Illinois House. However, if the community were more concentrated in one district, it may be able to wield political power as a potential voting bloc.

“Today is a big day for all immigrant communities. But we are still inches from the goal line. We have the law, but we haven’t seen the map yet. … So much is at stake. It’s no longer just the aspiration and quest of Chinatown. [Protecting the power of minority populations] is the aspiration and quest of us all,” C.W. Chan, chairman of the Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community, said at a Chicago news conference.

The measure also calls for four hearings on redistricting throughout the state. Barbara Flynn Currie, House sponsor of Senate Bill 3976, said the number is a “floor” for the number of hearings not a “ceiling.” Republicans argue that more hearings should have been built into the legislation. They also say that some hearings should be required after the new map is drawn before legislators vote on it, so the public can have input on any potential map of legislative districts. “The legislation the governor signed today lacks the real transparency that we need in this important process of redistricting. We need to demand public hearings after the new legislative map is drawn — so that the public can have an opportunity to comment on the map—before it is voted on in the next few months. We encourage the governor to continue to push for a competitive map and promise to veto a map that is not competitive and fails to provide a full opportunity for minorities to elect the candidates of their choice in majority-minority districts," Rep. Mike Fortner, a West Chicago Republican, said in a written statement.

For a more in-dept look at the bill and issues surrounding the upcoming redistricting process see the new March Illinois Issues, page 3.

Redistricting tweaks head to the governor

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois lawmakers approved changes today to the method they will use to draw legislative districts for future elections. Meanwhile, other reform efforts planned for the last days of the General Assembly's session have not yet taken shape.

If signed by Gov. Quinn, the redistricting measure would add provisions to the process to protect minority voters. Democrats say the measure is an attempt to avoid watering down the influence of a bloc of minority voters by splitting them up into multiple districts.

However, Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the House sponsor of the Senate Bill 3976 , said that “all the constitutional, federal statutory [and] state constitutional requirements” that those drawing districts are tasked to consider, such as making each district as equal in population as possible, would take priority. Once those requirements are met, she said, those drawing the map “ought to, where possible, protect the rights of minority voters by creating crossover districts, coalition districts or influence districts where it is possible.”

The bill also requires four public redistricting hearings throughout the state. Republican opponents said hearings were not enough to give the public input. They said some hearings should be required after proposed maps are drawn, so voters can provide the legislature with specific feedback.

Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, said there will likely be more than four redistricting hearings, and Currie agrees. Raoul called House Republicans hypocritical for complaining about the bill when they voted against a constitutional amendment he proposed last spring that would have changed the entire process and included more public hearings.

“It’s not a ceiling. It’s a floor. It says we have to have at least four hearings in separate parts of the state, so the people of the state of Illinois, in separate parts of the state, can have a voice in this process.”

Currie said: “The four is the floor. We can have many more, and 10 years ago [when the current map was drawn], we did.”

Republicans were critical what they see as Democrats rolling back transparency provisions in their most recent plan. “This [bill] doesn’t mandate hearings on the proposed map, such as was done in the proposed [constitutional] resolution. So it seems to me it moves backwards in transparency,” said Rep. Jil Tracy, a Mt. Sterling Republican.

Pensions
A $4 billion borrowing plan to make the state’s pension payment for this fiscal year emerged from a Senate committee today without Republican support. Senate Bill 3514 passed as a piece of the budget plan in the House in May after contentious debate. Senate President John Cullerton said the measure would keep the state from missing this year’s payment, which he said would cost the state billions in the long run.

Cullerton has been holding the bill in committee, saying it would need bipartisan support to pass in his chamber. Democrats have enough members to pass the bill, which requires a three fifths majority, but according to Cullerton, not the votes. UPDATE: Cullerton told reporters he now has the support for the borrowing plan, and he intends to call it for a floor vote this week.

Republicans said they would not vote for borrowing plan unless it was part of a comprehensive plan, which included reforms such as changes to the state’s Medicaid and worker’s compensation programs.

“Our position is the same as it was last spring … while at some point in the context of a comprehensive financial plan, we are willing to consider some form of borrowing. We aren’t to that point just yet.”

Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno said she thinks both parties are working well together. However, she wants to see some results of the recent reform efforts, which have been under way for the last few weeks in both chambers, before any Republicans will vote for borrowing.

House Speaker Michael Madigan is backing a constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for legislators to increase public employee pension benefits in the future. If the legislature, governor and voters approved the amendment, lawmakers would have to get backing from three-fifths of the members of both chambers to pass any expansion of pension benefits.

Opponents said current legislators should not tie the hands of future lawmakers when it comes to pension benefits for state workers. The measure passed through committee with only Democratic support.