Who’s to say which way our political structure will lean after Nov. election

A lot of it depends on who you desperately want to believe when it comes to the way our political structure will favor which interests in the foreseeable future.

High court maintains status-quo, for now

There are those people who desperately cling to the concept that the majority of us who despise the concept of “President Donald Trump” will gleefully dump anybody aligned with him.

YET OTHERS POINT out the fact that various polls show Trump’s unfavorable ratings only go so low – and that it seems the people who voted for him in 2016 remain pleased. In large part because they like the idea of the vast majority of us being offended by his political presence.

There’s even one political observer who is now saying that if Democrats can’t regain control of Congress (particularly the U.S. Senate) come November, they, “could lose Senate control indefinitely.”

A large part of the issue/problem (depending on how you want to view it) is that many states have their congressional district boundaries drawn up in ways meant to favor Republican political establishments.

And in the states where Democrats prevail (including our beloved own Illinois), they spew the talk about needing “reform,” which in their view amounts to dumping Dem (predominantly urban) interests to shift control over to Republican Party officials.

IT IS WITH that background in mind that the Supreme Court of the United States was called upon to rule in some serious cases – with some partisans desperately hoping the high court would cause the undoing of some of those Republican-leaning states.

Including our neighbor to the north in Wisconsin, where I remember it wasn’t all that long ago the state was viewed as some sort of liberal bastion but now has a Republican establishment entrenched to the point where no partisan would want to leave Illinois to go to “the Badger State” – even if they were University of Wisconsin alumni.

Yet in the end, the high court made a point of issuing rulings that did little, if anything, to change things in Wisconsin or Maryland.

TRUMP: System rigged in his favor

It’s almost as if the court, which theoretically has its own 5-4 conservative-leaning majority, did not want to make any radical changes. As if they’re content to let the status quo of politically partisan politics remain.

THE WISCONSIN CASE is particularly intriguing in that Democrat-aligned political interests tried suing the state, saying the entirety of the congressional districts were drawn in ways to ensure some places were so overwhelmingly Republican and that they’d be the majority – even though places like Milwaukee and Madison theoretically provide large bases for Democratic Party voters.

The high court wound up ruling it improper to challenge the state’s whole composition. Instead, we’d have to have individual lawsuits against each individual congressional district.

That’s a lot of legal activity and guaranteed to consume plenty of time. As if the high court wants to be sure there’s a serious delay before they’re confronted with having to make a significant ruling on the merits of letting political parties draw boundaries to favor their own interests.

There will continue to be cases before the courts, as it appears another case involving the situation in North Carolina is still pending. But unless we get some radical change, it is likely that the one thing Trump has going in his side’s favor is that a majority of the states are rigged in ways to favor those who believe in this Age of Trump we’re now in.

THE IDEA THAT a majority of us are appalled by a president who sees nothing wrong with the conditions that now result in seizing children from their parents as they try to enter this country may not be enough to dump him.

And on a more local perspective, keep in mind this issue will be considered key by some partisans in the Illinois elections this year. Because whoever manages to win the governor’s post will be the one who gets to preside over the reapportionment process when Illinois goes through it again in the early 2020s.

RAUNER: Wants to rig Ill. in his favor

I’m sure some Republican-types who might be appalled personally by much of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s behavior will force themselves to vote for him just so he’ll have a “veto” over any Democratic-leaning map the Dem-leaning General Assembly is likely to pass.

Of course, it will be a Dem-leaning one because of the fact that Chicago’s metropolitan area comprises about two-thirds of the state’s population – a fact that oft bothers those in the other third who can’t understand why the whole world can’t be filled with people just like themselves. Which is actually a too-common attitude among people who think that all politicians are crooked – except for theirs!

  -30-

Will redistricting be the compromise?

I have written on several occasions that I am skeptical of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s rhetoric concerning political reapportionment.

He has pushed for creating an independent body that would take over preparation of the maps that detail boundaries of political districts. Of course, the definition of “independent” can be open to interpretation.

It's not just a Texas issue. Provided by Texas Politics Project.

AS IN I wonder if it means anyone “independent” of the current political leadership who would deliberately favor the current political minority. It makes me suspect it to be an effort to undermine the current process – by which the boundaries are drawn by the legislators who (theoretically) are the representatives of the people who elected them.

In short, the people who couldn’t win the elections are now trying to find a new way to win – rather than going out and winning the election themselves.

So it is with some interest that I try to figure out what the significance is of the Supreme Court of the United States’ latest ruling on Monday – one that rejects the Arizona Legislature’s efforts to strike down the state Independent Redistricting Commission. It was created following a voter referendum, and was meant to take away the ability of legislators to draw political boundaries to favor themselves.

Although the real harm from the current process of redistricting is when politicos draw boundaries meant to screw over their opposition.

THE HIGH COURT on Monday ruled that there is nothing preventing a state from implementing a redistricting procedure that relies on someone other than the legislature to do the dirty work of political map-making.

RAUNER: Did high court give him a boost?

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that officials in California are viewing the ruling as supportive of their own state’s efforts. Which makes me suspect Rauner was very happy as well.

The governor now has a very high authority (the same one that pleased progressives by backing healthcare reform AND gay marriage just a few days earlier) in his favor.

Could this become the measure that makes Democrats now hostile to Rauner for his anti-organized labor rhetoric a little bit willing to compromise? Heck, could support for this Rauner desire become THE compromise issue that allows for the state to get something resembling a budget compromise in coming weeks?

OF COURSE, I’M not thinking that Democrats in the Legislature would back something meant to deliberately undermine themselves. I suspect we’d have to get a commission that wasn’t so blatantly biased in favor of any political party.

MADIGAN: He'll figure out way to protect self

Because the honest truth is that there is no such thing as absolute non-biased. Everybody is going to have their preferences they will want to favor. And for those who suggest a computer to take the human element out, I’d question the biases of those people who program the device.

But is the fact that this issue appears to have some sticking power means Democrats in this state ought to try to get a grasp on it so that it doesn’t wind up being implemented in a completely hostile form.

Otherwise we’re going to continue with the current format in Illinois, which is one that always amazes political people elsewhere – the idea that the balance of power can (and often does) fall to the draw out of a hat (or, one time, from a crystal bowl once owned by Abraham Lincoln).

IT WAS PUT into the state Constitution that way because it was believed that the fear of an all-or-nothing draw, with someone getting nothing, would be so fearsome it would force people to cooperate.

Instead, the greed of political people and the chance that they can get everything at the expense of their opposition has turned out to be stronger.

I don’t doubt that some Republicans are viewing the 2018 gubernatorial election as being all-important because it would give the GOP a veto come the 2021 reapportionment that could result in them having a chance at the “all-or-nothing” prize.

Which could also influence the Dems with their current veto-proof majority that prevents Rauner from being able to push his ideological will down their throats to consider this issue further – because nothing lasts forever.

  -30-