Redistricting “reform” needs to break into desire of pols to let greed take over

It will be intriguing to see how the Supreme Court of the United States comes down when they ultimately rule on a case out of Wisconsin as to how fair that state’s process is when it comes to the crafting of political boundaries.

So colorful, these boundaries are powerful statements

For as we have seen in Illinois, we go through the once-a-decade spat between the political parties that ultimately ends with a lottery of sorts, a random drawing that determines which political party gets to craft boundaries that advance its own partisan interests while totally messing with the opposition.

I’M SURE THERE are many politically-oriented people who believe this is merely the way things are done – boundaries are political statements and it is absurd to think they can be made neutral. Because even that can become a political statement.

Although some say the situation in Wisconsin was so extreme (GOP Gov. Scott Walker wanted to neutralize the Dem-leaning, progressive tendencies of his state, otherwise his own ideologue tendencies to take on organized labor would have become gummed up in a bigger mess than the budgetary stalemate we now have in Illinois) that something now has to be done to alter it.

My own belief is that many of the states that are most heavily partisan in their political boundaries are Republican-leaning, and they are that way because the politicos know how to protect their partisan interests. So anybody who thinks that redistricting “reform” will mean taking down Mike Madigan as Illinois House speaker ought to take a closer look at a place like Texas.

Where in the Lone Star State the boundaries really are meant to ensure that a white settler-mentality prevails, rather than the people who’d be inclined to remember that Tejas was once a part of Mexico (and the New Spain colonies before that).

AS FOR ILLINOIS, I’m realistic enough to know Republicans really don’t have a legitimate argument about unjust behavior by Dems when it comes to political boundaries. Because I’m old enough to remember the era when Republicans had control of the process, and they behaved just as badly – if not worse.

Much of the reason Illinois leans so heavily Democratic is because it has such a dominant presence as Chicago, which is something that Republican partisans would go out of their way to downplay and neglect to advance their interests.

Which makes it possible for Madigan to make the claim he’s looking out for the interests of his home city in halting those who’d just as soon revert to a mentality that says Illinois is centered around Madison and St. Clair counties (the St. Louis area) rather than Cook and its collars.

Marble halls of high ct. to be mucked up by redistrict reality

For those who wonder how so many people can find it in themselves to back Madigan in political spats, that usually is why.

AS FOR ACTUAL cooperation, there was one instance during my lifetime when partisan leaders were able to craft together a compromise. That was the 1970s – and maybe it was the spillover of love and peace and flower children in the air.

But by the 1980s, Reaganism had clearly erased any thought of working together. We had to resort to the all-or-nothing lottery where Democrats won control of the process in the 1980s, Republicans in the 1990s (anybody remember the two-year time period of “Illinois House Minority Leader Michael Madigan, D-Chicago? I do!) and Dems again in the 2000s.

Technically, the 2010s that we’re now in were an era of compromise, but that’s only because the 2010 gubernatorial election gave us Pat Quinn who signed off on the maps crafted by Dems in the General Assembly.

Democrats can compromise with each other – and the GOPers got ignored. Which actually becomes a key issue for the 2018 election cycle.

A SECOND TERM for Gov. Bruce Rauner would make it impossible for Republicans to be ignored. But considering how budgetary matters are all bogged up, I’d hate to see how the level of partisan hatred will be so high that there’s no chance of the two of them reaching a deal.

It really is about greed – the concept that government officials can do something without having to consider compromise. Which really is antithetical to what our system of government is supposed to be about.

Of course, I’m not sure how the Supreme Court is capable of resolving this situation. They have their own partisan leanings, and if they really tried to undermine Illinois they might well find themselves harming their own interests in other states.

Because, invariably the biggest potential weakness of our political system is that we staff it with people who are politicians at heart. And when we try to staff it with non-political people, we get instances of ineptitude such as “President Donald J. Trump.”

  -30-

Quinn plan partisan on his own behalf, if not necessarily a political party

It shouldn’t be a shock that former Gov. Pat Quinn came forth with his own plan to revamp the way boundaries are set for legislative districts.

 

QUINN: He wants to beat Rauner at something

After all, it was the man who defeated him in the last gubernatorial election who was behind the effort that recently was rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court. I have no doubt that Quinn would love it if Rauner were to fail on this issue, whereas a plan that would carry his name were to ultimately succeed.

ALMOST AS THOUGH this issue could be the do-over of the 2014 election cycle that saw the “Mighty” Quinn fall short of Rauner and all his anti-organized labor rhetoric.

I’m sure in his mind that would be the revenge his ego seeks for an electoral defeat.

Which means I don’t think there’s necessarily a high-minded principle at work behind Quinn’s desire to alter the way in which legislative districts are drawn for the Illinois General Assembly.

Just as there wasn’t any high-minded principle at work behind Rauner’s continued interest – he wants a Legislature consisting of people inclined to rubber-stamp his goals and desires.

THE LAST THING he wants is the openly defiant Legislature we now have that not only votes against him, but is strong enough in opposition to override anything he tries to veto!

I suspect Quinn would love to be able to take credit for any reform plan to redistricting that becomes law, just as he now is able to take credit for the 1980s initiative that altered the size of the General Assembly itself.

Cutting the Illinois House of Representatives down from 177 members to 118 is a legitimate legacy for Quinn – and certainly a greater accomplishment than most people who get into government service can make.

 

RAUNER: I doubt he's given up on issue

And realize I make that statement knowing full well that some people view the “cutback” initiative as a major blow to the Legislature – and one for which Quinn deserves nothing but blame.

QUINN HAS ENOUGH of an ego that I’m sure he is hurt by the fact he had a five-year stint as governor that basically saw his very own Democratic Party allies in the Legislature reject anything he tried to do on so many issues.

Not just his attempt to extend the income tax increase he had pushed for a few years earlier – which if it had gone into effect would have eliminated many of the financial problems our state has faced in recent years.

Honestly, I expect we’re going to hear from Pat Quinn until the day he passes on to another realm of existence. Even then, he’ll probably become the ultimate political gadfly of the heavens – irritating the lord God himself with his efforts to make it a better place for all.

Insofar as Quinn’s redistricting initiative, I’m not sure how much it would really change things. Because it is based on creating an 11-member panel picked by the Illinois Supreme Court itself to handle redistricting.

THE PANEL WOULD have a six-member majority from one political party, but it would take seven people to approve an actual map of political districts for the Legislature. Which sounds like it would force people from differing political parties to work together to create boundaries.

However, let’s not forget that the current state Constitution includes that provision for a random pick of a tie-breaker for the redistricting commission, which was supposed to scare political people into working together out of fear that an all-or-nothing situation would give them nothing.

It failed to take into account the greed of political people who like the idea of their opposition being the ones who get “nothing.” The human factor may well be the biggest problem with redistricting.

For the maps we get determining who our legislators (and Congress people) are will only be as sound as the people who pick them. Just as we usually get the quality of government that we elect; making its flaws our own fault!

  -30-

Even nonpartisan attempt at redistricting reform was partisan effort

I can’t get too upset over the Illinois Supreme Court’s actions this week that killed off an attempt to force the issue of redistricting reform on the ballot for voters to decide.

Yes, it’s true that the people who were opposed to it were the ones who benefitted the most from the current system. Then again, the people who were leading the effort to “reform” it were really doing so because they couldn’t win political control on Election Days past.

TO ME, THEIR attempt to redo the rules of how boundaries are set for the political districts that comprise the Illinois Legislature and our Congressional delegation reeked just a bit too much of that sore-loser little kid who – upon realizing he’s about to lose the board game – decides to just knock over the game table.

So the idea that the effort backed with the personal fortune of Gov. Bruce Rauner has failed yet again? It seems that Rauner is learning that even though he was able to buy victory in the 2014 election cycle, he can’t necessarily buy a sympathetic Legislature that will rubber-stamp his every desire.

Most of which are geared toward undermining organized labor and the influence it has within government.

Seriously, Rauner doesn’t get all goofy with the rhetoric about assorted social issues as does Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. But otherwise, the two do come off as rich guys who want a government post to benefit their own financial interests.

THAT ATTITUDE IS why I have had trouble trusting the various Independent Map Amendment initiatives that have cropped up in recent years – only to be ignored by the General Assembly and dumped upon by the courts.

RAUNER: For now, the loser

Including the Supreme Court of Illinois, which late Thursday issued a ruling that reeks of political partisanship in and of itself.

The four high court justices who have political sponsors of the Democratic Party persuasion were a majority that upheld the lower court decisions that have thwarted the issue.

While the three justices with Republican political sponsorship were hard-core in favor of the issue – which would have placed a referendum question on the ballot come the Nov. 8 elections that theoretically could have undermined the current system of political boundary setting.

MADIGAN: Da winnah, and still champeen!!!

LET’S BE HONEST. If there were just one more justice coming from a Republican-leaning part of Illinois, we’d have had a high court that would have gladly given Rauner what he wants on this issue.

Instead, we have the four justices that come from the Chicago and St. Louis metropolitan areas – which make up about 70 percent of the state’s population.

So I can’t say I’m particularly swayed by the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Robert Thomas (of GOP-leaning DuPage County), who called the high court’s latest action, “a fait accompli, nothing less than the nullification of a critical component of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

It strikes me as being the angry ramblings of someone who came up on the short-end of the stick and presumes that God, so to speak, is with him and would naturally prevail on his side – in any just society.

THE TRUTH MAY well be that neither “side” in this fight has any moralistic claims to make. It really is a numbers racket. Whichever side has the numbers will prevail. And yes, I acknowledge that much of the problem with the current set-up is that it encourages the greed of politicians and their desire to "screw over" their partisan opposition.

Too bad justice couldn't resort to Bears-days tactics

If that sounds a bit too much like “winner take all,” keep in mind that the very concept of democracy is one in which the majority rules.

Which, in a sense, is what is happening in Illinois, where an urban majority of the population is managing to overcome the desires of a more rural minority with a different vision.

They may think these legal actions are some sort of God-given claim for supremacy. But they really reek of that kid kicking over the game table that is the General Assembly, sending all its pieces (which currently provide veto-proof majorities in his opposition) scattered about the floor in order to force his preferred outcome.

  -30-

We’re headed for chaos! A ‘firearm’ situation as messed up as redistricting

The mere mention of firearms these days brings a blackened mood over the Statehouse, such as in this century-old postcard

Our state legislature is really a stubborn lot!

Just one day after the Illinois House of Representatives rejected a bill that would have permitted for a “concealed carry” law that would give great discretion to local police to decide who actually gets a permit to carry a pistol on their persons, the same legislators knocked down a measure that would have ensured just about anyone who wanted such a permit would be able to get it.

SO ONE DAY after the National Rifle Association types were able to crow about how they knocked down their dreaded bill, their fantasy bill got knocked down for the count.

Which means that what we have in Illinois is a situation where everyone is digging in their heels on the issue of gun control measures. They’re using their political powers to ensure that the other side doesn’t get what they want.

“Victory” is being defined as the opposition losing!

And the rest of us are confused about what will wind up happening.

BECAUSE WE’RE IN the situation where a Court of Appeals for the Midwestern U.S. (and based in Chicago) has given Illinois until mid-June to come up with a law that permits some people the ability to carry a pistol in public for their own defense.

If the court winds up having to get involved because the political people weren’t able to pull their heads out of their behinds, then we’re truly going to get a situation that everybody hates.

I suppose it’s possible that the next month-and-a-half could see our government officials come together and reach some sort of negotiated deal that could be approved prior to the state Legislature’s scheduled adjournment at the end of May.

Soon to be a common Illinois sight?

Then again, it’s always possible that the Chicago Cubs could play far above their abilities and actually win a championship of sorts. In short, fat chance!!!

ANYBODY EXPECTING SERIOUS compromise is missing the point of our modern-day government structure with all of its politically partisan leanings.

It’s kind of like the redistricting process, which in most decades winds up being resolved with a random lottery because the two sides can’t even come close to negotiating a serious deal on legislative and congressional boundaries.

The lottery process was written into the Illinois state Constitution on the theory that the randomness of it all (with one side getting absolutely nothing) would be so scary that it would force people to talk.

Instead, the natural greed of political officials makes them like the option of getting everything (with their opposition getting nothing) that they don’t even try to talk.

THAT IS THE same mindset at work here. Everybody is holding out for what they want – which in many cases seems to be ensuring that the opposition gets stuck with something they detest.

Such as the plans being put forth by the firearms advocates who think they’re making significant progress by including a few places (such as government buildings) in which people could not bring a pistol – even if they have a permit.

I can’t help but notice they insist that CTA trains and buses NOT be included on any exempted place. As in they WANT the ability to have a pistol on them if, by chance, they happen to be riding the “el.”

I’m sure they’ll give some jibberish about wanting to protect themselves from potential muggers. Although it strikes me more as the mentality of those people in other states who persist in carrying a holstered pistol while visiting a Starbucks franchise.

THEY JUST WANT to get in the face of people they see as different from themselves. It’s the bully mentality at work.

This may well be less about the firearms themselves and more about payback for the current partisan situation where the two-thirds of Illinoisans who live in the Chicago area predominate over the one-third that lives in the rural parts of the state.

After seeing the NRA-preferred measure go down to defeat Thursday, an NRA spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times, “Chicago’s not going to get their own permitting system.”

Will we hate it as much as these boundaries?

Is this really about the rural parts of the state asserting themselves on this issue out of some sense of political payback for the election results of 2010 and 2012?

YES, I’LL ADMIT to being wary of the firearms advocates and their interests – mainly because too many of the ones I have met seem to be a little too eager to have a legal justification to shoot someone else!

But I’m also aware of the definition of “compromise” and realize it means getting only a part of what we want – instead of seeing the results of a political stalemate, doing nothing and getting stuck with something we all despise.

Just think! We in Illinois could get stuck with a “concealed carry” practices that causes as much bickering as the redistricting process does.

  -30-