U.S. House Redistricting: Illinois

[Brittain33]

Some scenarios are kicked around in this article. It's a rare bit of Democratic cockiness in the current environment,

http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/redistricting-reality-ahead-for-cocky-g-o-p/

They talked about the possibility of creating a Dem-friendly district mid-state based on Champaign, Decatur, and Peoria, and presumably the Quad Cities if they can justify it. I may try to draw these districts with Dave's App tonight because I never considered the possibility of reconstituting a Lane Evans district using different sources...

[Brittain33]

Is there any chance they'd append part of the northern earmuff to IL-7 to keep its population up, while making IL-4 based in the southern half?

[Brittain33]

Is there any chance they'd append part of the northern earmuff to IL-7 to keep its population up, while making IL-4 based in the southern half?

The southern part of IL-4 can certainly stand on its own, but attaching the northern part onto IL-7 would reduce the black population below 50%.

But does that matter? It won't prevent the African-American community in the district from electing the candidate of its choice, not by a long shot, and I thought there were questions about whether three 50.1% districts can be made in Cook County any more, so it may not be on the table. Otherwise, won't IL-7 have to expand at the expense of IL-1 and IL-2?

[Brittain33]

People, don't take the bait this time--keep it to discussing Illinois. Thx

[Brittain33]

I'm sure I dig hard enough I can find posts by Cinyc expressing outrage at the perhaps millions of African American Democrats in the South stranded in 60-65% McCain districts represented by Republicans who don't give a damn if their record and words alienate every single one of them.

Unless he thinks the white voters of Crete, Illinois are more important and worthy of concern, but that can't be true.

[Brittain33]

You are confusing asking a question with outrage or concern.

Ok. I'm sorry for applying the wrong motivation here.

[Brittain33]

Well, those are an inelegant solution to get you to barely scrape by above 50.0%, which historically hasn't been sufficient for Latino districts.

I understand your partisan motivations here, but that is an ugly and ineffective answer to hold up as ideal.

[Brittain33]

Yah, a partisan map passed with minimal debate and no public input is not anything to be proud of.

I'm not proud of it in the way you mean, I dislike gerrymandering by either party.  However, until all states adopt a truly independent redistricting process it seems unreasonable to expect one party not to try to use control of the trifecta to its advantage.  I wasn't proud of it, but I am happy that the Democrats didn't role over and play dead like they did in Arkansas, Missouri, and (with the state legislative maps) Virginia.

Here's a variation of the "The Republicans made us do it" argument.

No, it isn't.

[Brittain33]

Yah, a partisan map passed with minimal debate and no public input is not anything to be proud of.

I'm not proud of it in the way you mean, I dislike gerrymandering by either party.  However, until all states adopt a truly independent redistricting process it seems unreasonable to expect one party not to try to use control of the trifecta to its advantage.  I wasn't proud of it, but I am happy that the Democrats didn't role over and play dead like they did in Arkansas, Missouri, and (with the state legislative maps) Virginia.

Here's a variation of the "The Republicans made us do it" argument.

No, it isn't.

"However, until all states adopt a truly independent redistricting process it seems unreasonable to expect one party not to try to use control of the trifecta to its advantage."

If that isn't the "The Republicans made us do it" argument, what is?

"Illinois would have drawn a fair map if only the Republicans hadn't done what they did in Michigan/Texas/whatever, serves them right."

The arguments you point out here and elsewhere are variations on "the system is screwed, so the Dems shouldn't practice unilateral disarmament." Rather different from "we would have disarmed if only the Republicans had gone first."