Illinois Redistricting Ballot Proposal Blocked by State Supreme Court

[Torie]

The story.The grounds as expected being that whether "and" really means "or" or not, as to the strictures on what a referendum proposal may address, I assume. So it is up to our resident expert on this to opine about the prospects for this being reversed on appeal, presumably even if overturned, too late to hit the ballot this election cycle. But that might be good. I would think it more likely to pass in the next election cycle anyway.

[jimrtex]

The story.The grounds as expected being that whether "and" really means "or" or not, as to the strictures on what a referendum proposal may address, I assume. So it is up to our resident expert on this to opine about the prospects for this being reversed on appeal, presumably even if overturned, too late to hit the ballot this election cycle. But that might be good. I would think it more likely to pass in the next election cycle anyway.

The ruling actually said that the proposal made structural AND procedural changes to the legislature (see Count V of the opinion, which is linked to in the newspaper article)

However it did say it was not limited to those areas. You are correct that the words "limited to procedural and structural" matters probably should change the "and" to mean "or (inclusive)" but it has never been interpreted that way.

An example of an area that the judge ruled was outside the domain of the legislature was the involvement of the State Auditor in the selection of members of the pool from which the commission is chosen. Since the Auditor is an executive official, the judge ruled that this was changing the duties of someone not in the legislative branch.

In past litigation over proposed initiatives (only one of about a half dozen attempts ever made it through the legal gauntlet), the Supreme Court has ruled that you could remove powers of an executive official (e.g. removing the veto power of a governor), but the circuit court ruled that adding duties was different.

The Supreme Court could reverse a couple of counts, since it would have no effect on outcome.

The whole process is a sham. The 2014 initiative had a requirement that commissioners could not hold other offices after their service for a period of time. That was ruled to be outside the limits of an initiative. This year there was an alternate proposed in the legislature (by Democrats). They touted it by saying it would prevent commissioners from drawing lines and then running for office, unlike the 2016 initiative.

[jimrtex]

The story.The grounds as expected being that whether "and" really means "or" or not, as to the strictures on what a referendum proposal may address, I assume. So it is up to our resident expert on this to opine about the prospects for this being reversed on appeal, presumably even if overturned, too late to hit the ballot this election cycle. But that might be good. I would think it more likely to pass in the next election cycle anyway.

The Illinois Supreme Court has accepted the case, and apparently on a schedule to be on the ballot if they overturn the decision.

[RINO Tom]

Why did you phrase this topic like Yoda?  LOL

[Antonio the Sixth]

Too bad. We really need comprehensive redistricting reform, regardless of which party it helps.

[muon2]

This issue is a conundrum for the court. It's clear to the lower court judges in 2014 and 2016 that reforming the redistricting section of the legislative article (IV.3) is a legitimate subject for a citizen initiative. It was explicitly mentioned in the 1970 Constitutional Convention as an example of a subject worthy of initiative.

On the other hand the ILSC has read the citizen initiative section of the revision article (XIV.3) very narrowly. The narrow reading encompasses two parts. One is that the revision must be both a structural and procedural change to the legislature. This is where term limits initiatives have failed. However both lower courts have found that redistricting reform is both structural and procedural, consistent with the ConCon debate.

The other narrow reading is that the changes must be exclusive to the legislative article, and this is where the lower courts have struck down the initiatives. In 2014 the initiative would have set up new qualifications on elective offices, including legislators and constitutional officers outside the legislature by barring them from election for 10 years if they served on the redistricting commission. That goes in the direction of term limits, but also goes outside the exclusive boundary of the legislative article.

The qualifications problem was remedied in the 2016 petition, but there were still changes to the role of the Auditor General as a selector of commissioners, the ILSC as tie breakers, and the Attorney General as initiator of actions arising from redistricting. The court found that these went outside the scope of the legislative article and found the petition to be unconstitutional. The judge did note that the issue of redistricting had not been heard at the appellate or supreme court, so this was a case of first impression.

When the ILSC receives briefs beginning this Thursday, the question will be how can they reconcile the framers intent to permit redistricting reform through initiative while maintaining their narrow reading of the petition process. I think it will come down to whether citizen-initiated reform can change the participation and roles of any non-legislative officials in redistricting. If they rule that no roles can change, then it seems the only permissible amendment would have to keep the legislature in charge of the commission, the SoS in place as a tie breaker, the the AG and ILSC as exclusive agents in challenges to a redistricting plan.

[jimrtex]

Brief for SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MAPS

This is the final brief filed by the supporters of the initiative.

Formally, the law suit is between the plaintiff Madigan surrogates, and the defendant Illinois Board of Elections, seeking to enjoin the BOE from conducting a referendum. The BOE has no reason to care one way or another, their competency is limited to counting signatures, and causing the referendum to occur. So the Support Independent Maps intervened to defend the initiative.

The argument of the brief appears to be that the initiative is limited to the subject matter of the Legislature Article of the constitution; and does not have to be limited to the textual scope of the Legislature Article.

That is, for example, that to give the Auditor General, a role in the selection of redistricting commissioners is not extending the powers of the executive branch.

[muon2]

The Supreme Court has rejected the proposed amendment on a strict party-line vote 4-3. The majority rejected it on the single narrow point that the Auditor General had been added to the process of redistricting. They avoided comment on any of the other points at issue in the proposal, leaving it open to  reject it again in 2018, even if the Auditor General was removed from the assigned role. Here's the opinion and dissents.

[Gass3268]

Will not be on the November ballot

[Kevinstat]

The media should be required to put "THIS PROBABLY WON'T HAPPEN" at the top of any article on an Illinois initiative that Speaker Madigan doesn't like. [/sarcasm (kind of)]  I'm tired of learning about some exiting new referendum (particularly the one combining term limits and (I think) reducing the size of the Legislature several years ago) and then reading that it was bounced from the ballot in court.

[Mr. Illini]

Excellent news. This must happen on a national level at once, otherwise it will simply be used by minority parties in select states to attempt to further benefit their own.

[muon2]

Excellent news. This must happen on a national level at once, otherwise it will simply be used by minority parties in select states to attempt to further benefit their own.

This can have no bearing on any other state. No other state has the unique, narrow language for citizen initiative that IL has in its constitution. So no other case like it can arise anywhere else.

[Mr. Illini]

Excellent news. This must happen on a national level at once, otherwise it will simply be used by minority parties in select states to attempt to further benefit their own.

This can have no bearing on any other state. No other state has the unique, narrow language for citizen initiative that IL has in its constitution. So no other case like it can arise anywhere else.

I meant that if we are going to abolish gerrymandering, it ought to come from the Federal level. Otherwise, it will do nothing to address the problem other than to help whatever party is not in control of "x" state abolishing it.

[muon2]

Excellent news. This must happen on a national level at once, otherwise it will simply be used by minority parties in select states to attempt to further benefit their own.

This can have no bearing on any other state. No other state has the unique, narrow language for citizen initiative that IL has in its constitution. So no other case like it can arise anywhere else.

I meant that if we are going to abolish gerrymandering, it ought to come from the Federal level. Otherwise, it will do nothing to address the problem other than to help whatever party is not in control of "x" state abolishing it.

I'm with you in concept, but the feds can only dictate what happens with Congressional districts. As a federal republic the individual state constitutions control the process for the state legislatures. The states will have to act independently to address legislative gerrymandering.