Friday, June 6, 2014

Don't Trust Humans to Redistrict Illinois


               "Gerrymander, Joy of Joys, Safe house seats for all our boys!
                        "Gerrymander, we're awfully fond of you, voo, voo, de, doh!"
                                  - To tune of "Rubber Duckie," 

                                          Rock Island County ARC Gridiron Show (1991)

The present system of redistricting Illinois congressional districts and Illinois state legislative districts is cynical political humbug.

What passes for fair-minded redistricting in our state is a counterfeit, inconsistent with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In 1964, the U. S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, held that state legislative districts had to be roughly equal in population. The case rose when voters from Jefferson County, Ala., challenged the redistricting of their state legislature. At the time, Alabama state senators were elected from senatorial districts grossly unequal in population.

One district had 14 times the population of another!

Eight justices voted to strike down the Alabama senate district scheme. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that it violated the U. S. Constitutional requirement of "one person, one vote."

He further wrote, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Reynolds v. Sims was not a gerrymandering case. It did not involve drawing congressional districts roughly equal in population but manipulating their boundaries so as to include or exclude Republicans or Democrats, in order to give one party an a electoral advantage.The most extreme example of that would be to create a meandering district that included only persons registered in the Democratic primary, and excluding all persons registered in the the Republican primary -- that is, a district with only Democrats.

The language in the Reynolds v. Sims majority opinion, however, clearly states that "gerrymandering" can be unconstitutional.

"The right to vote can neither be denied outright ... nor destroyed by alteration of ballots ... nor diluted by ballot box stuffing. Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted. ... Racially based gerrymandering, and the conducting of white primaries, both of which result in denying to some citizens their right to vote, have been held to be constitutionally impermissible. And history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."

When districts are intentionally gerrymandered to create districts in which Democrats or Republicans almost are guaranteed victory, the members of the other party have their votes debased. But although the problem may be obvious, the solution may not be.

In the early years when I was on the bench, once a year all Illinois judges were required to attend the Illinois Judicial Conference Educational Seminar. At a luncheon during one such session, the issue of appointing judges (rather than electing them) was discussed by the speaker, an Illinois Supreme Court justice.

The justice expressed skepticism with the argument that "allowing the governor to appoint judges would keep judicial appointments from being political." Instead, he suggested a better way: "Have the appointments made by the Illinois Supreme Court." When the laughter subsided, he finished his remarks, having persuaded nobody.

Recently, the Yes for Independent Maps Coalition has been working to collect about a half a million signatures to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would take redistricting of Illinois legislative districts (not Congressional districts) out of the hands of the legislature.

They correctly believe that Illinois history demonstrates that legislative redistricting equals gerrymandering.

As outlined by the coalition, if approved, any Illinois citizen could apply to join the legislative redistricting commission. A nonpartisan applicant review panel, appointed by the auditor general, would eliminate applicants with conflicts of interest, such as lobbyists or public officials. (Excluding anybody, of course, raises a new set of constitutional questions.)

A lottery then would be used to select commissioners to create a group of two Democrats, two Republicans and three unaffiliated with either party, all proportionally representing Illinois' five judicial districts. The four top legislative leaders in Illinois would each appoint one commissioner from the remaining pool. Commission meetings and records would be open to the public.

The problem I have with this solution to fix Illinois legislative redistricting is that to the extent that there is a human element involved, a remedy is hardly guaranteed. People in politics maneuver, and even finagle to gain partisan advantage.

I would opt for the simplest of all solutions. Create districts as nearly rectangular as possible (taking account of the fact Illinois is not square, but rather is bounded by wandering rivers, etc.) Require these districts be as equal in population as possible. Take account of no other factors. Leave race, creed, color, ethnicity, municipal subdivision boundaries, etc. out of the determination.

Have the district lines drawn by computers, with no directions in the program other than

1. Make them as rectangular as possible, and

2. As nearly equal in population as possible.

If a district is drawn to favor whites, it disfavors everybody else. If it is drawn to favor Latinos, it disfavors Irish guys.

At a minimum, my plan would certainly bar any congressional or legislative district that look like our present 17th Congressional District -- the epitome of a Gerrymander, or perhaps a crocodile, with its mouth open, perched on its keister!

Posted Online:  June 5, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea



No comments: