Time To Act On Illinois' Redistricting Dilemma

About three years from now, in mid-2011, the General Assembly will jump aboard a speeding train destined straight for state and federal court, otherwise known as the "Redistricting Express." With a little foresight and some help from the mainstream media in Illinois, voters could derail a battle that occurs every 10 years, regardless of what party seizes power in Springfield.

This November, Illinois voters will go to the polls and decide whether to call the Seventh Constitutional Convention. Should voters approve the convention, delegates are likely to debate reform measures designed to alleviate the toxic political environment in the General Assembly. At the front and center of any reform movement lies the political thicket of legislative redistricting.

Opponents of the constitutional convention correctly point to the failure of the 1970 delegates to address redistricting in an adequate fashion. Delegates crafted Article IV, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution with the intent to encourage consensus-building every ten years when the State Senate and State House are required to be redistricted. Instead, the delegates to the convention came up with a hopelessly flawed and arbitrary system that has resulted in predictable gridlock, endless lawsuits and partisan bickering over redistricting plans. Armed with lessons from past failures, delegates won't make the same mistake twice.

The constitution generally gives deference to the General Assembly to draft a workable redistricting plan by June 30 following a decennial census (i.e., any year ending in “1”). If the legislature cannot pass such a plan (which they have not since 1971), the constitution requires the formation of a bi-partisan Legislative Redistricting Commission. A majority of the LRC must submit a plan to the Secretary of State by August 10 of the post-census year, but the problem lies in the fact that the LRC must consist of four Democrats and four Republicans.

As one constitutional convention delegate described back in 1970, the now-infamous method of appointing an even number of partisan LRC commissioners was intended “to reduce both political parties to a state of equivalency.” The system backfired badly, resulting in a process that three federal judges called “anything but rational.” Rather than working towards the delegates’ vision of compromise, both political parties have made the calculated (and predictable) choice to roll the dice and put their faith in the insane 50/50 tie-breaker system, under which the Secretary of State picks one of two individuals (a Republican and a Democrat) nominated by the Supreme Court of Illinois to serve as the voice of reason and control the entire redistricting process. Representative Patricia Reid Lindner (R-Aurora), who with others challenged the 2001 plan in federal court, once called the unique redistricting scheme “ridiculous and unconstitutional.”

Further complicating the method of legislative redistricting is the process by which plans are submitted and approved. Almost no standards exist for meaningful public hearings, cross-examination of witnesses, and presentation of rebuttal expert testimony. Those in control of the process conduct last-minute, Star Chamber hearings that give only the appearance of transparency. The result is a hastily adopted plan receiving scant scrutiny that barely meets the constitutional standards of compactness and contiguity. Because of the judicial deference inherently given to a plan adopted by the LRC, it is virtually impossible for an aggrieved party to challenge an enacted plan with an appropriate level of court involvement.

A constitutional convention can solve the legislative redistricting mess created by the 1970 delegates. The positive in all of this nonsense is that it has yielded no shortage of sensible solutions proposed by interest groups, any one of which would result in a substantial improvement over the ill-crafted reform from 1970. At a bare minimum, the constitutional provisions concerning redistricting should mandate a redistricting commission to enact rules that open the process up to the public with adequate time for public hearings. It should jettison the procedure that inevitably results in a redistricting map drawn by random chance. Those steps are easy and unimpeachable.

Structural reform is more difficult but eminently achievable. If Illinois delegates have the courage to enact the most resounding change, they could follow the Arizona system, where an independent commission of citizens vetted by the Supreme Court controls the redistricting process. Arizona’s Proposition 106 even mandated that citizen commissioners not hold elective office for three years prior to serving, a prophylactic measure aimed further at reducing partisan gamesmanship. Given the toxic climate in Springfield, this delegation of authority seems necessary to enact true redistricting reform so that political power brokers do not wield veto power or the ability to pull strings behind closed doors.

Alternatively, if delegates are more cautious, they could elect to build on the sensible legislation proposed in 2005 by Rep. Lee Daniels (R-Elmhurst) which sought to emulate aspects of the Iowa Constitution and have a non-partisan bureaucratic service begin the redistricting process. HR 3699 would have accelerated the process for consideration by the General Assembly of no fewer than three redistricting maps created by the Legislative Research Unit, the non-partisan research arm of the General Assembly. Presumably, those legislators who opposed the maps would have to answer to their constituents. Additionally, the non-partisan maps would be compelling evidence if a constitutional challenge resulted from the General Assembly’s failure to enact the non-partisan service’s suggested redistricting plans. HR 3699 quickly died in the Rules Committee and has not been resurrected since.

At its most radical, Illinois even could return to the suggestion of the 1991 Ladd Commission Report, which based redistricting on a computerized system meeting prescribed criteria unless legislators could pass a redistricting plan by a supermajority vote. Since that time, computer software has evolved so that a non-partisan service could oversee the administration of redistricting based on a bias-free automatic splitting algorithm done by computer. The State Board of Elections, for instance, could adjust the results to take into account natural geographic features, census tracts or other political boundaries.

Legislators in Springfield cannot fix this problem, as each party stands an equal chance at gerrymandering the electoral map in its favor. Those odds are too great for any party leader to push for reform. As it stands right now, the constitutional provision on legislative redistricting is hopelessly broken. By convening the Seventh Constitutional Convention in November, voters can remedy past mistakes and end a flawed system that, through negligence or otherwise, was designed to fail.