Illinois Redistricting Ballot Proposal Blocked by State Supreme Court

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.