High court manages to upset everybody's beliefs w/ pair of rulings

Perhaps this is the Supreme Court of the United States’ idea of what constitutes bipartisanship – rule in ways that manage to offend the sensibilities of just about everybody.

The nation's Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that … 

I couldn’t help but have that reaction myself when I learned Thursday of the way the court ruled with regards to gerrymandering and the Census.

WITH REGARD TO the latter, the Supreme Court ruled against the desires of President Donald Trump – who wanted the Census Bureau’s official population count next year to include questions about one’s citizenship.

Making it seem that Trump and his ideologue minions want to officially regard non-U.S. citizens as non-people who wouldn’t get fully counted.

Who knows? Maybe Trump fantasized about compiling all that information into some sort of hit list of people who could then be harassed openly – so as to appease the jollies of the xenophobic types who are inclined to think that Trump himself is the equivalent of a “royal highness” of the Americas.

Which we all ought to realize applies only to states whose political majorities lean toward Trump-type Republicans.

THE SUPREME COURT ruled against that notion, with a 5-4 vote in favor of a legal opinion saying the official argument that such information is needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act is fraudulent.

For what it’s worth, that’s the same voter tally the high court reached in another measure – one that said lawsuits challenging the setting of political boundaries based on political considerations are not proper.

In short, all of those Republican-leaning states whose legislatures chose to draw boundaries meant to benefit their own partisan interests aren’t necessarily doing anything illegal. For the court ruled that such action is a state issue – and not one for the federal courts to go about trying to overturn.

… struck down Trump's desires to use the Census, ...

I don’t doubt that the people who would have wanted some sort of singling out of so-called foreigners when it comes to the Census will be pleased the court left the composition of their Legislatures alone.

WHILE OTHERS WHO would have seen the population count measure as a blatantly-partisan political move that deserved to fail now are wondering how in the heck did those nitwits on the high court blow it so badly with regards to undoing the practice of gerrymandering – the rigging of electoral boundaries for political purposes.

Maybe it’s all that time walking around wearing those black robes that look like dowdy dresses.

There is one key to comprehending these two actions – the votes were similar. By and large, the people who wanted to single out non-citizens in the Census count also wanted to protect the Republican-leaning Legislatures. The people who wanted to stop the Census from becoming a political weapon also wanted to have the court undo Legislature composition they consider to be unfair and unjust.

The difference was in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts, who as it turned out voted against the Census count measure and for the measure saying that gerrymandering is not an issue for the Supreme Court to decide.

REINFORCING THE CONCEPT that Roberts is the “swing” judge on the court whose opinion breaks a tie either way. Meaning that much of America probably despises him these days – although for different reasons that say much about our own partisanship leanings than anything about the merits of the laws themselves.

Personally, I don’t doubt the Census question was a hate-inspired proposal. Seeing it die off is a good thing.

… while indirectly benefitting Madigan

While as for gerrymandering, I wonder if the court would have viewed it differently if the legal case at hand regarded the structure of the Illinois Legislature. Would the ideologue-minded people have been willing to approve a measure that targeted the Democratic-leaning Illinois House and state Senate – rather than the measures that focused on blatantly-Republican leaning states.

Which may be the way I wind up viewing the latter ruling – it offers some protection to the political set-up we have in Illinois, which means it sort of benefits the interests of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Most definitely a concept that will offend the conservative ideologues as much as their own partisan rants offend me.

  -30-

Who’s to say which way our political structure will lean after Nov. election

A lot of it depends on who you desperately want to believe when it comes to the way our political structure will favor which interests in the foreseeable future.

High court maintains status-quo, for now

There are those people who desperately cling to the concept that the majority of us who despise the concept of “President Donald Trump” will gleefully dump anybody aligned with him.

YET OTHERS POINT out the fact that various polls show Trump’s unfavorable ratings only go so low – and that it seems the people who voted for him in 2016 remain pleased. In large part because they like the idea of the vast majority of us being offended by his political presence.

There’s even one political observer who is now saying that if Democrats can’t regain control of Congress (particularly the U.S. Senate) come November, they, “could lose Senate control indefinitely.”

A large part of the issue/problem (depending on how you want to view it) is that many states have their congressional district boundaries drawn up in ways meant to favor Republican political establishments.

And in the states where Democrats prevail (including our beloved own Illinois), they spew the talk about needing “reform,” which in their view amounts to dumping Dem (predominantly urban) interests to shift control over to Republican Party officials.

IT IS WITH that background in mind that the Supreme Court of the United States was called upon to rule in some serious cases – with some partisans desperately hoping the high court would cause the undoing of some of those Republican-leaning states.

Including our neighbor to the north in Wisconsin, where I remember it wasn’t all that long ago the state was viewed as some sort of liberal bastion but now has a Republican establishment entrenched to the point where no partisan would want to leave Illinois to go to “the Badger State” – even if they were University of Wisconsin alumni.

Yet in the end, the high court made a point of issuing rulings that did little, if anything, to change things in Wisconsin or Maryland.

TRUMP: System rigged in his favor

It’s almost as if the court, which theoretically has its own 5-4 conservative-leaning majority, did not want to make any radical changes. As if they’re content to let the status quo of politically partisan politics remain.

THE WISCONSIN CASE is particularly intriguing in that Democrat-aligned political interests tried suing the state, saying the entirety of the congressional districts were drawn in ways to ensure some places were so overwhelmingly Republican and that they’d be the majority – even though places like Milwaukee and Madison theoretically provide large bases for Democratic Party voters.

The high court wound up ruling it improper to challenge the state’s whole composition. Instead, we’d have to have individual lawsuits against each individual congressional district.

That’s a lot of legal activity and guaranteed to consume plenty of time. As if the high court wants to be sure there’s a serious delay before they’re confronted with having to make a significant ruling on the merits of letting political parties draw boundaries to favor their own interests.

There will continue to be cases before the courts, as it appears another case involving the situation in North Carolina is still pending. But unless we get some radical change, it is likely that the one thing Trump has going in his side’s favor is that a majority of the states are rigged in ways to favor those who believe in this Age of Trump we’re now in.

THE IDEA THAT a majority of us are appalled by a president who sees nothing wrong with the conditions that now result in seizing children from their parents as they try to enter this country may not be enough to dump him.

And on a more local perspective, keep in mind this issue will be considered key by some partisans in the Illinois elections this year. Because whoever manages to win the governor’s post will be the one who gets to preside over the reapportionment process when Illinois goes through it again in the early 2020s.

RAUNER: Wants to rig Ill. in his favor

I’m sure some Republican-types who might be appalled personally by much of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s behavior will force themselves to vote for him just so he’ll have a “veto” over any Democratic-leaning map the Dem-leaning General Assembly is likely to pass.

Of course, it will be a Dem-leaning one because of the fact that Chicago’s metropolitan area comprises about two-thirds of the state’s population – a fact that oft bothers those in the other third who can’t understand why the whole world can’t be filled with people just like themselves. Which is actually a too-common attitude among people who think that all politicians are crooked – except for theirs!

  -30-

Redistricting “reform” needs to break into desire of pols to let greed take over

It will be intriguing to see how the Supreme Court of the United States comes down when they ultimately rule on a case out of Wisconsin as to how fair that state’s process is when it comes to the crafting of political boundaries.

So colorful, these boundaries are powerful statements

For as we have seen in Illinois, we go through the once-a-decade spat between the political parties that ultimately ends with a lottery of sorts, a random drawing that determines which political party gets to craft boundaries that advance its own partisan interests while totally messing with the opposition.

I’M SURE THERE are many politically-oriented people who believe this is merely the way things are done – boundaries are political statements and it is absurd to think they can be made neutral. Because even that can become a political statement.

Although some say the situation in Wisconsin was so extreme (GOP Gov. Scott Walker wanted to neutralize the Dem-leaning, progressive tendencies of his state, otherwise his own ideologue tendencies to take on organized labor would have become gummed up in a bigger mess than the budgetary stalemate we now have in Illinois) that something now has to be done to alter it.

My own belief is that many of the states that are most heavily partisan in their political boundaries are Republican-leaning, and they are that way because the politicos know how to protect their partisan interests. So anybody who thinks that redistricting “reform” will mean taking down Mike Madigan as Illinois House speaker ought to take a closer look at a place like Texas.

Where in the Lone Star State the boundaries really are meant to ensure that a white settler-mentality prevails, rather than the people who’d be inclined to remember that Tejas was once a part of Mexico (and the New Spain colonies before that).

AS FOR ILLINOIS, I’m realistic enough to know Republicans really don’t have a legitimate argument about unjust behavior by Dems when it comes to political boundaries. Because I’m old enough to remember the era when Republicans had control of the process, and they behaved just as badly – if not worse.

Much of the reason Illinois leans so heavily Democratic is because it has such a dominant presence as Chicago, which is something that Republican partisans would go out of their way to downplay and neglect to advance their interests.

Which makes it possible for Madigan to make the claim he’s looking out for the interests of his home city in halting those who’d just as soon revert to a mentality that says Illinois is centered around Madison and St. Clair counties (the St. Louis area) rather than Cook and its collars.

Marble halls of high ct. to be mucked up by redistrict reality

For those who wonder how so many people can find it in themselves to back Madigan in political spats, that usually is why.

AS FOR ACTUAL cooperation, there was one instance during my lifetime when partisan leaders were able to craft together a compromise. That was the 1970s – and maybe it was the spillover of love and peace and flower children in the air.

But by the 1980s, Reaganism had clearly erased any thought of working together. We had to resort to the all-or-nothing lottery where Democrats won control of the process in the 1980s, Republicans in the 1990s (anybody remember the two-year time period of “Illinois House Minority Leader Michael Madigan, D-Chicago? I do!) and Dems again in the 2000s.

Technically, the 2010s that we’re now in were an era of compromise, but that’s only because the 2010 gubernatorial election gave us Pat Quinn who signed off on the maps crafted by Dems in the General Assembly.

Democrats can compromise with each other – and the GOPers got ignored. Which actually becomes a key issue for the 2018 election cycle.

A SECOND TERM for Gov. Bruce Rauner would make it impossible for Republicans to be ignored. But considering how budgetary matters are all bogged up, I’d hate to see how the level of partisan hatred will be so high that there’s no chance of the two of them reaching a deal.

It really is about greed – the concept that government officials can do something without having to consider compromise. Which really is antithetical to what our system of government is supposed to be about.

Of course, I’m not sure how the Supreme Court is capable of resolving this situation. They have their own partisan leanings, and if they really tried to undermine Illinois they might well find themselves harming their own interests in other states.

Because, invariably the biggest potential weakness of our political system is that we staff it with people who are politicians at heart. And when we try to staff it with non-political people, we get instances of ineptitude such as “President Donald J. Trump.”

  -30-

Quinn plan partisan on his own behalf, if not necessarily a political party

It shouldn’t be a shock that former Gov. Pat Quinn came forth with his own plan to revamp the way boundaries are set for legislative districts.

 

QUINN: He wants to beat Rauner at something

After all, it was the man who defeated him in the last gubernatorial election who was behind the effort that recently was rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court. I have no doubt that Quinn would love it if Rauner were to fail on this issue, whereas a plan that would carry his name were to ultimately succeed.

ALMOST AS THOUGH this issue could be the do-over of the 2014 election cycle that saw the “Mighty” Quinn fall short of Rauner and all his anti-organized labor rhetoric.

I’m sure in his mind that would be the revenge his ego seeks for an electoral defeat.

Which means I don’t think there’s necessarily a high-minded principle at work behind Quinn’s desire to alter the way in which legislative districts are drawn for the Illinois General Assembly.

Just as there wasn’t any high-minded principle at work behind Rauner’s continued interest – he wants a Legislature consisting of people inclined to rubber-stamp his goals and desires.

THE LAST THING he wants is the openly defiant Legislature we now have that not only votes against him, but is strong enough in opposition to override anything he tries to veto!

I suspect Quinn would love to be able to take credit for any reform plan to redistricting that becomes law, just as he now is able to take credit for the 1980s initiative that altered the size of the General Assembly itself.

Cutting the Illinois House of Representatives down from 177 members to 118 is a legitimate legacy for Quinn – and certainly a greater accomplishment than most people who get into government service can make.

 

RAUNER: I doubt he's given up on issue

And realize I make that statement knowing full well that some people view the “cutback” initiative as a major blow to the Legislature – and one for which Quinn deserves nothing but blame.

QUINN HAS ENOUGH of an ego that I’m sure he is hurt by the fact he had a five-year stint as governor that basically saw his very own Democratic Party allies in the Legislature reject anything he tried to do on so many issues.

Not just his attempt to extend the income tax increase he had pushed for a few years earlier – which if it had gone into effect would have eliminated many of the financial problems our state has faced in recent years.

Honestly, I expect we’re going to hear from Pat Quinn until the day he passes on to another realm of existence. Even then, he’ll probably become the ultimate political gadfly of the heavens – irritating the lord God himself with his efforts to make it a better place for all.

Insofar as Quinn’s redistricting initiative, I’m not sure how much it would really change things. Because it is based on creating an 11-member panel picked by the Illinois Supreme Court itself to handle redistricting.

THE PANEL WOULD have a six-member majority from one political party, but it would take seven people to approve an actual map of political districts for the Legislature. Which sounds like it would force people from differing political parties to work together to create boundaries.

However, let’s not forget that the current state Constitution includes that provision for a random pick of a tie-breaker for the redistricting commission, which was supposed to scare political people into working together out of fear that an all-or-nothing situation would give them nothing.

It failed to take into account the greed of political people who like the idea of their opposition being the ones who get “nothing.” The human factor may well be the biggest problem with redistricting.

For the maps we get determining who our legislators (and Congress people) are will only be as sound as the people who pick them. Just as we usually get the quality of government that we elect; making its flaws our own fault!

  -30-

Even nonpartisan attempt at redistricting reform was partisan effort

I can’t get too upset over the Illinois Supreme Court’s actions this week that killed off an attempt to force the issue of redistricting reform on the ballot for voters to decide.

Yes, it’s true that the people who were opposed to it were the ones who benefitted the most from the current system. Then again, the people who were leading the effort to “reform” it were really doing so because they couldn’t win political control on Election Days past.

TO ME, THEIR attempt to redo the rules of how boundaries are set for the political districts that comprise the Illinois Legislature and our Congressional delegation reeked just a bit too much of that sore-loser little kid who – upon realizing he’s about to lose the board game – decides to just knock over the game table.

So the idea that the effort backed with the personal fortune of Gov. Bruce Rauner has failed yet again? It seems that Rauner is learning that even though he was able to buy victory in the 2014 election cycle, he can’t necessarily buy a sympathetic Legislature that will rubber-stamp his every desire.

Most of which are geared toward undermining organized labor and the influence it has within government.

Seriously, Rauner doesn’t get all goofy with the rhetoric about assorted social issues as does Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. But otherwise, the two do come off as rich guys who want a government post to benefit their own financial interests.

THAT ATTITUDE IS why I have had trouble trusting the various Independent Map Amendment initiatives that have cropped up in recent years – only to be ignored by the General Assembly and dumped upon by the courts.

RAUNER: For now, the loser

Including the Supreme Court of Illinois, which late Thursday issued a ruling that reeks of political partisanship in and of itself.

The four high court justices who have political sponsors of the Democratic Party persuasion were a majority that upheld the lower court decisions that have thwarted the issue.

While the three justices with Republican political sponsorship were hard-core in favor of the issue – which would have placed a referendum question on the ballot come the Nov. 8 elections that theoretically could have undermined the current system of political boundary setting.

MADIGAN: Da winnah, and still champeen!!!

LET’S BE HONEST. If there were just one more justice coming from a Republican-leaning part of Illinois, we’d have had a high court that would have gladly given Rauner what he wants on this issue.

Instead, we have the four justices that come from the Chicago and St. Louis metropolitan areas – which make up about 70 percent of the state’s population.

So I can’t say I’m particularly swayed by the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Robert Thomas (of GOP-leaning DuPage County), who called the high court’s latest action, “a fait accompli, nothing less than the nullification of a critical component of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

It strikes me as being the angry ramblings of someone who came up on the short-end of the stick and presumes that God, so to speak, is with him and would naturally prevail on his side – in any just society.

THE TRUTH MAY well be that neither “side” in this fight has any moralistic claims to make. It really is a numbers racket. Whichever side has the numbers will prevail. And yes, I acknowledge that much of the problem with the current set-up is that it encourages the greed of politicians and their desire to "screw over" their partisan opposition.

Too bad justice couldn't resort to Bears-days tactics

If that sounds a bit too much like “winner take all,” keep in mind that the very concept of democracy is one in which the majority rules.

Which, in a sense, is what is happening in Illinois, where an urban majority of the population is managing to overcome the desires of a more rural minority with a different vision.

They may think these legal actions are some sort of God-given claim for supremacy. But they really reek of that kid kicking over the game table that is the General Assembly, sending all its pieces (which currently provide veto-proof majorities in his opposition) scattered about the floor in order to force his preferred outcome.

  -30-

Battle steps up over reapportionment reform; a little closer to Supreme Ct

Kicking out the old lege for a new and better (more sympathetic in a politically-partisan way) one seems to be the strategy for reapportionment reform. Photograph provided by state of Illinois

Now, the fight can get really ugly as political interests upset with the current partisan structure of the Illinois General Assembly go about trying to force a change to a legislative body more in line with their vision of the way things should be.

For a Cook County judge on Wednesday used her authority to reject all those petitions put together by allies of Gov. Bruce Rauner to force a referendum question on the Nov. 8 ballot about how the General Assembly’s district boundaries are drawn.

FOR CURRENTLY, THEY are put together in a way that results in the General Assembly having Democratic majorities that give significant influence and control over the legislative process to lawmakers from Chicago.

They are the reason that Rauner has been able to get nowhere with his desires to impose a series of anti-organized labor initiatives meant to undermine the influence that unions have over state government.

They also are the reason why Rauner will continue to accomplish nothing, so long as he continues with such a legislative agenda.

He could try to go district by district in the upcoming elections and toss his money at candidates who might align themselves with him in hopes of undermining the veto-proof majorities that now resist him.

OR, HE CAN try to toss out the current Legislature and build a new one more in tune with his image. Which is what this referendum question is about – no matter how much Rauner will claim he’s leading a bipartisan political effort.

I realize there are some good-government activist types who have signed on with Rauner because they’re desperate enough for any form of change in the status quo. But I wonder how little influence they will wind up carrying if this measure were to finally go through.

 

Reconfiguring this jumbled mess of the Chicago area is the goal of some involved with reapportionment reform, while others are eager to preserve it

When it comes to redistricting, I’m aware that partisan politics is a part of the process. I have no doubt that if different people were put in charge (ie., Rauner allies), the resulting district boundaries would wind up favoring their interests.

There is an inherent bias that occurs in the process. Which is why I’m wary of anyone who claims they’re going to impose real reform. Define reform!

EVEN THOSE PEOPLE who would say we ought to create a computer program that puts together boundaries, so as to take the human element out of it. I’d question the biases of the people programming the computer!

I do sense a certain self-righteous tone to the people arguing for the referendum – who largely are ones who couldn’t win at the ballot box so they want to kick the box over and ignore the results of the electorate.

It’s almost as though they think this is 1980s Chicago and the City Council, where the boundaries of wards had been put together in a way that created the 29-member majority that openly thwarted Harold Washington’s mayoral desires.

It took a special redistricting to create more equitable districts to break that stranglehold against the mayor.

IN THIS CASE, I feel like it would be the interests of people who would have opposed Washington trying to get back the control they used to have. I’m skeptical of the whole process.

Which is why I’m not bothered by the ruling of Judge Diane Larsen, although I can already hear the criticisms of it by the partisan ideologues pushing for the redistricting change – she’s a Cook County judge, which makes he biased.

Similar to how when a Cook County judge ruled that state officials could not be paid their salaries while there was a lack of a budget, the ideologues went and got another court outside the Chicago area to issue a contrary ruling so they could follow that one.

 

The gang at Second and Capitol in Springfield will likely have to resolve this legal issue

The Illinois Supreme Court eventually ruled in a way indicating that Cook County’s court likely got it right, and this is another case that ultimately is going to wind up before the state’s high court before we can get resolution.

  -30-

Bipartisanship truly is a dirty word in modern-day political universe

One thing is painfully obvious these days – Barack Obama gave a speech about political cooperation and bipartisanship to the Illinois Legislature and NO ONE was listening.

Bipartisanship is as big a fantasy these days ...

How else to explain the knee-jerk rejection given by the Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail to the very idea of permitting Obama to make an appointment to fill the vacancy now on the Supreme Court of the United States.

TO LISTEN TO the conservative ideologues who fear a high court that isn’t rigged in their favor, the Republic can only be preserved by keeping a seat open for more than a year – or perhaps longer if the voters get delusional (from their perspective) enough to pick a Democrat to be the new president come 2017.

Keep in mind that the vacancy creates the potential for a lot of 4-4 splits on upcoming cases – and it takes five justices to back a ruling for it to take effect.

In short, 4-4 maintains the status quo – and likely means a lot of efforts to protect the rights of people who don’t fit into the narrow vision of what conservatives think our society ought to be will go down the tubes.

Now I don’t know how this whole Supreme Court political battle will play out this year – other than that I expect the Republican majorities that now run both the Senate and House of Representatives are stubborn enough to refuse to act on filling a vacancy.

THE ONE IN which Obama makes an appointment and the Senate gives its consent as to whether or not to accept said appointment. A whole lot of nothing is going to come up, all in the name of preserving our “way of life.”

Or at least the vision of our life that the ideologues want to preserve!

But this is just one of many issues that have become over-politicized in recent years by a Republican faction of Congress determined to prevent the duly-elected president of 2008 and 2012 to do a damned thing that would give him a lasting legacy.

... as the idea of another all-Chicago World Series in our lifetimes

Which could easily have been the outcome of the Harold Washington mayoral years if not for that redistricting of ’86 that enabled a Washington-allied majority to take control of our City Council.

UNFORTUNATELY FOR OBAMA, there isn’t any chance of a restructuring of Congress during his presidency. It will be the political weakness of the Democrats who ought to have been Obama’s allies that they allowed control of Congress to shift away from them during his presidency.

All of which is why I find it odd to hear the ongoing quarrels over redistricting. Yes it is true that the current system is convoluted and creates districts in Congress and the General Assembly that bear little resemblance to the reality of our communities.

But I have my moments of disbelief that this effort with the backing of Gov. Bruce Rauner is really interested in representing the people.

With so many other states having political structures that produce Republican-leaning public officials in their Legislatures and Congress, it seems they’re interested in eradicating a system in Illinois that won’t go along with their program.

THE REASON, OF course, that Illinois’ structure winds up being Democrat-sympathetic is because of the dominance of Chicago in this state and the fact that the modern-day Republican Party is openly hostile toward urban areas.

If we gave someone like Rauner the General Assembly of his choice, it would be equally unrepresentative of the people of Illinois – particularly the two-thirds of the state’s population that lives in the six northeastern-most counties.

OBAMA: Nobody listened!

And yes, I remember the days of 1995-96 when Illinois government was Republican dominated – all of its actions were geared toward putting a leash upon Chicago. All this talk by Republicans comes off as little more than bitterness that they’re no longer capable of running roughshod over the state like they once tried to do.

All the more reason to believe that Obama’s talk of bipartisanship was cute, but not likely to take hold. Not here in Illinois, or anywhere else in this nation.

  -30-

Will redistricting be the compromise?

I have written on several occasions that I am skeptical of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s rhetoric concerning political reapportionment.

He has pushed for creating an independent body that would take over preparation of the maps that detail boundaries of political districts. Of course, the definition of “independent” can be open to interpretation.

It's not just a Texas issue. Provided by Texas Politics Project.

AS IN I wonder if it means anyone “independent” of the current political leadership who would deliberately favor the current political minority. It makes me suspect it to be an effort to undermine the current process – by which the boundaries are drawn by the legislators who (theoretically) are the representatives of the people who elected them.

In short, the people who couldn’t win the elections are now trying to find a new way to win – rather than going out and winning the election themselves.

So it is with some interest that I try to figure out what the significance is of the Supreme Court of the United States’ latest ruling on Monday – one that rejects the Arizona Legislature’s efforts to strike down the state Independent Redistricting Commission. It was created following a voter referendum, and was meant to take away the ability of legislators to draw political boundaries to favor themselves.

Although the real harm from the current process of redistricting is when politicos draw boundaries meant to screw over their opposition.

THE HIGH COURT on Monday ruled that there is nothing preventing a state from implementing a redistricting procedure that relies on someone other than the legislature to do the dirty work of political map-making.

RAUNER: Did high court give him a boost?

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that officials in California are viewing the ruling as supportive of their own state’s efforts. Which makes me suspect Rauner was very happy as well.

The governor now has a very high authority (the same one that pleased progressives by backing healthcare reform AND gay marriage just a few days earlier) in his favor.

Could this become the measure that makes Democrats now hostile to Rauner for his anti-organized labor rhetoric a little bit willing to compromise? Heck, could support for this Rauner desire become THE compromise issue that allows for the state to get something resembling a budget compromise in coming weeks?

OF COURSE, I’M not thinking that Democrats in the Legislature would back something meant to deliberately undermine themselves. I suspect we’d have to get a commission that wasn’t so blatantly biased in favor of any political party.

MADIGAN: He'll figure out way to protect self

Because the honest truth is that there is no such thing as absolute non-biased. Everybody is going to have their preferences they will want to favor. And for those who suggest a computer to take the human element out, I’d question the biases of those people who program the device.

But is the fact that this issue appears to have some sticking power means Democrats in this state ought to try to get a grasp on it so that it doesn’t wind up being implemented in a completely hostile form.

Otherwise we’re going to continue with the current format in Illinois, which is one that always amazes political people elsewhere – the idea that the balance of power can (and often does) fall to the draw out of a hat (or, one time, from a crystal bowl once owned by Abraham Lincoln).

IT WAS PUT into the state Constitution that way because it was believed that the fear of an all-or-nothing draw, with someone getting nothing, would be so fearsome it would force people to cooperate.

Instead, the greed of political people and the chance that they can get everything at the expense of their opposition has turned out to be stronger.

I don’t doubt that some Republicans are viewing the 2018 gubernatorial election as being all-important because it would give the GOP a veto come the 2021 reapportionment that could result in them having a chance at the “all-or-nothing” prize.

Which could also influence the Dems with their current veto-proof majority that prevents Rauner from being able to push his ideological will down their throats to consider this issue further – because nothing lasts forever.

  -30-

Some people determined to move us all backward; it's the only way they gain

We used to regard certain individuals in our society as being worth only three-fifths of a person. We used to think it natural that certain-gendered people didn’t have full citizenship – including the right to register to cast ballots in elections.

But we have moved forward in ways meant to include as many people as possible in our society. Which is a concept that offends some ideologically-minded people who want everybody who isn’t exactly like them to be excluded.

Will the high court take us back in time?

NOW THEY’RE TURNING to the Supreme Court of the United States, which this week said it would hear a case later this year that seeks to alter the way that determines the number of people included in political districts.

Currently, we undergo the redistricting process every decade, when local government officials take into consideration changes in population – then redraw political boundaries to try to make districts as equal in population as is possible.

Of course, the fact that political people are involved means a sense of self-interest gets worked into the process. Illinois has Democratic Party-leaning government because da Dems ruled in 2011 – and still have huge influence now, as Gov. Bruce Rauner is learning first-hand.

Just as a place like Texas had its boundaries drawn to maintain as much political influence as possible in the old white establishment of the state because Republicans dominate the state.

THERE PROBABLY IS no perfect way to draw boundaries – not even for those people who have fantasies about computers drawing arbitrary and neutral boundaries that ignore partisan political considerations. I’d wonder about the political leanings of the people programming the computers.

The nation’s high court is going to be asked to consider another means – the Austin, Texas-based Project on Fair Representation (which is most certainly unfair) wants only people registered to vote to be counted.

Which in a nation whose population is growing due to immigration means many people with a fully-legitimate reason to be here means there would be significant numbers of people who wouldn’t be counted.

That would wind up altering the composition of our government officials, reducing the numbers of non-Anglo officials in places like Texas and California – which is the very point that these people are pushing for, and which they’re hoping the Supreme Court will uphold sometime early next year.

I’LL BE HONEST – I could almost understand giving non-registered (to vote) people less say, but only if it were those native-born people who voluntarily choose not to cast votes. Except those aren’t the people being targeted by such an initiative!

Besides, the fact is that all people living here are covered by this nation’s laws. We’re all expected to follow them. We can’t be exempted from them by the fact that we don’t bother to vote, or that we’re not yet a U.S. citizen.

Nor should we be.

Which means we all ought to have some sense that our views are being represented in this government. Unless we really are determined to head backwards to the days when women couldn’t vote. Or when those of African origins were considered less than a full human being for census purposes.

NOBODY WOULD SERIOUSLY try to undo those changes in our society. At least not so bluntly. Although I wonder how much of an impact this particular measure would have on such people.

Also, I can’t help but think that this measure would merely slow down political progress. Because many of those non-citizen residents will eventually become U.S. citizens and take part in the electoral process – unless the ideologues plan to follow this up with measures restricting voting only to those who will cast ballots for their preferred candidates!

I believe that we as a society are better off taking measures that try to include more individuals. This particular measure is one headed in the absolute wrong direction – and one that the Supreme Court ought to reject out-of-hand.

But the court didn’t do that. They decided to hear the case, some time during the autumn months. Which means there’s always the chance that the ideologues of our high court will manage to get a majority ruling in their favor.

  -30-

Contribute to redistricting reform? Or to complain about it after the fact?

It’s not the largest sum of money -- $25 – in the world. Heck, my latest purchase from Amazon.com (which I’m expecting to receive on Saturday) was for about that much.

But there’s something about the latest plea made Friday via Internet (to make that $25 donation to the group that is trying to get a redistricting procedural reform on the Nov. 4 ballot in the form of a referendum) that bothers me somewhat.

 

How will they use their money?

IT’S THAT I seriously fear the money being raised now will wind up going for negative campaign ads against incumbent officials who didn’t support their redistricting effort – which may wind up flopping because the proponents couldn’t get enough valid signatures of support for a referendum question. It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live sketch in which Dana Carvey's "George Bush" put out one last negative ad after Election Day to use up money -- reminding us that in 1988's Bush/Dukakis fight, "He beat a bad man."

The State Board of Elections had until Thursday to determine how many of the nominating petition signatures were actually valid, although they extended that deadline until Friday.

But that wasn’t good enough for the redistricting reform types, who want to perceive a grand conspiracy at work (with the support of the Chicago Tribune editorial page) because they didn’t get the one-week extension (to next Thursday) that they wanted.

Although considering that we’re running into the summer months and the clock is ticking; an argument can be made that there won’t be enough time to prepare for a Nov. 4 referendum question on the ballot if we don’t figure out now what questions actually get on the ballot.

THE ISSUE AT stake is that just over 500,000 signatures of support were submitted by the group calling itself “Yes! for Independent Maps.” State law requires a certain percentage, which for this year’s election cycle translates to about 298,000 valid signatures of support.

And preliminary inspections by state Elections Board officials found that the number of invalid petition signatures was so great that they fell short.

We’re now going through a process by which the activists (whom I suspect would hate to think of themselves in such an uncouth manner) are trying to “restore” signatures – and the money being sought now from all those $25 donations is supposed to pay for it.

Heck, even all of Barack Obama’s Internet pleas for money to conquer the beasts otherwise known as House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Tea Party activists only ask for $3-5 bucks at a time.

THE GROUP USES quite a bit of bravado in its fund-raising pitch by claiming they’ve really won this fight, except for “deadline fiascoes and political grandstanding” that they’re supposedly fighting against.

The fact that they may have gained a batch of garbage signatures isn’t something they’re willing to admit to.

As for their redistricting reform effort, I’ve written before how I’m suspicious of it. Watching some of those who are leading the effort, it seems that it is a lot of business-oriented types whose idea of a non-partisan Legislature is one that would ignore social issues and put a certain spin on economic measures.

In short, forget all the rhetoric and concern about gay marriage, and focus on something “important” like trying to make Illinois a “right-to-work” state – as though Indiana ought to be the ideal for what a Midwestern U.S. state ought to be like.

YES, OUR CURRENT system for drawing political boundaries for legislative and congressional districts across the state is flawed. It is way too politically partisan – with each political party more interested in dumping on the opposition than trying to benefit the public. The once-a-decade lotteries for control of the process that we avoided in 2012 are the worst.

But I’m not convinced this effort is any less partisan. Particularly in the way it seems unconcerned about inclusion of non-white legislators from areas that have significant ethnic and racial populations.

As for those who suggest that computers should be programmed to draw boundaries, I’d argue the programmers’ biases would take over. They are a unique breed, in and of themselves. There may be no way we can get a perfect reapportionment process – so long as human beings themselves are entrusted to it.

All of which may mean the way we get a “just” political process? It may be the day when those “Damned dirty apes” – Remember Charlton Heston? – wind up taking over the Earth!

  -30-