Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment (2014)

Not on Ballot This measure was not put on an election ballot

The Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment was not on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Illinois as an initiated constitutional amendment. The measure, which was also known as the "Yes for Independent Maps" campaign, sought to create an independent, nonpartisan commission, consisting of eleven members, for the purpose of redrawing district lines for the Illinois General Assembly. The measure was sponsored by Yes for Independent Maps.

The amendment would also have created a process for selecting members of the commission that would have been open to application by any Illinois citizen. The method for determining the final eleven-member commission was outlined by the proposed amendment as follows:

• A nonpartisan Applicant Review Panel, to be appointed by the Illinois Auditor General, eliminates any applicants who may have conflicts of interest, such as lobbyists and public officials, and produces a pool consisting of 100 finalists.
• From that pool, the four top legislative leaders in the state may each eliminate up to five applicants from the pool.
• Seven members of the commission are then chosen by lottery and would form a group comprised of two Democrats, two Republicans and three unaffiliated with either party.
• The final four commissioners are then chosen as nominees from each of the four top legislative leaders.

Background

See also: Illinois District Boundaries Amendment (2010)

Following the 2010 U.S. Census, Illinois faced the responsibility of redrawing legislative district lines in accordance with the state constitution. At that time, several proposals were put forth by the legislature as legislatively referred constitutional amendments and one by the group Illinois Fair Map Amendment Coalition as an initiated constitutional amendment. Ultimately, none of the proposed constitutional amendments made it to the ballot that year.

In 2011 Gov. Pat Quinn (D) signed the controversial Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011, which required that legislative districts be redrawn to ensure people of "racial and language minorities" were given the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Because both the state legislature and the governor's office were controlled by Democrats at that time, many argued that the new redistricting procedures served to protect the Democratic majority and keep incumbents in office.

Text of measure

Constitutional changes

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 3. Legislative Redistricting
(a )The Independent Redistricting Commission comprising 11 Commissioners shall adopt and file with the Secretary of State a district plan for Legislative Districts and Representative Districts by June 30 of the year following each Federal decennial census. Legislative Districts shall be contiguous and substantially equal in population. Representative Districts shall be contiguous and substantially equal in population. The district plan shall comply with federal law. Subject to the foregoing, the Commission shall apply the following criteria: (1) the district plan shall not dilute or diminish the ability of a racial or language minority community to elect the candidates of its choice, including when voting in concert with other persons; (2) districts shall respect the geographic integrity of units of local government; (3) districts shall respect the geographic integrity of communities sharing common social and economic interests, which do not include relationships with political parties or candidates for office; and (4) the district plan shall not either purposefully or significantly discriminate against or favor any political party or group. In designing the district plan, the Commission shall consider party registration and voting history data only to assess compliance with the foregoing criteria, and shall not consider the residence of any person. The Commission shall hold at least one public hearing in each Judicial District before, and at least one public hearing in each Judicial District after, releasing the initial proposed district plan. The Commission may not adopt a final district plan unless the plan to be adopted without further amendment, and a report explaining its compliance with this Constitution and the criteria applied, have been publicly noticed at least seven days before the final vote on such plan. An adopted district plan shall have the force and effect of law and shall be published promptly by the Secretary of State. The State Board of Elections shall provide the Commission and the public with complete and accurate census information and technology sufficient to propose district plans. The Commission shall adopt rules governing its procedure and the implementation of matters under this Section.

(b) The Commission shall act in public meetings by affirmative vote of six Commissioners, except that approval of any district plan shall require the affirmative vote of at least (1) seven Commissioners total, (2) two Commissioners from each political party whose candidate for Governor received the most and second-most votes cast in the last general election for Governor and (3) two Commissioners not affiliated with either such political party. The Commission shall elect its chairperson and vice chairperson, who shall not be affiliated with the same political party. Six Commissioners shall constitute a quorum. All meetings of the Commission attended by a majority of its quorum, except for meetings qualified under attorney-client privilege during pending litigation, shall be open to the public and publicly noticed at least two days prior to the meeting. All records of the Commission, including communications between Commissioners regarding the Commission’s work, shall be open for public inspection, except for records qualified under attorney-client privilege during pending litigation. The Commission may retain assistance from counsel, technical staff and other persons with relevant skills and shall be provided with adequate resources to complete its work.

(c) For the purpose of conducting the Commissioner selection process, an Applicant Review Panel comprising three Reviewers shall be chosen in the following manner in the year in which each census occurs. Beginning not later than January 1 and ending not later than March 1 of the year in which the census occurs, the Auditor General shall request and accept applications to serve as Reviewers. By March 31, the Auditor General shall appoint a Panel of three Reviewers, selected by random draw from eligible applicants. The Panel shall act in public meetings by affirmative vote of two Reviewers. All meetings of the Panel shall be open to the public and publicly noticed at least two days prior to the meeting. All records of the Panel, including applications to serve on the Panel or the Commission, shall be open for public inspection, except private information about applicants for which there is no compelling public interest in disclosure. The Panel may retain assistance from counsel, technical staff and other persons with relevant skills and shall be provided with adequate resources to complete its work.

(d) A Commission shall be chosen in the following manner in the year in which each census occurs. Beginning not later than January 1 and ending not later than March 1 of the year in which the census occurs, the Auditor General shall request and accept applications to serve as Commissioners. By May 31, the Applicant Review Panel shall select 100 eligible applicants based on their relevant analytical skills, impartiality, and ability to contribute to a fair redistricting process, and shall ensure that such applicants reflect the demographic and geographic diversity of the State. The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and the President and Minority Leader of the Senate each may remove up to five of the applicants selected by the Panel. By June 30, the Panel shall publicly select seven Commissioners by random draw from the remaining applicants; of those seven Commissioners, including any replacements, (1) the seven Commissioners shall reside among the Judicial Districts in the same proportion as the number of Judges elected therefrom under Section 3 of Article VI of this Constitution, (2) two Commissioners shall be affiliated with the political party whose candidate for Governor received the most votes cast in the last general election for Governor, two Commissioners shall be affiliated with the political party whose candidate for Governor received the second-most votes cast in such election, and the remaining three Commissioners shall not be affiliated with either such political party, and (3) no more than two Commissioners may be affiliated with the same political party. The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and the President and Minority Leader of the Senate each shall appoint one Commissioner from among the remaining applicants on the basis of the appointee’s contribution to the demographic and geographic diversity of the Commission.

(e) To be eligible to serve as a Reviewer, a person must have education and experience in the examination and assessment of personnel, records, systems, or procedures for ten years preceding his or her application, must have demonstrated understanding of and adherence to standards of ethical conduct, and must not have been affiliated with any political party within the three years preceding appointment. To be eligible to serve as a Commissioner, Special Commissioner, or Reviewer, a person must (1) be a resident and registered voter of the State for the four years preceding appointment, (2) within the three years preceding appointment, must not have been the holder of, or a candidate for, any public office in the State, an employee or officer of the State or a unit of local government or a political party, registered as a lobbyist anywhere in the United States, or party to a contract to provide goods or services to the State or a principal, officer, or executive employee of such a contractor, and (3) within the three years preceding appointment, must not have resided with any person described in clause (2) of this subsection. For ten years after service as a Commissioner or Special Commissioner, a person is ineligible to serve as a Senator, Representative, officer of the Executive Branch, Judge, or Associate Judge of the State or an officer or employee of the State whose appointment is subject to confirmation by the Senate. A vacancy on the Commission or Panel shall be filled within five days by an eligible applicant in the manner in which the office was previously filled; with respect to the Commission, the replacement Commissioner shall be drawn where possible from the remaining applicants previously selected by the Panel.

(f) If the Commission fails to adopt and file with the Secretary of State a district plan by June 30 of the year following a Federal decennial census, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the most senior Judge of the Supreme Court who is not affiliated with the same political party as the Chief Justice shall appoint jointly by July 31 a Special Commissioner for Redistricting. The Special Commissioner shall design and file with the Secretary of State by August 31 a district plan satisfying the requirements and criteria set forth in subsection (a) and a report explaining its compliance with this Constitution and the criteria applied. The Special Commissioner shall hold at least one public hearing in the State before releasing his or her initial proposed district plan and at least one public hearing in a different location in the State after releasing his or her initial proposed district plan and before filing the final district plan with the Secretary of State. The district plan shall have the force and effect of law and shall be published promptly by the Secretary of State.

(g) The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in cases relating to matters under this Section. The Commission shall have exclusive authority, and shall be provided adequate resources, to defend any district plan adopted by the Commission.

Support

The measure was sponsored by Yes for Independent Maps, formerly known as CHANGE Illinois!, a coalition of groups and individuals with an interest in redistricting reform.

Supporters

The following organizations and elected, appointed and civic leaders were listed as supporters of the initiative:

Organizations

• AARP Illinois
• Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago
• Better Government Association
• Business and Professional People for the Public Interest
• CHANGE Illinois!
• Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
• Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
• Citizen Advocacy Center
• The Civic Alliance of East St. Louis
• Common Cause Illinois
• Community Renewal Society
• Hanover Township Democrats & Independents
• Illinois Chamber of Commerce
• Illinois Campaign for Political Reform
• Illinois Manufacturers’ Association
• Illinois Public Interest Research Group
• IVI/IPO (Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization)
• Kenwood Oakland Community Organization
• Latino Policy Forum
• League of Women Voters of Illinois
• Metropolis Strategies
• Next Rockford
• Openlands
• Reboot Illinois
• Robert R. McCormick Foundation
• Small Business Advocacy Council
• SOUL (Southsiders Organized for Unity and Liberation)
• Tooling & Manufacturing Association
• United Power for Action and Justice

Current & former elected & appointed officials

• Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis
• Ald. John Arena
• Fmr. Mayor Rich Auman
• Fmr. DEA Administrator Peter Bensinger, Sr.
• St. Sen. Daniel Biss
• Fmr. Chair, Ethics Reform Task Force Cindi Canary
• Fmr. Chair, Illinois Reform Commission Patrick Collins
• Fmr. Rep. John Cox
• Fmr. DNC Vice Chair Lynn Cutler
• Fmr. US Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley
• Fmr. Gov. Jim Edgar
• Fmr. Ald. Edwin Eisendrath
• Fmr. State Rep. Judy Erwin
• Fmr. Carbondale Mayor Joel Fritzler
• Fmr. Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias
• Fmr. US Rep. Debbie Halvorson
• Fmr. RNC Committee Member Margo Hart
• Fmr. Inspector General David Hoffman
• Rock Island County Democratic Party Chair Doug House
• Fmr. Chicago Public Schools CEO Ron Huberman
• Fmr. St. Charles Mayor Sue Klinkhammer
• Normal Mayor Chris Koos
• Chair, IL Task Force Social Innovation Marc Lane
• Fmr. US Atty. Scott Lassar
• Fmr. Illinois Reform Commission member Brad McMillan
• Fmr. FCC Chair Newt Minow
• Rockford Mayor Lawrence Morrissey
• Fmr. Chicago Federal Reserve Bank CEO Michael Moskow
• Ald. Rick Munoz
• Fmr. St. Rep. Jim Nowlan
• Fmr. Ald. Marty Oberman
• Ald. Ameya Pawar
• Bloomington Mayor Tari Renner
• CPS Board of Education VP Jesse Ruiz
• Treasurer Dan Rutherford
• Fmr. St. Rep. Kathy Ryg
• Fmr. Asst. Atty. General John Schmidt
• Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon
• Fmr. Ald. Bill Singer
• St. Rep. Mike Smiddy
• St. Sen. Heather Steans
• Rock Island County Republican Party Chair Mike Steffin
• Fmr. Sen. Adlai Stevenson III
• Fmr. Amb. Robert Stuart
• Fmr. Amb. Lou Susman
• Fmr. U.S. Attorney Tony Valukas
• CPS Board of Ed. Chair David Vitale
• Ald. Scott Waguespack
• Libertyville Mayor Terry Weppler
• Fmr. Lt. Gov. Corinne Wood

Business, civic and community leaders

• David Axelrod
• Ed Bachrach
• Greg Baise
• Frank Beal
• Peter Bensinger, Jr.
• Frank Beidler
• Marjorie Benton
• Judy Block
• Andrew Bluhm
• Peter Bowe
• Rev. Dr. Byron Brazier
• Jeff Brincat
• John Canning
• Todd Connor
• Jim Crown
• Lester Crown
• Robert Crawford
• Roxanne Decyk
• John Dick
• Jim Donnelley
• Deborah Epstein
• Ty Fahner
• Jim Farrell
• Fmr. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
• Einar Forsman
• Lenny Gail
• Sonny Garg
• Ron Gidwitz
• Michael Golden
• Jim Gorter
• Anne Griffin
• Ken Griffin
• Nav Gupta
• Habeeb Habeeb
• Deborah Harrington
• King Harris
• Fmr. Daley Chief of Staff Lori Healey
• Christie Hefner
• Hamilton Hill
• David Hiller
• John Holzhauer
• PJ Huizenga
• Blair Hull
• Justin Ishbia
• Michael Keiser
• Steve Kersten
• James Klutznick
• Liam Krehbiel
• William Kunkler
• Alan Lacy
• Charles Lewis
• John Lillard
• Michael Lombard
• Vern Loucks
• Ben Lumpkin
• Barry MacLean
• Robert Malott
• Paul Mang
• Lawrence Marcucci
• Belinda Mathie
• John McCarter
• Robert McCormack
• Terry McKay
• Harriet Meyer
• Judd Miner
• Matt Moog
• Jason Plummer
• Deborah Quazzo
• George Ranney
• Dan Ratner
• Jerry Reinsdorf
• Chris Reyes
• Elliot Richardson
• Janice Rodgers
• Joshua Rogers
• Sheli Rosenberg
• Ian Ross
• Patrick Ryan, Jr.
• Patrick Ryan, Sr.
• Lowell Sachnoff
• Manny Sanchez
• Gordon Segal
• Mark Segal
• Harry Seigle
• Fmr. First Lady’s Chief of Staff Susan Sher
• Fmr. White House Chief of Staff Sam Skinner
• Jerry Smiley
• Robert Smith
• Lisa Snow
• Daniel Sprehe
• Harrison Steans
• Jennifer Steans
• Robin Steans
• Barbara Lynn Stewart
• Roger Stone
• Richard Strubel
• Sandy Stuart
• Lawrence Sullivan
• Dale Taylor
• Richard Thomas
• Don Turner
• Lew Watts
• Edward Wehmer
• David Weinberg
• Lou Weisbach
• Robert Weissbourd
• Doug Whitley
• Linda Wolf
• Steve Wolf
• Joel Zemans

Arguments

• Yes for Independent Maps said that fixing the redistricting system would be a step in the right direction for Illinois because it would have increased voters' ability to hold elected officials accountable. The group argued that legislative control of redistricting would essentially allow "politicians [to] choose their voters, instead of the people deciding who will represent them."

• The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law argued that gerrymandering is one of the chief reasons why the needs of voters’ and legislative outcomes are not aligned. The Committee added that even though independent citizen commissions cannot possibly please everyone, they are a better alternative to allowing partisan lawmakers to draw their own districts.

• In an op-ed published by the Chicago Tribune, Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that an independent redistricting process is necessary because the risk is too great that politicians drawing district lines will place their own interests above those of the public. He compared it to the Federal Reserve, which he says exists because "we don't trust elected officials to set interest rates based on the economy's condition instead of their own re-election needs." He also argued that a primary reason to support the amendment is because redistricting commissions work, highlighting the success of the California commission created in 2010. He pointed out that the amendment would establish a system very similar to California's and that there is reason to suspect similar results in Illinois.

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Illinois ballot measures, 2014

Support

• The Peoria Journal-Star said, "There are no guarantees in life but better government starts with better representation, which begins with voters having a greater array of high-quality candidates on a fair playing field...How many more legislative sessions like this last one can Illinoisans tolerate? See how you can help by going to changethedistricts.org."

• Reboot Illinois said, "It’s time the people came first in Illinois. It’s time we all worked together to put voters back in charge. Let’s do it. Let’s say Yes! for Independent Maps."

• The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board said, speaking about both the Yes for Independent Maps Campaign and Illinois Term Limits and Reform, "These proposals are rare and genuine opportunities to begin fixing Illinois."

Lawsuits

On April 29, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to prevent the redistricting measure, as well as the Illinois Term Limits for Legislators Amendment, from being placed on the ballot. The suit, which many thought would go all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, was filed by a group of business and nonprofit leaders. Supporters of the measures were anticipating legal challenges and felt confident that their respective measures would make the 2014 ballot. Michael Kolenc, of "Yes for Independent Maps," said, "Our coalition is confident that the independent maps proposal meets the structural and procedural requirements to amend the Illinois Constitution. Legal experts across the state agree with our position." According to the lawsuit, the formal complaint by the plaintiffs stated the following:

“	This taxpayer action seeks to restrain the expenditure of public funds to consider the propriety of two petitions proposing multiple amendments to the Legislative Article of the Illinois Constitution which should be enjoined because each of these proposed petitions fails to comply with the constitutional requirements of Section 3 of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution for such amendments. [...] The other petition (the "Redistricting Initiative") is likewise invalid for several reasons, including that it contains not a single structural or procedural change to Article IV, and in fact reaches far beyond Article IV to impose new eligibility requirements on all legislative, executive and judicial branch officeholders.	”
—Plaintiffs,

On June 27, 2014, Judge Mary Mikva threw the redistricting amendment, as well as the term limits amendment, off the ballot, saying it was unconstitutional. Supporters of the redistricting amendment decided to end their campaign as the result of her ruling. Yes for Independent Maps' chair Deborah Harrington said, "We have concluded that we are not going to proceed in this election cycle. Instead, we will put the lessons learned in this campaign and from the judge’s ruling to good use."

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Illinois Constitution

Initiated constitutional amendments in Illinois require signatures totaling eight percent of the total votes cast for governor in the last election. These names must be submitted six months before the general election. Also, initiated amendments in Illinois can only apply to "structural and procedural subjects" contained in Article IV of the state constitution. Once on the ballot, the amendment must receive either a supermajority vote of 60% of those voting on the question or a simple majority of those who cast a ballot for any office in that election.

To qualify for the 2014 ballot, supporters were required to collect and submit 298,399 signatures by May 5, 2014.

Proponents submitted approximately 532,000 signatures on May 1, 2014. The state elections board determined, after reviewing a 5 percent sample, that less than half of the overall signatures were valid. Supporters wanted to attempt to "rehabilitate" their signatures. However, by ruling the measure unconstitutional, Mikva stopped the elections board from spending any taxpayer dollars on the measure, thereby preventing supporters from trying to validate the signatures.

Similar measures

• Illinois District Boundaries Amendment (2010)

See also

Suggest a link

• 2014 ballot measures
• Illinois 2014 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Illinois

External links

• Yes for Independent Maps website
• Illinois Board of Elections website, "Campaign Committee Yes for Independent Maps information," accessed March 5, 2014