Scientific Redistricting: Rational, Equittable and No Chance of Success
12 March 2009
Jim Merriner
Which would you rather have-a government controlled by the current lineup of Illinois political bosses, or a government controlled by pure chance?
Actually, on one critical dimension of politics, you've already got both. Legislative districts are contrived to protect incumbents, and which party gets to draw those districts is a toss of the dice.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday issued another ruling on the reach of the Voting Rights Act in assuring fair representation for minorities. This ruling doubtless will provoke more litigation during the redistricting that will follow the 2010 census. However, the minority-rights issue does not address the sheer nuttiness of the Illinois system, the randomness of it.
Pending legislation in Springfield might fix this problem, and my pending lottery ticket might make me a millionaire.
Of course, the goo goos who created the Illinois system did not intend for it to be so screwy. Such disappointments seem to happen to goo goos a lot.
Anyway, the 1970 state constitution ordained that the General Assembly will draw a new legislative map after each decennial census. If the General Assembly fails, a commission split 4-4 between the major parties takes over the job. If even the commission fails, a ninth commissioner-chosen by lot between Democratic and Republican nominees-breaks the tie.
This tie-breaker was designed as a frightening "nuclear option" to force a bipartisan compromise. Surely the bosses would settle on a map before they would risk everything on mere luck. It turns out, they go for the nukes instead.
In 1981 a Democrat broke the tie, guaranteeing that Democrats would dominate in the 1980s. In 1991 a Republican broke the tie, guaranteeing that Republicans, etc. In 2001 a Democrat again, etc.
It is now something of a cliche that whereas voters used to choose their legislators, legislators now choose their voters. Computers detect voting patterns and demographic attributes down to the level of city blocks, enabling gerrymanders drawn with exquisite precision to favor one party or another.
In 1991 George Ryan, then the Republican secretary of state, drew a Republican name out of a hat to break the tie. Ryan-he was not all bad-felt there was something inherently undemocratic about this process.
So he named a goo-goo commission. It did not issue a report until 1999, urging reapportionment by an "impartial computer program." This was ignored even more swiftly and completely than are most goo-goo studies.
We are currently in another wave of reform fervor. Last week, Gov. Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission heard from Rep. Tom Cross (R-Oswego) about bills to change redistricting. If the General Assembly reaches an impasse, then a state Board of Elections computer program would draw the map. By law, the program would favor districts that do not cross county and city boundaries. Here are the killer apps: the program could not even consider the "residency of incumbent legislators" or the party registration of voters.
This legislation is rational, equitable and sponsored by Republicans. For these reasons, it has no chance of passing.