Politics

The Democratic map the benefits of a thin margin

(This column was written prior to several challenges filed with the court. Ed.)

LADY LUCK'S intercession into the hopelessly deadlocked, partisan squabble over redrawing Illinois' legislature districts for the next 10 years may actually have rained more fortune on the average state citizen than it did charm Democrats. Analyses of the map's 59 Senate and 118 House districts, of recent voter turnout and trends and of forces that meld the General Assembly into decision on issues of statewide impact show that the average Illinoisan probably was done a favor by Democrats having realigned district lines to conform to 1980's census.

Lady Luck became the final arbiter in the dispute when the Legislative Redistricting Commission's four Republican and four Democrat members failed by August 10 to agree on a reapportionment plan. So, adhering to the 1970 state Constitution's dictates on such a deadlock, Republican Secy, of State Jim Edgar on August 25 dipped his hand into a tattered stovepipe hat once worn by Abraham Lincoln and pulled out one of two names placed inside. It was fortuitous for Democrats that former Democrat Gov. Samuel H. Shapiro's name — and not that of former Republican Gov. Richard B. Ogilvie — was pulled. Shapiro pledged to act as a fair negotiator but surprised no one save the Republicans when he acted like a Democrat as the commission's tie-breaking ninth member.

To the some 6.5 million eligible Illinois voters who forsake participating in partisan primary elections and the roughly four million who never vote at all, the partisan maneuverings around legislative reapportionment ate perhaps silly, or even stupid, and of monumental insignificance. To some extent, that is an accurate assessment. To many, the NFL playoffs are more dramatic and compelling than legislative redistricting's effects. But unlike football, carving out new House and Senate districts has greater effect on how taxpayers' money is spent — where, for whom and on which government services and programs.

"People who don't vote don't count," says Sen. Roger A. Keats, a Wilmette Republican who will have to move a few miles because of the new Democratic map to avoid a primary contest with GOP Sen. John J. Nimrod of Park Ridge. Keats says redistricting, in which each political party searches for an electoral advantage, is not done with the nonvoter's interests in mind. But even the nonvoter is obliged to pay taxes and obey laws the legislature enacts.

So how was the average Illinoisan, who statistically votes only half the time in general elections and less than once in three primaries, done a favor by the Democrats' serendipitous good luck, in which they seized the "advantage"?

Sen. James H. Donnewald (D., Breese), commission chairman, says the map approved October 2 assures each political party control of 25 senatorial districts, with nine considered "swing" — able to elect a senator from either party in any given election. Other Democrats say the map more likely gives their party 29 districts, with the GOP assured 26 and only four swing. In either case, the swing areas are outside the Chicago area, because of the more certain concentrations of Chicago Democrats and suburban Republicans. That means Downstate, where statewide elections are won or lost, also will be the battlefield for legislative control, because no one yet has been elected to the legislature from the "Swing Party."

Democrats and Republicans alike say that in an election year when candidates

2 | December 1981 | Illinois Issues

and issues favored Democrats, Democrats could win 33 districts under their map, leaving the GOP 26. But both sides agree that under the Democrat map, if voters were happy with a Republican-run White House and other factors went the GOP way, Republicans could control the Senate 30-29, 31-28 or even 32-27. Politicos are using the Senate as a barometer for the House, but without cumulative voting next year, readily admit only election day will tell.

"There was no way to draw a map to ensure Democratic control [of the General Assembly] for the next 10 years," says Rep. Michael F. McClain (D., Quincy), commision member. McClain says Illinois' voting demographics prevented that.

But the story could have read much differently had Republicans been able to write the script.

Because Democrats are so heavily concentrated in Chicago and in the metropolitan area across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, it seems clear Republicans could more easily have fashioned a map to their benefit. Keats says they could have drawn themselves 36 or 37 GOP districts — veto-proof control of at least the Senate, assuming no Watergates or other unforeseen disasters.

So Democrats drawing the map probably forced a closer margin of control. Political tensions will be much greater over legislation on significant statewide issues. Even with 21 districts sympathetic to Chicago's City Hall (a number Republicans charge far exceeds what's fair), compromises will need to be reached and major policy initiatives will have no guarantee of either approval or slaughter.

The closer the margin, the thinner the ice. The thinner the ice, the more likely the party in control will have to step lightly or risk dissatisfying broader ranges of citizens — even those who don't vote often or at all.

And, for the average citizen who essentially wishes the legislature would leave him or her alone, margins that are close generally mean less legislation enacted. Maybe even better government.

December 1981 | Illinois Issues | 3