By CHARLES R. BERNARDINI

Charles R. Bernardini, an attorney and resident of Chicago, has served as state chairperson of the Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization. He was a legislative assistant to the Illinois speaker of the House in 1972-73.

A smaller House with single-member districts would limit the amount of minority representation. Without cumulative voting, it would also limit political diversity and expertise. Multi-member districts serve the state well

CUMULATIVE voting in Illinois works well. It enables voters not only to support a candidate, but to give strong support to a candidate they feel strongly about. The Illinois system allows a strong minority to have a strong voice in government.

The opponents of cumulative voting and multi-member districts stress a simplistic and transparent argument that a House reduced in size will cost the taxpayers less and provide better results for the citizens. They point to the size of other state legislatures and argue that Illinois' is large by comparison.

Before jumping on this demagogic bandwagon, responsible observers should look at the facts and should pay particular attention to the actual experiences and results of these other states. For example, let us look to Massachusetts.

The August 5, 1979, edition of The Boston Globe carried an article by a staff writer entitled "Was trimming House mistake?" The article pointed out that the League of Women Voters spearheaded a battle 12 years ago to reduce the size of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, hoping that a streamlined legislature would provide more accountable, efficient and responsive government. The League reasoned that if there were fewer legislators they would be more visible and, therefore, more accountable; that a smaller legislature would work more efficiently; and that, if each legislator were given a full-time staff assistant, he or she could provide better service to his or her constituents.

The Globe staff writer, Maria Karagianis, reported that today, after the House cut has been completed, there is a feeling on Beacon Hill that trimming the House from 240 to 160 members has hurt the Democratic process.

"There is less democracy in this State now," said Rep. James Collins (D., Amherst). "Women and minorities have lost representation. Because the body is smaller, it is easier for the Speaker to control."

Minorities lose

Black legislators said that minority communities lost the most with the reduction in the House size. The Black legislative caucus, whose eight members have been trimmed to five, lost one third of its representation in the legislature. The women's caucus also suffered. There used to be 17 lawmakers, now there are only 11.

Because districts are larger, Collins said, it costs more to run for office. Incumbents are favored. Newcomers have a harder time being elected. And, Collins said, "Legislators will be spending even more time than they did in the past, thinking about how they're going to raise money, and less time on issues."

The legislative budget for a smaller House is costing taxpayers about $4 million more than last year's $11 million budget. The increase includes salaries for a full-time staff member for each representative.

Although the House leadership in Massachusetts always opposed the cut, the Globe reported, several legislators say now that it has actually worked to the speaker's advantage. His power has

Continued at top of page 6.

4/January 1980/IlIinois Issues

NO
Continued from page 4

The value of the cumulative voting as an aid to electing women legislators can hardly be doubted

been enhanced, many say. There's less debate, fewer mavericks, more decisions made behind closed doors. The Globe reports that there has been a lessening of different points of view and the diversity that was a hallmark of the larger House.

"We don't have enough people to watch issues," said liberal Barney Frank (D., Back-Bay), one of the most respected members of the House. "We've lost a lot of substantive expertise. There's not as good a watchdog system and some of the best, most sophisticated progressives are gone. The rest of us, the ones left, are like guerillas in the hills."

There are different kinds of minorities competing for representation in the House. The first is minority party representation for which the cumulative voting system was initiated. Although party affiliation is ebbing, there are still areas of Illinois where party labels are strong factors in electoral success. In those areas, the minority's representative to the Illinois House is often the minority's only elected official in that area and is the nucleus of the party's organization. Without the reasonable hope of gaining one legislative seat, the organization might well collapse.

The modern "minority" is more likely to be a racial, ethnic or religious minority. Such a minority, if it is reasonably well organized around its common identity, can often elect a representative, but almost never a senator. For example, in bi-racial

6/January 1980/Illinois Issues

districts in Chicago, the Blacks are often a sizable minority. When the Black population is substantial — say 25 percent to 30 percent — it is highly likely that one of the three representatives will be Black. There will not be a Black senator, however, unless the district is predominantly Black.

Factions represented

The value of cumulative voting as an aid to electing women legislators can hardly be doubted. Fourteen districts have at least one woman representative and four districts even have two women representatives. By contrast, only four legislative districts have elected women as senators.

A third type of minority is the philosophical or issue-oriented minority. In this regard, we can see the value of the cumulative voting system as a means of securing minority viewpoint representation within the majority party. A strong majority party often has a liberal wing and a conservative wing, and the party's two state representatives tend to reflect that division. Votes on the Equal Rights Amendment illustrate that often one of the majority's representatives votes for the ERA and one against. Each faction of that constituency is represented.

The fourth type of minority representation is the geographical one within each party. For example, Chicago Republican representatives have always supported aid to the Chicago Transit Authority as much as Chicago Democrats have. This support has given the CTA a hearing in the Republican party. On the other side of the aisle, downstate Democrats can speak of agricultural interests in a party dominated by urban Cook County. Support for single-member districts for the House seems to follow pure academic theory without regard to the realities of Illinois. The Illinois League of Women Voters, for example, officially opposes cumulative voting while giving its highest ratings to representatives whose presence in the legislature depends upon cumulative voting. The question is simply which system produces better legislators, not to represent the parties, but to represent the people.

January 1980/Illinois Issues/7

By PATRICK QUINN

Patrick Quinn is founder and organizer of the Coalition for Political Honesty, a statewide petition group which organized in 1976.

THE ILLINOIS General Assembly has become one of the most costly, unproductive and unresponsive legislative bodies in the United States. It's time for the people of our state to completely overhaul the legislature and create a more efficient, economical and independent parliamentary body that can adequately address the pressing issues of the 1980's.

That's why the Coalition for Political Honesty is participating in a statewide petition drive for the Legislative Cutback Amendment, a constitutional amendment proposed by binding citizen initiative that will permanently reduce the size of the House of Representatives from 177 to 118 members. The amendment will also abolish multi-member House districts and cumulative voting and return Illinois to the traditional American principle of one-person, one-vote.

Slightly more than 252,000 petition signatures must be filed by May 4, 1980, to put the Legislative Cutback Amendment on the 1980 general election ballot. If the amendment is approved by three-fifths of those voting in the referendum, then it will take effect in 1982. Passage of the Legislative Cutback Amendment will mark the first time in state history that voters have enacted a constitutional change by direct citizen initiative.

Illinois currently has 59 legislative districts. There are 59 senators and 177 representatives (three representatives are elected from each district). Illinois' total of 236 legislators makes our General Assembly the third largest in the country. Other major industrial states get by with many fewer legislators, especially in their houses of representatives. For example, the California House has 80 members, Ohio and Wisconsin have 99, Indiana has 100 and Michigan has 110.

A smaller legislature does not mean less representation for citizens. On the contrary, a streamlined legislature which is not bloated in size does a better job running its affairs and carrying out the will of the people. Most states have a house of representatives with less than 118 members because this leads to more responsible debate and efficiency in considering bills.

Citizens see chaos

The current operation of the Illinois House resembles a Marx Brothers comedy that has become a statewide laughingstock for its inefficiency. By Speaker William Redmond's own admission, the big problem is that there are just too many bills. In the recent legislative session, for instance, legislators introduced 5,345 bills, most of which were not squarely addressed or rationally considered on their merits. Instead, citizens witnessed a chaotic spectacle of sham committee hearings, limits on floor debates, wholesale passage of bills on mass roll calls, and a host of hastily considered conference committee reports at session's end.

The people of Illinois have a right to demand much better from their representatives when it comes to considering laws which affect the lives and pocketbooks of millions of citizens. The Legislative Cutback Amendment will make the House a more efficient and effective parliamentary body.

Continued at bottom of page 6

January 1980/Illinois Issues/5

YES
Continued from page 5

Cumulative voting is consciously designed to protect incumbents and limit political competition and accountability

Fewer legislators in the House means fewer politicians to introduce bills into the legislative hopper. Fewer bills translates into more time for thoughtful consideration and the beginning of a deliberative legislative process in Springfield.

Furthermore, by abolishing the jobs of 59 unnecessary legislators, the Legislative Cutback Amendment will save taxpayers $7 million a year in reduced salary, expense and staff costs. Starting in 1980, Illinois legislators will be the highest paid in the nation with a $28,000 annual salary. Each legislator also receives $7,400 a year in fringe benefits such as per diem allowances, travel expenses, free health insurance and the most generous pension plan in the state. In addition, dozens of legislators are also doubledippers, that is, they hold a second public payroll job often paying more than $20,000 a year.

The General Assembly in the 1970's has utterly failed to keep its own operating costs within reasonable limits. The sneaky and selfish way in which legislators colluded to grant themselves exhorbitant pay raises last year demonstrated that they prefer to put their own wallets ahead of the public interest. The Legislative Cutback Amendment gives taxpayers a direct ballot-box way to remind our highly paid politicians that they too must tighten their belts and do a more productive job with the public's money in Springfield.

The Cutback Amendment will also enhance political election competition in Illinois by establishing a system of 118 single-member districts for state representatives. At present, representatives are elected by a method called cumulative voting, which is not used by any other government in the United States or the world. Under the cumulative voting system, each political party affirmatively decides to nominate only two candidates for the three available representative seats in a district. Voters are thus left with a choice of only four candidates for three vacancies and may cast three votes for one representative candidate, one and one-half votes for two candidates, or one vote for each of three candidates.

This complicated and collusive election system is consciously designed to protect incumbents and limit political competition and accountability. Effective representation is blurred by three representatives who pass the buck to each other on issues. Proponents of cumulative voting claim that it guarantees minority party representation in every district. But in reality, cumulative voting breaches the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule and creates a network of rotten boroughs where incumbent representatives are virtually assured reelection. In some districts, for example, minority party candidates are elected with as little as 10 percent of the total vote in the district, usually at the expense of racial minorities who ate denied their fair share of representation.

The Legislative Cutback Amendment will dismantle this cozy arrangement and insure that all state representatives are accountable to the will of the majority of the voters. Under the

6/January 1980/Illinois Issues

amendment, each of the 59 senatorial districts will continue to elect one senator, but 118 single-member representative districts will be created by dividing the 59 senatorial districts in half. New House and Senate boundary lines will be drawn in 1981 as part of the reapportionment required after every census.

Competition increased

With one-on-one contests in single-member House districts, political parties will have to compete for voters' support on the issues and with the best candidate available. Naturally the prospect of increased competition for legislative seats makes incumbent representatives — good and bad — feel uncomfortable. Therefore many incumbents seek to justify the status quo by saying that without cumulative voting certain "good" legislators could not be elected. This partisan argument is totally speculative and self-serving. Moreover, a bad constitutional system should not be preserved to save the political career of any single incumbent. The office of representative belongs to the people — not to a handful of legislators and sophisticated special interest groups who have learned to use the cumulative voting system to their advantage.

It is patronizing and elitist and patently wrong to contend that Illinois voters cannot elect well-qualified state representatives under a system of single-member districts and one-on-one competition. Illinois voters today are independent-minded, ticket splitters who will vote for the best candidate for office, no matter what party. The plain fact is that other Midwestern states such as Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin have consistently elected more progressive and diverse state representatives than Illinois and without the cumbersome gimmick of cumulative voting. Michigan and Wisconsin, for instance, have a higher percentage of women in their legislature than Illinois.

Indeed, by reducing the population and geographical size of representative districts, the Legislative Cutback Amendment will make it easier for Illinois citizens who don't have the backing of professional politicians to run for representative office. Under the amendment, each House district will have about 95,000 residents compared to the current 190,000. Large districts require more expensive campaigning which discourages many qualified persons from running. But citizen candidates with lots of energy and good ideas can cover a smaller district on a door-to-door basis and thus compete with well-financed incumbents.

Smaller districts are particularly important to downstate citizens. Right now many towns and counties are thrown together in downstate districts which are geographically immense. Voters are often physically far removed from their representatives. With smaller districts, legislators will be more accessible to their constituents and render better service.

Not surprisingly, despite its potential for providing more efficient and responsive representation and reducing political waste, the Legislative Cutback Amendment has provoked intense opposition from professional politicians and lobbyists. Small-minded legislators, fearful of losing their jobs, have even gone so far as to enact unconstitutional geographic restrictions on initiative petition-passing in a pitiful effort to keep the Legislative Cutback Amendment off the 1980 ballet.

Fortunately Illinois citizens are far ahead of their leaders when it comes to demanding economy and accountability in state government. And the Legislative Cutback Amendment gives citizens a direct way to reform a legislature which arrogantly refuses to reform itself. Through the amendment, the people of Illinois can forcefully remind all the politicians in Springfield that the taxpayers are still the boss in this democracy and not vice versa.

January 1980/Illinois Issues/7