Legislative Action                  

Redistricting:
a process
under fire

Illinoisans witnessed the culmination of this year's most intense partisan stalemate on September 5, 1991, when Secy. of State George H. Ryan pulled a name, contained in an oversized medical capsule, out of a crystal bowl. The name was Al Jourdan's, and he became the ninth member of the Illinois redistricting commission. Before drawing the name, Ryan, a Republican, delivered stinging criticism of the process and called for reform, vowing to appoint a commission to study the problem.

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Joseph F. Cunningham (D-5th Judicial District), added his criticisms to Ryan's on January 14, 1992, chiding lawmakers in the court opinion he wrote that upheld the map produced by Jourdan and the other four Republican commission members (the Jourdan III-A plan). "After all the deliberation and expense to the taxpayers, over $2 million, we do not find that a lottery or a flip of a coin is in the best interests of anyone except the party which has won the toss," wrote Cunningham. He also admonished: "The legislature has eight years, if it is sincere, to correct this process."

In 2001 lawmakers will again struggle to redistrict the General Assembly. While the next remap is nearly a decade away, the long lead time both helps and hinders the possibility of reform. It takes time to change the process since amending the Constitution is required. But, as time passes and tempers cool, the drive for reform weakens and change becomes less likely.

Amending the Constitution begins with bipartisan support in both houses of the legislature. A three-fifths vote in each house would put a proposed amendment to a statewide vote in a regular, general election, and if a majority of those voting approves, the Constitution is changed.

To get an amendment on the November 3 general election ballot, lawmakers must come to an agreement by May 3. Their next opportunity would be the 1994 general election, and the last chance before the next remap is in the year 2000.

The search for a "better" redistricting process is not a new problem, yet it remains elusive in this highly partisan state. Prior to the 1970 Constitution, all legislative candidates faced running in an at-large election if both the General Assembly and the subsequent bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map. One such election was enough. The 1964 "bedsheet ballot" election helped renew statewide interest in revising the redistricting process.

Familiar with the chaos of that at-large election, delegates to the 1970 Constitutional Convention added a new method of last resort to the redistricting process. Gone was the at-large threat. In its place was the random drawing of a tie-breaking ninth member for the bipartisan commission. Much stayed the same. The 1970 Constitution continues to place the initial redistricting responsibility in the General Assembly, but it gave legislators and the governor a June 30 deadline (in the year after the U.S. census) to approve new districts by law. If no law is enacted, the eight-member, bipartisan commission is appointed by the four legislative leaders and has until August 10 to produce a map. Failing that, the ninth member is chosen from two nominees, one Democrat and one Republican, designated by the Supreme Court.

Random drawing of a ninth member was intended by delegates as a deterrent to stalemates in the legislature and the subsequent bipartisan commission. Delegates did not intend for the drawing of a name to become the ultimate lottery for frustrated lawmakers ready to risk all rather than negotiate with each other. In urging adoption of the current tie-breaking provision during the 1970 Constitutional Convention, Delegate William A. Sommerschield explained: "The object of the reapportionment plan ... is to reduce both political parties to a state of equivalency." He added that neither party would have an incentive to stalemate.

Even during the Constitutional Convention, the random selection process drew criticism. Delegate John L. Knuppel suggested that a deadlock in the commission be solved by Supreme Court review of commission agreements and disagreements. Knuppel reasoned that the map should go to the court because it would eventually end up there regardless of the tie-breaker. "Nothing so rash, nothing so flagrant, nothing so reckless as Russian roulette should be played with a matter as important as reapportionment," he said.

The 1971 remap was the first under the new Constitution. The legislature did not agree on a map, but a map was approved by the eight-member redistricting commission. But there was another controversy. Three of the four legislative leaders had appointed themselves and their closest aides as members of the redistricting commission. The Illinois Supreme Court approved the commission's map but declared the commission invalid, concluding that legislative aides did not qualify as the public members required by the Constitution.

In 1981 the redistricting process went all the way without a compromise between partisans. Making compromise more difficult that year was the elimination of 59 House seats under the constitutional amendment popularly known as the "Cutback" and the emerging threat to Democrats of a black revolt against a "racially unfair map." In fact, several GOP leaders made overtures to black Democratic legislators in exchange for their support of a Republican map. Ryan was speaker of the House at that time. When the eight-member commission stalemated, Jim Edgar as secretary of state drew former Democratic Gov. Samuel H. Shapiro's name out of Abraham Lincoln's hat as the tie-breaking member. The commission's Democratic majority then approved a map. The winner-take-all gamble won by Democrats created the most lopsided, partisan map since 1901, according to Paul M. Green, director for the Institute for Public Policy and Administration at Governors State University.

A decade later, there was a replay, except that Republicans won the draw. Gov. Edgar had vetoed the map passed by the General Assembly's Democratic majority on the June 30 deadline. The eight-member bipartisan commission failed to agree on a map, Again the remap was accomplished by partisan votes of the nine-member commission instead of the bipartisan compromise envisioned by the 1970 delegates.

Illinois is not unique in involving the legislature in the remap process. Although asking legislators themselves

24/March 1992/Illinois Issues

to draw their own district boundaries intensifies the highly political redistricting process, committees of legislators participate in remapping in 38 states. In fact, legislators are the initial and final remap decisionmakers in 27 states.

The state's executive also plays a role in redistricting in at least eight states. The governor drafts or finally approves the plan in two states, while a committee appointed by a member of the executive branch accomplishes redistricting in three states, and members of the executive handle redistricting at some point in two.

The court system supervises redistricting at some stage in 14 states. Courts in seven states are authorized to write or approve a redistricting plan if no other agreement can be reached, and the courts appoint individuals from other branches of government to make a redistricting plan in three states.

Some states sidestep legislators by giving them minimal roles in redistricting or by using nongovernmental agencies to aid the process. In Iowa, for example, the redistricting map is drawn by the nonpartisan Legislative Service Bureau. The map is presented to the legislature only for approval or rejection, giving the body no chance for piecemeal manipulations.

Still other states give the legislature a chance but take away the responsibility if it fails. In Texas, a failed attempt by the General Assembly leads to a five-member commission of the lieutenant governor, speaker of the House, comptroller of public accounts, attorney general and commissioner of the general lands office. The commission has 90 days to convene and 60 days after that to devise a plan.

In Mississippi, a joint legislative committee has until the second year after a federal census to redistrict the state. If it fails, the governor calls a special session and gives lawmakers 30 days to pass a redistricting plan. If the legislature misses that deadline, the state's chief justice appoints a five-member commission, comprised of the chief justice, attorney general, secretary of state, speaker of the House and president of the Senate; the commission has 180 days to redistrict the state.

Other states provide models for alternatives, and Secy. of State Ryan has promised to convene a commission to consider Illinois' options. The commission will be chaired by Ryan and include lawmakers, scholars and delegates to the 1970 Constitutional Convention. Michael Murphy, spokesman for Ryan, said in early February that court action involving the current remap delayed the formation of the commission. Ryan plans to have the commission at work as soon as litigation on the current map is completed. Ryan is optimistic that a compromise will be found before the next redistricting.

Others are not as optimistic. Professor David Everson, editor of Comparative State Politics and professor in Sangamon State University's Legislative Studies Center, says a compromise is improbable: "Both parties are very suspicious of each other, and although they complain about the process, they know how it works and would be highly suspicious that any plan to change it would result in advantage for the other party."

The current process may not be the best, says Everson, but the real hangup is the intensely partisan nature of Illinois politics. "The process," says Everson, "would never get to the tiebreaker if the parties were less committed to slitting each others throats." Still, taking the responsibility for redistricting out of the General Assembly may not be the solution to partisan battles, he says, because the parties continue to demand a direct hand in the process and are just as suspicious of outside involvement as they are of each other.

Governor State's Green calls redistricting "the most partisan and political activity performed by a legislative body." He says that in the 1990s, legislative leaders facing a decline in party loyalty and a challenging political climate cannot afford to compromise: "It's better and easier for them to promote an all-or-nothing strategy to guarantee their own continued existence in leadership. If they win the draw, they are brilliant; if they lose, it's bad luck. Either way, they do not jeopardize their leadership position by hurting party colleagues with a compromised map. And unless drastic changes take place in the process, the redistricting commission concept will continue not to work."

In the last two redistrictings, both parties have tasted defeat and been on the losing end of the partisan mapmaking provided by the winner-take-all random tiebreaker. The frustration of losing the draw, now experienced by both parties, should pave the way for compromise. According to Everson, the best chance for change would be to address the remap procedure while the memory and scars are still fresh.•

Incumbent v incumbent
in new districts

Approval of the Republican (Jourdan III-A) redistricting map set the boundaries for the election of members to the General Assembly. While some details of the map were still under challenge in federal court in early February, candidates had to file nominating petitions by January 28. The filings set up incumbent v incumbent contests in both the primary and the general elections.

Under the Republican-drawn map all incumbent v incumbent primary contests involved Democrats, including:

3rd Senate District: Sen. Margaret Smith, who is black, and Rep. Pamela Munizzi, who is white.

6th Senate District: Sen. William A. Marovitz and Sen. John J. Cullerton.

15th Senate District: Sen. Richard F. Kelly Jr., who is white, and Rep. William "Bill" Shaw, who is black.

24th House District: Rep. Paul L. Williams, who is black. Rep. James D. Phelan, who is white.

76th House District: Rep. Tom P. Walsh and Rep. Frank J. Mautino.

The maps also set up a number of incumbent v incumbent contests for the November election, including:

29th Senate District: Republican Sen. Roger A. Keats and Democratic Rep. Grace Mary Stern.

39th Senate District: Democratic Sen. Ted E. Leverenz and Republican Rep. Dan Cronin.

35th House District: Democratic Rep. Terry A. Steczo and Republican Rep. Jane M. Bames.

59th House District: Democratic Rep. John S. Matijevich and Republican Rep. Virginia Fiester Frederick.

104th House District: Democratic Rep. Helen F. Satterthwaite and Republican Rep. Timothy V. Johnson.

The remap also prompted six former state lawmakers to run for the General Assembly. Those running for the Senate are former Republican Rep. Charles "Chuck" Pangle, former Democratic Rep. Douglas Kane and former Democratic Sen. Kenneth V. Buzbee. Running for House seats are former Democratic Rep. Jerry Washington, former Republican Rep. Anne Zickus and former Republican Rep. Ron Stephens.

Amyllen Bodily

March 1992/Illinois Issues/25