Clout Street: Group sues over new Chicago ward map

I'm sure many of you who were unhappy about last year's remap (the image you see to the right) would be very happy about this development. Someone stepped up to the plate and filed a suit!

More than a year after Chicago aldermen thought they had settled the contentious issue of redrawing the city's 50 ward boundaries, the new map they approved is facing a challenge in federal court.

The remap is unconstitutional because it was designed to protect most of the current aldermen, rather than ensure equal and full representation of individuals, minorities and neighborhoods, according to a lawsuit filed today by the League of Women Voters of Chicago and 14 individuals.

The suit also alleges that City Council committee chairmen have improperly implemented the new map before voters have had a chance to pick aldermen from within the new boundaries. Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration “acquiesced” in that change, the lawsuit adds.

“The purpose of the new redistricting plan for the 2015 elections is to entrench the majority of City Council members in their current offices,” the suit states. “The purpose of the plan’s immediate implementation is to give the incumbents an unfair electoral edge by allowing an unlawful ‘early bird’ representation of the persons voting in the next City Council elections in 2015.”

The suit seeks to force aldermen to adhere to the old ward boundaries in decision-making until after the 2015 elections and to get a judge to name a person or special committee to draw up a new map “that will be fair, impartial and protect the voting rights of racial minorities.”
...
But to satisfy most members of each caucus, and 41 aldermen overall, the number of people within each ward differed by as much as 8.7 percent, which the suit contends violates the one-man, one-vote principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the council majority started using the new map three years early so aldermen could gain favor with new voters, the suit alleged.

To get those 41 votes, aldermen drew wards with “grotesque shapes and boundaries,” the suit states, citing the new 2nd Ward, the only ward to be moved to a completely different location.
...
The suit alleges that the two substantially altered wards were designed to “oust” Ald. Robert Fioretti, 2nd, and Ald. Nicholas Sposato, 36th, who “have shown political independence from the City Council majority.”
...
The map also “fragments some of the best-known Chicago neighborhoods into multiple wards,” the suit states. Back of the Yards and Logan Square are each in five wards, and Chinatown is in two, it states.

The suit also takes issue with efforts by aldermen and the administration to start making decisions based on new ward boundaries.

Last October, the Latino and Black Caucus chairmen and the council’s most powerful chairmen wrote to all of their colleagues, making it clear they would jump-start the shift to new boundaries. “We are proposing that the City Council, from this time on, implement the boundaries as reflected in the map that it passed earlier this year,” the letter states.

A community resident a prominent one who heads a neighborhood organization affected by the remap always said "it was a done deal". We shall see if this lawsuit changes things. Although I have wondered would they have passed this map knowing that there's a chance it may not hold up in a court?

Alderman Brookins on the ruling to carry a gun in public

Our neighboring Alderman of the 21st Ward to the west comments on a ruling today in a federal appellate court that rendered any ban on carrying a gun in public in this state as unconstitutional:

Ald. Howard Brookins, 21st, chairman of the City Council black caucus, welcomed the decision, saying allowing Chicagoans to carry concealed weapons would help level the playing field in neighborhoods where law-abiding citizens feel like they need firearms to protect themselves.

"Certain people will have a sense of safety and peace of mind in the ability to do it," Brookins said of conceal-carry. "I know that even people, for example, just trying to see that their loved ones get homes safely are in technical violation of all sorts of weapons violations. If you just walk out to your garage and see that your wife is coming in the house safely, and you happen to have your gun on you, you're in technical violation of our ordinance. So I would hope all these ordinances would be consolidated so there's one set of rules and people would know where the bright line is to what they can and cannot do with respect to carrying a weapon."

Brookins said he's not worried doing away with the state ban would lead to an increase in gun violence as more people walk the streets with weapons. "I think those people have a gun now, they've just been made criminals because they can't legally have it," Brookins said. "And I think the gangbangers and thugs are going to have a gun regardless."

If you were to ask me, Brookins is correct. Sadly we will continue to have those who believe in gun control who still fear that our streets will turn into the wild west. He's also correct in stating those who want guns law-abiding citizens or not currently possess guns. Banning guns isn't necessarily an answer, but what do we do about those who are intent on using a handgun to commit a crime?

Via Newsalert!

Showdown in handgun ban

However the US Supreme Court will decide this issue may well affect us in the City of Chicago.

I want to expose my bias here. I would support any attempt to take aim at the handgun ban as I support the 2nd Amendment. Banning guns doesn't necessarily make citizens safer as it is my belief that there are those citizens who would disregard any gun ban for their own aims mainly criminal aims. Law abiding citizens should have the right if they so choose to own and possess a gun on the confines of their own property.

That being said here's a report from FOX Chicago on a grandfather from Morgan Park who is the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case on Chicago's gun ban:

Here's another article from Greg Hinz at Crain's Chicago Business:

Look for a big crowd —and some verrry contentious debate — on Tuesday morning when the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on whether to overturn Chicago's ordinance banning most private possession of handguns in the city.

The 30-year-old measure has intense local support. Not only Mayor Richard M. Daley but four area members of Congress joined Chicago police chief Jody Weis on Monday at a press conference defending the law.

But most insiders expect the court to veto the law as it overturned a similar statute in Washington, D.C., a year ago. The only real question likely is how far the court goes to affect related laws, such as measures limiting who can carry concealed weapons on the street.

This is also of note from that piece:

As Mr. Daley put it, "Cities and states should be able to decide for themselves how to protect their citizens."

Well while I think I should be allowed to own a handgun at home, I can't disagree with that. The question that should be answered is how far should a city or state go in banning guns? Should there be a total ban allowed or can it be decided that gun owners shouldn't own certain types of guns?

There are those strict constructionists who believe in the text of the 2nd Amendment which says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I understand that people will look at the term "militia" and then assume that this means a collective right. That you have to sign up for the Reserves or the National Guard or something like that in order to bear arms. Indeed there are those who have more trust in military or police to handle guns in our society. Although there are those who may have little faith or trust in our military personnel or the police to handle their weapons and their authority to use arms.

If I was to read that literally I see a distinction between the people versus a militia. If it's a collective right as written and adopted not long after the 1789 ratification of the US Constitution (the Bill of Rights including the 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791) then why mention the people at all. Surely there is a decent explanation for that even if it's in some past definition of terms as the English has evolved since 1789.

BTW, I want to note the Chicago Tribune. On my own blog I wrote about Mr. McDonald bouncing off of a Tribune article from January:

Amid the clamor of the gun-rights debate, McDonald presents a strongly sympathetic figure: an elderly man who wants a gun to protect himself from the hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood. But the story of McDonald and his lawsuit is more complicated than its broad outlines might suggest. McDonald and three co-plaintiffs were carefully recruited by gun-rights groups attempting to shift the public perception of the Second Amendment as a white, rural Republican issue. McDonald, a Democrat and longtime hunter, jokes that he was chosen as lead plaintiff because he is African-American.

And no matter what the court — and the public — might make of his story or his case, legal experts say McDonald is poised to become an enduring symbol.

"Regardless of how this case goes, Mr. McDonald's name is set in legal history, at the same level as Roe v. Wade and Plessy v. Ferguson," said Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University. "Schoolkids are going to recognize that in this case, something dramatic happened."

Read the whole thing while it's still available. It's a good story.

I also want to note that in the Republican gubernatorial primary, the entire field supports concealed carry in our state. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states in the union where concealed carry isn't the law. The presumed Republican nominee for Governor, Bill Brady, is on record as supporting concealed carry in Illinois. 

As always comments are always appreciated. Let's hear your thoughts on whether or not you support gun control or a gun ban in the city. If the Supreme Court overturns Chicago's gun ban ordinances how do YOU think it will affect Chicago.

Petition Drive to Amend Illinois Constitution Asks for Unicameral Legislature

A press release posted at The Bench from state-political activist John Bambeneck on making the General Assembly a one house legislature in response to the current gridlock in Illinois. Some might say why does Chicago have 50 Aldermen. Now there may be those who asks why we have to legislative houses that can't get anything done. Should Illinois have a unicameral (one-house) legislature?

Con on the con-con

I was diasappointed to find out last week that the Con-Con referendum was defeated heavily in Illinois. It would be suspected that it had something to do with the approved Con-Con question and the remedy to correct the original question that seemed biased. The remedy being that the corrected question was to be handed on a flyer.

The reason for that was more or less economical. When that ruling came down from Cook County Circuit Court the idea was certainly to use the ballots that were already printed. The idea was that it might be expensive or indeed cutting it too close to just print new ballots with the corrected and improved question.

Well there might have been a number of reasons for it's absolute defeat at the polls. Perhaps the people of Illinois wasn't ready to make any revisions. Of course that's not to say there aren't those who are still whining about it. There could be another lawsuit because of the results although there are those who will say that's not likely because of how the results aren't even close.

Either way I want to point out this post from Clout City about the Con-Con vote in Chicago...

The referendum lost statewide, so there will be no convention, thus ending my never-really-existed political career.

In Chicago it wasn't so much that it lost -- which it did -- but that relatively few people bothered to vote one way or another. Citywide, roughly 66 percent of the voters who took a ballot voted on the referendum.

The I-couldn't-care-less-one-way-or-the-other totals were particularly high in the 14th Ward (76 percent), the 12 th Ward (70 percent) and the 15th Ward (69 percent).

I know that vote totals generally fall with referendum questions, if for no other reason than that they're buried at the bottom of the ballot, beneath all those freaking judges. But this issue had draw considerable media attention -- it was the subject of rallies and ads both pro and con. And the vote came as poll after poll showed that voters in Illinois and Chicago are hugely dissatisfied with the general drift of politics in state government. So you'd figure folks would at least venture an opinion on things.

By the way, the "no" vote was highest in southwest- and northwest-side wards, most likely because seniors on fixed income in those parts didn't trust the convention delegates -- whoever they might be -- to convene without somehow or other mucking up their pensions.

Well it had to boil down to the pensions. Well for many reasons the pensions aren't doing well in this state. They are said to be underfunded anyway, yet those who were in the employ of state government still expect theirs. It's probably another issue that could use some work.

Of course pensions probably aren't the only reason we're not going to have a con-con in 2010. There are those who didn't believe that the state constitution didn't need to be changed and it had nothing to do with pensions. Either way if anyone believes in reform in Illinois, it's going to be an uphill battle, unfortunately.

Eye on Chicago: Illinois Constitutional Convention

This aired on CBS2 this morning apparently a debate between Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn & former state Treasurer Dawn Clark Netsch.

EDIT: Another CBS2 report with such people as Pat Quinn, Paul Vallas and Dawn Clark Netsch talking about a con-con.

FAQ about a con-con

BND answers some frequently asked questions about a state constitutional convention as Illinois will consider the current ballot question about whether to hold on to make revisions to the current state constitution.

Pro con-con commercial

Also via CapFax! You can check out a negative con-con ad.

Roland Burris cut's an anti-con-con ad for the radio

Listen to it here. Via CapFax.

State Constitution: If it’s not broke . . .

Cheryl Jackson:

While both sides have valid arguments, we at Chicago Urban League feel it is important for voters to remember that the vast majority of the problems African Americans face do not stem from flaws in our state Constitution. A shortage of good-paying jobs, failing schools and lack of access to capital to fund businesses–none of these problems will go away by attacking our state Constitution with a red ballpoint pen. High crime rates, scarce affordable housing and deteriorating infrastructure in our neighborhoods–these are social ills that cannot be blamed on the Constitution. In fact, the estimated $40 million to $80 million cost of a Constitutional Convention could be better spent purchasing computers for public schools on the South and West sides, or hiring more highly skilled teachers in the toughest neighborhood schools.

As for education funding, the Constitution already clearly spells out the responsibility of the state to provide a high quality education to all of its citizens, and it's high time for Illinois lawmakers to honor that.

In 1808, the designers of the state's original Constitution wrote in a useful feature for making changes to the document: It's called an amendment. We, at the Urban League, believe the tools to lead Illinois forward are already in the hands–or certainly within reach–of our legislative leaders. The other tool lies in your hands. As a voter, you have the power to elect the candidates you believe will make the changes our community needs. If you're not informed about who you want to vote for, their policies and their track records, then I suggest you do your homework before Tuesday rolls around.

A couple of Con-Con items from CPR
Constitutional Convention Debate Draws Big Donors
Supporters of Constitutional Convention Push Forward 

Vote "Yes" for Illinois "Con-Con"

Via Marathon Pundit!

Also read this column by Phil Kadner!

Despite what people tell you, no changes in the constitution can be made without a final vote at the ballot box.

All the corrupt, powerful forces that have controlled this state oppose the constitutional convention.

If you trust them, vote "no" on Tuesday. If you don't, vote "yes."

If You Don't Want Change, Vote No

Rich Miller's syndicated column addressing the arguments against a con-con.

ADDITION: Also from the CapFax, US Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is in support of a con-con...

Today, Tuesday, October 28th at 1:30pm Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., and Alderman Sandi Jackson will join Lt. Governor Pat Quinn in endorsing a “yes” vote on the November 4 Constitutional Convention.

Awesome news!

Editorials on the con-con

All from RRStar.com. To start we look at a piece that says that the current state constitution works by former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar:

llinois government may not be working, but our constitution works.

Throughout most of the nearly four decades since voters approved the state constitution, several governors and hundreds of legislators found common ground to move Illinois forward.

I worked with Democratic and Republican lawmakers to put state finances on solid footing, balance the budget, make Chicago Public Schools more accountable and help thousands of people move from welfare to work. Under this constitution, we have seen major capital improvement programs and advances that enhanced our economy and quality of life.

Our constitution, regarded as one of the best in the nation, certainly does not require the sweeping rewrite that a convention could produce. Like the U.S. Constitution, it is an enduring, broadly worded document that protects our rights, lays out a sound framework for governing and is insulated from the passions of the moment.

Consider an alternative document in California. The California Constitution allows for the initiative and referendum process that resulted in powerful interest groups convincing uninformed citizens to support laws that have a significant impact on state and local budgets. This process, touted by many constitutional convention proponents in Illinois, has put California taxpayers in a precarious financial position and left them paying the bill.

Here's a piece in favor of a con-con:

Some say we shouldn’t change the rules that control the politicians, that we should just change the politicians. We can change politicians, but politicians don’t change. Expecting all politicians to suddenly become virtuous is like expecting wolves to suddenly become vegetarians.

Some say we can’t afford a convention because it would cost $78 million, as though all election costs have to be borne by the convention, as though delegate selection and amendment voting can’t be done at regular elections. The $78 million figure comes to about $336,500 per elected delegate. Perhaps that estimate tells us why the state borders on bankruptcy.

Some say delegates may interfere with public pensions.

Concern for public pensions actually is a reason to vote for con-con, not against it. State government mismanagement, which includes failure to fund public pensions, has brought the state to the brink of bankruptcy. When the state is insolvent, so are pension funds. Our next opportunity for reform like this doesn’t come around till 2028. Failure to act now makes it unlikely there will be any pension funds by then.

I was unwilling unfortunately to really excerpt this thing but this is pretty good and worth reading the whole thing. It answers a lot of fears and concerned about convening a con-con.

Another piece not in favor of a con-con:

From the staggering financial expense to the erosion of strong protections on issues such as discrimination and tax caps, the chamber board believes the constitutional rewrite would be a costly and ineffective measure to address our state’s real problems.

The public resources that would be allocated to the constitutional convention — approximately $100 million and countless hours of our politicians’ time — could be put to better use in addressing our state’s real issues: budget deficits, school funding and crumbling infrastructure. 

If approved by voters, the constitutional convention wouldn’t be held until 2010, giving legislators a pass to do nothing until that date to address the state’s problems. The problems and challenges within our state cannot be attributed to flaws in our constitution, when in fact, the Illinois Constitution is considered by many legal scholars to be a model for other states to follow. By allowing politicians, special-interest groups and single-issue groups to rewrite our constitution, we could face the possibility that these problems would amplify. 

A piece in favor of the con-con...

Illinois voters will be presented with a historical opportunity to fix the structural problems that plague Illinois government and fix deficiencies and loopholes in our current constitution. There are problems that can only be fixed in a constitution, but the entrenched interests have come out saying a convention is unnecessary. Here is why they are wrong.

There are two arguments that a constitutional convention is inadvisable: the necessary changes can be made through other means (i.e. electing better politicians) and that there is no way to ensure that reform-minded delegates get elected. Skipping past the individual merits of these arguments for a moment, the arguments perfectly illustrate the problem. On one hand, we need to elect better politicians (I agree); on the other hand, we can’t enough elect good politicians to make a difference (I also agree). The opposition to a convention presents no solutions, just another intractable problem.

Finally this next piece basically runs down the issues of the con-con and the fact that it's on the ballot. Some of this has already been seen from time-to-time:

Whether a convention happens depends on the vote totals on the referendum question. There will be a convention if 60 percent of the people voting on the question say “yes” or if a majority of the people voting in the entire election vote “yes.” Otherwise, there will be no convention.

If voters authorize a constitutional convention, two convention delegates would be elected from each of Illinois’ 59 state Senate districts — a total of 118 delegates. Whether those prospective delegates would run for office on a partisan basis or a nonpartisan basis would be up to the General Assembly to decide as it worked out the mechanics of conducting a con-con. To be eligible as a delegate, a person must be a U.S. citizen who is at least 21 years old and who has lived in his or her state Senate district for at least two years before the delegate election.

Supporters of a “con-con” say that voting yes will offer an opportunity to fix what ails state government. Opponents say a yes vote won’t repair the problems because they’re caused by the individuals currently in government, and not by the constitution, which remains fundamentally sound.

The two sides of the debate have attracted an unusual mishmash of individuals and groups.

Some things to consider before you go to the ballot box on Nov. 4th. That is if you haven't early voted already.

Con-Confusion: Ballot language still at issue

Clout St:

There seems to be some confusion about the revised language voters are supposed to get with their ballots on the question of whether to rewrite the Illinois Constitution.

A Cook County judge and an appellate court approved "corrective" language after critics said the ballot question seemed written to encourage votes against holding a constitutional convention.

But supporters of a convention say they are hearing the new language is not being distributed statewide, and that was indeed the case in St. Clair County this week.

County Clerk Bob Delaney said Thursday that he had not been distributing the “corrective notice” because he and the county state’s attorney didn’t think the original ruling applied statewide.

Apparently different interpretations of rulings.

State constitution battle unpredictable as Springfield

Clout St:

Voters will be asked Nov. 4 to decide whether to rewrite the Illinois Constitution, and the answer may depend in large part on how they feel about a state government plagued by scandal and dysfunction.

The campaigns to influence that decision have taken on all the trappings of a fight between arch-rival politicians, filled with misrepresentation, inflated rhetoric and viral e-mails. Even the way the question appears on the ballot was subject to court challenge and continued complaints about fairness.

At stake are the words of the 1970 Illinois Constitution—still regarded as one of the most progressive in the nation. Praised by Republican and Democrat alike, it banned sex discrimination before the warring over the federal Equal Rights Amendment, protected the rights of the disabled and condemned acts of hate based on religion, racial or ethnic background.

Still, even fans acknowledge the constitution's flaws.

Read the whole thing and while you're at it read up the con-con roundup over at the CapFax.

Responding to APIC's arguments against a con-con

Rich Miller responds to the Alliances to Protect the Illinois Constitution arguments against the Con-Con in his syndicated column.

Illinois Voters To Decide If Constitutional Convention Called

You've probably heard some of this over and over again on this blog, but I found another interesting article talking about what voting for this con-con entails. WKYX:

On Nov. 4, Illinois voters will determine if the state will have a convention to reconsider its Constitution. Every twenty years the present Constitution in Illinois requires the question to hold a convention be presented to the voters. There has been some controversy over ballot wording and in court action, Cook County Circuit Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. ordered the state to print notices to be given to voters to inform them about misleading language on the ballot. If, Illinois voters approve the question, the state legislature will be required to call and pay for a constitutional convention. The measure, as require in Article 14 of the Illinois Constitution, will require at least a 60-percent favorable vote on the question or a favorable vote by 50 percent of those who vote in the election to pass. Two delegates will be elected from each Senate district. Voters seeking more information about the question along with arguments for and against holding a constitutional convention may go to www.cyberdriveillinois.com. Secretary of State Jesse White has posted voter education material on that site.

I'm for it personally. I hope many of you have seen both the for and against and consider voting in favor of one in two weeks!

Two con-con articles

This article from sjr.com discusses those who are in favor of the con-con and those against one:

Supporters of a “con-con” said state government’s gridlock can’t get much worse and that a convention could help.

“I don’t see how it’s going to get better unless we do something drastic,” said Rep. Jack Franks, D-Woodstock, and a backer of the constitutional convention.

“The process is broken,” said Bruno Behrend, a Chicago-area attorney and radio talk show host who supports a constitutional convention. “There’s no new people getting into the process,” he said.

Opponents of a con-con said that lawmakers could act on recall, taxes and other issues without a constitutional convention.

They also said the existing document is fundamentally sound and that state government’s problems are largely caused by personality conflicts among top state leaders. A con-con would cost millions of dollars, they added.

Kevin Semlow of the Illinois Farm Bureau, which opposes a constitutional convention, said that calling one now would be akin to replacing every part on a car just because it got a flat tire.

“You’re probably going to break something that works pretty well,” he said.

Behrend countered that Semlow’s comparison isn’t valid.

“This is a jalopy that has broken down all over the place,” Behrend said.

The next article discusses interest groups' support for a con-con and check out the Q&A's when you follow the link:

At issue is whether the state should elect delegates to redraft a constitution that will be sent back to voters for approval. 

Franks and his Con-Con Yes organization are hoping to install term limits, reconfigure districting rules, revamp property tax and income tax measures and offer voters a way to kick elected officials out of office before their term expires. 

Franks considers a constitutional convention process as a way to give citizens a voice. But opponents argue it will only lead to horse-trading and shenanigans by the same political players who are causing havoc at the state Capitol. 

"It may do more harm than good," says Paula Lawson, president of the League of Women Voters.

Voters can also change the constitution through individual amendments to the constitution. Opponents of the convention argue that this is the appropriate course for some of Franks' proposals, but supporters say such referendums end up getting killed in the legislature before they get to the voters. 

"You have to trust the voters," Franks says.

Some of the news about interest groups' opposition I've seen involves a chain e-mail that seeks to influence people especially retired public employees to vote against this convention. Public employees are up in arms about the con-con because they're concerned about their pensions. Of course the arguments against this whole idea that a con-con can play around with pensions is that the provision in the current state constitution can't just be magically eliminated leaving retirees or current state public employees from getting their pension.

Thus any future pension provision in a future state constitution, indeed if they choose to amend the constitutional provision for pensions it's probably safe so say that this can only effect future state public employees. Not those who are current and certainly not those who are retired.

Honestly the issues about pensions as I understand it is about either underfunding them or raiding the pension funds. In that case there is some work that needs to be done on them. Is the con-con a place for that? Can this be worked about by state government in the current environment? Both are good questions.

Illinois doesn't need a new Constitution

Carol Marin makes her case against a con-con.

Otherwise in other con-con news an appellate court has ruled affirming the other ruling by a Cook County judge. Get a hold of the actual decision here although the details are thin. Just tells you how the court ruled.

Addition: Here's more from Clout Street...

Efforts to alter a question on the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters if Illinois should hold a constitutional convention were blocked Thursday by a state appellate court.

The ruling means that the question, which a Cook County Circuit Court judge has ruled was misleading, will remain on the ballot as is. Voters instead will be handed a notice with a neutral version of the question, though they must cast their votes on a ballot that features the old language.
...
An attorney for Quinn's office said they've already asked the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider the Circuit Court opinion, but the court rejected that request. Attorneys now are mulling other options they hope could lead to a review by the state's high court.

Looking past the Con-Con spin

Rich Miller's syndicated column talking about state pensions as it related to the November vote on the Con-Con and also check out his Sun-Times column from last week.