Illinois House Republicans File Remap Suit, Cite "Partisan Gerrymander"

Illinois House Republicans File Remap Suit, Cite "Partisan Gerrymander"

Illinois Republican House incumbents filed federal suit on Wednesday against the Illinois Board of Elections over the Democratic Remap. The lawsuit asserts that the new districts drawn by Democrats not only discriminates against Latinos and Republicans, but it also called the remap a "partisan gerrymander."

In all, 10 Republican Incumbents and 6 others have been named as plaintiffs, they are: Peter J. Roskam (Il-6th), Joe Walsh (Il-8th), Robert J. Dold (Il-10th), Adam Kinzinger (Il 11th), Judy Biggert (Il-13th), Randy Hultgren (Il 14th), Donald Manzullo Il-16th), Bobby Schilling (Il-17th), Aaron Schock (Il-18th), John M. Shimkus (Il-19th), Edmund Brezinski, Michelle Caballero, Ralph Rangel, Louis Sanabria, Lou Sandoval and Laura Waxweiler.

In a statement, GOP members said:

"In joining this lawsuit, we strongly contest the Democrats' congressional redistricting map in Illinois. From the beginning, we have said that this map cannot stand, because it disrespects the will of voters, discriminates against the state's growing Hispanic population, and fails the tests for compactness and protecting communities of interest."

"While we are disappointed that Governor Quinn chose to rubber-stamp this flawed map, we are confident that an impartial review of the facts in court will expose the serious defects in this map and reverse the naked partisan power-grab contemplated by the Democrats."

"We look forward to the restoration of fairness and Constitutional principles in the redistricting process. The creation of a balanced congressional map is necessary to ensure that the people of Illinois have an opportunity to express their will at the ballot box and elect those representatives who best reflect their shared interests."

Naturally there will be those who believe that to the victors go the spoils and had it been Republicans in power - they would have done the same. Well, I have no doubt that would be true. However, I have to doubt that they would have gone after such a blatant remap. Anyone looking at the drawn boundaries could see what the intent was. As I alluded to in a previous post - the only thing you could say about those Senate and Congressional remaps was that they were highly creative. So give our political nimrods an "A" for that.

This remap, though, is galling since the Democrats already are in solid control. If this remap is permitted to stand, the Democrats not only strengthen their already powerful grip, but it would put a virtual noose around voters for much longer than the decade until the next census occurs. I don't know about you, but the Democrats have far too much power and this remap was purely about expanding it.

Illinois simply cannot continue to be governed by a group of greedy bastards whose only game plan is to tax, tax, tax. But that is exactly what you would get if these remaps are permitted to stand. Illinois Democrats have run roughshod over this state and in the process raped its taxpayers blind. There simply is no wiggle room left for generating the revenues it needs to get back on solid financial ground. So if people think that challenging this remap isn't important - think again. There is a hell of a lot more at stake than disenfranchising voters.

When one political party has that much control over the process you no longer have a functioning democracy, instead you have an oligarchy. And believe me, we are closer to that than you think we are. So forget about the arguments that this is over spilled milk, it isn't. If my history serves me correctly, that is exactly how the Nazis and Fascists were able to grab power and inflict their wrath upon the unsuspecting and the apathetic. And don't think for a moment that far too many Americans have already mistaken that their apathy is actually a rejection of their own rights, because we see it everyday. Americans have become so unengaged that it can only end badly. Very badly.

Yet the beat goes on doesn't it?

But don't say you haven't been warned - again!

 

Follow maciric on Twitter

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I don't know if I commented here or on Byrne, but the 6 others better be voters of a type protected by the Voting Rights Act, since the courts do not care about the equal protection of politicians, but of voters.

    However, I did mention here that this would be the interesting suit, not the state legislature suit.

    On the other hand, it doesn't seem like your post distinguishes between this suit and the prior suit brought by Rodogno regarding the state remap. That remap is what would entrench the state Dem. machine. This one merely undoes the result in several congressional districts.

    However, I was surprised that one of the beneficiaries of the last state remap, who made sure that things were gerrymandered so that she replaced the Republican from Northbrook, and has run unopposed ever since, says that she is not running again, according to the Northbrook Star. Maybe fatigue can do the job, although I'm sure Cullerton will find a more compliant puppet (and Quinn will probably find her a job, like he did for Hamos and Seals).

  • In reply to jack:

    I hope so too. The reason I didn't distinguish it because in my mind both effect the power of the machine. Refer back to my answers regarding 1st Amendment. By compressing GOP districts and keeping the status quo in the districts they already control they will also control who goes to Washington. The battleground is arguably in the US Congress so entrenching Democrats isn't equally as important there? I don't think so Jack since Democrats in Washington are the extension of the Rubberstamp politics we currently have in the state. So what's the real difference?

    Control the state legislature (like they already do) and then control the way we send representatives to Washington (which is what they want to do) and you have nothing but Democrats. Sounds like an entrenchment, as well as disenfranchisement, to me. At least by every definition I use.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    It is an extent of disenfranchisement.

    But, again, unlike the state, Dan Seals proves that you can run outside your district, so so can Dold. They may have created "empty" districts, but unlike the city ones that were extended into your area, there probably are some districts where Duckworth and Foster don't have the free ride they think they do.

  • In reply to jack:

    Running outside your district shouldn't even be allowed. Matter of fact i thought that was prohibited to the extent that the candidate must move in so many days prior to the General Election. I believe that is what that guy sorry forget his name he is the village president and triple dipper from Orland Park). But that is what I remember - ring any bells? I also believe that was the rationale Duckworth used to enter the primary.

    p.s. instead of spinning our wheels about the earlier threads - I don't think there is a 1st Amendment issue if the people demand a referendum for an "All-In" - it won't get rid of the slate-makers so they have no argument. It would just open it up to allow everyone onto the ballot irregardless of the party. The Atlantic article reference California and Massachusetts as examples, but I believe the author was trying to expand on it as a means to overcome the overwhelming preponderance that only the "anointed ones" have a chance to run and we are left with picking the lesser of two evils. In truth - lesser party's are disenfranchised in states like ours. And now with unlimited contributions - it just gets worse. We really are an oligarchy when you come right down to it.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    My First Amendment argument was only to the extent you implied banning parties or slatemakers, and, under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, contributions by corporations. The rest of my argument was based on that the nonpartisan primary has been tried in Illinois and doesn't work.

    With regard to running outside the district, again a distinction has to be made between the state and feds. The qualification in Article I Section 2 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution is "be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Not district.

    Maybe more pertinent from a journalism perspective, is this from the Daily Herald that Duckworth may have opposition in the primary,* and Walsh was thrown in with Kinsinger, but not acknowledging the lawsuit, which could throw that map out.

    __________
    *The named opponent is one of those of whom I said "he better not be relying on write-in votes."

  • In reply to jack:

    Now you have me confused. I don't think I said ban the parties rather render the slate-makers choices less powerful or ineffective. Again, opening up every single election, for every single office, to people of all political parties hardly bans anyone as it would include every conceivable party. Right now, for instance - in order for the Green Party to have gotten on the last ballot they had to garner a certain percentage of the vote to be a viable third party. The question is why should they have to? If someone wants to run under whatever banner I say the more the merrier. Hell make it look like that Horse Racing pot of gold in Agua Caliente where there are 20+ horses running in the same Trifecta race, the only difference of course is that the Trifecta requires you to properly select 1st, 2nd and 3rd to win. The All In Super Duper Non-Partisan Primary would only allow the the Top 2 vote getters to advance to the General Election. Naturally you could wind up with some strange results like 2 Dems or 2 GOPers or 2 Communists running against each other in the General Election, but oh well.

    Yes the non-partisan primary has been done in Chicago - but under their rules Jack - and those rules also disqualified some challengers. Now come on, you know the majority of Chicagoans will vote Democratic anyhow - it is Chicago. But I guarantee you, you relax some of those restrictive rules on the number of petition numbers you would begin to see candidates from the Chinese Coalition, The Hindus would have a party and so on and so forth. Perhaps the petition signature rule should read like this "Viable Candidate must submit a verifiable petition containing 5% of said constituency" or something to that effect - you would have parties coming out of the woodwork! And a large ballot with lots and lots of choices! Top 2 still advance.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Whatever inference I got regarding the points to which I made First Amendment points now has me tired.

    As far as New York carpetbaggers, I assume you refer to Hillary, but that was for Senate and she and Bill had to move to that state. The same for Bobby Kennedy.

    If one wants to be a U.S. constitutional theorist, I wonder how two House members from different states can marry and both stay in Congress, or one could even bring up the issue that Giffords went to her astronaut husband's home in Texas to recuperate. Traditional law is that a family has only one domicile (and it was the husband's, although I wonder how that would stand up now).

  • In reply to jack:

    Perhaps I could have framed it all better and we wouldn't being spinning like a top - I'll try and do better.

    Yes I was referring to Hillary and Bobby. I know they have to move there (which of course is something I would expect), it just got me that it could even be done. Most states, if I am correct, require a minimum number of days as a legal resident BEFORE they are permitted to file as a candidate (again, something I would expect) - but evidently New York, at the time (not sure if it is still true) did not since the Hillary all but declared her intentions before leaving the White House.

    The Constitutional Theorist would seem to be a difficult undertaking and am not sure what they would make of your example on Giffords. But I recall reading somewhere that the Constitution is to paraphrase "a living, breathing and ever-expanding document." It is hard to imagine what the Founders meant since society was so much more different. I would guess in today's day and age, with an evolving definition of what a marriage is, that their situation may not be viewed as critically by theorists if my paraphrasing is accepted as being true. Could it also be construed that her husbands domicile was actually temporary in nature since he needed to be in Texas to perform his duties as an NASA Astronaut? My guess is that it passes muster.

  • In reply to jack:

    As for Article I Section 2 Clause 2 - I think it may be time to tighten that up. If you want to represent the 11th District you should live in the 11th District as far as I am concerned. Fair representation is predicated on its constituency. Besides, if that were objectionable - then why can't I vote in say Jesse Jackson's District instead of the 11th where I live? Same argument? Now I also know too that some states, like New York allow for carpetbaggers to represent them, but is that really right or logical?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    No, Hultgren. Same point though. Of course, you might not have an objection to two tea party candidates fighting it out.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yuck - that would be the least desirable scenario. No I think I would rather have a American Socialist Party candidate versus say a Chinese American Party candidate. I mean come on, a little creativity here.

  • One correction (I see the reply buttons have run out).

    There is no such thing as a temporary domicile, as the definition includes a permanent intention to live there. Rahm had temporary residence in D.C., but the court in effect ruled that he didn't lose his domicile in Chicago. Of course, since the Municipal Code used the word "residence," the court had to too.

    I might have mentioned that according to NY Tax authorities, you don't lose your domicile by moving to Israel, and they think they still can get you there, because they don't presume that anyone would want to give up their U.S. residency. Of course, they had a tax commission that used any excuse to bleed people.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes, I see what you mean when you explain it that manner.

    Reply Buttons? I looked at General Settings and can't find a way to expand thread. I would just start a new comment thread until I find out if the number of comments threads can be altered. I suspect it may still be in the works because the old software allowed us to select the number. I'll find out though.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    It probably doesn't matter, because certainly in the last software, and probably this one, the replies become so narrow that one can't read them.

    Getting back to Track 3 from Track 4, the domicile discussion also explains all the evidence about stuff Rahm left in his basement, whether he bought a city sticker, etc. Reading the later opinions, there was no dispute over the facts, just over the meaning of "residence" in the Municipal Code.

  • In reply to jack:

    Sorry they just had another major upgrade and plus I busted my finger so I'm just getting on. Yes that narrowing was obnoxious but that was in the Moveable Type. Now with Word Press I believe they limit the threads just for that reason. I have to review this upgrade though to see what they did - dashboard looks different but that is more for me than readers.

    Rahm definitely had the facts on his side. I thought the challenge was bogus since he was working at the pleasure of the president. Everyone knew he was coming back to run for mayor eventually - I just think Daley shocked him with that announcement since he had been on some talk show about two weeks before talking about it. Besides he was renting out the house, payed the taxes, etc.. - good enough for me without a court ruling.

Leave a comment