IL Dems won't pull a Delay (meaning add more Dem districts)

[WI_DEM]

According to Kos.

IL. Dems have "chickened out" on redistriting. "The conclusion that was reached...is we have more concern for the institution than we do our partisan concerns."

This was echoed by Rep. Raul Emanuel the head of the DCCC.

I'm sure Delay is laughing his ass off as once again Dems decide not to fight fire with fire.

http://www.dailykos.com
(you'll have to scroll down a bit)

[Placebo]

1. There's no real need for it...

we're about as blue as you can get, and it's only a matter of time before however many remaining republican representative we have get beat.

I think we should be applauding the decision, frankly. No sense in trying to be DeLay-lite.

[WI_DEM]

3. apparently some felt there were seats that could be made more

democratic including Hydes.

[ISUGRADIA]

8. there is still a strong rural republican base in illinois

IL is blue by about a 55-45 margain. There is no way you're going to get rid of more than 2-3 Repubs in IL through election breaks. Redistricting could have brought that total to 4-5.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

40. If it gets us a single seat extra, I'll take it!

Democrats need to do to the Rethugs what they have done to us.

I'd love to see Hastert "Delayed" out of the House.

[Padraig18]

2. There's a question as to the constitutionality of such a move.

I don't know what Texas' constitution provides, but any number of legal experts--- including our own Democratic AG, Lisa Madigan--- doubt whether an attempt to mimic Texas' action would pass muster with our state Supreme Court.

[pie]

10. republicans would not look at it that way

They would just start pounding away at us until
they got what they wanted.

[Padraig18]

12. So, we should be idiots?

I don't see the point in wasting the time, energy and money, not to mention the incredible bad will it would generate--- and trust me, it would generate a LOT of bad will for our party.

[tx_dem41]

22. Agree with you, Padraig...again

Why do I seem to be agreeing with you so much lately? :)

[Padraig18]

26. Thanks!

Yes, we do. I think a great many may be surprised when they find out just who all this 'stir up the base' talk brings out of the woodwork, don't you?

;)

[davsand]

37. Isn't the IL Supreme Court still Dem majority?

Unless there is specific language barring it, I can't feel that the IL Supreme Court would be all that scary with a ruling.

Maybe I'm inclined to like those guys lately because of a decision they handed down criticizing uncharitable behavior by a non-profit nursing home and removing its property tax exemption (yeah--I'm a tax geek--ok?) but they really have been fairly liberal on a some different issues for a few years now.

Shoot, when Moses Harrison was the Chief Justice he gave a speech in support of Pro Bono service that reduced me to tears. I spoke to him about it a month or so after that and it was all I could do not to fall on my knees...

I dunno about the legalities of it all to redistrict--I've never really looked intensively at the laws pertaining to it--but unless there is a specific prohibition of it in Federal code, I can't see how it'd be a problem. I could be missing something there--so don't think I'm talking out my butt--ok?

I do wish they'd redistrict if they can--if for no other reason than to clean up those district lines that are SO skewed for the GOP. Let's clean up Tim Johnson's district (the 15th) and by all means, let's clean up Lane Evans' District too. They are abominations that are drawn specifically to favor the GOP.

They should have been contested at the time, if you want my opinion on it...


Laura

[madrchsod]

4. it has been interesting how

others outside this state view this.as far as i`m concerned it was the wise thing to do given how the this state works. it`s a balancing act that no one wants to upset.

[Placebo]

5. Definitely, it seems like most people who don't live here...

are the ones all foaming at the mouth jumping mad about it.

[Padraig18]

6. They squalled like mashed cats last time, when it was clearly legal

I can't imagine them quietly acquiescing to something of highly questionable constitutionality, can you?

[pie]

7. This breed of gutless Dems has to go

When Delay kicks us in the nuts, we say: 'Thank You, SIR!!!'
These people ask Delay for permission to please use the lavatory.
Perhaps it is because of traitors like lieberman and gutless
Dems like this that we have fallen into the pit of despair.

Give me some more Kucinich, Kennedy, Waters, Feingold!
We know exactly where they stand on every issue, and we like it.
We, the people, want to fight for our party. Let us fight!
Lead us!!!

The status quo is not working.
We need to evolve into a party
that fights.

[Padraig18]

9. You're an expert in Illinois law and politics?

Please enlighten us as to how to constitutionally do this thing, if you would be so kind...

[pie]

13. republicans win because they fucus on a goal and don't let up

They always try to win, and they never let up.
I think we need to start finding ways to win, as well.

[Placebo]

14. Even if it means breaking laws?

I mean, where do you draw this "whatever it takes to win" line? :shrug:

[pie]

17. I think I know one thing:

If we don't fix the no vote counts mess real soon
we will lose our voice as a party.
We need some fresh ideas. We need some aggressive
lawmakers acting in our name.
The system is broke. I want to see it fixed.

[Placebo]

11. Do you honestly believe...

that Kucinich, Kennedy, Waters, or Feingold would have gone ahead with this illegal unconstitutional redistricting plan?

I thought the new DU mantra was,"No DINO! No Republican-lite! We need to win be being proud of our liberal politics!" and now there's whining when the leaders of one state have decided not to act like Republicans?

:shrug:

[pie]

15. We have been so marginalized as a party that we

have almost no say in what happens.
Looks to me like bush will manage to
eventually pass most if not all of his crazy
agenda. The people don't want it, the people don't like it.
We better start fighting back.

[Placebo]

16. "We better start fighting back."

How? Be violating the constitution? Where does one draw that line?

[pie]

18. It begins with open honest discussion

Which I think happens right here.
I don't know about you but I am genuinely afraid of what is
happening to this country.

[Padraig18]

20. We're afraid of what's happening to our country, too.

We have succeeded in removing the state government from the Republican party's three-decade-long stranglehold by carefully and cleverly organizing and advancing a credible opposition to them. It didn't happen overnight, nor will we overturn the RW Repubs' stranglehold on ower in Washington overnight, I'm sad to say; what we must do at the local, state and national level is what we did here in Ilinois. Gov. Dean has some excellent ideas on how to make that happen, and I hope we have the good sense to listen to him.

[pie]

23. These are nail biting times

I will follow if Dean will lead

[tx_dem41]

24. Please don't speak for all Democrats...

if you feel marginalized, go right ahead and wallow in that victimhood. Others of us will stick to our priniciples and fight your battles for you.

[DARE to HOPE]

19. This was a good decision--people are cycnical enough about politics...

...and we ARE 55%/45%--believe me, I am in the south suburbs, and most could be persuaded to vote either way in most elections! The move to two Democratic Senators, on top of the Democratic governor and others over the last couple years is a result of Republican shenanigans which totally disgusted the voters. Do we want to follow in their shoes?

Or do we Democrats still stand for Truth, Justice and the American Way?

[pie]

21. I hope you are correct

[kevsand]

25. I just looked at the Illinois Constitution

and I don't see a word in there about Congressional redistricting.

I'll look again, but I suspect it's statutory rather than constitutional.

[kevsand]

27. Illinois' Congressional districts were created

by the Illinois Congressional Reapportionment Act of 2001 (10 ILCS 76). http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=176&ChapAct=10%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B76%2F&ChapterID=3&ChapterName=ELECTIONS&ActName=Illinois+Congressional+Reapportionment+Act+of+2001%2E

There is no mention in this act of where the authority came from. Until I find a specific referencing clause in the Illinois Constitution, I have to assume that the authority comes from the federal Constitution. If that's true, we are no different legally than Texas.

The Illinois Constitution, BTW, can be found here:

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conmain.htm

[Padraig18]

28. The argument I heard Lisa Madigan make was 'equal protection'

She said, in essence, that re-districting now would violate the 'equal protection' clause, since it would undo what the law said must ONLY be done once every 10 years. I should have been more specific regarding what the constitutional objection was. Sorry.

:hi:

[kevsand]

29. It's a valid concern, to be sure,

but it seems to hinge on language specifying when redistricting should occur. I haven't yet found that language, but I'm still looking.

The federal Constitution says this in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three."

This says "within every subsequent Term of ten Years," which would seem to leave a lot of wiggle room.

I don't see that the timing of the "Enumeration" is affected by any of the amendments. Having failed to find the specifying clause in both the Illinois Constitution and statutes, as well as the Federal Constitution, I guess I'll try to find federal statutes that might apply.

I didn't expect a civics adventure today, but what the heck...

[kevsand]

30. Title 2, Chapter 1 of the United States Code

of Federal Regulations covers "Election of Senators and Representatives." Its various sections cover the number of districts, when elections should be, how to handle vacancies, basically everything, including what happens at reapportionment time.

The only part I can find that refers to the decennial nature of the process is paragraph a) in Section 2a:

"On the first day, or within one week thereafter, of the first regular session of the Eighty-second Congress and of each fifth Congress thereafter, the President shall transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population, and the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled under an apportionment of the then existing number of Representatives by the method known as the method of equal proportions, no State to receive less than one Member."

All this really says is that the number of Representatives each state is entitled to should be recalculated every ten years. It says nothing as to when or how often the states may redistrict.

Paragraph c) in this section describes how to hold elections in the absence of a timely redistricting, but this doesn't happen much because the federal courts have shown a proclivity for stepping in fairly quickly in the absence of state action.

I'm starting to strike out on finding a clause that specifies when or how often the states must redistrict. Anyone else having better luck?

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. Like Paddy said, Lisa Madigan made an equal protection argument

She said that Illinois law provides for the apportionment of legislative districts decennially, and that to change that ex post facto after the law had already overseen to the apportionent of the districts would be to deny both the citizens AND the Congressman the equal protection of the State's laws.

[kevsand]

32. But that hinges on the question of whether

Illinois law does in fact provide for the apportionment of legislative districts "decennially." If that is in fact the case, then she is perfectly right.

I just haven't been able to find anything to nail that down. In fact, I can't find any reference in Illinois law to reapportionment of Congressional districts, other than the single act that describes the boundaries of the new districts (referenced above).

And the federal law doesn't seem to help, inasmuch as it appears to leave it up to the states to decide how (and when) to draw the districts.

I'm not saying she's wrong. I just want to find the document that proves her right.

[Padraig18]

33. I've been looking, too.

The state site's search engine needs help, frankly.

[kevsand]

35. Boy howdy!

Tell me about it! Did they try to balance the state budget by firing all the web designers?

[Padraig18]

36. LOL!

I wondered almost that exact same thing when I was particularly frustrated trying to use it!

:P

[kevsand]

38. The federal code that charges the states with drawing districts

is Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 2c:

"In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a (a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress)."

Again, no indication of when or how often. Who writes this stuff, anyhow? I'm trying to remember the quote about making sausage...

[Padraig18]

39. "Those who enjoy sausage should never watch it being made".

That's the Irish version, at any go.

:)

[Massacure]

34. There is a reason why Delay is in hot water.

Jumping in after him wouldn't be such a great idea...