Why should anyone care about Gerrymandering? After all, it only affects the politicians.
Gerrymandering goes to the heart of democracy by denying individuals the right to choose their elected representatives in free, open and fair elections. A Gerrymandered district gives an elected official the power to select precisely which voters they want to represent. Voters are reduced to choosing their favorites in a race that is fixed before they even get to the window.
(Back to Questions)

But we’re not Iowa. Illinois is a big state with a diverse population. How can we protect the rights of minorities?
This argument is a classic Red Herring. The proposal contained in SJR-CA 104 and HJR-CA 56 specifically requires that the rights of minorities must be protected.

In fact, if any map failed to meet these requirements it would be immediately challenged and rejected by the courts. This is a just a handy excuse by politicians who want to retain their ability to draw the districts for themselves.
(Back to Questions)

Isn’t the League of Women Voters proposal (SJR-CA104 and HJR-CA 56) just a Republican plan in disguise?
That is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin.
For years, the national League of Women Voters has made redistricting reform a top priority. As they began working on a proposal, they invited all parties to participate. Republicans took them up on that offer and agreed to provide input, but were given no opportunity to reject or significantly modify the guiding principals of those developing a proposal.

Democrat legislative leaders declined to participate.

The amendments that have been filed in the Senate and House (SJR-CA 104 and HJR-CA 56) actually owe much of their heritage to the findings of the Illinois Reform Commission, a bi-partisan panel appointed by the Democrat Governor of Illinois following the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich. Five members of that commission have endorsed the new plan.

Certainly Republicans would like to play on a level field. But, any proposal should be judged on its merits. These proposed reforms have won broad support from groups and individuals as varied as the:

• Better Government Association
• Patrick Collins, Brad McMillan, Shelia Simon, David Hoffman and Duane Noland of the Illinois Reform Commission.
  
• IL Campaign for Political Reform
• Common Cause - Illinois
• Illinois Chamber of Commerce
• Americans for Prosperity
• Illinois Alliance for Growth
• Illinois Farm Bureau
• Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO)
• United Power for Action and Justice

The current system has been universally recognized by experts of all political stripes as undeniably flawed. The bottom line is that everyone in the state will benefit if candidates must compete fairly for the support of the public. 
(Back to Questions)

I’ve heard that opponents have their own plans. How should we pick?
There have been a number of proposals advanced and there will likely be more. Here is the best way to separate the good from the bad: Does the proposal keep redistricting under the control of the politicians?

Many of these proposals only turn things over to an independent body if the politicians cannot agree on how to divvy up the booty among themselves.

That's not real reform. One thing the advocates of these systems don't mention is that this is almost identical to how the state's congressional districts have been drawn for the past two decades. Illinois' congressional delegation has met behind closed doors and drawn a map that divided up the state to each of their liking.

The result has been some of the most painfully contorted congressional districts imaginable. In fact, the 17th Congressional District has become the "poster child" for ridiculous gerrymandering in Illinois.

Think of it this way: the supporters of that idea think that reform means that the back room deal to divide up the state should be agreed to by 60% of the politicians, instead of 51%. Real reform will take the drawing out of the backrooms and out of hands of the politicians.

Which are you more comfortable with?
(Back to Questions)

What difference does it make? Illinois is dominated by one party anyway.
...and Ted Kennedy's seat will never be won by a Republican.

Let's be honest. One-party rule has sent Illinois over the financial cliff. We can't pay our bills, our pension system is the worst-funded in the nation, anti-employer legislation has driven away jobs and we have a massive budget deficit.

So long as politicians get to draw the districts for themselves, they will never want to compete for your vote and we'll never break the iron-grip of the special interests. Ask yourself, would the state be this bad off if our elected officials knew they had to earn your vote? Isn't that what Democracy is supposed to be about?

Clearly, state government in Illinois isn't working under the control of insiders. Maybe we ought to try democracy for a change.
(Back to Questions)