Chicago Ward Re-Map Challenge

[SamInTheLoop]

So the League of Women Voters and 14 individuals have filed suit to throw out the new ward map (which is very much, quite obviously illegal in multiple ways.....the question of whether a judge will stand up to the Chicago pol shenanigans is of course another matter), or apparently at the least to have it not implemented in city council committees and aldermanic decision-making until the next election.

Good for them. Quite frankly, I was surprised it took this long for an official legal challenge.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

So the League of Women Voters and 14 individuals have filed suit to throw out the new ward map (which is very much, quite obviously illegal in multiple ways.....the question of whether a judge will stand up to the Chicago pol shenanigans is of course another matter), or apparently at the least to have it not implemented in city council committees and aldermanic decision-making until the next election.

Good for them. Quite frankly, I was surprised it took this long for an official legal challenge.

I would think that there should be a law that ward/district boundaries must be made with 8(?) straight lines - let the pols play with that to their hearts content - make them earn that patronage.

[10023]

Background?

What are the new boundaries vs. the old?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

Background?

What are the new boundaries vs. the old?

Pure gerrymandering at its worst.

Which is why I have turned so sour on Government. Self-interest and corruption under the guise of 'serving the people'. At least the private realm is honest about being greedy...

[harryc]

I remember being zoned into new wards twice, once I was zoned into Schiller's ward - that was great (say what you may be she is good to have on YOUR side), the other time into Hanson's ward - his office resented us "newbees" calling. Night and Day.

[Rizzo]

For those that would like a graphic. The 2nd Ward just has me scratching my head. It cuts right through part of my neighborhood. The second ward is Octopus shaped.

http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com....6602554321289

[Vlajos]

What do they want? The new map was created to maintain a certain number of African American alderfolks, even though the population of African Americans decreased significantly in the last census.

[harryc]

#2 is my favorite - great set of maps ty

[ChiSoxRox]

I like how the 11th Ward (Bridgeport, the old Daley ward) has gained a spike up to the UIC area (to pick up on the gentrifying white population?)

Also what is going on with 15 and 16? 15 is shaped like a Y standing in 16's U shape.

Edit: Looks like the 16th is near-completely black, whereas the 15th is heavily Hispanic, and for some reason, the lightly populated industrial corridor between Damen and Western gets tacked onto the 15th instead of the 16th which surrounds it on three sides.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

So the League of Women Voters and 14 individuals have filed suit to throw out the new ward map (which is very much, quite obviously illegal in multiple ways.....the question of whether a judge will stand up to the Chicago pol shenanigans is of course another matter), or apparently at the least to have it not implemented in city council committees and aldermanic decision-making until the next election.

Good for them. Quite frankly, I was surprised it took this long for an official legal challenge.

Again, what are they seeking?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ I don't have any info on the 'story behind the story'. On the surface, they want the map thrown out because it was designed for incumbent protection (well - favored incumbent protection that is) as opposed to equal representation for individuals, neighborhoods, minorities, etc. Additionally, they are trying to block implementation before the next election.....

Here's my thing. For the life of me, I don't know how any spaghetti-mandered ward/congressional district, etc boundaries are ever allowed at all for the simple reason that in the letter of the law they must be "compact".

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ I don't have any info on the 'story behind the story'. On the surface, they want the map thrown out because it was designed for incumbent protection (well - favored incumbent protection that is) as opposed to equal representation for individuals, neighborhoods, minorities, etc. Additionally, they are trying to block implementation before the next election.....

Here's my thing. For the life of me, I don't know how any spaghetti-mandered ward/congressional district, etc boundaries are ever allowed at all for the simple reason that in the letter of the law they must be "compact".

My understanding is the map was created to maintain as many African American aldermen as possible, even though the City lost 200K AAs since the last map.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ That's certainly a motivation, (superceded by the desire to protect most incumbants) but even without it, I think there would be egregious illegalities with the map....

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ That's certainly a motivation, (superceded by the desire to protect most incumbants) but even without it, I think there would be egregious illegalities with the map....

First it was obviously illegal. Now it's egregiously illegal.

OK, so what is illegal about it? I'm not a lawyer. Help me out here.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Probably illegal in many ways, but how about let's begin with the fact that wards must be "compact". Have you seen the map? There's nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to gerrymandered legislative districts around the country for that matter, however, a huge percentage of legislative districts around the country are probably technically illegal because they're anything but compact (I'm sure many are also illegal in multiple ways as well), but either never get challenged in court, or the judicial system is reluctant generally to throw out legislative maps that are drawn by legislators. Everybody knows the real solution to this nonsense is to take the process of legislative mapmaking completely out of the hands of legislators, but relatively few jurisdications around the country have had the courage to take the necessary step.....over time, more definitely will, but why do I think Illinois, Cook County and the City of Chicago will be among the very last anywhere to seriously contemplate it - if ever....

[SamInTheLoop]

A couple articles on this from Spielman in the Sun-Times this week. Aldermen have been asked to preserve all documents and other communications pertaining to the new ward map decision. Pat O'Conner had some amusing quotes in the first article......my takeway is that he basically relayed 'why the hell do you think we'd be stupid enough to record any of the horse-trading and motivations behind the new boundary decisions, anyway....so there'd clearly be nothing to destory, thank you very much.....I mean, c'mon, we're not the brightest aldermen, but we're still Chicawwwgo aldermen'. Second article has the city formally requesting the case be thrown out of court, no surprise of course there. Here's a good one from that article: one of the city's arguments is that "redistricting is a "peculiarly legislative function" that has been "traditionally respected" by the courts in the absence of "invidious discrimination" on the basis of race." The basic takeaway there is that the city is actually in a way saying that 'hey - we know, you judges know, everyone knows - that it's ridiculous that we as legislators, get to redraw our own legislative boundaries, and we really can't help ourselves as politicians - particularly Chicawwwgo politicians - by not following the letter or spirit of the law in the process, and you judges have always let us get away with this - unless of course the way in which it was illegal has to do with some narrowly-defined race-related discriminatory issues......so, will you please continue to let us get away with the illegalities of the new map in this case too, please?'.

[SamInTheLoop]

Sun-Times reporting today that although nobody noticed, the lawsuit was dismissed 8 days ago. Disappointing and very obviously incorrect decision legally, but hardly shocking. Appeal reportedly coming.....