Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Climate/energy
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
Posted in:
* After getting whacked by the courts during the 1981 remap process, the Democrats have always tried to appease Latino groups in the redistricting process to avoid another lawsuit. As we discussed yesterday, the new do-over maps passed this week have so far not dissuaded the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund from moving ahead with its legal challenge. And now comes the Latino Policy Forum…
The Latino Policy Forum urges Governor Pritzker to veto the Illinois legislative maps passed by legislators this week, which do not equitably reflect the state’s Latino community.
Despite recent 2020 census data indicating that Illinois added 309,832 Latinos (the largest population increase among racial/ethnic groups statewide), no Latino-majority districts were added in the maps passed by the general assembly. In fact, preliminary analysis and reports show that some Latino-majority districts are diluted even more, further hindering the community’s ability to elect the representatives of their choice.
Furthermore, as with the maps from the spring, the Illinois legislature did not provide advocates with a reasonable timeline that would enable community input.
The Forum supports and stands alongside efforts led by the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations (UCCRO), the IL Muslim Civic Coalition, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and other allies that denounce the passed maps.
…Adding… Leader Durkin…
Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) released the following statement on Governor Pritzker’s comments today about the new legislative maps:
“The Governor needs to live up to his campaign pledges for a fair map and veto another attempt by the legislative Democrats to silence communities across Illinois. The Governor does not just work for the Democratic insiders who got him elected. He needs to listen to the voices of groups like Latino Policy Forum and the IL Muslim Civic Coalition so that all Illinoisans feel that equity and inclusion are part of the mapmaking process.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 10:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Climate/energy
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
On behalf of all Illinois Republicans good luck MALDEF!
Comment by Andrew Ridgley Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 10:39 am
Elections have consequences.
Comment by Otoh Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 10:39 am
Elections have consequences.
Yep. We’re certainly seeing that in Washington right now.
Comment by Birds on the Bat Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 10:41 am
Did any Latino legislators in ether chamber vote against these maps?
It’s rhetorical.
That doesn’t mean these maps conform or have no issues, but how can cases be made if these two groups seemingly had no sway in process with their own constituency voting on the maps?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 10:42 am
Dems: We only gerrymander because we have to comply with the VRA.
Also, Dems: VRA? What is this you speak of?
Comment by JB13 Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 10:51 am
GOP: We only want gerrymandering so we can comply with the compact and smaller size districts.
Also GOP: Counties vote, we have more counties that are red than those blue.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:07 am
OW - I don’t know about who is being rhetorical in 2021, but I was in a room in 2011 where I heard a Latino legislator specifically tell their Latino constituents that they “couldn’t help with the remap” and that they were “on their own”. They would be voting for the Dems map whatever it would be. Other Latinos told me they had similar conversations with their legislators in 2011.
Comment by muon Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:08 am
===who is being rhetorical in 2021===
It’s a rhetorical exercise, actually, that of course, no Latino legislators voted against the maps on the Dem side…
… so how that plays in a court, it probably shouldn’t if it’s about the VRA, but the silly to this all is that finding allies who could vote against the map, there were none
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:11 am
==finding allies who could vote against the map, there were none==
Which was my point. Based on what I witnessed in 2011, they would find none because the Legislative Caucus was deemed more important to the members than the ethnic ties to the community and constituents.
Comment by muon Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:17 am
A demographic/geographic question to which I do not have the answer…is it more difficult to create Latino-majority districts. For example, are Latinos more spread out than other minority groups; if you have lots of small latino communities in rural areas, it would be harder to connect them and craft a Latino-majority district.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:43 am
I love seeing Republicans beg MALDEF to rescue them after most Republicans voted against bill after bill after bill that would provide some basic dignity to immigrants living in Illinois. How many times has MALDEF gone to court to fight against Republican efforts to keep immigrants on the margins?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:43 am
How did challenges go to the 2011 map(s)?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:43 am
A sincere question: how dispersed is the Latino population growth? Yes, a lot of people were added. But was it spread across the state or was it concentrated in places such that more Latino majority districts, beyond what already exist, could be drawn?
Comment by Moe Berg Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:49 am
===For example, are Latinos more spread out than other minority groups===
I don’t know about all, but they are generally more dispersed than Black folks.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 11:55 am
>how can cases be made if these two groups seemingly had no sway in process with their own constituency voting on the maps? As with the “silent six” aldermen in Chicago in the 1960s, incumbents will seek to protect themselves, and they benefit from packing.
Comment by Put the fun in unfunded Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 12:01 pm
===As with the “silent six” aldermen in Chicago in the 1960s, incumbents will seek to protect themselves, and they benefit from packing.===
How successful has MALDEF been?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 12:06 pm
==How successful has MALDEF been?==
Well, they’ve gone all the way to the Supreme Court on redistricting cases and won. So, somewhat successful.
Comment by well... Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 12:18 pm
=== How successful has MALDEF been?===
The answer is they’ve had success, but in this instance success is likely predicated on the “suggestion” (warning?) already put to the old maps and the map makers should have (we’ll see if it passes muster) considered the MALDEF argument(s)
I’m going to be interested seeing if the map(s) drawn pass VRA thoughtfulness, but also can they be lacking where MALDEF says?
The Republicans are a joke to this process at this point.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 12:19 pm
==The Republicans are a joke to this process at this point.==
That may well be true. Which is why it will be hilarious when they benefit the most because the Democrat mapmakers got too greedy.
Comment by well... Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 12:24 pm
There is not a map that can be created that will make the repubs the majority party in Illinois.
Voters are the ones that decide that.
The rest is just caterwauling by the loser party.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 12:50 pm
Take both of these at once;
===Which is why it will be hilarious when they benefit the most because the Democrat mapmakers got too greedy.===
Dunno if “greed” is the right characterization, I’d say, this is ALL predicated on the map being stricken, Dems saw the numbers work but the VRA asks were ignored (again, if it loses)
It’s also why…
===There is not a map that can be created that will make the repubs the majority party in Illinois.
Voters are the ones that decide that.===
… the sheer lack of diversity in the Trump GOP and to the cult like need to be rigid in policy, the winners in primaries in what could be swing districts allow Dems a greater advantage due in large part to the nominee… not the map.
If the map(s) are struck down, would they merely need to be redrawn, not unlike the Chicago City Council map issue years ago?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 1:05 pm
==the Democrat mapmakers got too greedy.==
Perhaps, but that would not stop them from creating more Latino districts; the maps would be stronger (legally) if there were more Latino districts and yet no less Dem leaning.
I can think of two likely reasons why the maps do not have more Latino-majority districts. 1) The map makers were too focused on protecting members. 2) The Latino population growth was too dispersed to craft additional Latino-majority districts.
If it is the latter, the MALDEF suit will probably fail. MALDEF will need to make the case that additional Latino-majority districts are geographically possible; it would be very helpful (necessary?) to their case if they can show that with some maps. I’m guessing the Dems will make the case that they did their best but that the Latino population is too widely dispersed.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 1:09 pm
What do they want instead? What process can deliver better maps?
Complaining is easy. Calling for a veto is easy. But how does that get to a demonstrably better outcome?
So far, the practical effect is that they’re calling for some ransom federal judge to draw the map. Of course the Republicans are ok with that; there’s a slim chance they’ll have influence and slim is more than they’ve had.
But what do MALDEF and the Latino Policy Forum hope to gain?
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 1:43 pm
==Complaining is easy. Calling for a veto is easy. But how does that get to a demonstrably better outcome?==
Spot on. Show us a better map; that would make a much better case (in court and in the public).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 4:08 pm
==Show us a better map==
Drawing the map is easy, convincing 73 people that this is to all to their political benefit is not. That’s why you have to go legal.
Comment by Dosseis Thursday, Sep 2, 21 @ 5:14 pm