Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Oak Park actually wants to help asylum-seekers, so give it the money Joliet refused
Next Post: Clean Air, Big Savings Central To Fleet Electrification Policy
Posted in:
* We talked yesterday about the newly proposed elected Chicago school board district maps. Here’s more from Chalkbeat Chicago…
Under state law, Chicagoans will elect 10 school board members from 10 districts in November 2024. The mayor will appoint 10 members from those same districts, and will also appoint a school board president. A 21-member hybrid board will be sworn in January 2025.
Then in November 2026, the 10 appointed members and school board president will be up for election, while the 10 elected in 2024 will continue serving their four-year terms. Going forward, all members will serve four-year terms and elections will be staggered, with half of the seats up for election every two years.
However, the law does not spell out how the map will move from 10 to 20 districts. Lawmakers continue to draw a map with 20 districts and have not made clear how they plan to divide the city into 10 districts for the 2024 election.
Sen. Robert Martwick, a Democrat representing the North West side of Chicago and west suburbs, said that figuring out how to create 10 districts for the 2024 elections and 20 districts for the 2026 elections has been difficult for legislators.
“The original idea was that we would draw ten districts and then after the election we would split them into 20 districts,” Martwick said. “Another variation on that would be to draw 20 districts and combine them for the purposes of the first election. The idea there was that everyone in the city of Chicago would get to pass a vote on this new elected school board.” […]
Corrina Demma, an organizer with Educators for Excellence Chicago that supports the map Leonard’s group proposed, raised concerns that lawmakers could propose residents in only 10 of the 20 districts would vote in 2024, meaning “only half of Chicago will have the privilege to vote … while the other half will lack a voice.”
More from Ms. Demma in the Tribune…
“At the end of the day, my question is still who gets to decide which 10 get to vote and which 10 don’t?” Demma said. “When we talk about equity and access, we want to hold that process for everyone. To discount half the city right out of the gate, we’re already being inequitable.”
Ms. Demma is right. As I told subscribers months ago, it’s highly doubtful that state legislators can legally deny half of the city’s voters the right to vote for a school board member while granting that right to vote to the other half.
* But the law isn’t written that way…
(b-5) On January 15, 2025, the terms of all members of the Chicago Board of Education appointed under subsection (b) are abolished when the new board, consisting of 21 members, is appointed by the Mayor and elected by the electors of the school district as provided under subsections (b-10) and (b-15) and takes office.
(b-10) By December 16, 2024 for a term of office beginning on January 15, 2025, the Mayor shall appoint 10 Chicago Board of Education members, with the advice and consent of the City Council, to serve terms of 2 years. All appointed members shall serve until a successor is appointed or elected and qualified. … The terms of the 10 appointed members under this subsection shall end on January 14, 2027. […]
(b-15) Beginning with the 2024 general election, 10 members of the Chicago Board of Education shall be elected to serve a term of 4 years in office beginning on January 15, 2025. Beginning with the 2026 general election, 10 members of the Chicago Board of Education shall be elected to serve a term of 4 years in office beginning on January 15, 2027. … From January 15, 2025 to January 14, 2027, each district shall be represented by one elected member and one appointed member. After January 15, 2027, each district shall be represented by one elected member.
You can probably see the problem here. The statute clearly mandates twenty districts (plus one citywide), but then goes on to require that each district shall be represented by both an elected member and an appointed member. If there are twenty districts, then that would imply forty members, which isn’t allowed, so the wording doesn’t make sense.
* They could change the statute and start with ten districts with one appointed and one elected and then split those up into twenty districts with everyone elected two years later, but that could also create problems. If, for example, a White person wins a relatively evenly divided combined district and lives in the Latino half, that person could have a leg up to win the Latino half during the following election.
Not to mention that they haven’t yet even figured out how the twenty districts would be initially nested into ten districts. You’d think that would be the first proposal. Instead, legislators only proposed creating 20 districts. How are people going to start circulating petitions for that?
Again, it’s a real mess and it breaks my brain every time I think about it, but so far, we’ve heard no solutions to any of this. Just a 20-district map.
My own suggestion would be to entirely scrap the phase-in and just elect all twenty next year.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:07 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Oak Park actually wants to help asylum-seekers, so give it the money Joliet refused
Next Post: Clean Air, Big Savings Central To Fleet Electrification Policy
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
=figuring out how to create 10 districts for the 2024 elections and 20 districts for the 2026 elections has been difficult for legislators.=
They cannot walk and chew gum most of the time so not much of a surprize.
First- get Lightford out of the mix. Her leadership is a disaster for schools. Second, fix the legislation so they can go from 10 to 20 or start with 20 and be done.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:18 pm
The phase-in was based off of having a Mayor opposed to the concept. I agree with scrapping it and moving all-in.
If not, I think it makes sense to have ten districts with two members each, which one of the members being up for election every two years.
Comment by NIU Grad Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:22 pm
===just elect all twenty next year.===
Yep.
Run ‘em, elect ‘em, then if you feel the need to “correct”, do so after “phase one” of electing 20
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:29 pm
The map really breaks up the south side in some unfavorable ways. Have to imagine it’ll be tough to get the map passed as currently constructed but who knows.
Comment by wowie Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:38 pm
Now that CTU has the mayor it has always dreamed of, maybe scrap the whole idea?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:42 pm
The opponents of the law could easily file a challenge that the statute is constitutionally vague thus invalid from the get go. Someone should figure this out in advance of the elected board taking any official action which could be subject to legal challenge for the above stated reason
Comment by Sue Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:47 pm
Have ten districts, each with 2 members. Multi-member districts happen from time to time at the county level.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:49 pm
Maybe the slow walk of all of this is intentional? The elected school board was a top priority of advocates AND CTU. Now that CTU has a mayor who is favorable towards them, maybe a delayed implimentation is ok? We all know that elections can have consequences and it surely saves CTU’s financial resources in the long run
Comment by A Possible Method to the Madness Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:50 pm
Single member districts make it harder to draw a fair map.
Comment by Dan Johnson Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 12:53 pm
50 Alders and a Mayor, 21 school board members, and nothing gets done. probably.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 1:13 pm
Randomly draw 10 of the 20 districts to initially be 2-year terms and elect all 20 at once.
Comment by Dunwich Snorer Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 1:14 pm
How about this? Allow the mayor of the City of Chicago to appoint members of the school board. If you don’t like their performance or the performance of CPS, hold the mayor accountable when he runs for re election.
Oh wait a minute…
Comment by low level Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 1:35 pm
I would probably say to delay for a year or three (and elect all 20) as opposed to just moving up the election of the entire board.
As currently established, there is no primary or run-off process for the seats. So assuming that there are more than 2 candidate running in each district, and no incumbents, there is a very strong likely hood that a majority of voters will have voted for individuals that are not actually serving on the board.
Plus, there is zero reason for this to be during the general election, when every other school district is up during the consolidated election. I would propose just having it at the same time as the rest of the City of Chicago elections, though I also understand that some folks may not want to wait until 2027.
Comment by Juice Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 1:52 pm
===I would probably say to delay for a year or three===
Yeah, that’ll go over well.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 2, 23 @ 2:10 pm