Independent Maps Proposed Referendum Struck Down By Illinois Supreme Court
On August 25, 2016, the Illinois
Supreme Court issued a decision in Hooker,
et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al., commonly known as the
“Independent Maps” case. This case
involved a citizen-initiated ballot initiative that was slated to appear on the
November 8, 2016, ballot and would have asked the voters to weigh in on how
Illinois’ legislative districts are mapped. Governor Rauner supported the ballot initiative appearing on
the ballot. However, legal challenges
were filed against the ballot initiative and ultimately, the Supreme Court
decided that it violated the Illinois State Constitution and it would not
appear on the ballot.
Article XIV of the Illinois State
Constitution allows for changes to the constitution to be effected through
three different methods, one of which is a ballot initiative. In May 2016, Independent Maps, the proponent
of the above ballot initiative, filed a petition to place a proposed amendment
to Article IV, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution to provide new methods
for redistricting legislative districts in Illinois.
The redistricting system proposed
by Independent Maps would have fundamentally restructured the current
redistricting system. The current system
essentially allows for the General Assembly to remap the legislative districts
every ten years (post-census) and has been criticized at different times by
members of both political parties as a tool for gerrymandering. The proposed ballot initiative would eliminate the General Assembly’s role in the process and place the primary responsibility for drawing these maps in the hands of a new
“Independent Redistricting Commission” whose members would be selected by the
Auditor General through a process involving very little legislative input.
After the ballot initiative was
filed, a “taxpayer suit” was filed by the “People’s Map” political action
committee.
The suit sought to invalidate the proposed ballot initiative and to
enjoin the defendants from disbursing public funds to determine the petition’s
compliance with the election code. The
main issues were whether the ballot initiative violates (1) Article XIV,
Section 3, which provides that only “structural and procedural” changes to
Article IV, Section 3 may be made this way, and (2) the “free and equal” clause
(Article III, Section 3) of the Illinois Constitution.
The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately
found that the proposed initiative violated the Illinois Constitution for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed amendment inserted the Auditor
General into the redistricting process despite the clear constitutional
mandates outlining the Auditor General’s duties and responsibilities; according to the court, this amounted to more than “structural and procedural changes,” as provided in Article XIV of the Constitution; and
2. The new duties assigned to the Auditor General
by the proposed amendment would change Article IV, Section 3 by adding the
Auditor General to the redistricting process; according to the Court, this also went beyond
procedural and structural changes.
While the Court declined to
address the “free and equal” clause arguments, it acknowledged that there may
be other methods to achieve redistricting but this ballot initiative. The Court even suggested that there were
other nonlegislative actors capable of filling the duties outlined in this
proposal or individuals that are unencumbered by the limitations in Article
XIV.
The dissent disagreed with the majority's opinion. "The Illinois Constitution is meant to
prevent tyranny, not to enshrine it,” Justice Robert Thomas wrote. “Today...
four members of our court have delivered, as a fait accompli, nothing less than
the nullification of a critical component of the Illinois Constitution of
1970... the majority has irrevocably severed a vital lifeline created by the
drafters for the express purpose of enabling later generations of Illinoisans
to use their sovereign authority as a check against self-interest by the
legislature.”
As is evidenced by the split
court and the multiple dissenting opinions filed, this is a hot-button issue
that is not likely to go away anytime soon. In
fact, more redistricting petitions are currently circulating and Governor
Rauner has even appeared in commercials supporting redistricting reform. The framers of the next question on
redistricting, or any other constitutional change, will have to look to the letter of
the law to ensure compliance and to avoid having the question being removed from the
ballot.
Post Authored by Tiffany Nelson-Jaworski, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment