Independent Maps, the group spearheading the proposed fair redistricting amendment to the Illinois constitution, has abandoned its effort after an unfavorable court ruling.
This actually occured in the last week of June — see this Eric Zorn blog post which links to news articles and provides commentary. Essentially, if I understand correctly, the judge ruled that only the specific topics addressed in the constitution may be amended by a constitutional amendment process. Zorn’s post focuses on the parallel effort to institute term limits, though, so I’m not sure if I’m entirely reading this right, or whether Independent Maps would have had good grounds for a successful appeal, but judged its chances in the parallel fight over the number of valid signatures to be too low to win, ultimately, both battles.
I didn’t post on this earlier because, to be honest, I couldn’t figure out, from what I read, exactly what was going on, and didn’t want to speculate. It seems, from what I can tell, that it would almost be necessary to have a petition-based amendment to allow amendments, or citizen referendums, on a broader range of topics, then have a second petition drive for an amendment for a fair redistricting proposal.
But then there was an editorial in the Tribune yesterday, about the pension crisis, and a judge’s ruling that earlier attempts at pension reform were invalid because not only are state employees’ future pension accruals guaranteed at whatever the formula is when they are hired in, but their future retiree healthcare benefits are likewise untouchable. If that’s so, if there is no recourse for appeal, we are so screwed. And it’s preposterous to think that the constitution-writers meant to promise such a gigantically open-ended benefit. (Ha! How’s this: healthcare is guaranteed, on the basis of the same technology as when the employee was hired in. No new drugs, no new cancer treatments. But we’ll give you a bed and some painkillers.)
Funny thing is that the Trib suggested the very thing I’d written about in one of my early blog posts, and even tried the game of “write your legislators” and “write a letter to the editor” (which went unpublished): an amendement to allow reductions or elimination of future retirement benefit accruals.
And I was just struck by the futility of it.
Madigan will do whatever it is that provides him the most power (and, ultimately, wealth — though it’s my understanding that, for him, it’s all about the power, and the wealth comes later, when he calls in favors). If he wanted an amendment on the ballot, he’d do it. If he’s happy with running the state into the ground, he’ll keep it up.
Madigan has already shown his ability to derail citizen-sponsored attempts at reform: tossing signatures is an art form that’s been perfected (it’s how Obama got his start), as well as endless litigation.
Could Rauner, if he wins, actually take on Madigan in the same way that he promises to take on the unions? The only power Rauner has, ultimately, is veto power, including the “amendatory veto,” which as Quinn has discovered in his attempts at reform, isn’t much.
About the only option at this point is to throw the millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions if needed, at Madigan’s district, telling each and every voter, personally, that they bear responsibility for the downfall of Illinois in the near future. But, then, he’s probably got them all locked up with patronage.
Time to move? Oh, yeah — except that we, like pretty much everyone else who sees the situation Illinois is in and hasn’t left, has reasons why a move would be difficult for our family.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In