Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Illinois Democrats slammed for rushing a partisan redistricting plan

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker

Advocates for nonpartisan redistricting are calling on Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker to reject the latest district maps approved by the Legislature.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Griffiths is the national editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.

The Democrats who run the Illinois Legislature didn't waste any time ramming new state House and Senate maps through the legislative process this week, despite criticism and pleas from community organizations for a more thorough and transparent process.

State lawmakers revealed new maps Monday to replace a series of maps that had already been passed prior to the release of updated census data. However, it was determined the new maps violated the "one person, one vote" principle, forcing a third set of maps to be offered the next day,. That final set of maps was approved hours later.

Democratic leaders argued that the maps accurately reflect the census data that was released in August. Republicans and other critics, however, called the maps a "sham" and accused the Democratic majority of putting partisanship ahead of better representation.


The overall redistricting process has been heavily criticized. Lawmakers rushed multiple hearings over six days ahead of the original map reveal on Monday. Then, after introducing revised maps on Tuesday that were drawn behind closed doors, legislative leaders held a single hearing half an hour later.

Witnesses who testified at Tuesday's hearing urged legislators to give the public time to weigh in on the maps before a vote was taken. The public, however, was not given that opportunity. Now, maps that critics say do not honor the diversity of Illinois' population are headed to Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker's desk.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"Drawing district maps in locked back rooms yet again, Illinois lawmakers underscored their utter disregard for the will of the people and for the bedrock democratic principles of open government by and for the people," said CHANGE Illinois Executive Director Madeleine Doubek. "Gov. Pritzker said he wanted maps that reflect the state's rich diversity. These maps fall far short of that request and should be rejected by him. Failing that, we hope the courts will force the correction of lawmakers' callous political mapping calculations."

CHANGE Illinois is a nonpartisan nonprofit that focuses on fair maps in Illinois. In a press release, the group pointed out that the legislative maps reduce the number of districts with majority Black and majority Latino voting populations. Aviva Miriam Patt from the Decalogue Society of Lawyers also noted in testimony that the revised maps split up Jewish communities in Chicago and its northern suburbs and cracked majority Blacks suburbs south of the city.

"Twice in a matter of months, Illinoisans have seen their overwhelming pleas for independent and transparent mapmaking utterly ignored by those elected to represent them," said Doubek. "Their maps make a farce of democracy and their mapmaking process was a charade. Illinois lawmakers have effectively demonstrated the clear and compelling need to end gerrymandering once and for all."

Other organizations that called for greater accountability and transparency in the redistricting process included the Latino Policy Forum, Common Cause Illinois, Illinois Muslim Civic Coalition, the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations and Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.

If approved by Pritzker, the new maps will be used for the next decade. The Legislature has not yet introduced new congressional maps but that is expected to be an equally partisan process.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less