Illinois Voters and Remap Reform

409 views

Published on

Time series data on two reform
proposals

--Charlie Leonard, Paul Simon Institute visiting professor – April 30, 2013, Springfield, IL

Published in: News & Politics, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
409
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Illinois Voters and Remap Reform

  1. 1. Illinois Voters and Remap ReformTime series data on two reformproposals--Charlie Leonard, Paul Simon Institute visiting professor – April 30, 2013, Springfield, IL
  2. 2. Current Law• Districts must be “compact and contiguous”
  3. 3. Current Law• Districts must be “compact and contiguous”– “Contiguous” is precise; “compact” is not
  4. 4. Current Law• Districts must be “compact and contiguous”– “Contiguous” is precise; “compact” is not• 24 states include language about preserving“communities of interest.” Illinois does not.
  5. 5. Current Law• Districts must be “compact and contiguous”– “Contiguous” is precise; “compact” is not• 24 states include language about preserving“communities of interest.” Illinois does not.• In “safe” districts, incumbents worry aboutprimary, not general election challenges
  6. 6. Current Law• Districts must be “compact and contiguous”– “Contiguous” is precise; “compact” is not• 24 states include language about preserving“communities of interest.” Illinois does not.• In “safe” districts, incumbents worry aboutprimary, not general election challenges– Primary voters more partisan and ideologicallyextreme than general election voters
  7. 7. Current System• If Legislature can’t agree on a map
  8. 8. Current System• If Legislature can’t agree on a map– Eight-member redistricting commission
  9. 9. Current System• If Legislature can’t agree on a map– Eight-member redistricting commission– If partisan tie, draw winning party from a hat
  10. 10. Current System• If Legislature can’t agree on a map– Eight-member redistricting commission– If partisan tie, draw winning party from a hat• Encourages parties to draw most partisan,advantageous map possible—whycompromise?
  11. 11. Reform 1: Neutral Commissioner• In case of partisan tie on redistrictingcommission, have the Supreme Court appointa neutral member to break tie
  12. 12. Reform 1: Neutral Commissioner• In case of partisan tie on redistrictingcommission, have the Supreme Court appointa neutral member to break tie– Simon Poll has been testing this reform since ‘09
  13. 13. Reform 1: Neutral Commissioner
  14. 14. Reform 1: Neutral Commissioner
  15. 15. Reform 2: Independent Panel• Have an independent panel draw redistrictingmap for legislature and governor to approve– Simon Poll has been testing this reform since 2010
  16. 16. Reform 2: Independent Panel
  17. 17. Reform 2: Independent Panel
  18. 18. Conclusion• Both reforms enjoy strong support over time• Intensity of support growing• Support for both remains strong amongregional and partisan subgroups

×