Chicago aldermen have taken some steps to bring transparency into the process of redrawing the city's 50 wards, but public hearings held last week demonstrate that some interested residents still don't have access to the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.

ICPR testified to the committee overseeing the remap, which is led by Ald. Richard Mell, Tuesday. Read on ...

Testimony to the Committee on Committees, Rules and Ethics
Concerning the Redistricting Process
January 17, 2012

Good afternoon, and thank you to the members of this committee, Council staff and Chicago residents for attending today’s hearing.

My name is Whitney Woodward and I’m with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. ICPR is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that researches and advocates for transparency and accountability in government. ICPR is also a member of the steering committee of the Illinois Campaign for Accountable Redistricting, also known as Draw the Line Illinois.

For the last two years, ICPR and the ICAR coalition have sought to increase public awareness about the redistricting process. We have worked to educate the public about the impact of redistricting on their government and the historic lack of opportunities for citizens to monitor and participate in it. ICPR also has proposed models to increase public engagement and advocated for substantive change.

The hours of testimony given to this committee last week demonstrate that Chicagoans are very concerned about the creation of their new ward map. But what also came to light at last week’s hearings were that some residents are grossly misinformed about the process. For example, some of your constituents told you that they didn’t believe that redistricting is needed. Others asked you to keep the map the same. A few suggested the City Council not use Census demographics like race and ethnicity.

These comments reflect a misunderstanding of the process and its intent.  Such comments also, in some cases, seemed to indicate skepticism of government and elected officials.

They also illustrate the work you, as the elected officials overseeing this important process, still must do to inform and involve your constituents.

Redistricting is a terribly complex issue. It is an important process mandated by and guided by the Constitution, federal law and state law, with the goal of protecting the voting rights of communities and upholding the principle of “One person, one vote.”  But because it happens only once every 10 years, and because this process has been previously largely closed to the public, a lot of residents may be unfamiliar with it.

While both ICPR and the ICAR coalition supported the transparency resolution this City Council approved in November, we noted that the steps called for in that resolution were, alone, not enough to guarantee residents a meaningful opportunity to observe and participate in redrawing their wards.

Hearings like today’s are critical to engaging residents and informing them about the proposals before you. If the committee and this City Council are genuine in its stated desire to bring transparency to this process, there are several steps you should undertake immediately to cultivate understanding and participation in this process:

- First, update the Chicago Redistricting website immediately with detailed versions of all redistricting plans introduced thus far, the criteria used to develop those plans and a narrative that makes accessible the plan to the general public. It would behoove you to add a section explaining the history of redistricting and how it has played out in Chicago in past decades. We also ask that you post online the transcripts for all of the past committee hearings on this subject and any written testimony or proposed maps. A timetable for how the Committee plans to complete this process also is badly needed. This website has the potential to be a great resource, but it requires a lot of work.

- Hold additional public hearings such as this afternoon’s one, but with two weeks’ notice and substantial advertising and outreach, to increase participation. Every alderman should be communicating with their to constituents about developments in this process and opportunities to participate in it. In addition, the Council should be doing outreach to the news media, and in particular the ethnic media.

- And at those hearings, actually engage with the Chicago residents by responding to their feedback and answering their questions. Any person willing to travel through the Chicago winter to spend three, four or five hours talking about redistricting should be afforded this basic courtesy. Such a willingness to engaging in a dialogue with residents carries the added bonus of building public trust in its government.

- And finally, incorporate Chicagoans’ suggestions, as much as you can, into any forthcoming compromise plan. Make that plan available for viewing as soon as possible, and give the public a final chance to weigh in on it before you take a final vote. This map will guide Chicago’s aldermanic elections for 10 years. It’s important that you don’t get it wrong. 

Careful redistricting can encourage a healthy political environment by creating opportunities for communities to elect candidates who understand their needs. Likewise, careless redistricting carries a cost, and I don’t mean the millions of taxpayer dollars that could be expended fighting a lawsuit or the tab for a referendum, but the cost to our democracy and the public’s faith in its government and elected officials.

The resolution approved in November stated that the City Council “commit to conducting the 2011 redistricting in a transparent and accountable manner.” While you have taken some laudable steps in this direction, much work remains. We welcome any opportunity to help accomplish our shared goal of making Chicago’s redistricting the most open and fair process yet.

Thank you, and I welcome any questions you may have.

Chicago aldermen committed in November to open the historically secretive process of redrawing the city's 50 wards to the public. But have they fulfilled this pledge?

ICPR testified before the Council committee charged with overseeing the redistricting process Wednesday evening at the first public hearing to discuss the three complete city maps which have been filed.

Read our comments and then take action!

Testimony to the Committee on Committees, Rules and Ethics
Concerning the Redistricting Process
January 11, 2012

Good evening, and thank you to the aldermen, city staff and Chicago residents for attending tonight’s meeting. Redistricting is a vitally important part of our government, so it is no surprise to see so many people in attendance tonight.

My name is Whitney Woodward and I’m with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. ICPR is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that researches and advocates for transparency and accountability in government. ICPR is also a member of the steering committee of the Illinois Campaign for Accountable Redistricting, also known as Draw the Line Illinois.

For the last two years, ICPR and our coalition have sought to increase public awareness about the redistricting process. We have worked to educate the public about the impact of redistricting on their government and the historic lack of opportunities for citizens to monitor and participate in it. We also have proposed models to increase public engagement and advocated for substantive change.

Given the profound impact that redistricting has on Chicago municipal elections, and the inherent problems that arise in a system that gives incumbent aldermen the sole authority to approve the wards governing their future elections, there clearly exists a need for sunshine in Chicago’s redistricting process.

While both ICPR and the ICAR coalition supported Chairman Mell’s redistricting transparency resolution, which was approved by the Council in November, we also noted that simply adhering to the letter of that resolution alone would be insufficient in guaranteeing residents a meaningful opportunity to observe and participate in the redrawing of their wards.

As such, now is a good time to review what steps the Council has already undertaken and outline what work remains.

First, I would like to again acknowledge and thank the Council for holding six preliminary hearings in November, in compliance with the resolution and in addition to the community meetings held by the Black and Hispanic caucuses. I attended several of those hearings and was pleased to see such diverse interest and testimony. However, we have noted that it would be preferable to have held those hearings with at least two weeks’ notice and more vigorous advertising. Luckily the Council still has a chance to meet our request as it continues its work.

The resolution also called on the Committee to hold “one public hearing on any Ward map submitted to the Committee … for final consideration.” While we are pleased the committee will hold two public hearings this week, including tonight’s, we expect additional hearings to be held on the 3 proposals already released and any forthcoming maps which may be drafted. In addition to two weeks’ notice, ICPR and ICAR members believe that providing demographics and criteria well in advance of these hearings is essential to understanding proposals and enabling thoughtful feedback.

Chairman Mell’s resolution also called for providing residents access to redistricting terminals, so they can draft maps. While I have not personally used these terminals, I’ve heard that they are functional and wanted to acknowledge this.

The resolution also called for the creation of an “informational website,” which has been done to some degree with www.chicagoredistricting.com. However, up until this weekend, the site was devoid of any relevant meaningful information outside of a copy of the hearing schedule from November. None of the draft maps – not even that from the Black Caucus, which was announced in September – were posted until just a few days ago.

While the site provides users with a table of demographics of the proposed districts, it doesn’t provide a key to understanding that data or a narrative explaining the intent behind the given proposals. The site does not contain copies of testimony given to the committee through in person hearings or electronically, nor does it contain transcripts or videos of those meetings. As of yesterday afternoon, the original location of this meeting was still listed; It was changed only after I left a message for Mr. Jaime Andrade in Chairman Mell’s office.

This website has the potential to be a valuable resource, but it’s not there yet. The additions I’ve outlined should be made promptly and prior to any drafts are acted upon.

On that note: In November, I asked that the committee make public the criteria that will be used to draft and evaluate new ward maps. And, indeed, the resolution states that the “Committee shall also provide to the public mapping criteria and an explanation of any redistricting proposal presented to the full City Council.”

But this has not happened. The public has no information about the criteria or goals furthered by any of these maps before you, such as which communities are protected under a given proposal, and how each ward would create opportunities for various communities to be heard. We again ask that this committee promptly release objective criteria that will be used to evaluate draft maps. Doing so will enable Chicago residents to better understand this complex process, the factors being weighed by aldermen, and how their community stands to be impacted by a given proposal.

The resolution stated that the City Council “commit to conducting the 2011 redistricting in a transparent and accountable manner.” While you have taken some laudable steps in this direction, much work remains.

Careful redistricting can encourage a healthy political environment by creating opportunities for communities to elect candidates who understand their needs. Likewise, careless redistricting carries a cost, and I don’t mean the millions of taxpayer dollars that could be expended fighting a lawsuit or the tab for a referendum, but the cost to our democracy and the public’s faith in its government and elected officials.

As you continue your deliberations, we again encourage you to consult your constituents, for their thoughts on their future ward map. We welcome any opportunity to help accomplish our shared goal of making Chicago’s redistricting the most open and fair process yet.

Thank you, and I welcome any questions you may have.

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform principles

1.  An accurate and complete count in Census 2010 is an essential building block for all redistricting efforts;
2.  The process used for redistricting must be transparent to the public;
3.  The redistricting process, at all levels of government, must provide data, tools and opportunities for the public to have direct input into the specific plans under consideration by the redistricting body;
4.  In order to achieve representative democracy, redistricting plans must be drawn in a manner that allows elected bodies to reflect the diversity of the populace, especially racial and ethnic diversity; and
5.  The redistricting process must be structured to promote fair, competitive, and representative districts.

Illinois Campaign for Accountable Redistricting principles

With respect to the map drawing process, ICAR organizations agree that maps produce by the State and City of Chicago should respect the following criteria: 
1.  That every ward drawn must achieve population equity; each ward must be comprised of the same number of people;
2.  That compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act, providing for majority‐minority 
districts or wards is imperative;
3.  That the wards be compact and contiguous;
4.  That communities of interest must, where possible, be respected, including minority 
populations; and 
5.  That wards be drawn without consideration of an incumbent’s address and without 
regard to political considerations.
 

Statement of Michelle Jordan

Board Member, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

To the Campaign Finance Reform Task Force

December 15, 2011

Good Morning members of the Illinois Campaign Finance Task Force. I am Michelle Jordan. I sit on the board of The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. We are a non-partisan public interest group that conducts research and advocates reforms to promote public participation in government, to address the role of money in politics and to encourage integrity, accountability, and transparency in government.

The  US Supreme Court has addressed the issue that we are here today to discuss. The Court in Buckley considered the constitutionality of public financing in its 1976  ruling. [Buckley v Valeo (424 U.S. 1).] The Buckley decision, while better known for holding that contribution limits are a legitimate exercise of state authority, held that the public financing for presidential elections was constitutional.

Some claimed that public financing, was "inconsistent with the First Amendment" Other arguments claimed that it discriminated against certain interests that violated Due Process. But the Court clearly stated that they found no merit in these contentions. (at 85) Moreover: the majority noted that there is a significant government interest in eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions  (96). So, on a federal level, it is settled law that public financing programs can be constitutional In fact, they have been enacted in many jurisdictions.

The draft report of this Campaign Finance Reform Task Force suggests (on page 42) that there might be a conflict between public financing and the Illinois' Constitution's provision in Article VII.  ("Public funds, property or credit shall be used only for public purposes." [Art. VII, Sec 1(a)])

Certainly it would be inappropriate, under Article VII, for example, if a sitting Secretary of State decided that photocopiers and other equipment of his office should be used to support the candidacy of the same sitting Secretary of State in his candidacy for governor, as was the case here in Illinois more than a dozen years ago.

ICPR, objects to the clandestine use of public resources to benefit favored candidates, candidates that were chosen for private reasons with out meaningful public input. But we see no conflict between the idea that public funds should be used for public purposes and accomplishing the goal of offering public financing to candidates for public office.

The question is, can there be a legitimate public purpose in creating a system that offers, on a voluntary basis, public funds to all candidates for an office equally. The answer is a clearly YES. Every major court ruling that has looked at campaign finance laws has concluded that it is legitimate for government to protect the integrity of its elections, to promote the honest operation of government, and to combat the fact or appearance of corruption that may arise as a result of privately financed elections. The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 specifically that public financing is a legitimate means of "eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions." On this basis, I am confident that public financing serves a public purpose, and would survive any and all Article VII challenges.

Without the specter of the next campaign hanging over their heads without the fear that they cannot raise the money equal or greater than that of their challenger public servants would be more able to perform the work that they were elected to do. It is unfortunate and corrosive to the public trust, and oftentimes demeaning and humiliating that they are required to beg for money from the citizens of Illinois, from the voters of Illinois, from their constituents their neighbors and friends or in the case of the judiciary the very attorneys who come into their courtrooms every day asking them for a fair and impartial hearing on behalf of their clients.

I am certain if you asked them no elected official would claim they enjoy the process. It is demeaning to have to beg for money to keep your job. We know that it has become a necessary evil if they want to continue their public service and for the best and the brightest public servants, that is the very thing that propelled them into politics: Serving the public.

I urge  that you recommend that the General Assembly consider a system of public financing.