Daily Herald opinion: Things to be said on redistricting: At its worst, House’s proposed amendment is a distraction from the discussion we really need on reform

The first thing to be said about the Illinois House’s approval last week of a proposed state Constitutional amendment on redistricting is that it is a laughable commentary on the workings of state government that Democratic lawmakers suddenly favor redistricting reform after spending the past decade and a half fighting proposals intended to promote fair representation.

The second thing is that it’s a shame it took a politically partisan U.S. Supreme Court and a year’s worth of redistricting mayhem around the country to get their attention.

And a third, even more important, thing is that, not surprisingly, the solution they came up with — entirely along partisan political lines — is woefully inadequate and actually harmful to the broad debate regarding fair representation.

Fearful that a Supreme Court that has already weakened much of the federal Voting Rights Act is poised to do yet more damage, the House approved an amendment that would list conditions for lawmakers to consider when drawing district boundaries. In addition to existing requirements involving, among other matters, contiguity, compactness and equivalent population size, the House language says boundaries must be written “to ensure that no citizen is denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice on account of race; (and) to create, where practical, racial coalition or influence Districts …”

These bits are aimed at the presumption the court will strike down provisions of the Voting Rights Act that protect the influence of minority groups, enabling, in House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch’s words “some states (to) quickly undertake new gerrymandering schemes aimed at stripping away Black and Latino and other minority representation.”

To the limited extent of this comment, Welch has a point and, were he in another state, probable cause for concern. But considering that Democrats have already gerrymandered Illinois so successfully and overwhelmingly and that they routinely disregard the intent of almost every provision of existing constitutional stipulation on boundary drawing (seriously, look for a “compact” district on a legislative map without rolling your eyes), the practical impact of the court ruling Welch expects is virtually nil in this state.

The prospect of an adverse court ruling does, however, give Democrats a pretense for muddying the constitutional language on redistricting in ways that even further entrench their control over the important process of actually ensuring that every voter has an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

And that is the most important thing that must be said about this action. It advances the impression that our election system is designed to do the exact opposite of what the law says and give politicians the tools to manipulate it to increase their own influence and disenfranchise that of large bodies of voters.

This is, to absolutely be sure, not solely a Democratic phenomenon. President Donald Trump set off a wave of midterm-focused shenanigans in Republican states where he and supporters in his party flagrantly declared that they were acting — even to the point of defying or distorting the United States Constitution — so as to tilt the system in their favor and thwart the chances of their opponents. When Democrats in California and elsewhere began following suit, it further emphasized the crumbling mess in the foundation of our democratic process.

The answer is an independent system for drawing representative district boundaries, built on strict rules and designed to ensure that all political interests are respected and none predominant. Somehow, such a system must become part of a nationwide dialogue.

Here in Illinois, the Senate must now take up the House amendment. If it is approved there, the measure will go on the November ballot and become the primary theme of the debate on redistricting reform. It is a final, frightening thing to consider that such a drive would effectively derail the debate for real reform, not just in Illinois but nationwide.