After months of closed-door negotiations over new ward boundaries for Chicago, the public is starting to get a peek at the product.
The City Council’s Latino Caucus on Thursday released its version of what the map should look like. The group says 16 of the council’s 50 aldermen support this plan.
Late Friday, a map negotiated by Ald. Dick Mell, chairman of the Rules Committee, was filed. That map has a majority 32 aldermen, but not enough votes to avoid a public referendum on dueling maps next year.
Here’s something interesting. The aldermen have produced another map. It’s known as the “doomsday map.” It hasn’t been released, but we have an idea a lot of regular citizens would really like it.
It simply divides the city into squares. Ward boundaries don’t meander all over the place to sort voters into predictable majorities. We hear it achieves near-perfect division of the city population, so each ward has the same number of people. And we hear it is likely to produce a City Council that closely mirrors the racial demographics of the city.
What it doesn’t do: Protect incumbents.
Now you know why aldermen call it the doomsday map.
Nice, neat squares. Aldermen would have to find which square they live in and run there and hope for the best. That would mean some hot competition. The last thing aldermen want is a map that disregards their home addresses.
So let’s see the doomsday map. And if there is a public vote in March, let’s make sure that map gets on the ballot.
Redistricting is rarely a harmonious undertaking, and the 2010 census results promised an especially testy time for Chicago.
The current wards, based on the 2000 census numbers, started out with about 58,000 residents apiece; by 2010, they ranged from 40,506 in the 3rd Ward to 78,742 in the 42nd. The new wards, based on a citywide population of just under 2.7 million, should average just under 54,000 people.
The census counted 180,000 fewer African-Americans, 53,000 fewer whites, 25,000 more Hispanics and 20,000 more Asians.
That gives Latino aldermen a strong case that they’re underrepresented. Adjustments in ward boundaries would come at the expense of whites and especially blacks. That’s what all the bickering has been about.
The mapmaking team led by Ald. Mell has tried mightily to draft a plan that minimizes losses for black aldermen while creating several wards with Latino populations large enough to win or influence elections. To do that, though, they have had to pack a lot more people in North Side wards than in South Side wards. That runs the risk of a successful court challenge because citizens would not have equal representation. It also doesn’t assure Latinos the level of representation their population increase would justify.
The Latino Caucus — actually a mix of Latino and white aldermen have signed onto this — pitches their plan as the “Taxpayer Protection Map,” arguing that — unlike the competing map — it could survive a legal challenge. The last time a ward map ended up in court, it cost taxpayers $20 million. It was a bonanza for lawyers.
Aldermen should be on notice: Do not go there again. Taxpayers should not foot the bill for politicians’ turf battles.
The Mell map has enough votes to pass the City Council. But if 10 or more aldermen support an alternate map, voters can be asked to choose between them in a referendum. Most aldermen would rather not do that.
So let’s give citizens a meaningful and transparent public review.
That means providing the maps and the accompanying data — not just the legalese boundary descriptions (“beginning at the place where S. Dorchester meets Alley; thence easterly along said Alley to S. Blackstone Ave; hence southerly to E. 68th St….”) — in plenty of time for citizens to study them before promised hearings.
It means scheduling the hearings at times and places convenient to citizens with jobs and families. It means giving notice more than a couple of hours before the meetings. Ald. Mell is talking about three hearings across the city. Great. Let’s schedule them right after New Year’s Day. The week between Christmas and New Year’s is not a window that encourages public participation.
Then, aldermen, listen to the people who turn out. Maybe they’ll make the decision easy.
We’re not averse to having that referendum — especially if voters get a third option, the doomsday map.
Until this week, all this mapmaking has kept citizens out of the loop. They’re finally being cut in. An election wouldn’t be cheap, and it wouldn’t necessarily preclude that dreaded legal challenge. But it would give citizens a genuine say.
