Redistricting is a deeply political process, with incumbents actively seeking to minimize the risk to themselves or to gain additional seats for their party. – Thomas E. Mann
You’d think the fine folks on the Geneva city council could pull something as simple as a ward remap off without appearing to be nefarious, clueless, and raising far more questions than the shift answers. But sadly, the evidence clearly indicates they cannot.
To be fair, given that governing body’s hyper-progressive bent, I do believe they were truly concerned about the “one person one vote” standard. To wit, the Fourth Ward experienced the kind of population increase that, by default, bestows voters in the smaller wards a greater political voice.
For reference purposes, the Fourth Ward previously consisted primarily of the Fisher Farms and Pepper Valley subdivisions.
Considering it’s been 28 years since the last remap (1996) combined with that rather laudable voter equity goal, It was time to bring a new balance to the municipal force. And even though the ends might justify the means, the “means” themselves sucked – and the “ends” aren’t that great, either – which only served to make an already suspect city council that much more so.
So, getting back to the “more questions than answers,” let’s examine the questions that make this process look like any other political ploy. And what have I always said, class? That’s right! “The appearance of impropriety is always worse than any actual impropriety.”
You’re such a smart group!
1. Why rush it?
I have borne witness to dozens of redistricting efforts over the past 18 years, and with the exception of this one, they all follow the same basic template. A subset (committee) of the governing body is tasked with redrawing the wards. They present their “findings” to the rest of the “board,” who might ask for modifications. Then the proposed map is submitted to the public who are encouraged to have their voice heard. The board may or may not make changes based on that feedback, and then it goes to a final vote.
But none of that happened here. It was a rushed three-week process with virtually no outside input allowed or considered, and that kind of “what are they hiding” lack of transparency is problematic.
Oh! And by the way, the Geneva redistricting “committee” consisted of City Manager Stephanie Dawkins and Mayor Kevin Burns.
2. Why approve the changes the day before the 2023 candidate packets are released?
This needless lapse makes it appear as if the Geneva City Council is trying to protect their seats by making it more difficult for challengers to run. So, the day the nominating paperwork becomes available, they radically change the ward map? That sounds a lot like former Illinois Speaker Michael Madigan shenanigans.
Worse yet, the City has, so far, failed to announce this major change ANYWHERE, including their homepage, social media, and the various newsletters. That means some poor unsuspecting schmuck will inevitably get the wrong signatures to run in the wrong district and be thrown off the ballot by an incumbent’s nominating paperwork challenge.
Let’s just say it doesn’t pass the laugh test.
3. Why does the new map look so horribly gerrymandered?
Because the council, who’s more progressive members have determined they know far more than the rest of us, refused to consider any constituent feedback. Without that input, they completely overlooked the political ramifications of the ridiculous new boundaries.
So, now my family is in the Second Ward which looks a lot like a warped horseshoe. It runs from Fabyan north to Route 38, and Fabyan south to Western Avenue. Then, just for good measure, it meanders northward around Randall Square and most of Sterling Manor, heading back south to Randall Road, then north cutting Fisher Farms in half.
But that pales in comparison to the new Fifth Ward, which starts as far west as Sterling Manor, flies all the way south to Geneva’s eastern border, zigzagging a bit before turning west along Kaneville Road. Between that one and the Second, it looks like the remapping committee was enjoying a bit too much Jack that evening.
And pray tell, how is any self-respecting alderman supposed to effectively represent that large of an area? There are far too many conflicting interests and disparate groups for that to happen.
4. Why would they break up downtown and many of the neighborhoods?
Because they have absolutely no concept of how municipal representation really works. Despite Alderman Robert Swanson’s savvy suggestion that neighborhoods be kept together, in the name of their self-imposed boundless wisdom, the female council members decided it wasn’t necessary.
Even Alderman Craig Maladra had his lips surgically removed from Mayor Kevin Burns’ ass just long enough to make another truly stupid statement, “Neighborhoods are not defined by political unit boundaries.” Of course they aren’t, but political boundaries should always be defined by neighborhoods because of the commonalities of those neighborhoods.
Not to be outdone, First Ward Alderman Mike Bruno, who thinks he’s the smartest person in the room but never is, added to the disinformation by declaring that “neighborhoods benefited from splitting them up so there is investment by more here at the council in different areas in different neighborhoods.”
Please tell me when any of that actually makes any sense, but even if it did, Maladra and Bruno are dead wrong.
Each Geneva neighborhood, whether it’s Fisher Farms, Pepper Valley, Sterling Manor, or any of the east side subdivisions, has its own unique challenges. And having two Alderman represent those areas only serves to overly complicate the government process. Now I have to call four Alderman to get them to address an issue? I can’t wait!
And that’s particularly true of our newly split downtown.
Furthermore, when city councilpersons aren’t beholden to specific neighborhoods, they tend to freelance and focus on ideology and identity politics. Look no further that Elgin with its failed no ward at-large representation mien. They get absolutely nothing done as a result. With three exceptions, the Geneva City Council has already descended into a morass of self-promotion, identity politics, and really bad ideas.
Put more simply, aldermen should represent their constituents, not themselves.
By virtue of natural conflicting interests and always limited city resources, this bizarre geographical division makes strong civic representation an impossibility.
5. There’s really “nothing political about this map?”
Or as Alderman Amy Meyer actually said of the new districting, “I don’t see anything political here.” Really? Then our esteemed councilperson must be flippin’ blind as a bat.
I’ve run more than one Geneva aldermanic campaign, and between that and living here, I know the numbers. And the first thing this remap does is dilute the conservative vote, which means it will be far easier for our progressive councilmen to retain their seats.
Splitting the downtown, who’s merchants have been at odds with the Mayor for the last decade, greatly diminishes their power and capacity to be heard. It’s nothing more than a divide and conquer maneuver by Mayor Burns to make his life easier.
And suddenly Alderman Marks no longer has Sterling Manor, the subdivision that’s voted so heavily in his favor? Oh no! That’s not political at all. Marks, one of the few city council voices of reason, has been a thorn in Burns’ side for years, and the Mayor and his lackeys are clearly trying to eliminate him.
Geneva! Please wake up and smell the coffee before these city council progressives take us down a road from which there’s no return. I will reiterate my offer to provide the friends and family rate to get reasonable, moderate, and engaged candidates back on the city council.
You know where to find me!
