Placed on Tuesday’s County Board Meeting Agenda, the original County Board Reapportionment map to be approved using American Community Survey data and not Census 2020
McHenry County Board Chairman Mike Buehler (R, Crystal Lake) has reversed the County’s plan to use Census 2020 data, and has placed the approval of the County Board’s reapportionment map he presented in May based on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) data for approval on Tuesday’s County Board meeting agenda.
Thursday morning’s County Board Committee of the Whole meeting will discuss Tuesday’s agenda, and the reapportionment map to be approved by County Board resolution on Tuesday.
Had Buehler maintained his original plan announced back in early June, he would have had to present the revised map, based on Census 2020 population data, to the County Board and held a public hearing for feedback collection on the Census-based map.
By using the original map he presented to the Board in May, he will not need to do a 2nd public hearing, based on Census data. The public hearing held on May 27 for the ACS map satisfied the statute.
The approval of SB 825 in the closing days of the spring session of the Illinois General Assembly, permits the County Board to implement its reapportionment using ACS data.
The 2-page resolution is below for the above map:
Thursday’s Committee of the Whole meeting begins at 9AM CT in the County Board meeting room. Agenda can be viewed here.
UPDATE: Chairman Mike Buehler Responds
McHenry County Board Chairman Mike Buehler just called Cal Skinner and said:
“The Census data was used to verify the map.”
McHenry County Blog received communications from both Buehler and other sources within the County stating the same thing.
From the desk of John Lopez: This is splitting hairs, given the press release verbiage from June 3 of this year, stated below:
“Buehler said he intends to use 2020 Census data over ACS data and that postponing the vote is the right thing to do.” — McHenry County Board press release, published on McHenry County Blog, June 3, 2021
Saying “…use 2020 Census data over ACS data…” does not imply, or infer, “verify the map”. The County’s press release implied/inferred “use”, which means drawing the boundary lines with Census data population, rolling up the precinct totals for each District, and releasing a new map for public hearing and approval, by the end of the year, which was provided under the SB 825 law.
This is exactly what is going on in Kane County, where County Board Chair Pierog released an ACS Reapportionment map and held 5 town halls.
Because of SB 825 passage, Pierog committed to release a new Census-drawn map this fall, hold a public hearing, and have final approval of the map in November or December.
To be fair, Kane County is significantly larger than McHenry County, plus Kane has Voting Rights Act challenges McHenry does not face for minority-majority and influence county board districts.
All that being said, when Pierog said she would use Census data, everyone knew that meant reissuing a new map, which under SB 825 must be done by mid November for approval by December 31.
UPDATE 2: Proposed Map with County Board Members Residences
Per a thoughtful comment, here are the maps Cal made back in May with the location of current McHenry County Board Members’ homes within the newly drawn districts:
Update 3: Buehler proposes moving Grafton 14 precinct from District 9 to District 3 to help balance both districts’ populations
At the County Board’s Committee of the Whole (COTW) meeting Thursday morning, Board Chairman Mike Buehler (R, Crystal Lake), with consultation of the State’s Attorney, presented an amended resolution to move the 1,424 Grafton 14 precinct population from District 9 to District 3.
Per the immediate map above, with precincts included, Grafton 14 is the furthest southeast corner of District 9, which will now be part of District 3. The precinct’s population all reside within the village of Algonquin.
With the switch of the one precinct, the Census 2020 populations for the nine new districts representing the County’s 310,229 Census population are as follows:
- 1: 33,656
- 2: 33,776
- 3: 35,315 (previous to amendment: 33,891)
- 4: 35,136
- 5: 35,042
- 6: 34,031
- 7: 33,886
- 8: 34,289
- 9: 35,098 (previous to amendment: 36,522)
The COTW meeting video can be viewed here with Reapportionment resolution amendment proposal at 43:53 mark.
As long as Jeff Thorsen is still my rep, they can draw whatever lines they want !
Cal – Unrelated to this story.
Over the last few weeks, sometimes when accessing your website, it comes up in very small font letters and the pictures are missing. Just big rectangles where the pictures, if any, would appear. Also, after entering words when wanting to make a comment and hitting the “Post Comment” button, an error message appears and then the comment is not recorded.
These have been sporadic occurrences.
It would be a good idea if Cal could re post the maps with the home locations of incumbent board members.
There were a number of “carve outs” for incumbents as I recall and that may be the real reason that the maps are not going to be revisited with the census data.
This looks really bad considering Republicans filed a lawsuit against Dems for using ACS data instead of census data at the state level, Buehler said he would not use the ACS data and wait for the census data, and now Buehler wants to use the maps drawn with the ACS data. It smacks of hypocrisy, and reversing your stance usually never looks good especially in such a short time frame.
Did he even bother giving an explanation like, “We looked at it, and the ACS data and census data barely differ so that is why we are just going to use the map we already drew” or something like that?
I don’t see any explanation in this article.
This map is going to be a lot more controversial now, he’s going to get more no votes, he’s going to get more pushback.
Buehler is creating problems for the board and himself.
I wonder about this Buehler guy.
Is he a plant to destroy the McHenry County Republican Party or is he just not a very bright person?
Does he just suck at his job?
Does he just suck at politics?
Look at that gay flag issue as well.
How did that end up on the agenda?
I blame Buehler for that fiasco.
He put his colleagues in a terrible political position.
He either has no clue what he is doing or he is sabotaging the GOP in McHenry County.
Correcting: Like I said above, there were a number of incumbents whose homes were added into their present districts in appendix like fashion, with just their precinct sort of hanging into the adjoining district.
If the maps were adjusted even slightly, they could be drawn into a different district.
So I think that Buehler was getting push back from some of the members who were happy with the current map.
This looks really bad considering Republicans filed a lawsuit against Dems for using ACS data instead of census data at the state level.
Plus reversing your stance usually never looks good, especially in such a short time frame.
Did he even bother giving an explanation like, “We looked at it, and the ACS data and census data barely differ so that is why we are just going to use the map we already drew” or something like that?
I don’t see any explanation in this article.
This map is going to be a lot more controversial now, he’s going to get more no votes, he’s going to get more pushback.
Buehler is creating problems for the board and himself.
I wonder about this Buehler guy. Is he a plant to destroy the McHenry County Republican Party or is he just not a very bright person?
Does he just suck at his job? Does he just suck at politics?
Look at that gay flag issue.
How did that end up on the agenda?
I blame Buehler for that fiasco.
He put his colleagues in a terrible political position.
He either has no clue what he is doing or he is sabotaging the GOP in McHenry County.
You may delete my duplicate comment, Cal or John. I wasn’t sure if I posted it or not.
BecauseScience, I think there was an article where Cal or John showed where the board members live in relation to the new districts.
I agree re-posting it would be good, and you may be right that the reason they’re just going with the map they already drew is because it is convenient/safe for incumbents.
Not that that’s a reason with much integrity, but it would be a reason…
Thanks for re posting the residence map Cal.
So it appears that TEN of the current board members live in precincts that will be just adjacent to the neighoboring district thus keeping them in their current districts.
Thank John Lopez for the map.
(By the way, BecauseScience, it was John who published this article.)
Regarding the update, yes, John’s point maybe is splitting hairs and Kane County probably did change in more significant ways than McHenry County. If there weren’t big differences I could see why they would go with the old map rather than drawing a new one. That would be due mostly for the sake of convenience.
But some objections I might make (besides for the question of whether the original map, which I have not dissected in detail and don’t intend to, was fair or not) is what were the differences (if any), who did the verifying, and when did the verifying take place? See, now Buehler’s creating more uncertainty, more questions, more doubt. Sloppy job, Buehler!
Yeah, if you guys want to dissect this stuff and go into detail about who is where and what party they’re in, and the partisan tilt of each district, and all that stuff, go ahead. That’s something I’d normally be interested in but truth be told when it comes to these county board schmucks, it’s just not exciting enough to be worth my time. I’ll read the comments if other people do the work, but not going to research it and do a write-up myself.
The original consensus was that this was a map that didn’t give one party or the other a heavy advantage but mostly geared towards incumbents. There were some crybabies on both sides saying it favored the other party, but they never laid out their case. If you decide to do detailed analysis, keep in mind that the board is shrinking from 24 to 18 and is switching from 6 districts with 4 members to 9 districts with 2 members, so even when we talk about favoring the incumbent that’s a bit unclear since not every incumbent is going to be seated. I just don’t care enough to be breaking this stuff down to the precinct level and comparing it to the current districts lol
alright I lied the autismo kicked in. I couldn’t help it.
There is a fairly straight forward way for Democrats to win a majority and they already know what it is. They know. And I know. And THEY know that I KNOW that THEY KNOW! So I’m just going to spill the BEANS because it’s not a secret, and they know, and now EVERYBODY is going to know! Here is the Democratic strategy TO WIN MCHENRY COUNTY:
Run the tables in 5 districts, get 2 Dems elected. 5 times 2 is 10. 10 is majority of 18
District 5 already has Wegener and Jindrich, so get them re-elected.
7 has Acosta, Schwartz, and Aavang. Just find some Mexicans to run who aren’t Acosta. That district has Woodstock so you know it’s full of gays and Mexicans and Democrats and communists. Easy.
1 already has Vijuk and Meshes, so they just need to get them re-elected.
2 already has Collins and Philips. I said Buehler should have appointed a fake Democrat, but Buehler thinks he’s smarter than me… we got Collins who voted to abolish ICE. Clearly Collins is a true believer, not a plant. YA BLEW IT BUEHLER! Dems need to get those two re-elected.
3 has Yensen who should easily win. Might be hard to knock out Schofield AND Nowak (I think Schofield is in 3), but if they do that they’ll have 10, otherwise it’ll be a split board 9-9 probably with some RINOs too — and that’s assuming Dems don’t win anything in 4, 6, 8, or 9, which in fairness do look like Republican areas.
Even 4 could be a possibility to get something because it looks like quite a bit of Crystal Lake is in the district. Bull Valley and Ridgefield would be the conservative counterbalance in that district. I haven’t looked at this at the precinct level. Jung probably won’t run again, Parrish might be safe, but Gottemoller is a weak candidate.
Wow could you imagine if Democrats had 11 or 12 seats out of 18 next year? Wasn’t it like 6 years ago Democrats had 1 seat out of 24? Aren’t they up to 8 now? You gotta figure if they just held on to those 8 seats, they have 8/18… Throw in 2 RINOs and blippity blam it’s over. But it’s already over for you. The goose is cooked. Look at you guys already, you have 2/3 Republican board and you still vote to fly gay flags on government property…
When this is over it will be said that Mike Buehler did more for Democrats than Jack the jerk Franks, ugly Kristina Zahorik, Mike the meme Tauler, and all the poopy pants Bernie chicks combined. That is quite an achievement, but not something most on this blog would be comfortable with. Buehler fly the gay flag. Buehler listen to Biden and welcome him. Buehler reside over Democrats winning the county board for first time in over 70 years. THE LEGACY OF BUEHLER!
I have inside sources everywhere. You don’t have those sources. That’s a fact.
Correcting:
I would agree with you on the above although it is difficult to say if there is going to be a Blue, Red or Purple Wave in the Fall of 2022 and that will be a major factor.
Insofar as the County Board is concerned, apart from some mostly meaningless wedge issues like gay rights flags, Title X, the ICE contract, or having all day gun shooting parties in semi rural areas, most of the issues that come before the County Board are really non partisan.
There is not much that can be done with the budget that has not already been done and county government only accounts for 9% of your total property tax bill.
They get 2/3rds of their money from things like the state Motor Fuel Tax, Sales Tax, state and federal grants, court fees, etc.
Issues that come before committees are usually things like should the Sheriff get another squad car, should a certain road or bridge be fixed or improved, should the computer server be upgraded, or should the roof repairs on the courthouse be done in black tar or white tar.
Basically they fix potholes.
Potholes are not partisan.
So I wouldn’t sweat too much which party nominally is a majority on the County Board.
The key thing is how fiscally responsible are they with your tax dollars, and I don’t think the Republcan members are the only ones to have a lock on that.
Crooked as hell!
Buehler better stop getting advice from Gottemoller.
It’s all too obvious.
Joe would sell his own mom.
The County Board decided to go to 18 before Buehler.
But I believe Rein when he was on the county board made an amendment to keep the 6 districts with 3 members each.
Since the new board took hold they went to 9 districts of 2.
Curious on how someone commenting would redraw 9 districts to favor Republicans?
Maybe correcting with his inside scoop could show us one which follow any rules involved in redistricting?
Probably not
shark, my comment was ONLY meant to show what districts on *this* map (the one Buehler is pushing) Democrats *are* going to focus on and how it would be relatively easy for them to win a majority or get a tie.
(They already know this — I’m just informing the authors and readers of this blog what the Democratic game plan is.)
Since you asked me a question about hypothetical maps, I do not have map making tools nor is it my job to explain to any party how they could draw *alternative* maps (which neither the board or Buehler are interested in) that are gerrymandered to one party or the other’s advantage.
Because you brought it up though, no, I actually don’t agree that this is the best possible map for Republicans.
Anybody who has seen how states baconmander districts knows they can do some wild stuff!
The point of this map was *not* to give any kind of partisan advantage per se, but rather make things relatively safe for incumbents, so of course I don’t believe it is the best possible map for either party since that wasn’t the goal!
It is possible that they even had a map that would be kinder to the GOP as a whole but it pitted too many individual (Republican) board members against each other and those board members would not have agreed to it because it would reduce their individual likelihood of winning.
Your question is moot on account of they don’t want to go back to the drawing board or at least none are saying so.
Just to clarify, my problem with Buehler isn’t that he isn’t gerrymandering hard enough.
I have spoken against gerrymandering before.
My problem with Buehler is he makes unforced, easily avoidable errors such as backtracking on the census vs ACS question, backtracking without explaining why (until he is pressed on it), chumming it up with Joe Biden, putting gay pride stuff on a government agenda which is unnecessary and creates a wedge, and others which I can’t recall at the moment.
He is not built for politics.
Even when he was running for chairman, he was talking about COVID and nursing homes and it was clear he was out of his element.
He won his race because people on the internet told him to shut up, that the more he talked about issues the less chance he had of winning, and that he should really sit back and just let people attack Franks for the sex scandal.
People didn’t really vote for Buehler, they voted against Franks.
Talk as little as possible because the more you talk the more people don’t like you and people aren’t voting for you they are voting against your enemy is the Joe Biden strategy to a T.
It can work, but then people get stuck with someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and it quickly becomes painfully obvious.
Gottemoller again?! Yikes!!!!
Buehler, take a day off. Make that 3 years!
Maybe Gottemoller is smarter than you think in a twisty sort of controlling way.
Why would a board member recommend this particular map?
I FIGURED IT ALL OUT!
1. Going with this map saves the board time and effort from going back to the drawing board.
2. The board was already ok with this map when it was proposed a few months ago.
3. It was supposedly verified that the ACS vs Census data weren’t much different, arguably no reason to change map.
4. It’s a good map for incumbents. (This is the most important point.)
5. Nobody is making the case it is too skewed for one party or the other.
This is the perfect map for getting politicians to approve and residents to shake their fist at for reasons they can’t explain.
Evil genius lawschoolbro Gottemoller strikes again???
Sounds plausible to me.
Lord knows Buehler isn’t smart enough to devise a plan like that (too dumb) so maybe it was Gottemoller whispering into Buehler’s ear…
Maybe Gottemoller is no good at winning fair fights but is good at rigging fights behind the scenes? And the other board members will nod along because it helps them.
So now you know why!
YOU KNOW THE TRUTH!
THE BEANS HAVE BEEN SPILLED!
Interesting….. and probably true.
Gottemoller is a sneaky sort.
After reading update number three all I can think of is, “I thought it was verified?”
Not a huge change to the map overall but still.
We find out the districts have differences of thousands of voters, and he has to move an entire precinct from one district to another after saying the map was “verified.”
It’s like every time he does something or speaks, he digs himself a new hole or digs deeper into a hole he’s already in.
Like I said, Buehler makes a LOT of “unforced, easily avoidable errors.”
It’s what separates the amateurs from the pros.
I’d be going, “What about this?
What about that?”
ESPECIALLY if I had Buehler’s salary.
Buehler doesn’t do that.
He doesn’t have the attention to detail.
He’s there.
He goes through motions.
He doesn’t think ahead at all.
He isn’t tuned in to how things will be perceived.
He’s just not good at this.
Good riddins Jack Franks but get it together, Mike.
At least believably fake it like you care.
Buehler is a box of rocks and, like so many local GOP leaders, afraid of offending the very minuscule but screechy homo per cent of the population, the NWH and her royal majesty Cannabis Queen Lobbyist Pammy Althoff and his master manipulator Joe Schmoo Gottemoller.
At least he is not Jack Franks.
Buehler is not the brightest. But he may be the dimmest.
Buehler is another RINO. Hello. Wasn’t it obvious?