For years, those of us in “downstate” Illinois have railed against the problem of being dominated in almost every political way by the Chicago area and its suburbs. Because of the distribution of the population, those places (see Chicago and environs) have held sway in state politics. Over the years there have been proposals to locate the state capital in the largest metropolitan center, as other states have, which would be Chicago. This of course would make the problem worse, and the divide between downstate and the Chicago area would deepen.
(As a point of interest, a plan to do that was floated by Governor Bruce Rauner, as reported by Chicago Architecture, which would cost $62 billion dollars. Billed as a cost saving move, it was even suggested that the capitol dome in Springfield, no longer needed, might be sold to Ohio, whose statehouse has none. This story, posted by an editor on April 1, 2016, showed some serious thought — right?) April fool!
Since that will never happen, Californians will vote this fall on a petition that, if enacted in Illinois, would solve the problem here. On November 6, the California ballot will include a proposal to split the Golden State into three entities: the state of California, the state of Northern California and the state of Southern California. Size differentials would be seen, but the population would be roughly equal, between 12 and 14 million for each new state. Those pushing the initiative got more than 450,000 signatures to place the question on the ballot, but polls suggest it will fail in a landside. A little history search shows that over 200 times in California’s 168 years in the Union have attempts been made to split the state. Many were tongue-in-cheek attempts, but in 1859 the try to split into Northern and Southern California came close, prevented by the onset of the Civil War. As late as 2010, one of the legislative houses voted to do so, but failed to have the bill passed in the second house.
Once in our nation’s history a state split, but that was a special case. During the Civil War, the “western” part of Virginia broke off from the Old Dominion and in 1863 was granted statehood by the Federal government, thus we have West Virginia in the 50 states.
This can be the solution to the continual struggle between the urban areas of the north and the mostly rural and small town/city landscape to the south. Ruminating on the basic problem of where to split the Land of Lincoln, my solution would be a better deal for Illinoisans than what California’s is attempting. There, California would be the smallest of the three, concentrated around Los Angeles and suburbs with their large populations. Mine idea would give “Northern” Illinois not only Chicago and its suburbs, but stretch to the Mississippi River, incorporating some fine farmland and several smaller cities, like Rockford. To do that, the split would be along the I-80 corridor. Even with a much reduced area, the population of that new state would exceed all the rest, which would make up “Southern” Illinois.
Advantages to Northern Illinois are obvious. They would be able to construct a magnificent new Capitol complex in Chicago, perhaps eclipsing the monstrosity that is set to become the Barack Obama library. That is a major consideration, with all the financial and cultural attractions in the Windy City, which would still be a destination to visit. The entire area could be dubbed “Cub Country”, leaving downstate to its more natural loyalty, the Cardinals. Whatever legislature is seated would not have to deal with the rednecks from Southern Illinois, those who seem to always oppose bills intended to benefit the northern climes. Problems with taxes would then be localized, along with the pension liabilities accrued to date. Complaints about crime and pollution would cease below the I-80 corridor and peace would reign in the halls of the newly constructed statehouse. Because Bruce Rauner is from the north, he could be kept as governor up there, if he can defeat his fellow billionaire in this fall’s election, meaning the new state would have an experienced hand at the helm.
But since this is written by one from southern Illinois who has studied and taught about the dysfunctional political scene for many years, what Southern Illinois would get in benefits are both monumental and persuasive. We need a petition drive, and get this done!
First and foremost, we would not be hearing that “great sucking sound” (sorry, Ross Perot; your phrase illustrates exactly what we southerners feel about the fiscal situation in Illinois) when our tax dollars go north. For decades, we have seen laws passed that took our tax monies and disproportionately sent them to the Chicago area. Now, we southerners would have our taxes, probably still too high, sent to our capital to be spent foolishly here. We would keep the capital in Springfield, which would help in the fiscal dealings, for our Senators and Representatives would be closer to the voters and thus (at least in theory) be more responsible to us.
As a tourist destination, Southern Illinois would be a haven for travelers. With money to spend, we could spruce up our state parks and be able to more efficiently promote the Lincoln sites in and around Springfield. Perhaps we could focus on the Shawnee National Forest in the south, as well as the historical places of interest to our state. This, of course, would necessitate the improvement of our transportation system, making sure our gas tax dollars would be used to upgrade our highways. Around Paris, state routes 1, 16 and 133 are in dire need of work. We do not need a major airport, as most of us are close enough to St. Louis and Indianapolis to use those for travel; they are much easier to get into than Chicago’s airport, O’Hare. And, of course, if we can avoid O’Hare and its traffic problems, that is a plus. As a historical footnote, do you know for whom O’Hare is named? Answer: Butch O’Hare, a WW2 fighter pilot from Chicago, killed in action late in the war.
So many advantages, so little space! Education would be enhanced if the state were divided into north and south. So many times have we seen state aid to elementary and high schools held hostage to the needs of Chicago and the collar counties. Budgets downstate have had to wait to see what our masters from the north are willing to grudgingly give us. We could produce our own funding formula, and severed from those in the north, it would be more equitable and perhaps the checks could come on time. We still would face some unfunded liabilities in our pension systems for the downstate teachers, but much of that liability was linked to the artificially high salaries of those in the “richer” districts in the north and around Chicago received, which is reflected in the pensions they are paid. The same would hold for higher education. There would still be the fine institutions serving our high school graduates, and maybe we could avoid the critical financial shortfalls that have occurred in recent years. Community colleges could be strengthened as we improve access to college for all our students.
All of us have heard of the crisis of crime in Chicago. If we were split from the north, that problem would be lifted from our shoulders. When in Europe a few years ago, we tried to explain where Paris was. We told them about 180 miles south of Chicago, and the lights went on. “Al Capone and crime!” was then referenced. But without the City of Big Shoulders, we can now claim that we are Southern Illinoisans, not tainted by the crime of the big city. Our crime statistics would look positively pristine alongside Northern Illinois.
Many more advantages could be seen. When shopping for a governor (and I would respectively decline the honor), we would finally have a leader who is “one of us”. Do you know who was the last governor of Illinois that was a true downstater? It has been awhile, for Jim Edgar, from Charleston, served from 1989-1997.
Is there someone out there who will start the bandwagon rolling?