CASE SUMMARY

Before the 2020 Census redistricting data was released, the Illinois General Assembly drafted and passed state legislative redistricting plans on May 28, 2021 using population estimates derived from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey ("ACS"), which the state's Governor signed into law on June 4, 2021. On June 10, 2021 a group of Latino-American voters filed a lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections, its members, and the leaders of the Illinois General Assembly, challenging the constitutionality of the enacted legislative plans. The plaintiffs alleged because the plans were drawn using ACS population estimates, rather than the official 2020 Census population data, the plans could not ensure that state Senate and Representative districts were substantially equal in population as mandated by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its one person, one vote principle. They sought a declaratory judgment that the plans violated the 14th Amendment, injunctive relief barring the defendants from implementing the plans, and an order requiring them to draw and establish properly apportioned legislative districts as measured by the 2020 Census population data when released. On June 25, 2021 the case was reassigned to be handled by the same judge presiding over a related case, McConchie v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections. On September 24, 2021 Illinois enacted replacement legislative plans which revised the June ACS plans using the official 2020 Census population figures. The plaintiffs amended their claims to challenge these new plans as violating § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

On October 19, 2021 the district court issued an opinion granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs and striking down the June redistricting plans on the grounds they violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The court found the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for a 14th Amendment one person, one vote claim by showing the June plans had maximum deviations of 29.9% in House districts and 20.3% in Senate districts, deviations which were particularly large given the technological advances in redistricting. The court rejected the state's argument that the plans' deviations and underlying use of ACS figures were justified by the need to promptly pass redistricting plans given the delayed release of census data, stating there would've been ample time for the state to enact a plan following the August 2021 official release of census data and noting the Census Bureau and several courts had explicitly stated that ACS data is not to be used for redistricting. The court also rejected the state's argument they were under a "constitutional duty" to complete redistricting by June 30, explaining the General Assembly's desire to retain map drawing authority did not justify violations of the one person, one vote constitutional principle. Notably, the court not only struck down the June redistricting plans, but also invalidated the September revisions to the plans on the grounds they were substantially based off the malapportioned June plans. As for the remedy, the court stated it would treat the General Assembly's September 2021 plans as their remedial plans submission. Plaintiffs submitted their proposed remedial legislative plans on November 10, 2021.

On December 30, 2021 the three-judge panel issued an opinion finding in favor of the defendants and upholding the challenged districts. The court found there was sufficient evidence of crossover voting in the relevant areas to defeat the plaintiffs' claims of racially polarized voting, which is the third Gingles precondition required to establish a § 2 violation. Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering claims on the grounds the General Assembly's overwhelmingly predominant consideration when drawing the plans was political, not racial, gerrymandering. While noting that partisan gerrymandering remained controversial, the court nevertheless cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of federal nonjusticiability in Rucho v. Common Cause and stated that such issues are to be resolved outside the federal courts.

Related Cases: McConchie v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections; East St. Louis Branch of the NAACP v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections

CASE LIBRARY

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division - No. 1:21-cv-3139

• Complaint - 6/10/21
• Request for Three-Judge Court - 6/17/21
• Notification of Docket Entry - 6/25/21
• Order - 6/28/21
• Order - 7/14/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint - 7/16/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint - 7/16/21
• Defendants' Welch, Office of the Speaker, Harmon, Office of the President's Rule 12(B) Motion to Dismiss - 7/16/21
• Plaintiffs' Proposed Updated Expert Discovery Plan - 7/23/21
• Defendants Welch and Harmon's Proposed Expert Discovery Plan - 7/23/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Proposed Expert Discovery Plan - 7/23/21
• First Amended Complaint - 7/28/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint - 8/11/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint - 8/11/21
• Defendants Welch, Office of the Speaker, Harmon, and Office of the President's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead - 8/11/21
• Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Legislative Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests - 8/11/21
• Order - 8/12/21
• Order - 8/12/21
• Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel - 8/14/21
• Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel Legislative Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests - 8/16/21
• Order - 8/17/21
• Order - 8/18/21
• Petitioner/Defendant's Motion and Memorandum of Law to Intervene Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 - 8/19/21
• Defendants Welch, Office of the Speaker, Harmon, Office of the President's Rule 12(B) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint - 8/19/21
• Defendants' Motion to Adjourn the Expert Discovery Schedule and Set Status Conference for September 1, 2021 - 8/20/21
• Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Adjourn the Expert Discovery Schedule and Set Status Conference - 8/20/21
• Notice of Motion to Adjourn the Expert Discovery Schedule - 8/20/21
• Notice of Motion to Intervene - 8/20/21
• Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel - 8/20/21
• Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Adjourn the Expert Discovery Schedule and Set Status Conference for September 1, 2021 - 8/20/21
• Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment - 8/20/21
• Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment - 8/20/21
• Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts - 8/20/21
• Notification of Docket Entry - 8/23/21
• Opposition to Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint - 8/25/21
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Representative Guerrero-Cuellar's Motion to Intervene - 8/27/21
• Petitioner/Defendant-Intervenor's Reply in Support of Her Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Rule 24 - 8/31/21
• Order - 9/2/21
• Petitioner-Intervenor's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Intervene Without Prejudice - 9/7/21
• Order - 9/8/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment - 9/10/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts - 9/10/21
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants Welch, Office of the Speaker, Harmon, Office of the President's Rule 12(B) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint - 9/10/21
• Defendants Welch, Office of the Speaker, Harmon, Office of the President's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment - 9/10/21
• Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts - 9/10/21
• Defendants' Additional Statement of Material Facts - 9/10/21
• Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and in Response to Legislative Defendants' Opposition - 9/14/21
• Plaintiffs' Response to Legislative Defendants' Statement of Additional Material Facts - 9/14/21
• Defendants Welch, Office of the Speaker, Harmon, Office of the President's Reply in Support of Their Rule 12(B) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint - 9/17/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint - 9/17/21
• Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and in Response to Board Defendants' Opposition - 9/17/21
• Plaintiffs' Status Report - 9/24/21
• Joint Motion to Extend the Motion to Compel Briefing Schedule - 9/24/21
• Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Legislative Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests - 9/30/21
• Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 10/1/21
• Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel - 10/5/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel Legislative Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests - 10/6/21
• Order - 10/7/21
• Illinois State Board of Elections' Status Report Regarding Scheduling - 10/8/21
• Order - 10/15/21
• Defendant Members of the Illinois State Board of Elections' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint - 10/15/21
• Defendant Members of the Illinois State Board of Elections' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - 10/15/21
• Defendants Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - 10/15/21
• Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses - 10/15/21
• Memorandum Opinion and Order - 10/19/21
• Order - 10/20/21
• Defendants' Motion for Clarification - 10/21/21
• Order - 10/25/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Response to Legislative Defendants' Motion for Clarification - 10/25/21
• Order - 10/27/21
• Defendants The Illinois State Board of Elections and Its Members' Motion to Withdraw Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - 10/29/21
• Petitioner/Defendant-Intervenor's Amended Motion and Memorandum of Law to Intervene - 11/1/21
• Joint Motion for Limited Extension of Fact Discovery - 11/4/21
• Plaintiffs' Response to Petitioner/Defendant-Intervenor's Amended Motion and Memorandum of Law in Intervene - 11/5/21
• Petitioner/Defendant-Intervenor's Reply in Support of Her Motion to Intervene - 11/9/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Proposed Alternative Remedial Plan and Statement in Support - 11/10/21
• Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Corrected Brief - 11/15/21
• Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Submission - 11/16/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Corrected Proposed Alternative Remedial Plan and Statement in Support - 11/17/21
• Order - 11/17/21
• Brief for Amici Curiae NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Chicago Westside Branch NAACP, and NAACP Chicago Southside - 11/18/21
• Notice of Amended Exhibit A to Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae - 11/19/21
• Defendants' Opposition to NAACP's Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs - 11/22/21
• Order - 11/22/21
• Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statements and Proposed Remedial Redistricting Plans - 11/24/21
• Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Corrected Responsive Statement - 11/24/21
• Plaintiffs' Joint Notice Regarding Remedial Hearing - 11/28/21
• Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statements and Proposed Remedial Redistricting Plans - 11/29/21
• Order - 11/29/21
• Order - 11/29/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations of Theresa Mah, Celina Villanueva, and Cristina Pacione-Zayas - 11/29/21
• Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike - 11/30/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Support of Their Proposed Alternative Remedial Plan and Statement in Support - 12/1/21
• Order - 12/1/21
• Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Joint Notice Regarding Remedial Hearing - 12/2/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Reply in Response to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Joint Notice Regarding Remedial Hearing - 12/2/21
• Guidelines for Proceedings - 12/3/21
• Motion to Join by Proposed Intervenors - 12/3/21
• Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Corrected Expert Report of Dr. Lichtman - 12/6/21
• Contreras and McConchie Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Exclude Dr. Lichtman's Gingles Prong III Testimony - 12/6/21
• Contreras Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Hearing Demonstratives - 12/8/21
• Order - 12/8/21
• Defendants' Notice of Filing of Hearing Demonstratives - 12/9/21
• Joint Status Update Regarding Further Briefing and Submissions - 12/9/21
• Opinion - 12/30/21
• Judgment - 12/30/21