Illinois

Overview

Illinois Redistricting Process

Congressional and Legislative

Congressional and legislative maps are enacted by the General Assembly. The Governor can veto the plans.

The General Assembly can override a veto with a three-fifths vote. Democrats currently have veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

Challenges to the maps are litigated in the State Supreme Court.

Legislative

If the General Assembly fails to pass a legislative plan, responsibility falls to a backup commission. The Illinois Legislative Redistricting Commission is made up of eight members. Four members are appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader of the Illinois House of Representatives, who each appoint one Representative and one individual who is not a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. Four members are appointed by the President and Minority Leader of the Illinois Senate, each appoint one Senator and one person who is not a member of the Senate. The Secretary of State certifies the new Commission members. The Commission members, by majority vote, select a chairman and vice chairman. No more than 4 may be from the same party.

The Legislative Redistricting Commission is assembled only if the General Assembly of Illinois fails to pass new maps by June 30 of years ending in one. The Commission must be in place by July 10 and submit maps to the Secretary of State by August 10. If maps are not submitted by August 10, a ninth member is added to the Commission. If a ninth member is needed, the Supreme Court of Illinois selects two people of different political parties before September 1. By September 5, the Secretary must publicly select one of the submitted names at random. This person becomes the ninth member. By October 5, the nine-member Commission must send their map plans to the Secretary, who publishes the maps, which become law immediately. Maps are passed by simple majority.

Challenges to the maps are litigated in the State Supreme Court.

Source: Ill. Const. art. IV, § 3(b).


Previous Redistricting Cycles

2020

  • Congressional
    • Original PlanHB 1291
      • Passed = October 28, 2021 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = November 23, 2021
    • Litigation History
      • None
  • Legislative
    • Original PlanH2777
      • Passed = May 28, 2021 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = June 4, 2021
    • Second PlanS927
      • Passed = August 31, 2021 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = September 24, 2021
    • Litigation History
      • McConchie v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:21-cv-3091 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2021): On June 9, 2021, the minority leaders of the Illinois Senate and House of Representatives filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s first enacted legislative plan, which was drawn using American Community Survey population estimates, as violating the one person, one vote requirement under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Illinois passed a revised legislative plan using the official 2020 Census population data on September 24, 2021, prompting the plaintiffs to amend their suit and add challenges to the new plan as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and as violating § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On October 19, 2021, the three-judge panel granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and struck down the first enacted plan as violating the one person, one vote constitutional requirement along with the second enacted plan as being substantially based off the malapportioned first plan. The court treated the second enacted legislative plan as the State’s remedial plan submission and on December 30, 2021, the court issued an opinion rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims and upholding the second enacted plan as lawful after finding the General Assembly’s predominant purpose when drawing the districts was political, not racial, gerrymandering.
      • Contreras v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:21-cv-3139 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2021): On June 10, 2021, a group of Latino-American voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s first enacted legislative plan, which was drawn using American Community Survey population estimates, as violating the one person, one vote requirement under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Illinois passed a revised legislative plan using the official 2020 Census population data on September 24, 2021, prompting the plaintiffs to amend their suit and add challenges to the new plan as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and as violating § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On October 19, 2021, the three-judge panel granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and struck down the first enacted plan as violating the one person, one vote constitutional requirement along with the second enacted plan as being substantially based off the malapportioned first plan. The court treated the second enacted legislative plan as the State’s remedial plan submission and on December 30, 2021, the court issued an opinion rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims and upholding the second enacted plan as lawful after finding the General Assembly’s predominant purpose when drawing the districts was political, not racial, gerrymandering.
      • East St. Louis Branch NAACP v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:21-cv-5512 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2021): On October 15, 2021, the East St. Louis Branch NAACP, the Illinois State Conference of the NAACP, and the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging several districts within Illinois's second enacted state House redistricting plan as violating the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. On December 30, 2021, the three-judge panel issued an opinion rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims and upholding the second enacted plan as lawful after finding the General Assembly’s predominant purpose when drawing the districts was political, not racial, gerrymandering.

2010

  • Congressional
    • Original PlanSB 1178
      • Passed = May 31, 2011 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = June 24, 2011
    • Litigation History
      • Committee for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. State Board of Elections, 835 F.Supp.2d 563 (N.D. Ill. 2011): A coalition of non-profit organizations, members of Congress, and voters challenged the General Assembly’s congressional plan on several grounds, including vote dilution in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, racial gerrymandering in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments, and partisan gerrymandering in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments. On December 15, 2011, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the map, finding that there was no justiciable standard to judge the partisan gerrymandering claims and that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a racial gerrymander or violations of the Voting Rights Act.
  • Legislative
    • Original PlanSB 1177
      • Passed = May 27, 2011 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = June 3, 2011
    • Litigation History
      • League of Women Voters v. Quinn, No. 1:11-cv-5569 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2011): Plaintiff organization filed a federal lawsuit challenging the General Assembly’s enacted legislative plans as unconstitutional on the grounds it violated their members’ First Amendment rights of expression. On October 28, 2011, the district court dismissed the lawsuit after finding the plan in no way burdened the exercise of LWV or its members’ First Amendment rights.
        • Aff’d, 132 S.Ct. 2430 (2012).
      • Radogno v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 836 F.Supp.2d 759 (N.D. Ill. 2011): A group of Illinois voters and republican state legislators filed a challenge to the General Assembly’s enacted legislative plans, asserting claims of racial gerrymandering and vote dilution in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On December 7, 2011, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and upheld the plans after finding the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently establish their claims.
        • Aff’d, 133 S.Ct. 103 (2012).
      • Cross v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 113840 (Ill. June 7, 2012): Plaintiff attempted to file a redistricting challenge pursuant to the Illinois Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under the state constitution. On June 7, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to file his complaint on the grounds the action was not timely and thus barred.

2000

  • Congressional
    • Original PlanHB 2917
      • Passed = May 30, 2001 (Split-control)
      • Signed = May 31, 2001
  • Legislative
    • Backup Commission’s Plan (General Assembly failed)
      • Adopted = September 25, 2001
    • Litigation History
      • Cole-Randazzo v. Ryan, 762 N.E.2d 485 (Ill. 2001): A group of registered Illinois voters invoked the Illinois Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to challenge the commission’s adopted legislative plans on the grounds certain districts violated the state’s constitutional compactness requirement. On November 28, 2001, the court ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the plans, finding that the challenged districts were sufficiently compact.
      • Beaubien v. Ryan, 762 N.E.2d 501 (Ill. 2001): Eight different plaintiffs filed actions challenging the commission’s adopted legislative plans on the grounds various districts violated the state’s constitutional compactness requirement, which were all consolidated. On December 27, 2001, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the plans, finding the challenged districts were sufficiently compact.
      • Campuzano v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 200 F.Supp.2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2002): Plaintiffs challenged the commission’s adopted legislative plans alleging they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the drafting process violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of procedural due process and equal protection. On May 3, 2002, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the plans after finding they did not dilute the voting strength of Latino voters or African-American voters.

Governor Bill Signing

If a bill is presented to the governor during or after session, the governor has 60 days to sign or veto it; otherwise, it becomes law without signature. Sundays are not excluded in these calculations. Line-item vetoes are not permitted.


Ballot Measure Process

Kinds of Ballot Measures
Direct initiatives are permitted to amend the state Constitution. Legislatively initiated ballot measures may amend both statutes and the Constitution.

Single-Subject Rule
There is not a single-subject rule.

Initiative Subject Restrictions
Initiatives may only amend constitutional Article IV, relating to structural and procedural subjects concerning the legislative branch.

Signature Requirements
The signature requirement for constitutional amendments is 8% of all votes cast for all candidates for governor in the previous gubernatorial election. 4,547,657 people voted for a candidate for governor in the 2018 General Election in Illinois, so 363,813 signatures are required for constitutional amendments.

Submission Deadlines
Initiative petitions must be submitted six months prior to the election in which the petition is to appear on the ballot (May 8, 2022, delayed to May 9, 2022 due to non-business days).

Circulation Period
The circulation period for initiative petitions is 18 months.

Ballot Title and Summary
The Ballot Title and Summary are written by the proponent, subject to approval by the Attorney General. Expedited reviews for Titles and Summaries are not permitted.

Other Requirements
A fiscal impact statement is not required. Circulators are required to be a citizen of the United States, and at least 18 years of age. One of two events must happen for amendments to be approved: either a majority of those who cast ballots vote for the amendment or three-fifths of ballots cast for or against the amendment vote yes. The General Assembly cannot repeal an amendment unless through a legislatively-initiated ballot measure. Initiatives are permitted on general election ballots, but not on primary, special or odd-year election ballots.

Source: Ill. Const. art. XIV, §3. 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 20/ (2019); 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/ (2019).


In The News


Privacy Policy    |     Terms of Service
Copyright ©2022