Illinois

• Congressional and Legislative Process

  Congressional

  Primary Authority: Congressional plans are drawn and enacted by the Illinois General Assembly, subject to the Governor's veto. The General Assembly can override a veto with a 3/5 vote in each chamber. Democrats currently have veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

  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.

  Mapping Timeline: Not specified.

  Redistricting Criteria: None.

  Map Challenges: Not specified.

  Legislative

  Primary Authority: General Assembly draws and enacts the plans, subject to the Governor’s veto. The General Assembly can override a veto with a 3/5 vote in each chamber. Democrats currently have veto-proof majorities in both chambers. Legislative committees are required to be established in each chamber to consider proposals. [Ill. Const. art. IV, § 3; 10 Ill. Cons. Stat. 125/10-5]

  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.

  Backup Authority: If the General Assembly fails to enact legislative plans by its deadline, authority passes to the Illinois Legislative Redistricting Commission, an 8 or 9-member politically appointed body.

  The Commission is initially formed with 8 members. The Speaker and Minority Leader of the Illinois House of Representatives each appoint 1 Representative and 1 person who is not a member of the General Assembly, and the President and Minority Leader of the Illinois Senate each appoints 1 Senator and 1 person who isn’t a member of the General Assembly. No more than 4 members may be of the same political party. Election of Chair and Vice Chair requires a majority vote and final plans must be approved by at least 5 members.

  If the Commission misses its initial deadline, the Illinois Supreme Court submits the names of 2 individuals from different parties to the Secretary of State who randomly selects one to serve as the 9th member of the Commission. The 9-member Commission must then adopt final plans and file them with the Secretary of State by its second deadline. [Ill. Const. art. IV, § 3]

  Mapping Timeline: The General Assembly is required to establish redistricting committee(s) to consider legislative proposals in the year following each decennial census year. After receiving decennial census data, the committees must hold at least 4 public hearings in distinct geographic regions throughout the state with at least 6 days’ notice given prior thereto. The General Assembly must enact final plans by June 30 of the year following the decennial census. If it fails, the Legislative Redistricting Commission must be formed by July 10 of that year.

  The 8-member Commission must file its final plans with the Secretary of State by August 10 of that year. If it fails, the Illinois Supreme Court must submit names to the Secretary of State by September 1, and the Secretary must select the 9th member by September 5. The 9-member Commission must file its final plans with the Secretary by October 5 of that year. Plans become effective upon filing. [Ill. Const. art. IV, § 3; 10 Ill. Cons. Stat. 120/10-5]

  Redistricting Criteria: Compact; Contiguous; Substantially equal in population. [Ill. Const. art. IV, § 3]

  Map Challenges: Filed in the Illinois Supreme Court. [Ill. Const. art. IV, § 3]

• Ballot Measure & Referendum Process

  Types of Measures: Direct initiatives are permitted to amend the state constitution. Legislatively initiated ballot measures may amend both statutes and the constitution.

  Single-Subject Rule: No.

  Initiative Subject Restrictions: Initiatives can only amend article IV of the state constitution (dealing with structure/procedures of the legislative branch).

  Signature Requirements: Constitutional amendments require signatures equal to at least 8% of the votes cast for all candidates for Governor in the last gubernatorial election. 4,104,636 people voted for a gubernatorial candidate in the 2022 general election in Illinois, so 328,371 signatures are required.

  Submission Deadlines: Initiative petitions must be submitted 6 months prior to the election in which the petition is to appear on the ballot. (May 5, 2024)

  Circulation Period: 18 months.

  Ballot Title and Summary: Ballot title and summary are written by the proponent, subject to approval by the Attorney General. Expedited reviews are not permitted.

  Other Requirements: A fiscal impact statement is not required. Circulators must be a citizen of the United States and at least 18 years old. For an amendment to be approved, either a simple majority of all voters who cast ballots in that election must vote in favor of it or 3/5 of the total ballots cast on the amendment must vote in favor of it. The General Assembly cannot repeal an amendment except through a legislatively-initiated ballot measure. Initiatives are permitted on general election ballots, but not on primary, special or odd-year election ballots.

  [Ill. Const. art. XIV, § 3; 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 20/1 – 20/8]

• Previous Redistricting Cycles

  2020

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – HB 1291
      • Passed = October 28, 2021 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = November 23, 2021
    • Litigation History
      • None
  • Legislative
    • Original Plan – H2777
      • Passed = May 28, 2021 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = June 4, 2021
    • Second Plan – S927
      • 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 Plan – SB 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 Plan – SB 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 Plan – HB 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.

Current districts for Illinois by chamber, shaded by the incumbent’s party.