Redistricting Lawsuit Gets Final Showdown in Federal Court
Attorneys gave oral arguments Tuesday before a panel of three federal judges in Chicago in the final effort to sway the court on high-profile suits over the constitutionality of the state legislature’s new district maps for the next ten years.
A three-judge federal court panel heard oral arguments Tuesday in the last-ditch efforts to change or preserve legislative redistricting maps for the next decade.
The cases, brought by Republican leaders in the General Assembly, a group of Latinos represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and Black Voters in the Metro East area represented by the NAACP, contest district maps Democrats pushed through during a special session in August after numbers from the 2020 U.S. Census were released.
Governor JB Pritzker signed the maps into law in September, but the plaintiffs argued the new maps disenfranchise minority voters and that legislative Democrats violated the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act by weakening the voting power of Hispanic voters in the Chicago area and Black voters in East St. Louis and the surrounding Metro East region.
The court already struck down the maps passed in May because their population estimates were off, leading to districts that were either too large or too small.
Attorneys for MALDEF argued that while Chicago’s population has shrunk over the last decade, the Latino population has grown by 300,000, yet Latinos are not proportionally in power in state government. The group has drawn its own map, which has nine house districts and four senate districts in which Latinos are the majority of eligible voters, compared with four and two in the Democrats’ September map.
NAACP attorneys took issue with how the September map plan splits East St. Louis. The map moves a block of Black voters from a majority-Black, majority East St. Louis district represented by Rep. LaToya Greenwood (D-East St. Louis) to a whiter, more rural district to strengthen the district of Rep. Jay Hoffman (D-Swansea). NAACP attorneys argued more Black voters were moved out of Greenwood’s district and into Hoffman’s than vice versa.
A large part of all three plaintiffs’ arguments focused on members appointed to the General Assembly. In the challenged areas, many of the representatives are, or were, appointed. Because incumbents have a higher chance of winning elections, plaintiffs say voters’ wishes aren’t always heard.
“People aren’t running because they know they can’t win,” said Charles Edward Harris, a lawyer for the Republican General Assembly members suing the Democrats.
U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. pointed out that the appointees are mostly Latino, and asked “why isn’t it a benefit, instead of a burden?”
Later, he seemed to grow frustrated with the plaintiffs, who argued Chicago was unique in the number of appointments and how often incumbents win elections.
“Is there any evidence that Illinois is different than other states?” he asked.
“I don’t know, I’ve been concentrating on this case,” Harris said.
“If you’re saying Illinois is unique, it would help your point to have those numbers,” Judge Dow said.
MALDEF lawyer Ernest Herrera agreed appointments were an issue, and said Democrats made changes to the maps specifically to protect their appointed incumbents in the Little Village neighborhood, not to prevent Republicans from winning.
“Democrats would be safe in these areas, so it is only to protect the incumbent,” he said.
Sean Berkowitz, an attorney defending the maps, disputed the plaintiffs’ claims and said the Democrat-drawn maps actually expand opportunities for minorities through coalitions, rather than packing certain districts with minorities. He showed numerous state elections (the election of President Obama, Maylor Lori Lightfoot, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, and many of the state-level elected positions) where white voters crossover to vote with minorities.
He also said the plaintiffs’ “claims ring hollow,” and were “counterintuitive.”
“Minorities overwhelmingly vote Democratic. It doesn't make any sense that Democrats would want to dilute the voting power of their constituency,” he said.
Every minority member of the General Assembly, who are all democrats, voted for the legislative redistricting plan. The chairs of both redistricting committees are Latinx, and the vice chairs are Black. About 80% of the challenged districts are held by minority representatives, who participated in the process and voted for the plan. Berkowitz noted Republicans in the General Assembly are 100% white, and have suggested changes to the maps without open input.
“It is implausible they would dilute their districts, and such implausibility should remain top of mind,” he said.
Michael Kasper, another attorney defending the maps, said Democrats have spread voters out to try to enhance their chances in other districts, rather than having a few concentrated districts, and pointed out Latinos and African Americans aren’t the only groups to think about.
“One of the districts MALDEF changes is near Chinatown,” he said. “MALDEF’s plan cuts Chinatown in half.”
He argues Asian representatives would have little chance of winning under the MALDEF plan. Much of Chinatown is represented now by Rep. Theresa Mah (D-Chicago), an Asian American.
“We have to balance the interests of various racial groups,” he said.
But Republicans continue to argue the fight over the maps never had to go down the road of a contested, expensive legal challenge.
In a statement, Sen. Jason Barickman (R-Bloomington), the top Republican on the Senate Redistricting Committee, contended Pritzker either “didn’t really review the politician-drawn maps, or he agreed to protect politicians at the expense of Latino and African American voters in Illinois.”
“It didn’t have to be this way,” said Barickman. “If the governor had kept his promise and actually pushed Democrats to support independent maps, there would be no court case and voters would have better representation in Springfield. Instead, Democrats once again chose political insiders over what’s best for Illinois families.”
Lawyers still have a few days to submit additional rebuttal briefs, but oral arguments were completed Tuesday afternoon. Judges said they intend to issue a ruling as quickly as possible, ideally before any interference with the 2022 election calendar.
Because the 2022 primary was pushed back to late June, candidates would begin filing petitions in mid-to-late January.
