What Upholding the Legislative Map Means
A federal court in Chicago ruled in favor of the Democrat-drawn legislative maps, meaning the party in power can do whatever it wants drawing maps in the future.
NOTE: This story was originally posted for subscribers only. To receive subscriber-only newsletters and content, click here.
OPINION
I can’t tell you I was surprised when the federal court upheld the gerrymandered legislative maps approved by Democrats in September.
But, in my view, there are two lasting takeaways from the court ruling.
First, no matter the party in charge in 2031, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want to do with the next set of legislative maps. Clearly, we’ve seen that the court gives a ton of leeway to politicians to handle their own redistricting, assuming, of course, that’s what their law dictates. And it shows just how hard of a bar it is to clear to prove Voting Rights Act violations or 14th Amendment violations.
Let’s remember, this wasn’t just a Republican complaint-fest in court. This suit included actions from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the NAACP. If the court didn’t uphold their complaints, courts may never hold up any remap actions ever again.
Which leads to my second point: it’s time for the public to get serious about independent redistricting. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, we’ve seen partisan redistricting in Illinois and any other state, is a disaster. It disenfranchises communities, protects incumbents, and gives voters fewer options and fewer competitive elections. And for Democrats who don’t agree, just look at the complaints you’re making in other states.
I hope a good government group, whether it be Change Illinois, MALDEF, or other statewide groups like the Farm Bureau and Chamber step up to help get a constitutional amendment that can pass court muster (which may be easier if the GOP takes the court this year) on the ballot and approved by voters.
Voters are the ones that can change things, but we all need to buy into it first.
As for the current suit, it can still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but nobody I’ve talked to seems to know if that decision has been made yet.
