Illinois' Democratic legislative leaders have asked a panel of federal judges to ignore new proposed legislative district maps presented by a group of Latino and Black advocacy organizations, and Illinois Republican lawmakers, saying Democratic-drawn maps don’t violate voting rights law, even though the alternative maps drawn by the challengers appear to create more districts in which Latinos and other racial minorities make up the majority of voters.
On Nov. 24, attorneys for Democratic leaders, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch and State Senate President Don Harmon, filed a brief on behalf of the powerful Illinois Democrats, in the latest step in a court fight over whether Democrats broke the law in approving blatantly partisan legislative district maps just before the end of summer.
This year, the state’s Democratic supermajority undertook the constitutional task of redrawing all of the districts from which Illinois voters will select their state representatives and senators. In a political maneuver, Democrats in June enacted an early version of those maps, even though Census data was not yet available.
Elizabeth Yandell
| Latham & Watkins
Those maps were immediately challenged by Republican lawmakers and advocacy groups for Illinois’ Latino and Black voters, who asserted the maps improperly relied on population estimates, simply to eliminate any chance Republicans might seize control of the process and potentially draw maps that might allow the GOP to cut into the Democratic advantage in Springfield.
After Census data revealed the June maps were out of balance, Democrats tried again, passing new maps at the end of August, which were then signed by Gov. JB Pritzker, also a Democrat.
The Republicans and Latino and Black advocates asserted those maps did not address other problems. The challengers particularly asserted Democrats drew the maps merely for partisan political advantage, at the expense of the voting power of minorities, and Latinos, in particular. They asserted the Democratic maps violate the federal Voting Rights Act.
The judges in October threw out the June maps, but reserved judgment on the September maps. They directed the challengers to submit maps of their own, to illustrate the alleged problems.
The challengers filed their proposed “remedial maps” in early November. They asserted their maps would increase the number of majority Latino state House districts from just four in the Democrats’ approved map to 11 under the new proposed map, and would create five majority Latino state Senate districts, compared to just two under the Democrats’ map.
The new map would also create a new additional majority Black House district in the Illinois suburbs of St. Louis.
In response, Democrats conceded their maps were drawn with the overarching goal of maintaining and increasing the Democratic supermajority in Springfield.
Any impact on racial minority voting strength was incidental to the political goals, and not an indication of racial intent by Democrats, they said.
Instead, they said, it is the challengers who drew districts based on race, which they said amounts to “unconstitutional gerrymandering," in part to allow Republicans to increase majority white districts and, presumably, more potential Republican districts in the General Assembly.
They further dispute the methodology used by the challengers to evaluate the Democratic districts in the new map, saying their districts will not ultimately result in fewer majority-minority districts. Rather, Democrats said, their map includes relatively large number of “crossover” districts with enough minority population to allow minority candidates to win most of the time, thanks to “coalitions” between white and non-white voters, uniting to, presumably, elect Democrats to Springfield.
“The September Redistricting Plan … protects minority voting strength and provides Hispanic and Black voters more than an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” the Democrats wrote.
The Democratic leaders said they “concede that Illinois—as all states—struggled with racial equality in voting in the past.”
But they said Illinois lawmakers should not be required to draw maps with the sole intent of increasing the number of majority-minority districts, because so-called “racial bloc” voting is now a relic of the past in Illinois, because Illinois’ white Democratic voters are happy to vote for Black or Latino candidates.
To back their claims, they noted that, of the eight statewide elected officials in Illinois, three are Black, one is Asian, and one is Latino.
Further, they noted that Speaker Welch is Black, as is Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. And 33 of 50 Chicago City Council members are Black or Latino, they said.
All are Democrats.
And the Democrats noted that all of the Black, Latino and Asian members of the Democratic caucus in Springfield voted to approve the September maps.
They assert “overt or subtle racial appeals” allegedly from Republican candidates “should not be held against the Democratic” lawmakers who passed the September maps.
“… Events from 50 years ago are insufficient to establish relief under the Voting Rights Act claim,” the Democrats wrote, of the legal challenges to their maps. “Today, Illinois, led by its General Assembly, has passed some of the most comprehensive laws aimed at eradicating racial injustice and expanding voter access, and much of that work has contributed to the elimination of racial bloc voting in Illinois.”
The Democratic leaders asked the panel of judges to uphold the September maps, or, failing that, to order the General Assembly to pass yet another set of maps, using guidance from the judges.
The Democratic lawmakers are represented by attorney Elizabeth H. Yandell, of the San Francisco office of the firm of Latham & Watkins; and attorney Michael Kasper, of Chicago.
Kasper is well known for his association with former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan.
The legal counsel representing the Democratic leaders includes other lawyers from the firm of Latham & Watkins, of Chicago and San Diego; Power Rogers LLP, of Chicago; and Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago.
The Democrats were also represented by attorney Heather Wier Vaught. Wier Vaught is also an associate of Madigan.
The Latino voters are represented in their case by MALDEF attorneys Griselda Vega Samuel, Francisco Fernandez del Castillo, Thomas A. Saenz and Ernest Herrera, of Chicago and Los Angeles.
Republican legislative leaders are represented by attorney Charles E. Harris II, and others with the firm of Mayer Brown, of Chicago, and attorney Phillip A. Luetkehans and others with the firm of Luetkehans Brady Garner & Armstrong, of Itasca.