Redistricting in Illinois after the 2020 census

* * *

* * *

Redistricting after the 2020 census

Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

* * *

The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Status of redistricting maps
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
Congressional and state legislative maps
Redistricting apps and software
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering

## Contents

* 1 Summary
* 2 Apportionment and release of census data
* 2.1 Apportionment following the 2020 census
* 2.1.1 Redistricting data from the Census Bureau
* 3 Drafting process
* 3.1 Timeline
* 3.2 Committees and/or commissions involved in the process
* 3.3 Drafts and proposals
* 3.3.1 Congressional district maps
* 3.3.1.1 Map images
* 3.3.1.2 Reactions
* 3.3.1.3 Legislative approval
* 3.3.1.4 Previous proposals
* 3.3.1.5 Map images
* 3.3.1.6 Map images
* 3.3.1.7 Reactions
* 3.3.1.8 Map images
* 3.3.1.9 Reactions
* 3.3.2 Legislative district maps
* 3.3.2.1 Map images
* 3.3.2.2 Reactions
* 3.3.2.3 Legislative approval
* 3.3.2.4 Previous proposals
* 3.3.2.5 Map images
* 3.3.2.6 Reactions
* 3.3.2.7 Legislative approval
* 3.3.3 State supreme court districts
* 3.3.3.1 Map images
* 3.3.3.2 Reactions
* 3.3.3.3 Legislative approval
* 4 Enactment
* 4.1 Enacted congressional district maps
* 4.2 Enacted state legislative district maps
* 4.2.1 Map images
* 4.2.2 Reactions
* 4.2.3 Previously enacted maps
* 4.2.3.1 Map images
* 4.2.3.2 Reactions
* 4.3 Enacted state supreme court district maps
* 5 Court challenges
* 5.1 Contreras et. al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections
* 5.1.1 Case background
* 5.2 Illinois African Americans for Equitable Redistricting complaint
* 6 Background
* 6.1 Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
* 6.2 Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting
* 6.3 State-based requirements
* 6.4 Methods
* 6.5 Gerrymandering
* 6.6 Recent court decisions
* 6.7 Trifectas and redistricting
* 7 2010 redistricting cycle
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Footnotes

Redistricting is the process of enacting new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. Upon completion of the 2020 census, Illinois will draft and enact new district maps. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Illinois.

Illinois' 17 United States representatives and 177 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Illinois is also provided.

## Summary[edit]

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

* Oct. 29, 2021: The Illinois House of Representatives voted 71-43 in favor of the map, sending it to Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) for final approval.
* Oct. 28, 2021: State legislative Democrats released a fourth congressional map plan. The Illinois State Senate voted to approve the proposal 41-18.
* Oct. 27, 2021: State legislative Democrats released a third congressional map plan.
* Oct. 23, 2021: State legislative Democrats released a revised congressional map plan.
* Oct. 19, 2021: A three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered plaintiffs and defendants in a redistricting lawsuit to submit revisions to the court of the state legislative district maps enacted in September for further review.[1]
* Oct. 15, 2021: State legislative Democrats released their first proposed congressional map plan.
* Sept. 24, 2021: Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed the adjusted state legislative district maps into law.
* Sept. 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
* Aug. 31, 2021: Illinois lawmakers held a special session and approved the adjusted legislative maps, sending them on to Gov. Pritzker (D) for his signature.
* Aug. 30, 2021: State lawmakers in Illinois released their adjusted proposed maps for the Illinois State Senate and the Illinois House of Representatives.
* Aug. 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
* July 14, 2021: Two redistricting lawsuits filed in the  U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division were consolidated and assigned to a three-judge panel for consideration.
* June 10, 2021: The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, challenging the legislative maps signed into law by Governor Pritzker (D) on June 4, 2021.
* June 9, 2021: Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin and Senate Republican Leader Dan McConchie filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, challenging the legislative maps signed into law by Governor Pritzker (D) on June 4, 2021.
* June 4, 2021: Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed the revised maps for the Illinois State Senate, the Illinois House of Representatives, and the Illinois Supreme Court.
* May 28, 2021: Illinois lawmakers approved revised maps for the Illinois State Senate, the Illinois House of Representatives, and the Illinois Supreme Court, sending them on to Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) for his signature.
* May 21, 2021: State lawmakers in Illinois released their proposed maps for the Illinois State Senate and the Illinois House of Representatives, becoming the second state in the 2020 redistricting cycle to produce draft legislative maps. Lawmakers also released proposed maps for state supreme court districts, which were last redrawn in 1964.
* April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts. Illinois was apportioned 17 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

## Apportionment and release of census data[edit]

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.[2]

### Apportionment following the 2020 census[edit]

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Illinois was apportioned 17 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[3]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Illinois

State  |  2010 census  |  2020 census  |  2010-2020
Population  |  U.S. House seats  |  Population  |  U.S. House seats  |  Raw change in population  |  Percentage change in population  |  Change in U.S. House seats
Illinois | 12,864,380 | 18 | 12,822,739 | 17 | -41,641 | -0.32% | -1

#### Redistricting data from the Census Bureau[edit]

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.[4][5][6][7] The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.[8][9]

## Drafting process[edit]

The Illinois General Assembly is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. Both chambers of the state legislature must approve a redistricting plan. The governor may veto the lines drawn by the state legislature.[10]

In the event that both chambers of the state legislature do not approve a legislative redistricting plan, a backup commission must draw the lines. The majority and minority leaders of each chamber must appoint two members each to the commission (one legislator and one general citizen). Of the eight commission members, no more than four may belong to the same political party. In the event that these eight members cannot approve a plan, the Illinois Supreme Court must select two individuals (from different political parties) as potential tiebreakers. The secretary of state must then appoint one of these individuals to the backup commission to break the tie.[10]

The Illinois Constitution requires that state legislative districts be "contiguous and reasonably compact." There are no such requirements in place for the state's congressional districts.[10]

State law also mandates the establishment of state legislative districts "that allow racial or language minority communities to elect--or influence the election of--the candidates of their choice, even if no comparable district would be required by the federal Voting Rights Act."[10]

### Timeline[edit]

Redistricting authorities in Illinois held initial public hearings from April through May of 2021.[11] After the release of the official 2020 census data on August 12, 2021, the commission held a special session August 31, 2021 to adjust the state legislative redistricting maps. Additional public hearings were scheduled preceding the special session.[12] Click [show] for a list of public hearings held during the redistricting cycle.

Redistricting public hearings, 2020 cycle

Date  |  Location
Sunday, August 29, 2021  |  Virtual at 10am
Saturday, August 28, 2021  |  Virtual
10am
12pm
Friday, August 27, 2021  |  Virtual at 10am
Thursday, August 26, 2021  |  Virtual at 1pm
Friday, May 28, 2021  |  Springfield
Wednesday, May 26, 2021  |  Springfield
Tuesday, May 25, 2021  |  Springfield
Saturday, April 24, 2021  |  Kankakee
Saturday, April 24, 2021  |  Eastern Illinois
Monday, April 19, 2021  |  Metro East
Saturday, April 17, 2021  |  Cook & Chicago – West
Saturday, April 17, 2021  |  Carbondale
Friday, April 16, 2021  |  Western Illinois
Monday, April 12, 2021  |  Springfield-Capitol
Sunday, April 11, 2021  |  Cook/Chicago-North
Friday, April 9, 2021  |  LaSalle
Friday, April 9, 2021  |  Aurora
Friday, April 9, 2021  |  McHenry County
Thursday, April 8, 2021  |  Champaign-Urbana
Thursday, April 8, 2021  |  Cook County-South
Thursday, April 8, 2021  |  DuPage – West
Wednesday, April 7, 2021  |  Decatur
Wednesday, April 7, 2021  |  Lake County
Wednesday, April 7, 2021  |  Cook County-Northwest
Monday, April 5, 2021  |  Rockford
Monday, April 5, 2021  |  Joliet
Monday, April 5, 2021  |  Elgin
Saturday, April 3, 2021  |  Rock Island
Saturday, April 3, 2021  |  Chicago-South
Saturday, April 3, 2021  |  Berwyn/Cicero
Friday, April 2, 2021  |  Peoria
Friday April 2, 2021  |  Cook County-West
Friday, April 2, 2021  |  DuPage – North
Thursday, April 1, 2021  |  Chicago-Bilandic

### Committees and/or commissions involved in the process[edit]

In Illinois, each chamber of the state legislature has its own redistricting committee. As of May 25, 2021, these committees had the following members:[13][14]

| Illinois Senate Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle

Name  |  Partisan affiliation
Chair: Omar Aquino |  Democratic
Vice-Chair: Elgie R. Sims, Jr. |  Democratic
Minority Spokesperson : Jason Barickman |  Republican
Scott M. Bennett |  Democratic
Cristina Castro |  Democratic
Bill Cunningham |  Democratic
Mattie Hunter |  Democratic
Emil Jones |  Democratic
Laura Murphy |  Democratic
Steve McClure |  Republican
Dan McConchie |  Republican
Jason Plummer |  Republican

| Illinois House Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle

Name  |  Partisan affiliation
Chair: Elizabeth Hernandez |  Democratic
Vice-Chair: Curtis Tarver II |  Democratic
Minority Spokesperson : Tim Butler |  Republican
Avery Bourne |  Republican
Kelly M. Burke |  Democratic
Jehan Gordon-Booth |  Democratic
Jay Hoffman |  Democratic
Theresa Mah |  Democratic
Dave Severin |  Republican
Ryan Spain |  Republican

### Drafts and proposals[edit]

#### Congressional district maps[edit]

On October 28, state legislative Democrats released their fourth proposed congressional district map.[15] On Oct. 29, the Illinois State Legislature voted to send this proposal to Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) for final approval. [15]

##### Map images[edit]

An image of the October 28 proposal is embedded below and can be viewed here. View specific data here.

##### Reactions[edit]

State Sen. Don Harmon (D), president of the Senate, said the map "reflects the diversity of the state of Illinois," and combined communities "that shared political philosophies and policy objectives."[16]

State Sen. Don DeWitte (R) said, "This will be the most gerrymandered map in the country, and this process will be used as the poster child for why politicians should never be allowed to draw their own maps."[17]

According to The Chicago Tribune's Rick Pearson, the approved proposal drew the following pairs of incumbents into the same district:[15]

* U.S. Reps. Marie Newman (D) and Jesus Garcia (D)
* U.S. Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R) and Darin LaHood (R)
* U.S. Reps. Mary Miller (R) and Mike Bost (R)

Following the map's approval by the Illinois State Legislature, Kinzinger announced he would not seek re-election in 2022. Additionally, Newman announced that she would seek re-election not against Garcia, but rather against U.S. Rep. Sean Casten (D) whose new district, under the proposal, would consist of many areas represented by Newman before redistricting.[16]

The Associated Press' Sara Burnett also observed:

“  |

Democrats added a second predominantly Latino district, after census data showed Illinois’ Latino population grew over the past decade. They also maintained three predominantly Black districts.[16][18]

|  ”

|
|

##### Legislative approval[edit]

On Oct. 28, the Illinois State Senate voted 41-18 in favor of the map. On Oct. 29, the Illinois House of Representatives voted 71-43 in favor, sending it to Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) for final approval.[15]

##### Previous proposals[edit]

Click on the header below to view information regarding the state legislative maps proposed by the Illinois State Legislature on Oct. 15, 2021, and revised maps released on Oct. 23 and 27.

* Congressional maps released Oct. 27, 2021 (click to expand)

On October 27, state legislative Democrats released their third proposed congressional district map.[19]

##### Map images[edit]

An image of the October 27 proposal is embedded below and can be viewed here.

* Congressional maps released Oct. 23, 2021 (click to expand)

On October 23, state legislative Democrats released their second proposed congressional district map.[20]

##### Map images[edit]

An image of the October 23 proposal is embedded below and can be viewed here.

##### Reactions[edit]

State Sen. Omar Aquino (D), chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee, said, "The changes made in this updated congressional map will help ensure the diversity of Illinois is reflected in Washington," adding, "We appreciate the many advocacy groups and individuals that continue to guide our work with passion and dedication."[21]

Joe Hackler, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Illinois, wrote, "As we said for the last version of the map, Illinois Democrats ... have made it clear that they are willing to disenfranchise Illinois voters and break repeated campaign promises to do the bidding of Nancy Pelosi [(D)] and D.C. power brokers."[21]

According to the Associated Press, under the second proposal, the following pairs of incumbents would be drawn into the same district, resulting in the possibility of contested primaries in 2022:[21]

* U.S. Reps. Marie Newman (D) and Sean Casten (D)
* U.S. Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R) and Darin LaHood (R)
* U.S. Reps. Mary Miller (R) and Mike Bost (R)

The Associated Press also observed that, under the second draft, "a proposed congressional district would connect Latino populations on the northwest side of Chicago with the city’s West Side and western suburbs for a second Latino-leaning district, in addition to the one currently represented by U.S. Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a Chicago Democrat."[21]

* Congressional maps released Oct. 15, 2021 (click to expand)

On October 15, state legislative Democrats released their first proposed congressional district map.[22]

##### Map images[edit]

An image of the October 15 proposal is embedded below and can be viewed here.

##### Reactions[edit]

The Chicago Tribune's Rick Pearson wrote:

“  |

Illinois Democrats have been under pressure from interests including the party’s national campaign committee to maximize opportunities for Democratic seats. Progressives had sought a map that could elect 15 Democrats and leave only two Republicans, but Democratic leaders said privately they settled on a plan to ensure a more likely outcome of 14 Democrats and three Republicans.[23][18]

|  ”

|
|

#### Legislative district maps[edit]

Lawmakers in Illinois approved two sets of maps. The first set, released on May 21, 2021, was based on American Community Survey data. This made Illinois the second state in the 2020 redistricting cycle to produce draft maps.[24] Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed these maps into law on June 4, 2021. On August 30, 2021, lawmakers released a revised set of maps for the Illinois State Senate and Illinois House of Representatives adjusted to account for the 2020 census data released by the U.S. Census Bureau on August 12, 2021, which were legislatively approved on August 31.[25] Pritzker signed the revised maps into law on September 24, 2021.[26] On Oct. 19, a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered plaintiffs and defendants in a redistricting lawsuit to submit revisions to the September maps to the court for further review.[1] Learn more here.

##### Map images[edit]

Images of the August set of proposed statewide maps are embedded below.

Illinois State Senate – proposed map (Aug. 31, 2021)

* Click here for an interactive view of the proposed Senate maps.

Illinois House of Representatives – proposed map (Aug. 31, 2021)

* Click here for an interactive view of the proposed House maps.

##### Reactions[edit]

Chairwoman of the Illinois House Redistricting Commission, Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez (D), upon the release of the adjusted maps said that they, “better reflect the data we recently received from the U.S. Census and ensure communities are represented by the people of their choice.”[27]

State Rep. Avery Bourne (R) criticized the redistricting process saying, “This is the opposite of transparent. It was a sham to ask the public to be in those hearings if you’re not even going to take into consideration their suggestions.”[28]

##### Legislative approval[edit]

After releasing the proposed maps on August 30, 2021, lawmakers held a special session on August 31, 2021, for the purpose of voting on the maps. Lawmakers approved the adjusted maps on August 31, 2021. The House voted 73-43 in favor of the maps, and the Senate voted 40-17 in favor of the maps.[29][30]

##### Previous proposals[edit]

Click on the header below to view information regarding the state legislative maps proposed and approved by the Illinois State Legislature in May 2021.

* Legislative maps released May 21, 2021 (click to expand)

On May 21, 2021, state lawmakers in Illinois released their proposed maps for the Illinois State Senate and the Illinois House of Representatives, becoming the second state in the 2020 redistricting cycle to produce draft maps.[24]

##### Map images[edit]

Images of the proposed statewide maps are embedded below.

Illinois State Senate – proposed map (May 27, 2021)

* Click here for an interactive viewer of the proposed Senate maps.
Illinois House of Representatives – proposed map (May 27, 2021)

* Click here for an interactive viewer of the proposed House maps.

##### Reactions[edit]

Upon announcing the release of the proposed maps, Sen. Omar Aquino (D) said, "Redistricting is about making sure all voices are heard, and that’s exactly what this map accomplishes. This is a fair map that reflects the great diversity of our state and ensures every person receives equal representation in the General Assembly."[24]

Rep. Tim Butler (R) criticized the proposed maps: "Tonight’s drop of partisan maps is yet another attempt to mislead voters in an effort to block fair elections. We continue our call upon Governor Pritzker to live up to his pledge to the people of Illinois and veto a map that was drawn by politicians like what we see here today."[24]

##### Legislative approval[edit]

After releasing their initial proposals on May 21, 2021, state lawmakers made further changes to the maps. On May 28, 2021, Illinois lawmakers approved revised legislative district maps. The House voted 70-45 in favor of the maps, with all Democrats present voting 'yea' and all Republicans present voting 'nay.' The Senate voted 40-18 in favor of the maps, also with all Democrats present voting 'yea' and all Republicans present voting 'nay.'[31]

#### State supreme court districts[edit]

On May 21, 2021, state lawmakers released proposed maps for state supreme court districts, which were last redrawn in 1964. Illinois is divided into five supreme court districts. Cook County (home to Chicago) forms a single district, but it is allocated three seats on the seven-member court. Downstate Illinois is divided into four districts, each with one seat on the court.[32]

The state constitution allows state lawmakers to redraw supreme court districts at any time. However, according to The Chicago Tribune, "lawmakers have traditionally used boundaries for the circuit, appellate and Supreme Court laid out in a 1964 overhaul of the state's court system."[32]

##### Map images[edit]

An image of the proposed supreme court district map is embedded below.

* Click here for an interactive viewer of the proposed House supreme court district map.

Illinois Supreme Court – proposed map (May 25, 2021)

##### Reactions[edit]

Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez (D), chair of the House Redistricting Committee, said it was necessary to redraw the court's district maps to ensure more equal populations between districts: "This map is about equal representation in the state’s most important court. As we strive for all to be equal before the law, we must ensure we all have an equal voice in choosing those who uphold it."[32]

The state Republican Party opposed the redrawn the state supreme court map: "This is a brazen abuse of our judicial system and nothing more than political gamesmanship with what should be an independent court, free of corrupt influence."[33]

##### Legislative approval[edit]

On May 28, 2021, Illinois lawmakers approved a revised state supreme court district map. The House voted 71-45 in favor of the maps, with all Democrats present voting 'yea' and all Republicans present voting 'nay.' The Senate voted 40-18 in favor of the maps, also with all Democrats present voting 'yea' and all Republicans present voting 'nay.'[34]

## Enactment[edit]

### Enacted congressional district maps[edit]

Illinois is drawing congressional district maps following the 2020 census. New congressional district maps have not yet been enacted.

### Enacted state legislative district maps[edit]

The Illinois State Legislature approved new state legislative maps in a special session on Aug. 31, 2021. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed the new maps into law on Sept. 24, 2021.[35] On Oct. 19, a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered plaintiffs and defendants in a redistricting lawsuit to submit revisions of the September maps to the court for further review.[1] Learn more here.

#### Map images[edit]

Images of the enacted state legislative maps are embedded below.

Illinois State Senate – enacted map (Sept. 24, 2021)

* Click here for an interactive view of the enacted Senate maps.

Illinois House of Representatives – enacted map (Sept. 24, 2021)

* Click here for an interactive view of the enacted House maps.

#### Reactions[edit]

In a press release, Pritzker said, "These legislative maps align with the landmark Voting Rights Act and will help ensure Illinois' diversity is reflected in the halls of government."[36] House Minority Leader Jim Durkin (R) called the maps partisan, saying, "Once again, Gov. Pritzker has proven that he governs only for the Democratic political insiders and not for the people of Illinois."[36]

#### Previously enacted maps[edit]

Click on the header below to view information about the state legislative maps enacted on June 4, 2021.

* Legislative maps signed June 4, 2021 (click to expand)

##### Map images[edit]

Images of the enacted Senate and House maps are embedded below.

* Click here for an interactive viewer of the enacted Senate map.
* Click here for an interactive viewer of the enacted House map.
Illinois State Senate – enacted map (June 4, 2021)

Illinois House of Representatives – enacted map (June 4, 2021)

##### Reactions[edit]

After signing the new maps into law, Governor Pritzker's office released a statement saying, "Illinois’ strength is in our diversity, and these maps help to ensure that communities that have been left out and left behind have fair representation in our government... These district boundaries align with both the federal and state Voting Rights Acts, which help to ensure our diverse communities have electoral power and fair representation."[37] Illinois House Speaker  Emanuel "Chris" Welch (D) responded to the signing saying, "With Gov. Pritzker’s signature, people of Illinois can be confident in a legislative map that is reflective of the diversity that we see in every corner of our state."[38]

Illinois House and Senate Republican leaders criticized the governor's signing of the new maps with House Republican leader Jim Durkin saying, "Governor Pritzker, you sold out. You sold out independents, you sold out Republicans, you sold out Democrats, to the partisan Democrat machine which has destroyed Illinois,"[39] and Senate Republican leader Dan McConchie saying, "More than 75% of the public clearly supports independently drawn legislative maps, today Governor Pritzker signed a partisan map drawn by politicians with one goal and one goal only, and that's to maximize power over the people of this state."[39]

### Enacted state supreme court district maps[edit]

New state Supreme Court district maps were signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) on June 4, 2021.

An image of the enacted state Supreme Court district map is embedded below.

* Click here for an interactive viewer of the enacted Supreme Court map.

Illinois State Supreme Court – enacted map (June 4, 2021)

## Court challenges[edit]

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

### Contreras et. al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections[edit]

On Oct. 19, 2021, a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois declared that the state legislative maps enacted in June were unconstitutional based on violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The panel set a further hearing on Nov. 5, 2021, as well as two additional deadlines:[1]

* Nov. 8, 2021: Plaintiffs must submit proposed revisions to the state legislative redistricting plan enacted in September.
* Nov. 18, 2021: Defendants must respond to the submissions.

The Oct. 19 ruling did not declare either the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the maps enacted in September.[40]

#### Case background[edit]

The Illinois State Legislature enacted two sets of state legislative maps during the 2020 redistricting cycle:

* The first, which Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed into law on June 4, 2021, redrew state House and Senate lines using data from the American Community Survey (ACS), a demographics survey program conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau but distinct from the decennial census. According to state constitutional requirements, the legislature had a June 30 deadline to complete its maps. If the legislature had missed that deadline, the map-making process would have transferred to a commission.[1]
* The second, which Gov. Pritzker signed into law on Sept. 24, 2021, revised the June maps. Data from the 2020 census was officially released in August 2021, prompting legislators to reconvene in a special session and adopt revised maps based on the official census data. The June maps were never repealed.[35]

Following the enactment of the June maps, plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division: Illinois House and Senate Republican leaders Jim Durkin and Dan McConchie on June 9, 2021, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) on June 10, 2021.[41][42][43]

The two lawsuits were consolidated in a single case and assigned to a three-judge panel on July 14, 2021.[44][45][46] Robert Dow Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois, Jon E. DeGuilio of the Northern District of Indiana, and Michael B. Brennan of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were assigned to the case.[44]

In their initial complaints, both sets of plaintiffs alleged that the June maps were malapportioned since they were based on ACS data rather than the data from the official 2020 census.[42][47][48]

In a July 16 motion, the Illinois State Board of Elections and the offices of House Speaker Welch (D) and Senate President Harmon (D) said that neither the Illinois constitution nor the U.S. constitution required census data to be used in redistricting. They also said that until the 2020 census data was released, the court had no way to measure the validity of the plaintiffs' equal protection arguments.[45]

The U.S. Census Bureau released official 2020 census data in August 2021 which prompted the state legislature to reconvene for a special session to revise the June maps based on census data. Those maps were sent to Gov. Pritzker who signed them into law on Sept. 24, 2021.[35]

On Oct. 1, 2021, both sets of plaintiffs filed amended complaints saying the September maps violated the U.S. Constitution, as alleged in the initial complaints, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both groups of plaintiffs said that Illinois' Latino population grew over the preceding decade, but the September maps reduced the number of Latino opportunity districts, where Latinos make up more than 50% of the population.[49]

On Oct. 15, the East St. Louis Branch NAACP, among others, filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois requesting the court prevent the state from enforcing the state legislative maps approved and enacted in September. Plaintiffs alleged that the September plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by cracking predominately Black communities in East St. Louis into three separate districts: House Districts 112, 113, and 114.[50] The case was reassigned to the three-judge panel overseeing the McConchie and Contreras cases on Oct. 20.[51]

For additional information about the individual lawsuits, including the remedies sought, click "Show more" below.

Show more

#### McConchie and Durkin v. Illinois State Board of Elections[edit]

The McConchie and Durkin complaint focused on the use of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's five-year American Community Survey (ACS), instead of the data from the 2020 census. Plaintiffs cited undercounts by the ACS compared with the federal data saying, "[ACS] estimates are not intended to be, and are not, a proper substitute for the official census counts." They alleged that "because it uses ACS estimates for population data, the Redistricting Plan does not ensure that the Senate and Representative Districts satisfy the constitutional mandate of substantially equal populations [among districts]."[47][48] They asked the court to declare the enacted maps unconstitutional and to appoint either a bipartisan legislative commission or a special master (outside expert) to draft new maps. Democratic leaders of the Senate Redistricting Committee Omar Aquino and Elgie Sims responded to the lawsuit in a joint statement saying, "We stand by our work to ensure everyone has a voice in state government."[47]

After the release of the US Census Data on August 12, 2021, McConchie and Durkin filed a motion for summary judgment on the case on August 19, 2021. The motion argued that the maps should be ruled unconstitutional ab initio, or from the beginning, for exceeding the maximum 10% deviation permitted, with "29.88% [deviation] for House Districts and 20.25% for Senate Districts."[52]

To read the official complaint filed click here.

#### Contreras v. Illinois State Board of Elections[edit]

The MALDEF complaint alleged the maps were malapportioned because they used data from the ACS instead of data from the 2020 census. They also said the maps violated the  Fourteenth Amendment, writing "ACS data are an estimate of population characteristics based on sample data, and not a count of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens."[42] The plaintiffs alleged that "the Enacted Plans purportedly ensure compliance with the 'one-person, one-vote' standard mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment; however, ACS data is inadequate for that purpose."[42] They asked the court to declare that the enacted plans violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and requested an injunction to prevent the defendants from using the maps in future state General Assembly elections. They also asked for an injunction requiring the defendants to draw new maps based on the data from the 2020 census.[42]

On July 28, 2021, MALDEF attorneys filed an amended complaint saying that, because Contreras, Fuentes, Martinez, Padilla, and Torres lived in the allegedly malapportioned districts, the June maps would dilute their votes in future elections.[53]

To read the official complaint filed click here.

#### United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations et al v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al[edit]

On Oct. 15, the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations, the East St. Louis Branch NAACP, and the Illinois State Conference of the NAACP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the state board of elections requesting the court prevent the state from enforcing the state legislative maps approved and enacted in September. The groups alleged that the September plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by cracking predominately Black communities in East St. Louis into three separate districts: House Districts 112, 113, and 114.[50] To read the official complaint filed, click [001.East-St.-Louis-NAACP-v.-ISBE-et-al.Complaint.10.15.2021 here].

On Oct. 20, Judge Jorge L. Alonso granted an unopposed motion filed by the plaintiffs requesting that this case be reassigned to the existing three-judge panel overseeing the McConchie and Contreras cases.[51]

### Illinois African Americans for Equitable Redistricting complaint[edit]

On Oct. 11, the Illinois African Americans for Equitable Redistricting (IAAFER) filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the state legislative maps approved and enacted in September 2021. The Center Square's Kevin Bessler wrote that the group wanted "to ensure that the maps optimize opportunities for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice."[54] Regarding the September, IAAFER released a statement saying:

“  |

Black people comprised 14% of Illinois’ population in 2011, and still comprise 14% of Illinois’ population in 2021. However, the number of majority Black districts has been cut by 50%. White people comprised 60% of Illinois’ population in 2011, and 58% of Illinois’ population in 2021. Yet, 69% if the districts drawn in the redistricting plan, are majority White. In fact, two new majority White representative districts were formed by dismantling a majority Black district in East St. Louis, Illinois.[55][18]

|  ”

|
|

## Background[edit]

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

What is redistricting and what does it entail?

### Federal requirements for congressional redistricting[edit]

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[56][57]

“  | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[18] |  ”

|
|

—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[58][59][60]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[60]

### Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting[edit]

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[60]

### State-based requirements[edit]

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[60][61]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[60][61]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[60][61]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[60][61]

### Methods[edit]

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[62]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

### Gerrymandering[edit]

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[63][64]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[65]

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[66][67]

### Recent court decisions[edit]

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

#### Gill v. Whitford (2018)[edit]

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[68]

#### Cooper v. Harris (2017)[edit]

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[69][70][71]

#### Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)[edit]

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[72][73][74][75]

#### Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)[edit]

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearanceA jurisdiction subject to preclearance needed to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before changing election laws or district maps. from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[76][77][78]

#### Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)[edit]

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[79][80][81][82]

### Trifectas and redistricting[edit]

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves will play a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections will have veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature will direct the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status

State  |  Primary redistricting authority  |  Pre-2010 trifecta status  |  Post-2010 trifecta status  |  Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama  |  Legislature  |  Divided  |  Republican  |  Republican
Colorado  |  Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission  |  Democratic  |  Divided  |  Democratic
Indiana  |  Legislature  |  Divided  |  Republican  |  Republican
Iowa  |  Legislature  |  Democratic  |  Divided  |  Republican
Maine  |  Legislature  |  Democratic  |  Republican  |  Democratic
Michigan  |  Legislature  |  Divided  |  Republican  |  Divided
New Hampshire  |  Legislature  |  Democratic  |  Divided  |  Divided
North Carolina  |  Legislature  |  Democratic  |  Divided  |  Divided
Ohio  |  Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission  |  Divided  |  Republican  |  Republican
Oregon  |  Legislature  |  Democratic  |  Divided  |  Democratic
Pennsylvania  |  Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission  |  Divided  |  Republican  |  Divided
Wisconsin  |  Legislature  |  Democratic  |  Republican  |  Divided

## 2010 redistricting cycle[edit]

Redistricting in Illinois after the 2010 census

Following the completion of the 2010 United States Census, Illinois lost one congressional seat. At the time of redistricting, Democrats held majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. On May 30, 2011, the Illinois House of Representatives approved a congressional redistricting plan. The Illinois State Senate approved the plan on May 31, 2011, and Governor Pat Quinn (D) signed it into law on June 24, 2011. Legal suits were filed challenging the new congressional district map, but these were all ultimately dismissed.[10][83][84]

The state legislative redistricting plan was passed by the legislature on May 27, 2011. Quinn signed the map into law on June 3, 2011. As with the congressional map, lawsuits were filed challenging the new state legislative districts. These suits were ultimately dismissed.[10]

## See also[edit]

* Redistricting in Illinois after the 2010 census
* Redistricting in Illinois
* State-by-state redistricting procedures
* Majority-minority districts

## External links[edit]

* Search Google News for this topic
* All About Redistricting
* Dave's Redistricting
* FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
* National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
* FairVote, "Redistricting"

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Court Listenener, "Memorandum Opinion and Order," Oct. 19, 2021
2. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
3. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
4. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
5. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
6. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
7. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
8. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
9. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 All About Redistricting, "Illinois," accessed April 16, 2015
11. ↑ Illinois Redistricting, "Public Hearings," accessed July 15, 2021
12. ↑ The State Journal-Register, "Public hearings set before future tweaks in state legislative map based on new Census data," accessed August 24, 2021
13. ↑ Illinois Senate Redistricting Committee, "Illinois Senate Redistricting Committee Members," accessed May 25, 2021
14. ↑ Illinois General Assembly, "Redistricting Committee - Members," accessed May 25, 2021
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Chicago Tribune, "Fourth version of a Democratic-drawn congressional map passed by legislators, heads to Pritzker," Oct. 29, 2021
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Associated Press, "Illinois Dems embrace gerrymandering in fight for US House," Oct. 29, 2021
17. ↑ WBEZ, "Illinois Democrats’ new congressional map expands their power, but snubs one of their own," Oct. 29, 2021
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
19. ↑ Google Maps, "Congressional Draft 3 10.27.2021," Oct. 27, 2021
20. ↑ Stamford Advocate, "Illinois Democrats unveil updated congressional maps," Oct. 24, 2021
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 Associated Press, "Illinois Democrats unveil updated congressional maps," Oct. 24, 2021
22. ↑ Capitol News Illinois, "UPDATED: New congressional maps unveiled ahead of fall veto session," Oct. 15, 2021
23. ↑ The Chicago Tribune, "New congressional maps from Illinois Democrats seek to extend House majority, putting Adam Kinzinger in a left-leaning district with Marie Newman," Oct. 15, 2021
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 CBS Chicago, "Illinois Democrats Release Proposed Maps For General Assembly’s House, Senate Districts; Republicans Slam Maps As ‘Effort To Block Fair Elections," May 22, 2021
25. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `abcILmaps2.0`
26. ↑ Chicago Sun-Times, "Pritzker signs new state legislative maps to ‘reflect diversity,’ but rivals say they ‘steal representation’ from people of color," Sept. 24, 2021
27. ↑ nbc 5 Chicago, "Illinois Democrats OK New Legislative Maps Over Criticism," accessed September 1, 2021
28. ↑ Chicago Sun Times, "Remap remake? Illinois Democrats OK new legislative boundaries, Republicans cry ‘sham’," accessed September 14, 2021
29. ↑ Illinois 102nd General Assembly: First Special Session, "House Resolution 443," accessed September 1, 2021
30. ↑ Illinois 102nd General Assembly: First Special Session, "Senate Resolution No. 3," accessed September 1, 2021
31. ↑ BillTrack50, "IL HB2777," accessed June 2, 2021
32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 The Chicago Tribune, "Democrats want to redraw Illinois Supreme Court districts for first time in almost 60 years in effort to maintain majority," May 25, 2021
33. ↑ Chicago Sun-Times, "Dems draw new maps for 'equal representation' on state’s top court — but draw GOP’s ire for 'political gamesmanship,'" May 25, 2021
34. ↑ BillTrack50, "IL SB0642," accessed June 2, 2021
35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Capitol News Illinois, "Pritzker signs revised state legislative maps," Sept. 24, 2021
36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Illinois.gov, "Gov. Pritzker Signs Revised Legislative Maps that Preserve Minority Representation and Reflect Illinois' Diversity," Sept. 24, 2021
37. ↑ Illinois News, "Gov. Pritzker Signs Redistricting Maps that Preserve Minority Representation and Reflect Illinois' Diversity," accessed June 9, 2021
38. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs into law new maps for Illinois legislature, state Supreme Court," accessed June 9, 2021
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Illinois House Republicans, "Republicans respond to Pritzker’s signing of partisan-drawn maps," accessed June 9, 2021
40. ↑ Politico, "Court puts Illinois legislative map on hold," Oct. 20, 2021
41. ↑ WGEM, "Illinois Republicans file lawsuit against new redistricting maps," accessed June 9, 2021
42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, "Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund v. Illinois State Board of Elections," accessed June 15, 2021
43. ↑ The MALDEF filing was on behalf of five registered voters: Contreras, Fuentes, Martinez, Padilla, and Torres. Martinez later left the lawsuit.
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Daily Herald, "Federal 3-judge panel to decide whether state redistricting plan is constitutional," accessed July 15, 2021
45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 The State Journal-Register, "Illinois Democratic legislative leaders file motion to dismiss GOP redistricting lawsuit," accessed July 22, 2021
46. ↑ The News Gazette, "Latino-rights group says Illinois' redrawn legislative maps still unfair," accessed September 2, 2021
47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 Chicago Tribune, "Illinois Republicans sue in federal court to try to overturn Democratic-drawn legislative maps," accessed June 9, 2021
48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Durkin and McConchie v. Illinois State Board of Elections," accessed June 9, 2021
49. ↑ Capitol News Illinois, "Plaintiffs: New legislative maps dilute Latino vote," Oct. 6, 2021
50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 LawyersCommittee.org, "Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief," Oct. 15, 2021
51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 Pacer Monitor, "United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations et al v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al," Oct. 20, 2021
52. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, "Case No. 1:21-cv-03091: Motion for Summary Judgment," accessed August 24, 2021
53. ↑ Capitol News Illinois, "MALDEF amends redistricting complaint," accessed August 3, 2021
54. ↑ gmtoday.com, "Another group challenges Illinois’ legislative maps," Oct. 13, 2021
55. ↑ The Illinoize, "African American Group Asks Justice Department to Investigate Legislative Map," Oct. 11, 2021
56. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
57. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
58. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
59. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 60.4 60.5 60.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 61.2 61.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
62. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
63. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
64. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
65. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
66. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
67. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
68. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
69. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
70. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
71. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
72. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
73. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
74. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
75. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
76. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
77. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
78. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
79. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
80. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
81. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
82. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
83. ↑ The Huffington Post, "Illinois Redistricting: Quinn Signs Plan To Add Democratic Seats," June 24, 2011
84. ↑ The Huffington Post, "Illinois Redistricting: Democrat-Backed Maps Head To Quinn's Desk, Threaten Republican Gains," May 31, 2011

v • e

Redistricting after the 2020 census

State-by-state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Overviews|

Congressional apportionment after the 2020 census • Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census • Partisan composition of redistricting committees, 2020 cycle • Redistricting lawsuits in the 2020 redistricting cycle • State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census • State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census • State redistricting deadlines after the 2020 census • Redistricting apps and software available for the 2020 cycle

* * *

v • e

State of Illinois
Springfield (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy