Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article. |
Redistricting in Illinois | |
General information | |
Partisan control: Democrat | |
Process: Legislature first, Commission as backup | |
Deadline: June 30, 2011 (legislature); October 5, 2011 (Back-up Commission | |
Total seats | |
Congress: 18 | |
State Senate: 59 | |
State House: 118 |
This article details the timeline of redistricting events in Illinois following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.
Illinois lost one congressional seat from the reapportionment after the 2010 census.[1] The state population increased from about 12.4 million to 12.8 million residents, a 3.3 percent growth.[2]
During the 2010 redistricting cycle, the Illinois General Assembly was responsible for redistricting. The deadline to complete a redistricting plan was June 30, 2011. If the General Assembly failed to meet the deadline, a back-up commission had to have a plan in place by October 5, 2011.
When the Illinois Constitution was adopted in 1970 it included the creation of an amendatory veto for the governor. State constitutional experts said that this gave Gov. Pat Quinn (D) the ability to make changes to any map that was sent to him. However, it was thought that this would be unlikely, especially since Democrats controlled the process.[3]
If the General Assembly failed to meet the deadlines to have a redistricting plan in place, a back-up commission would be used. Eight people were selected to draw the legislative and congressional boundaries[4]. The eight members were selected as follows:
No more than four members could from the same political party.[4] Each official was required to appoint oen legislator and one non-legislator.[4] If the Commission reached no agreement by the deadline, the Illinois Supreme Court would recommend two individuals who have no party affiliation to the eight members of the commission. It would be up to the Commission to select one person to be its ninth member that would break any tie votes[4].
The Illinois Constitution provided authority to the General Assembly in Section 3 of Article IV. If the General Assembly failed to enact a redistricting plan by the deadline, Section 3 allowed for the creation of a Legislative Redistricting Commission.
2011 was the first time under the state Constitution that one party controlled the state House, Senate, and governorship during redistricting.[5]
The Committee set up a website - IL Senate Redistricting.
The Illinois Senate Redistricting Committee consisted of the following members:[6]
|
|
The Senate redistricting committee scheduled five public hearings. In announcing the meetings, Chairman Raoul stated, “It’s my intent to hold further hearings after these five are wrapped up but more importantly I want to give the public ample notice to participate in our committee proceedings."[7] The committee was criticized for only holding meetings before proposed maps were drawn up, thus not allowing the public to comment on the possible changes before being voted on. To that end, Raoul said he intended to add at least two hearings after the map was drawn for just that purpose.[8] The following meetings were held:
Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D) announced the formation of the House Redistricting Committee on March 31, 2011. It consisted of the following members:[14]
|
Madigan also announced a new website for the committee. It included information on upcoming meetings along with census data.
The House committee initially announced 15 public hearings around the state.[15] The following meetings were held:
On December 21, 2010, Illinois lost one congressional seat as the Census figures were released.[22] This reduced the state from 19 to 18 seats in Congress. Republicans won a majority of Illinois 19 congressional seats on November 2, 2010.
On February 14, 2011, the Census Bureau shipped Illinois' local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. This data would guide redistricting for state and local offices. The data was publicly available for download.[23]
The Illinois Latino population grew by 33% from 2000 to 2010, reaching 2 million. Meanwhile, the non-Latino population declined by 0.8%. Due to this growth Latino leaders called for strict compliance with the Voting Rights Act to ensure equal representation for the community. Arturo Vargas, Educational Fund Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, stated, "As Illinois now undertakes its 2011 redistricting, those who draw its maps must recognize Latino population growth by ensuring the new maps allow Latinos to effectively choose their elected leaders."[24]
These tables show the change in population in the five largest cities and counties in Illinois from 2000-2010.[25]
|
|
House Democrats released a new congressional redistricting plan on May 27, 2011.[26] The Republican congressional delegation released a joint statement calling it “little more than an attempt to undo the results of the elections held just six months ago.”[27]
House Democrats approved a revised version on May 30, passing the bill 63-54. State Rep. Mike Fortner (R) said the changes were made two hours before a vote was taken, and that the public had no chance to review the map.[28] House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie said the plan was, "A good map, a solid map and certainly an eminently fair map."[29]
The Senate passed the map on May 31 by a margin of 34-25.[30] Gov. Pat Quinn signed the map on June 24, and issued a statement saying, "This map is fair, maintains competitiveness within congressional districts, and protects the voting rights of minority communities."[31]
According to an analysis by Politico, the new map threatened to cost the GOP up to five U.S. House seats. In the new districts, freshman Republicans Adam Kinzinger, Robert Dold and Bobby Schilling were drawn into Democratic-leaning districts, while Joe Walsh and Randy Hultgren could have been pitted against each other, and Tim Johnson was put into a newly competitive district in the southern Illinois. Republican consultant David From said of the map, “It’s kind of a work of art, in the wrong direction. There’s a lot of creativity. Whether you agree with it or not, Speaker Madigan has always been a smart politician.”[27]
Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady called on Gov. Quinn to veto the maps. In a press release Brady quoted three statements from Quinn in which he pushes for a fair, open redistricting process and competitive districts. Brady said if Quinn was to live up to his words he must veto the maps.[32] Quinn signed the map into law on June 24, stating, "This map is fair, maintains competitiveness within congressional districts, and protects the voting rights of minority communities."[33] Republicans and the League of Women Voters both filed lawsuits, alleging the districts were unfairly redrawn in favor of Democrats.
The Illinois General Assembly passed legislation that would increase the number of public hearings for redistricting. Senate Bill 3976 would require at least four public hearings related to redistricting.[34]
SB 3976 contained a requirement that the new political maps must be drawn with crossover, coalition, and influence districts.[35] A crossover district is a district consisting of a racial or language minority that has less than a majority of the voting age population.[35] The minority could be large enough to elect their chosen candidate with the help of voters that are members of the majority and cross over to support the candidate. [35] A coalition district is defined as a district consisting of more than one group of racial or language minorities that could form a coalition to elect a candidate of their choosing.[35] The term influence district means a district where a racial or language minority can affect the outcome of an election despite their preferred candidate may not win.[35]
The State House approved the bill by a 67-46 vote on January 4, 2011.[36] The State Senate approved the bill by a 53-4 vote on December 1, 2010.[37] Senate Bill 3976 was sent to Governor Pat Quinn for his signature on January 13, 2011, and he signed it on March 7.[38][39] It was the first time in 40 years that the redistricting process in the state changed.[40]
SB 3976 was made up of two parts. The first, known as the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011, was aimed at keeping special communities of interest from being divided. Leaders from Chicago's Chinatown lobbied for the legislation in order to keep their voting power from being diluted. During the last redistricting cycle following the 2000 census, the area was divided into three state Senate districts, four state House districts, and three congressional districts. The bill was symbolically signed in Chinatown.[41] Quinn stated, “For many, many racial minorities and citizens who come to our state who want to be part of our democracy, it’s important that the remapping and the redistricting lines be done in a fair way, and that’s what this law is all about.”[5] Some critics contended that the law would only exacerbate the already irregular boundaries of many state districts.[42]
The second part of the bill, the Redistricting Transparency and Public Participation Act, provided for four public hearings around the state in order to hear from the public on existing districts. Many open government groups said that this simply did not open up the process enough. Whitney Woodward of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform testified about the bill when it was being considered, stating, “Public comments and involvement is needed to look toward future, not retrospective, maps. This bill does not provide for discussion of draft districting plans. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the public have an opportunity to review and comment on maps after the committee approves a plan, but before it goes to the floor for a vote.”[43]
Another point of contention was that there were only four meetings. Sponsors of the bill, Sen. Kwame Raoul (D) and Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D), responded to the criticism by saying that four is the minimum mandated by the legislation and that they would push for more.
These tables show the state Senate districts with the most and least population following the 2010 census.[44] The target population for new districts was 217,468.[45]
|
|
These tables show the state House districts with the most and least population following the 2010 census.[44] The target population for new districts was 108,734.[45]
|
|
In January 2011, Rep. LaShawn Ford introduced legislation that aimed at ending prison-based gerrymandering. Known as the Prisoner Census Adjustment Act, it would require census figure to be adjusted in order to count prisoners at their pre-incarceration address rather than in the district where they are imprisoned. As it stands, someone who serves just a two-year prison term would be counted as a resident of the prison for the next 10 years.[46]
One of the groups pushing for this reform was the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations. They argued that the process unfairly increased the power of voters in districts that include prisons. As an example in Illinois, they cited Lawrence County, whose population grew by 9% since 2000. A large percentage of that, however, had to do with the creation of the Lawrence Correctional Center, which opened after the 2000 census. Lawrence was to be redistricted into 7 county board districts made up of 2,407 residents each. The Correctional Center holds 2,358 prisoners, which means the district that it is in would have only 49 residents who could vote. This gave the votes of these 49 greatly disproportionate power.[47]
New York, Delaware, and Maryland had all recently passed laws outlawing prison-based redistricting.
Democrats released proposed maps of the 59 state Senate districts on May 19, 2011.[48] Democratic Senate President John Cullerton said the proposal "follows the law and it's fair and it follows the Voting Rights Act as well as the new law we passed, the Illinois Voting Rights Act."[49] Republicans said the maps would likely guarantee a Republican minority for the next decade. The new lines merged a number of Republican districts, potentially leading to matchups between incumbents in at least 4 districts.
One of those affected was Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, who saw her district merged with freshman Sen. Ron Sandack. Radogno called the map partisan, saying, "In other years there has been a map put out and changes have been made to it. I don't know if that will be the case or not, but we're really just trying to digest it all right now."[49] Districts were also merged between Republicans Tom Johnson and John Millner, David Luechtefeld and Kyle McCarter, and Tim Bivins and Christine Johnson.[50]
The maps and details of the proposal can be found on the Senate Redistricting Committee website. Public hearings on the maps were held in Chicago on May 21 and in Springfield on May 24.
Republicans released their counter-proposal on May 26, saying their map was fairer.[51] It can be seen here. The Senate passed the Democrats' plan by a vote of 35-22.[52] Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill on June 3, but Republican leaders filed a federal lawsuit on July 21, alleging the legislative maps unfairly targeted Republicans and discriminated against African-Americans and Hispanics.[53][54][55]
Democrats released proposed maps of the 118 state House districts on May 20. Steve Brown, a spokesman for Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, said, “It follows the law. That’s what I know. That’s the way it’s always been done.”[56] The House held a public hearing on the maps on May 22, the same day they released population data on the new districts.
Republicans were unhappy that the new districts would position over a dozen Republican incumbents against one another. House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie acknowledged that partisanship was a factor, stating, “Yes, partisanship does play a role in the drawing of House and Senate districts, but while we believe this plan is politically fair, we don’t deny that partisan concerns from time to time played a role.”[57]
The proposed map created 16 districts with an African-American voting-age population over 50% and 11 with a Latino population over 50%, whereas there were at the time 18 majority-black and 8 majority-Latino districts.[58]The United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations said additional minority-minority districts could have been created, especially with the rise in Latino population.[57] To that end, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund testified that the maps violated the Voting Rights Act.[59]
The proposed maps are available on the House Redistricting Committee website.
Republicans released their counter-proposal on May 26, saying their map was fairer.[60] It can be seen here. The Democrats plan passed the House 64-52.[52] Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill on June 3, but GOP leaders filed a federal lawsuit on July 21 alleging the legislative maps unfairly targeted Republicans and discriminated against African-Americans and Hispanics.[53][54][55]
Illinois GOP Chair Pat Brady and the state Republican Party filed a lawsuit on May 11, 2011, asking the Supreme Court to declare the redistricting process tiebreaking provision in violation of the state constitution. Additionally, the suit sought to stop the legislature from finishing redistricting until the court declared a ruling.
In the past, ties were broken by drawing a name from a hat. In 2011, however, Democrats had the numbers to pass a map without any Republicans. Brien Sheahan, general counsel for the Illinois GOP, said the suit was filed when Republicans began to see how Democrats were drawing the map. He stated, “The court could certainly supervise an expedited process that would be more open, more transparent, that would produce fairer districts.”[61]
Oh June 15, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[62]
Republican Senate leader Christine Radogno and House Republican leader Tom Cross filed a federal lawsuit on July 21, 2011, seeking to invalidate the legislative maps drawn by Democrats. They alleged the new maps unfairly targeted Republicans and violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against African-Americans and Hispanics, as well as violating the state constitution's compactness requirement.[63][64]
According to the suit, "The bizarre shapes of several districts … is in furtherance of a deliberate attempt to enhance Democrats' prospects for re-election and target Republicans to prevent their re-election," while many districts "slither across traditional lines in order to place multiple incumbent Republicans into one district."[55]
The case was to be heard by a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court. If successful, either parts or the whole of the map could have been redrawn.[65]
In September, the organization African Americans for Legislative Redistricting asked to be added as a defendant to the case. The coalition of civil rights groups helped Democrats in drawing the new boundaries.[66]
On December 7, a federal panel threw out the suit, dismissing charges of racial gerrymandering and dilution of Latino voting strength. Radogno issued a statement saying, "We will carefully review our options. Our goal of providing all Illinois citizens a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice for the next decade remains. The map crafted by the majority particularly weakens the ability of minority voters to exercise their voting rights. This opinion could further weaken their position."[67]
Illinois Republicans filed suit against the new Congressional districts in July 2011, arguing they violated Hispanic voting rights and were severely gerrymandered. In September, plaintiffs asked a federal court to force the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to produce documents requested in a subpoena. They sought to discover what role the national Democratic Party played in drawing the new district lines.[68]
An order issued by a three-judge federal court panel in October allowed Republicans to find out the identities of experts and consultants used by Democrats when redrawing the lines. The panel also ruled that lawmakers and their staff were immune from providing documents that were not based on objective facts.[69] The decision stated, "Full public disclosure would hinder the ability of party leaders to synthesize competing interests of constituents, special interest groups and lawmakers, and draw a map that has enough support to become law. This type of legislative horse trading is an important and undeniable part of the legislative process."[70]
The Illinois Republican Party filed a request for a permanent Federal injunction on November 4, 2011, seeking to prevent the new Congressional districts from being implemented.[71] Citing emails and other correspondence between Democratic state party leaders and national leaders, Republicans claimed they worked together to create a map favorable to Democrats. Republicans argued that the new map was unconstitutional as it was politically gerrymandered and diluted Latino representation.[72]
Court hearings began on November 17 and ended the next day.[73] The fate of the suit would be determined by three federal judges.[74] On November 22, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow pushed back the filing deadline for candidates wishing to run for U.S. House to December 23–27. If the suit was not resolved by December 21, the deadline would be moved again.[75]
On December 15, 2011, the federal court panel hearing the case said they agreed with the Republican complaint that the map was politically motivated to increase Democratic congressional seats, but said Republicans did not present a workable standard for evaluating the claims. The court also rejected the argument that the map diluted Latino voting strength, stating Republicans failed to present enough evidence that the legislature intentionally sought to discriminate against Latinos.[76]
With the suit resolved, candidate filing for congressional races began on December 23 and went through December 27.[77] The original deadline had been December 5, but had to be moved back due to the then pending lawsuit.
The League of Women Voters of Illinois filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Gov. Pat Quinn on August 16, alleging the new legislative maps were not drawn fairly. President Jan Dorner said the maps should be drawn for the voters, not the parties.[78]
The suit argued that Democrats violated the First Amendment by using partisan voting information to redraw district boundaries, stating, "The General Assembly and governor have unlawfully selected residents to speak, debate, assemble and vote in these districts based upon their political viewpoints and opinions, without safeguards against the misuse of such criteria to regulate or abridge First Amendment rights for partisan ends."[79]
On October 28, 2011, the three-judge U.S. District Court panel dismissed the case.[80]
The Illinois Green Party filed a lawsuit on October 24, 2011, seeking to retain its qualified party status in the U.S. House and state legislative districts where it received 5% of the vote in November 2010. Under state law, any party receiving at least 5% automatically qualifies for the next election in the district. However, the state argued that, due to redistricting, the qualified status did not apply.[81]
Illinois 2010 Redistricting Timeline | |
---|---|
Date | Action |
December 21, 2010 | State informed of the number of Congressional Seats on the 2010 Census. |
March 1, 2011 | Expected date to receive complete Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau. |
April 1, 2011[82] | Final deadline to receive Census data. |
April 5, 2011[83] | Last consolidated elections in drawn boundaries. |
June 30, 2011[4] | Deadline for the Illinois General Assembly to have a redistricting plan in place. |
July 10, 2011[4] | Deadline to have a Redistricting Commission formed. |
October 5, 2011[4] | Final deadline to have a redistricting plan in place. |
March 20, 2012[84] | First statewide primary election in newly created wards. |
November 6, 2012 | First general election in newly created legislative and congressional boundaries. |
Redistricting in Illinois was generally representative of the state's population during its early history as the population was the only basis for representation in both houses. The 1869-70 constitutional convention aimed at reducing sectional partisanship and came up with the unique solution of cumulative voting. Under this system, voters could divide three votes however they saw fit among candidates in each of the state's three member House districts. This was to last until 1980 when voters abolished the system while also reducing the House from 177 to 118 members.
From 1818 to 1901 the Illinois State Legislature successfully redistricted on schedule 14 times. During this time, Cook County grew to such an extent that legislators realized that, if districts continued to be allotted by population, Cook would soon be able to elect a majority in both chambers. To this end, the legislature did not reapportion again until 1954.
In that year, Gov. William Stratton was able to convince the legislature to present a reapportionment amendment, which voters approved. This amendment created a new set of conditions for redistricting. First, it increased the House from 51 districts electing 153 representatives to 59 districts and 177 representatives. Secondly, it provided for permanent Senate districts based on area. Eighteen were given to Chicago, six to suburban Cook County, and 34 to downstate. This effectively assured downstate control of the upper chamber. Thirdly, the new rules said that if legislators failed to redistrict, a 10 member bipartisan commission appointed by the governor would assume the task.
In 1955, both chambers successfully redistricted themselves and the governor approved the plans. This was the first change in state legislative districts in 54 years. In 1963, the House argued over how many districts would be transferred from downstate to northern areas. When they finally did pass a plan, the governor vetoed it, leading to the first use of the 10 member commission. The commission also failed to agree on a plan before their tenure expired, and the 1964 elections saw all 177 House members elected at large.
In 1965, the state legislature again failed to enact a redistricting plan. The state Supreme Court then assumed jurisdiction over Senate redistricting, with House redistricting being handed over to another commission. The court's plan for the Senate gave Cook County a majority of seats in the Senate for the first time and the commission successfully passed a plan for the House. The legislature failed once again in 1971 and the task went back to a commission. The commission was able to pass a plan that was used from 1972 to 1980.[85]
In 1980, the redistricting commission was first formed.[86] In 1981, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund sued the State of Illinois alleging that the lines drawn after the 1980 Census would have prevented voter turnout in Hispanic wards in the City of Chicago.[87]
In 1990, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out a 1989 judicial redistricting law that allowed appellate courts to be drawn further into sub-districts. The state's highest court heard the case on allegations that appellate court sub-districts were gerrymandered in favor of certain ethnic communities in Cook County, Illinois.[88]
2000 Population Deviation[89] | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Office | Percentage | ||||||
Congressional Districts | 0.00% | ||||||
State House Districts | 0.00% | ||||||
State Senate Districts | 0.00% | ||||||
Under federal law, districts may vary from an Ideal District by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. Ideal Districts are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census. |
There were 10 lawsuits related to the Illinois 2000 census redistricting process.[90]
|