BREAKING: Three judge panel upholds Democrat-drawn redistricting plan

December 30, 2021

Just in from the federal court in Chicago:

We conclude that Plaintiffs have not proved that the September Redistricting Plan violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that White or majority-bloc voting defeats minority candidates of choice, the third precondition for §2 liability under Thornburg v. Gingles. Plaintiffs cannot show §2 liability without meeting all three preconditions, so their §2 challenges fail.

Judges also said proposed fixes from Republicans, MALDEF, and the NAACP weren’t much of an improvement:

Many of Plaintiffs’ proposed districts barely surpass the 50% mark. For all but one of the districts in SB 927, Latino voters maintain a census voting age population of 42.7% or higher, which Legislative Defendants insist allow for additional opportunities to form coalitions with voters of other races to elect their candidate of choice, enhancing the overall political power of Latinos in Illinois.

In light of these figures, these three cases are not about “the chance for some electoral success in place of none.” Johnson, 512 U.S. at 1012–13. Rather, for many of the challenged districts, these cases are about “the chance for more success in place of some.” This disagreement also reflects competing views about how to guarantee Latino and Black voters, in their respective districts, equal opportunity to elect their candidate of choice when minority voters could form different permutations of majority-minority, coalition, and opportunity districts.

More:

This is the type of case the Supreme Court envisioned when it explained in Strickland that “States can—and in proper cases should—defend against alleged § 2 violations by pointing to crossover voting patterns and to effective crossover districts.” 556 U.S. at 23–24. Although more bare majority-minority districts could have been drawn as a matter of legislative prerogative in Illinois, § 2 does not require them unless “all three Gingles factors are met and if § 2 applies based on a totality of the circumstances.” See id. at 24. Plaintiffs’ challenge proves neither. We therefore conclude that none of the challenged districts in SB 927, HD 3, 4, 39 nor SD 2, violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Closing:

These are matters for the people of Illinois to continue debating. Levers other than federal courts are available to them, whether they are state statutes, state constitutions, and even entreaties to Congress, if they wish to change the current process. See Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2507–08. Our role as federal judges is limited and does not extend to complaints about excessive partisanship in the drawing of legislative districts. In Rucho, the Supreme Court identified two areas – “one-person, one-vote and racial gerrymandering”—in which there is a role for the federal courts with respect to at least some issues that could arise from a State’s redistricting efforts. Id. at 2495–96.

We addressed the former in our October 19 ruling [McConchie, 131] and the latter in today’s decision. But the Supreme Court has declared partisan gerrymandering claims to present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Id. at 2507. Having found no statutory or constitutional infirmities in the map adopted in SB 927, our involvement in the current disputes over Illinois redistricting must come to an end with the entry of a final judgment.

We’ve reached out to legislative leaders and attorneys for comment and will post everything we get at the website.

I’m still trying to figure out who an appeal would go to, as I believe this was technically an appellate court ruling. I’ll clear that up over at the website, too.

Any questions, comments? Drop me a note: patrick@theillinoize.com.