Illinois Sued Over Allegedly Using Race As A Factor In Congressional Map

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

A public interest law firm announced Monday it was suing Illinois over its use of race in drawing congressional maps.

The lawsuit accuses the state of violating the 15th Amendment, which prohibits government from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling, which found district boundaries drawn primarily with racial considerations are unconstitutional.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation filed the lawsuit May 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois after the high court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29.

“States may not use race to allocate power,” the group’s president and general counsel, John Christian Adams, said.

The suit specifically named Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and its executive director Bernadette Matthews as defendants.

None immediately responded to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Pritzker signed a new congressional map for his state in 2021, and he said at the time that the “Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011 ensures redistricting plans are crafted in a way that preserves clusters of minority voters if they are of size or cohesion to exert collective electoral power. The maps signed into law today meet those requirements to adequately preserve minority representation and reflect the diversity of our state.”

The Public Interest Legal Foundation argued in the lawsuit that this statement from the governor is a direct admission to violating federal law in using race to draw districts.

Furthermore, the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011 illegally mandated a racial map, ordering districts to be created as crossover, coalition, or influence districts, the group said.

According to the state’s legislation, a crossover district is where majority voters vote with the racial or language minority to elect their preferred candidate.

A coalition district is where more than one group of racial or language minorities can form a coalition to elect a candidate of all of their choice. An influence district is where a racial or language minority can impact the outcome of an election even if its preferred candidate cannot be elected.

All three types of districts in Illinois require “drawing district lines to preserve deliberate racial percentages, racial majorities, and the deliberate preservation of racial influence districts,” the lawsuit read.

The public interest law firm is representing Jeanne Ives, an Illinois resident, voter, and former state legislator. Attorneys for Ives said she has seen the state’s redistricting up close and how it violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is also currently challenging California’s congressional map, using the Louisiana v. Callais decision to try to invalidate it.

Since that Supreme Court ruling, Republican-led states have leapt at the opportunity to redraw their congressional districts ahead of the midterm elections this year with the GOP’s House majority on the line.

The coast-to-coast redistricting battle has shifted further in favor of Republicans following the high court’s ruling.

On May 8, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill that would authorize a new primary election if a court ruled favorably on the state’s redistricting litigation. Alabama also filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to rule in its case, which was granted Monday.

Tennessee already passed redistricting legislation to carve up the state’s only blue district.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Sunshine State’s new map into law on May 4.

A South Carolina plan for redistricting is also advancing through the state’s legislature.

Meanwhile, Virginia’s Supreme Court struck down an attempt at a new map favoring Democrats. The state has now appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s lawsuit against Illinois and California’s maps, if successful, could tip the scales toward Republicans and set an example for other Democratic-run states.