House Republicans ask state Supreme Court to toss out legislative map
The lawsuit alleges the current House map fails to meet state constitutional requirements that districts be compact and allow elections to be 'free and equal.' The outcome is elections that are 'rigged' to favor Democratic candidates. Republicans want the court to invalidate the maps and appoint a special master to draw new district boundaries.
Republicans are targeting this lawsuit to state courts after previously failing to block the maps in federal court. New data and a key expert witness, they say, make their state case more likely to succeed.
'Illinois House Republicans refuse to stand by while Democrats rig elections and manipulate the system to maintain their grip on power,' House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, R-Savanna, said at a news conference Tuesday.
The lawsuit comes after House Republicans failed to gain seats in the two election cycles since a new map was drawn in 2021 following the census and implemented for the 2022 election. Republicans lost five seats in 2022 and failed to win any back in 2024, leaving House Democrats with 78 members in the 118-member House.
The first question Republicans want the Supreme Court to weigh in on is whether the districts are 'compact.'
Compactness is not defined in the state constitution, though dozens of mathematical formulas exist to measure whether the residents in a district are spaced appropriately.
Republicans point to the Illinois Supreme Court's decision to invalidate a district in 1981, which found the central Illinois district was not considered compact. Using two mathematical formulas, the lawsuit alleges 52 of the current House districts are less compact based on at least one formula than the unconstitutional 89th House District was in 1981.
The 89th House District in that year included several square-shaped sections from Peoria to Springfield. The court ruled it was not compact based on a visual examination. The lawsuit argues existing districts that feature odd shapes snaking around communities or extending away from the heart of a district would fail the same eye test.
The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which assesses legislative maps around the country on several metrics, gave the current Illinois House map an 'F' grade for its compactness metric.
The districts are also politically gerrymandered to elect more Democrats, according to the lawsuit.
Republicans argue Rep. Lisa Hernandez, D-Cicero, who chaired the House Redistricting Committee, admitted to partisan gerrymandering during a floor debate in August 2021 when she was asked by then-Rep. Avery Bourne, R-Morrisonville, whether 'partisan advantage' was considered in drawing the map.
'It is one of the factors included,' Hernandez said at the time. The court filing also points to testimony in previous challenges to the maps in which a House Democratic staff member acknowledges lawmakers considered creating political advantages in certain districts as they discussed how to draw the map.
As part of their case, House Republicans enlisted the help of national redistricting expert Jowei Chen, from the University of Michigan. Chen has served as an expert witness on similar lawsuits in other states. House Republicans said Chen ran 10,000 computer simulations on different map outcomes at their request, with the only requirement being that the maps were compliant with the federal Voting Rights Act. None of the simulations produced a map similar to the current House map.
'That outcome is only possible with partisan gerrymandering designed to disenfranchise voters,' Rep. Ryan Spain, R-Peoria, said in an interview.
The current 78-40 split between Democrats and Republicans isn't proportional to ballots cast in recent elections, the GOP argues. The 78-40 split would make sense in a world where Republicans were receiving roughly 40% of votes cast in a general election. But in 2022, Republicans received 51% of votes case in House races, and the party should expect to receive 47-48% of the votes cast in House races in a normal election year, per the simulation.
Thus, the GOP believes they'd have a larger share of House seats if maps were drawn fairly.
'We're not supposed to be depriving voters of their individual vote,' Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva, said in an interview. 'It's supposed to have the same meaning as every other voter in the state, and when you do that on a partisan basis, it always skews that one individual's vote.'
The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, using a different methodology, gave Illinois' House map an 'A' grade for partisan fairness, meaning the current map doesn't give an advantage to either party.
The filing notes courts in North Carolina and Pennsylvania have previously stuck down maps based on similar accusations and language in those states' constitutions similar to Illinois'.
Republicans hope the Illinois Supreme Court will agree the maps are unfair and force new House maps to be redrawn by an independent commission that would not consider partisan benefits. The lawsuit focuses on the House maps, but a favorable ruling for Republicans could be extended to Senate maps, as each Senate district is comprised of two House districts.
'I have high hopes for the court in doing the right thing,' Spain said. 'I think the compactness claim is a slam dunk. They've already ruled on that one before.'
'Leader McCombie can't justify her party leader's unlawful attempt to slash services working families need to access healthcare, afford rent, and put food on the table, so she is choosing to distract people by relitigating a matter that courts decided years ago,' said Jon Maxson, a spokesperson for House Speaker Chris Welch, D-Hillside, in an email.
This is not the first time Republicans have asked courts to toss out maps.
Republicans and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, sued in the summer of 2021 after the General Assembly passed an initial set of maps using American Community Survey data in order to meet statutory deadlines for redistricting after census data was delayed by the pandemic. Lawmakers returned later that summer to pass the current set of maps based on census data.
Republicans and MALDEF sued again to try to stop the maps, arguing the latest version reduced the number of Latino-majority districts in the Chicago area. A separate case was filed by the East St. Louis Branch of the NAACP and other civil rights groups that argued the maps broke up the Metro East's Black voting population. A three-judge panel of federal judges rejected those challenges in December 2021, leaving the current maps in place.
Republican lawmakers said their reason for challenging the map wasn't based on whether it would lead to more Republicans winning legislative seats in future elections. Ugaste said he believes an independently drawn map could make his reelection more difficult in his west suburban district.
'I'm willing to do it because that is what is right for the voters. It's not about me hanging on to my seat,' Ugaste said.
The plaintiffs also argue it's not too late to challenge the maps, as there are three more elections before the General Assembly is required to redraw the maps after the 2030 Census. Fourteen other states also have pending cases challenging legislative maps.
'Other states continue to work on this; we shouldn't forfeit our ability to do so in Illinois,' Spain said.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
10 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Texas House Democrats join Chicago anti-Trump protest in Loop
Hundreds of protesters gathered at Millennium Park Saturday afternoon to rally against redistricting efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional U.S. House seats in next year's midterm elections. They were joined by more than a dozen Texas House Democrats who have stayed in Illinois since Aug. 3 to block the gerrymandering. The legislators urged their supporters across the country to continue opposing the Texas Republicans' efforts. 'Our plan was to wake up the nation,' Texas State Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, D-San Antonio, told the crowd. 'Our plan is to fight in the courts. We hope they're fair this time. Our plan is to make sure our messaging gets to you.' The Texas Democrats intend to return to the Lone Star State Monday, according to a Texas House Democrats spokesperson and Texas State Rep. Armando Walle, D-Houston. Saturday's protesters directed much of their frustration at President Donald Trump, who has supported Texas Republicans' proposed map. The rally was one of more than 200 similar protests planned across the country, and follows other coordinated anti-Trump events like the No Kings protest in June and Good Trouble Lives On protest in July. 'I think Trump is genuinely eroding away at our basic democratic freedoms, crippling the legal system, attempting to violate separation of powers,' said Sophia Liu, a student at the University of Chicago who attended the protest Saturday. Protesters heard from members of the Texas delegation and local leaders, including U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez and Chicago Federation of Labor secretary and treasurer Don Villar. Then, they marched down Michigan Avenue and Adams Street to Federal Plaza, chanting 'Whose house? Our house' and 'immigrants are here to stay.' Democrats around the country have attacked the Texas gerrymandering plan for its timing, saying redistricting shouldn't happen in the middle of the decade. As the Texas controversy moved further into the national spotlight, several other states have considered upping their own partisan gerrymandering efforts. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, proposed a ballot initiative Thursday to give Democrats five more U.S. House seats, the AP reported. Gov. J.B. Pritzker said earlier this month that though he doesn't want to, he hasn't taken redistricting off the table. Other Republican-controlled states, including Missouri, are also considering, or at least not opposed to, mid-decade partisan redistricting as well. Some protesters were uneasy at the prospect of back-and-forth partisan redistricting. Luke Hopkins, a current graduate student and former U.S. Marine who lives in North Center, said he thinks Texas' redistricting efforts 'are a clear abuse of power' and 'not what democracy is about.' Still, California's response was somewhat 'troubling,' he said shortly after writing 'veterans against Trump' in blue chalk at Federal Plaza. 'You have to fight fire with fire sometimes,' he said. 'I don't think either is very good for democracy overall.' But for Liu, California's pushback is necessary to make sure there's still meaningful opposition to Trump after the midterm elections. 'I can imagine, if another thing like the 'Big Beautiful Bill part two' came out,' it would harm millions of Americans,' she said, referencing the Republican-led federal legislation that heavily cut social services while increasing funding for immigration enforcement. 'And I think that's a greater harm than gerrymandering in the moment.' In the long term, Liu said she would support efforts to end all partisan gerrymandering. But Texas House Democrat leader, State Rep. Gene Wu, said the escalations between Texas, California and other states aren't simply a tit-for-tat political battle. Instead, he said, there was a clear 'attacking' and 'defending' force — comparing the situation to 'Russia invading Ukraine.' 'What California is proposing would only happen if Texas chose to do the wrong thing,' Wu said. With California and other Democratic states' gerrymandering threats in place, Wu said he and his colleagues have a safety net to return to the state, where they are likely to lose the redistricting fight in the Republican-controlled Texas legislature. They look to legally challenge the Republican-drawn maps next, Wu said. 'Our chances in court I think are good,' he said. 'I know we don't trust the courts, but I think this is something that is so racist, so unconstitutional, that the courts cannot look away.'
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship
With states now fighting over redistricting maps, America's two political parties will need an opportunity to work together again. Permitting reform is one issue that is just right for this, even amidst an apparent trifecta. Strengthening American energy production has long been a bipartisan issue, as it fosters economic growth, protects national security, and increases the energy supply to drive down or stabilize utility costs for U.S. households in the face of growing demand. There has never been a better time for it. Done right, it secures American global leadership for another century. While recent debates around tax credits have made this issue seem increasingly partisan, reforming our existing energy permitting process is something on which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle largely already agree. Congress should capitalize on consensus to pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation. Debates surrounding energy tax credits in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, in particular, brought energy production back into the spotlight this year. Reconciliation can leave bitter feelings, but permitting reform has a chance to offer both parties something they dearly want — energy dominance, reduced emissions, fewer arcane rules, and less back and forth political games undermining the development of new energy projects. All energy production would benefit from permitting reform. America's permitting system should be a gateway for energy projects. Right now, it's a bottleneck. Unpredictable processes and delays in approval are bringing new developments to a grinding halt. With the rise of AI and a digital world that increasingly relies on data centers, global energy demand has spiked. Congress is now tasked with ensuring that American energy production can keep pace with this demand and not fall behind foreign adversaries vying for our position as the global leader in innovation and technology. But as of late, lawmakers have remained stagnant on addressing permitting reform. Yet, while demand for all energy production is on the rise, Democrats have a lot less to fear from loosening rules than they may think. The vast majority of projects stuck in grid connection queues are renewable — over 95 percent of proposed new generation capacity is solar or wind. Much-needed reform to the approval process could free up all new projects, strengthen American energy dominance and unleash clean energy all at once. Permitting reform has long been a bipartisan issue. Last year, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), then-ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin ( introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aimed at streamlining and expediting the approvals process. While this legislation was not ultimately passed, it is a prime example of members reaching across the aisle to drive movement on this front. Most recently, a bipartisan group of governors made an urgent call for permitting reform. 'It shouldn't take longer to approve a project than it takes to build it,' said Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R). He also highlighted the bipartisan nature of the issue, 'Democrats and Republicans alike recognize permitting delays weaken U.S. economic growth, security and competitiveness. Governors from both parties are working together to inject some common sense into our permitting process.' Voters in both parties agree. Recent polling conducted by Cygnal found that two-thirds of respondents agree that Congress should modernize permitting rules to accelerate completion of energy projects and reduce long-term cost pressures. Some conservative stalwarts will never support anything they see as helping clean energy, while some environmental activists are more concerned with punishing fossil fuel companies than they are with actually addressing climate change. These short-sighted visions represent the horseshoe of scarcity, decline and pessimism that has plagued American energy politics for decades. They believe we can succeed only by taking from the other side. America cannot afford delay. A dangerous world requires energy dominance in all industries, including new ones like clean energy. Moreover, Americans deserve to know that they will have reliable, accessible energy needed to power their businesses and residences. Permitting reform will make energy access more reliable, more abundant, cheaper and much cleaner. All Americans, and our planet, will win. The only losers will be those profiteering from political polarization. With some energy tax credits phasing out sooner than originally planned, many energy producers want to act swiftly to get new projects up and running. The permitting process, as it stands, is their biggest obstacle. As we head into the fall, our lawmakers should keep the cross-partisan opportunity on permitting reform top of mind. Liam deClive-Lowe is the co-founder of American Policy Ventures, an organization that builds projects to help policymakers collaborate and get things done.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump administration to keep DC police chief in place, but under immigration enforcement order
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Friday reversed course and agreed to leave the Washington, D.C., police chief in control of the department, while Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a new memo, directed the District's police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. The order from Bondi came after officials in the nation's capital sued Friday to block President Donald Trump's takeover of the Washington police. The night before, his administration had escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, essentially placing the police force under the full control of the federal government. The attorney general's new order represents a partial retreat for the Trump administration in the face of intense skepticism from a judge over the legality of Bondi's earlier directive. But Bondi also signaled the administration would continue to pressure D.C. leaders to help federal authorities aggressively pursue immigrants in the country illegally, despite city laws on the books that limit cooperation between police and immigration authorities. In a social media post Friday evening, Bondi criticized D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, saying he 'continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety.' But she added, 'We remain committed to working closely with Mayor Bowser.' Mayor Muriel Bowser's office said late Friday that it was still evaluating how it can comply with the new Bondi order on immigration enforcement operations. The police department already eased some restrictions on cooperating with federal officials facilitating Trump's mass-deportation campaign but reaffirmed that it would follow the district's sanctuary city laws. In a letter sent Friday night to D.C. citizens, Bowser wrote: 'It has been an unsettling and unprecedented week in our city. Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across D.C. has created waves of anxiety.' She added that 'our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now,' but added that if Washingtonians stick together, 'we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy – even when we don't have full access to it.' The legal battle was the latest evidence of the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department largely under the control of the Republican president's administration. Trump's takeover is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, though, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. The two sides sparred in court for hours Friday before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the district's lawsuit. She indicated the law likely doesn't grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably does give the president more power than the city might like. 'The way I read the statute, the president can ask, the mayor must provide, but the president can't control,' said Reyes, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden. The judge pushed the two sides to make a compromise. An attorney for the Trump administration, Yaakov Roth, said the move to sideline Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith came after an immigration order that still held back some aid to federal authorities. He argued that the president has broad authority to determine what kind of help police in Washington must provide. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but D.C. has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973. Trump is the first president to exert control over the city's police force since it was passed. The law limits that control to 30 days without congressional approval, though Trump has suggested he'd seek to extend it. Bondi's Thursday night directive to place the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, in charge of the police department came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief's instructions because they allowed for continued practice of 'sanctuary policies,' which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Meanwhile, advocates in Washington were trying to advise immigrants on how to respond. Anusce Sanai, associate legal director for the Washington-based immigrant nonprofit Ayuda, said they're still parsing the legal aspects of the policies. 'Even with the most anti-immigrant administration, we would always tell our clients that they must call the police, that they should call the police,' Sanai said. 'But now we find ourselves that we have to be very careful on what we advise.' Amy Fischer, an organizer with Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid, said that before the federal takeover, most of what they had seen in the nation's capital was Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeting specific individuals. But since last Friday night they've seen a 'really significant change,' she said, with ICE and federal officers doing roving patrols around the city. She said a hotline set up by immigration advocates to report ICE activity 'is receiving calls almost off the hook.' ICE said in a post on X that their teams had arrested 'several' people in Washington Friday. A video posted on X showed two uniformed personnel putting handcuffs on someone while standing outside a white transport van. A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world's most renowned landmarks, and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear. Friday night along the district's U Street, a popular nightlife corridor, an Associated Press photographer saw officers from the FBI, the DEA, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Park Police, U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. As the District challenged the Trump administration in court Friday, more than 100 protesters gathered less than a block away in front of police headquarters, chanting 'Protect home rule!' and waving signs saying 'Resist!'
