McConchie v. Scholz
| Decision Date | 30 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 21-cv-3091, Case No. 21-cv-3139, Case No. 21-cv-5512 |
| Citation | 577 F.Supp.3d 842 |
| Parties | Dan MCCONCHIE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Charles W. SCHOLZ, et al., Defendants. Julie Contreras, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al., Defendants. East St. Louis Branch NAACP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Charles Edward Harris, II, Christopher Steven Comstock, Mitchell Douglas Holzrichter, Thomas Vangel Panoff, Mayer Brown LLP, Ricardo Meza, Meza Law, Chicago, IL, Phillip Anthony Luetkehans, Brian J. Armstrong, Jessica Grace Nosalski, Luetkehans, Brady, Garner & Armstrong LLC, Itasca, IL, for Plaintiffs Dan McConchie in 21-cv-3091, Jim Durkin in 21-cv-3091.
Charles Edward Harris, II, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs Republican Caucus of the Illinois Senate in 21-cv-3091, Republican Caucus of the Illinois House of Representatives in 21-cv-3091, Felipe Luna, Jr. in 21-cv-3091, Salvador Tremillo in 21-cv-3091, Christopher Romero in 21-cv-3091, Dolores Diaz in 21-cv-3091, James Rivera in 21-cv-3091, Anna De La Torre in 21-cv-3091.
The Illinois Republican Party, Pro Se in 21-cv-3091.
Mary Alice Johnston, Illinois Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants Ian K. Linnabary in 21-cv-5512, 21-cv-3139, 21-cv-3091, William M. McGuffage in 21-cv-5512, 21-cv-3091, 21-cv-3139, William J. Cadigan in 21-cv-5512, 21-cv-3139, 21-cv-3091, Laura K. Donahue in 21-cv-5512, 21-cv-3091, 21-cv-3139, Casandra B. Watson in 21-cv-5512, 21-cv-3091, 21-cv-3139, Illinois State Board of Elections in 21-cv-3139, 21-cv-5512, Charles W. Scholz in 21-cv-3139, William R. Haine in 21-cv-3139, S. O'Brien in 21-cv-3139, Catherine S. McCrory in 21-cv-5512, Rick S. Terven, Sr. in 21-cv-5512.
Adam Robert Vaught, Kilbride & Vaught, LLC, LaGrange, IL, Michael James Kasper, Kasper & Nottage, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant Emanuel Christopher Welch in 21-cv-3091.
Adam Robert Vaught, Kilbride & Vaught, LLC, Heather Wier Vaught, Heather Wier Vaught P.C., LaGrange, IL, Michael James Kasper, Kasper & Nottage, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant Office of Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives in 21-cv-3091.
Adam Robert Vaught, Kilbride & Vaught, LLC, LaGrange, IL, Michael James Kasper, Kasper & Nottage, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendants Emanuel Christopher Welch in 21-cv-3139, Office of the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives in 21-cv-3139.
Adam Robert Vaught, Kilbride & Vaught, LLC, LaGrange, IL, Colleen Carlton Smith, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA, Devon C. Bruce, Powers, Rogers & Smith, Michael James Kasper, Kasper & Nottage, P.C., Sean M. Berkowitz, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL, Elizabeth H. Yandell, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Don Harmon in 21-cv-3091, 21-cv-3139.
Adam Robert Vaught, Kilbride & Vaught, LLC, LaGrange, IL, Devon C. Bruce, Powers, Rogers & Smith, Michael James Kasper, Kasper & Nottage, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant Office of the President of the Illinois Senate in 21-cv-3091, 21-cv-3139.
Julie Anne Bauer, Nathan R. Gilbert, Winston & Strawn LLP, Griselda Vega Samuel, Francisco Fernandez Del Castillo, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Chicago, IL, Thomas A. Saenz, Pro Hac Vice, Ernest Israel Herrera, Pro Hac Vice, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Los Angeles, CA, Denise Marie Hulett, Mexican American Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs Julie Contreras in 21-cv-3139, Rose Torres in 21-cv-3139, Abraham Martinez in 21-cv-3139, Irvin Fuentes in 21-cv-3139, Irene Padilla in 21-cv-3139.
Griselda Vega Samuel, Mexican American Legal Defense And Educational Fund (MALDEF), Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs Troy Hernandez in 21-cv-3139, Ivan Medina in 21-cv-3139, Alfredo Calixto in 21-cv-3139, Jose Alcala in 21-cv-3139, Laura Murphy in 21-cv-3139, Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois in 21-cv-3139, Cristina Flores in 21-cv-3139, Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois in 21-cv-3139.
Ami D. Gandhi, Clifford Helm, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Cooley LLP, Chicago, IL, Jon Marshall Greenbaum, Ryan Richard Talbert Snow, Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, Joseph Michael Drayton, Cooley LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations in 21-cv-5512.
Ami D. Gandhi, Clifford Helm, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Cooley LLP, Chicago, IL, Elizabeth Wright, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley LLP, Boston, MA, Jon Marshall Greenbaum, Ryan Richard Talbert Snow, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, Joseph Michael Drayton, Cooley LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Illinois State Conference NAACP in 21-cv-5512.
Ami D. Gandhi, Clifford Helm, Aneel Lachman Chablani, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Cooley LLP, Chicago, IL, Elizabeth Wright, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley LLP, Boston, MA, Jon Marshall Greenbaum, Ryan Richard Talbert Snow, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, Joseph Michael Drayton, Cooley LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff NAACP East St. Louis Branch in 21-cv-5512.
Adam Robert Vaught, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Devon C. Bruce, Powers, Rogers & Smith, Sean M. Berkowitz, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL, Colleen Carlton Smith, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Diego, CA, Elizabeth H. Yandell, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Heather Wier Vaught, Heather Wier Vaught P.C., LaGrange, IL, for Defendant Don Harmon in 21-cv-5512.
Adam Robert Vaught, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Chicago, IL, Heather Wier Vaught, Heather Wier Vaught P.C., LaGrange, IL, for Defendant Emanuel Christopher Welch in 21-cv-5512.
Plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases, McConchie, Contreras , and East St. Louis NAACP , challenge Illinois’ legislative redistricting map1 and ask this Court to order alterations that would create additional districts featuring majorities of either Latino or Black voters. All Plaintiffs bring statutory claims, arguing that the redistricting map impermissibly dilutes minority votes in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, et seq. Contreras and East St. Louis NAACP Plaintiffs also present constitutional claims, contending that several legislative districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
On § 2 Voting Rights Act claims, the Supreme Court has admonished that "[f]ailure to maximize cannot be the measure of § 2" because "reading § 2 to define dilution as any failure to maximize tends to obscure the very object of the statute and to run counter to its textually stated purpose." Johnson v. De Grandy , 512 U.S. 997, 1016–17, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). Nearly three decades later, those principles animate this Court's analysis of these three challenges to Illinois’ legislative redistricting map. 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, 114 S.Ct. 2647. Rather, for many of the challenged districts, these cases are about "the chance for more success in place of some." Id. at 1013, 114 S.Ct. 2647. 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.2
Although there is debate about how to achieve the guarantees of the Voting Rights Act, one thing is clear: A federal court is not the arbiter of that dispute unless Plaintiffs carry their burden to prove that an elected legislature's approach violates the law. See Voinovich v. Quilter , 507 U.S. 146, 156, 113 S.Ct. 1149, 122 L.Ed.2d 500 (1993) (). Cognizant that "judgments about inequality * * * become closer calls" in cases such as these, we conclude that Plaintiffs have not established any statutory defects in SB 927. Johnson , 512 U.S. at 1013, 114 S.Ct. 2647. Our analysis in support of that conclusion forms the first part of this opinion.
As to the constitutional claims, Contreras Plaintiffs allege that House District ("HD" or "House District") 21 and Senate District ("SD" or "Senate District") 11 constitute racial gerrymanders, and East St. Louis NAACP Plaintiffs allege the same for HD 114. But neither set of Plaintiffs has proved that race predominated in the configuration of any of the challenged districts. Indeed, the record could not be more clear that partisan politics—a legally acceptable criterion—controlled that decision. The second part of this opinion lays out our evaluation of those constitutional claims.
For the reasons that follow, we uphold the General Assembly's redistricting map under SB 927 and reject in full all three Plaintiffs’ remedial proposals, denying Plaintiffs any further injunctive or declaratory relief.
As explained in the Court's October 19, 2021 decision in this case, the Illinois Constitution instructs the General Assembly to reconfigure the boundaries of the 59 Senate...
To continue reading
Request your trial