Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, s. 92-1031
| Decision Date | 06 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 92-1031,92-1076,s. 92-1031 |
| Citation | 976 F.2d 335 |
| Parties | POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE OF ILLINOIS, Timuel Black, Al Johnson, Joseph Gardner, Timothy C. Wright, Jackie Grimshaw, William Moorehead, Danny Davis, Jr., Maxine Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard M. DALEY, City Council of the City of Chicago, Board of Elections Commission of the City of Chicago, Jim Edgar, Governor, Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, State of Illinois Board of Election Commissioners, Defendants-Appellees, and Anthony C. Laurino, Patrick Huels, Bernard Hansen, John Madrzyk, Ginger Rugai, Mark Fary, John J. Buchanon, Theris M. Gabinski, William Banks, Patrick O'Connor, Eugene Schulter, Lemuel Austin, Jr., Richard Mell, Patrick Levar, James J. Laski, Edwin Eisendrath, Thomas Cullerton, Bernard L. Stone, Mary A. Smith, Thomas W. Murphy, Michael Wojcik, Carole Bialczak, Theodore Mazola, Edward M. Burke, Intervenors-Appellees. Daniel RAMOS, League of Women Voters of Chicago, Linda D. Coronado, Eleanor Elam, Betty Willhoite, Mimi Gilpin, Dietrich Reitzes, Hilde Reitzes, Josefina Gallegos, Roberto E. Gonzalez, Puerto Rican Parade Committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, Michael J. Hamblet, Chairman, State Board of Election Commissioners, John J. Lanigan, Chairman, Richard M. Daley, Mayor of the City of Chicago, City Council of the City of Chicago, James R. Edgar, Governor of the State of Illinois, Roland W. Burris, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Defendants-Appellees, and Patrick Huels, Mark Fary, John Madrzyk, Edward M. Burke, Arenda Troutman, Carole Bialczak, Theris M. Gabinski, Richard Mell, Lemuel Austin, Jr., William Banks, Anthony C. Laurino, Patrick O'Connor, Burton Natarus, Edwin Eisendrath, Bernard Hansen, Patrick Levar, Eugene Schulter, Mary A. Smith, Bernard L. Stone, Theodore Mazola, Thomas W. Murphy, Ginger Rugai, James J. Laski, Michael Wojcik, Thomas Cullerton, Intervenors-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Judson H. Miner (argued), Paul Strauss, Allison S. Davis, Mark S. Kende, Jeffrey Cummings, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Roger Price, Barry T. McNamara, Ann H. Theodore, D'Ancona & Pflaum, Ruben Castillo, Kirkland & Ellis, Arturo Jauregui (argued), Ricardo Meza, Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Joel T. Pelz (argued), Jerold S. Solovy, Jenner & Block, Michael Levinson, Board of Election Com'rs, Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Kenneth M. Sullivan, and John J. Madden, Asst. Attys. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Sharon Baldwin, Jean Dobrer, ACC, Lawrence Rosenthal, DCC, Kelly R Welsh, ACC, Susan R. Lichtenstein, Benna R. Solomon (argued), Andrew S. Mine, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Jerold S. Solovy, Barry Sullivan, Joel T. Pelz, Thomas C. Buchele, Bonnie B. Koch, Jenner & Block, Richard A. Devine, William K. Blanchard, David A. Bonoma, Pope & John, for intervenors-appellees.
James R. Carroll, Michael J. Hayes, Roger Flahaven, Kenneth M. Sullivan, and John J. Madden, Asst. Attys. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee Jim Edgar.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, COFFEY and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
In this consolidated appeal, we review the district court's final order dismissing the complaints in Ramos v. State of Illinois, ("Ramos"), and Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, ("PACI"), 781 F.Supp. 1353 (N.D.Ill.1991). The Ramos and PACI plaintiffs filed their original complaints in December 1990. The Ramos plaintiffs purported to represent a class consisting of all registered voters, specifically Hispanics, whose voting rights allegedly would be violated if Chicago's 1991 aldermanic elections were allowed to proceed. The PACI plaintiffs also purported to represent a class consisting of all registered voters, but specifically African-Americans, whose voting rights also would be infringed if the 1991 elections took place.
Both the PACI and Ramos complaints challenge Illinois' statutory scheme governing the redistricting of aldermanic wards in Chicago. The complaints raised one-person, one-vote claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 2 and Article III, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution. In addition, the Ramos complaint asserted a claim under the Fifteenth Amendment. The district court determined that Illinois' redistricting plan for Chicago was not unconstitutional and did not violate the Voting Rights Act. We affirm.
The present statutory election schedule for Chicago's aldermanic elections was established in 1943. Pursuant to that schedule, in February of every fourth year, a non-partisan election for alderman is held in each of Chicago's fifty wards. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, pp 21-22, 21-25, 21-32. If no candidate in a particular ward receives fifty-percent or more of the total vote, an April run-off election is held between the two candidates who received the most votes in the February election. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, p 21-26. The newly elected aldermen take office shortly after the April election and serve four-year terms. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, p 21-22.
State law also governs the schedule for the periodic redrawing of the boundaries of the aldermanic wards. Under state statute, the Chicago City Council must redraw the City's ward boundaries every ten years based on the data derived from the most recent United States decennial census. This redistricting is to be completed by December of the year following the year in which the national census is taken. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, p 21-38. Until redistricting is completed, all aldermanic elections must be held from existing wards. Thus, Illinois' redistricting scheme for Chicago's wards required the City Council to redraw the ward boundaries, using the 1990 census figures, on or before December 1, 1991. The February and April 1991 aldermanic elections therefore would be based upon the ward boundaries established by the 1980 census. That plan (hereinafter the "1985 plan" or the "1985 map") was approved by the district court in 1985. See Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1135, 105 S.Ct. 2673, 86 L.Ed.2d 692 (1985), on remand, 630 F.Supp. 551 (N.D.Ill.1985). The 1985 plan controlled the 1987 and 1991 aldermanic elections.
The United States Census Bureau was required to release the 1990 census figures in April 1991. See 13 U.S.C. § 141(c). In fact, the figures were released on February 11, 1991, just fifteen days before the February 26 aldermanic election. These census figures indicate that Chicago's Hispanic population increased between 1980 and 1990. The new census shows that Hispanics constitute a majority in six wards. Under the 1985 plan, there currently are only four Hispanic aldermen in Chicago's City Council. The plaintiffs assert that a map based on the new census figures will enable voters to elect at least two additional Hispanic aldermen. See Plaintiffs' Appendix at A-35.
The new census also shows that Chicago's African-American population decreased between 1980 and 1990, from 1,197,000 to 1,074,471. As of 1990, African-Americans constituted 38.6% of the City's population, as compared with 39.8% in 1980. See Plaintiffs' Appendix at A-18. The 1985 ward map provided for twenty wards in which the majority of the population was African-American, with nineteen of these wards having a super-majority of African-Americans--in excess of sixty-five percent. Eighteen African-American aldermen were elected in both the 1987 and 1991 elections. The PACI plaintiffs alleged that studies of the new census figures showed that the 1985 map fractured and diluted African-American voting strength. See Plaintiffs' Brief at 5-6.
Chicago's aldermanic elections were held on February 26, 1991. The plaintiffs do not assert that redistricting of Chicago's wards using the just-released 1990 census figures was possible before the February 26th election. As required by state law, that election, and the run-off election held on April 2, 1991, were based upon the 1985 map. The aldermanic candidates who were successful in those elections took office in May 1991, serving four-year terms.
Pursuant to state law, the newly-elected City Council attempted to adopt a new map based upon the 1990 census figures. None was passed before the December 1, 1991 statutory deadline. State law dictates that if the City Council fails to redistrict, then any ten aldermen may petition to have a proposed redistricting ordinance placed on the ballot for referendum approval at the next election, in this case, in March 1992. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, p 21-40. Following these procedures, two different groups of aldermen--28 in one group and 19 in the other--presented ward maps to the voters. The voters chose between the two maps at the March 1992 election.
On December 27, 1991, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Ramos, 781 F.Supp. at 1357. The court determined that, as a matter of law, Illinois' redistricting scheme, as implemented in the 1991 elections, violated neither constitutional requirements nor the Voting Rights Act. The district court stated:
The thrust of plaintiffs' claims has to be and is that a system that locks into place elected officials for four years, shortly before a redistricting on the basis of new census data becomes possible, cannot pass muster. We disagree. Reapportionment following a decennial census is the constitutional norm, and we are not aware of anything that suggests that Congress intended to change that standard for the purposes of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colleton County Council v. McConnell
... ... On September 6, 2001, an action against McConnell, Wilkins, and James F. Hendrix, ... legislature's stead, while lacking the political authoritativeness that the legislature can bring ... See South Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP v. Riley, 533 F.Supp ... ); Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, 976 F.2d 335 (7th Cir.1992) (holding ... ...
-
Kahn v. Griffin
... ... of the City of Minneapolis, commenced this action in Hennepin County District Court against the ... The court then noted that in Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, 976 F.2d ... ...
-
Druck v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections
... ... the ballot, whether for statewide office or for political subdivisions of the state, must comply with the Election ... account population shifts and growth.'" Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, 976 F.2d 335, 339 (7th ... ...
-
Graves v. City of Montgomery
... ... pleading, they also moved to dismiss this action on grounds that Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe ... This the court cannot do. In Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, 976 F.2d ... ...
-
The Party's Over: Partisan Gerrymandering and the First Amendment
...sense given the differential treatment alleged among voters, or the racial 58 See e.g. , Political Action Conference of Ill. v. Daley, 976 F.2d 335, 339 (7th Cir. 1992); French v. Boner, 963 F.2d 890, 892 (6th Cir. 1992). Both cases rejected equal protection challenges. 59 League of United ......
-
The Frequency of Redistricting in Nebraska and the Balance Between One Person, One Vote and Electoral Stability: How Often Is Too Often?
...for 1991 elections using 1990 data, but districting plan approved too late by Justice Department); Political Action Conference v. Daley, 976 F. 2d 335 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding Chicago's 1991 city council elections valid where they were based on 1980 census data and 1990 data did not become ......