Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 50-1 Filed 12/18/11 Page 1 of 23 Page 1 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144302, * 1 of 1 DOCUMENT COMMITTEE FOR A FAIR AND BALANCED MAP, et al., Plaintiffs v. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 1:11-CV-5065 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144302 December 15, 2011, Decided December 15, 2011, Filed COUNSEL: [*1] For Committee For A Fair And Bal- For Michael J. Madigan, Barbara Flynn Currie, Kwame anced Map, Laura Waxweiler, Edmund Brezinski, Raoul, Respondents: Joan M. Mannix; William J. Harte, Michelle Caballero, Luis Sanabria, Lou Sandoval, Ralph William J. Harte, Chicago, IL. Rangel, Joe Walsh, John M Shimkus, Aaron Schock, Bobby Schilling, Peter J Roskam, Donald Manzullo, For Illinois Senate, Lee Whack, Ian Watts, AJ Sheehan, Adam Kinzinger, Randy Hultgren, Robert J Dold, Judy Magen Ryan, Giovanni Randazzo, Ted Pruitt, Deb Biggert, Plaintiffs: John Albert Janicik, LEAD AT- McCarver, Andrew Manar, Lee LoBue, Jade Huebner, TORNEY, Chad Matthew Clamage, Dana S Douglas, Ronald Holmes, Jeremy Flynn, Jill Dykhoff, Noe Emily M. Emerson, Joshua D Yount, Lori E. Lightfoot, Chaimongkol, Monica Brar, Amy Bowne, Secretary of Michael David Frisch, Mitchell Douglas Holzrichter, Senate Jillayne Rock, Illinois Senate Redistricting Com- Thomas Vangel Panoff, Tyrone C. Fahner, Mayer Brown mittee, Office of the Illinois Senate President, Movants: LLP, Chicago, IL. Eric Michael Madiar, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Senate President, Springfield, IL. For Illinois State Board of Elections, Ernest L Gowen, Charles W. Scholz, Judith C Rice, Harold D. Byers, Bet- For Senate President John J. Cullerton, Senator Kwame ty J. Coffrin, Bryan A. Schneider, Jesse R. Smart, Wil- Raoul, Movants: Eric Michael Madiar, Chief Legal liam M McGuffage, Defendants: Devon C. Bruce, Larry Counsel, Office of the Senate President, Springfield, IL; R. Rogers, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Powers, Rogers & Joan M. Mannix; Michael Thomas Layden, Richard J. Smith, Chicago, IL; Barbara Carroll Delano, Jonathan A. Prendergast, Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd., Chicago, IL; Rosenblatt, Paul Joseph Gaynor, Office of the Illinois William J. Harte, William J. Harte, Chicago, IL. Attorney General, Chicago, IL; Brent Douglas Stratton, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL; Carl For [*3] Illinois House of Representatives, Jonathan Thomas Bergetz, Chief, Special Litigation Bureau. Of- Maxson, Timothy Mapes, Daniel Frey, Katy Langenfeld, fice of the Illinois Attorney General, Chicago, IL; Jen- Anne Schaeffer, Travis Shea, Bria Scudder, Illinois nifer Marie Zlotow, Office of the Illinois Attorney Gen- House Redistricting Committee, Office of the Speaker of eral, Special [*2] Litigation Bureau, Chicago, IL; Ma- the Illinois House of Representatives, Movants: David lini Rao, Illinois Attorney General's Office (100 W), W. Ellis, Special Assistant Attorney General, Spring- Chicago, IL; Michael James Kasper, Fletcher Topol & field, IL. O'Brien, Chicago, IL. For Michael J. Madigan, Barbara Flynn Currie, Movants: For John J. Cullerton, Respondent: Joan M. Mannix; David W. Ellis, Special Assistant Attorney General, William J. Harte, Ltd., Chicago, IL; William J. Harte, Springfield, IL; Joan M. Mannix; Michael Thomas Lay- William J. Harte, Chicago, IL. den, Richard J. Prendergast, Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd., Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 50-1 Filed 12/18/11 Page 2 of 23 Page 2 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144302, * Chicago, IL; William J. Harte, William J. Harte, Chica- and as such, is an intentional and unjustified racial ger- go, IL. rymander (Count IV). Taking another tack, the Commit- tee alleges that Adopted Districts 11, 13 and 17 demon- JUDGES: Before TINDER, Circuit Judge, MILLER, strate a blatant partisan gerrymander against Republican District Judge, and LEFKOW, District Judge. voters in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amend- ments (Counts V and VI). OPINION BY: JOAN HUMPHREY LEFKOW We held a two-day trial on the Committee's motion for permanent injunction and, after examining the parties' OPINION briefs and extensive documentary and testimonial evi- dence, including the expert reports and testimony, we OPINION AND ORDER find in favor of the Board of Elections. As to the partisan Before TINDER, Circuit Judge, MILLER, District gerrymander claims, although we agree with the Com- Judge, and LEFKOW, District Judge. mittee that the crafting of the Adopted Map was a blatant political move to increase [*6] the number of Demo- PER CURIAM. This case involves a challenge to cratic congressional seats, ultimately we conclude that the congressional redistricting plan adopted by the State the Committee failed to present a workable standard by of Illinois after the 2010 Census. The plaintiffs are an which to evaluate such claims, therefore they fail under organization called the Committee for a Fair and Bal- Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004). The Committee's anced Map (a not-for-profit organization created by Illi- vote dilution claims fail because the Committee has not nois citizens concerned about the congressional redis- proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the state tricting process in Illinois), ten incumbent Republican legislature intentionally discriminated against Latinos in members of Congress, and [*4] six registered voters passing the Adopted Map. Again, we acknowledge that (including some who identify themselves as Latino vot- Latino ethnicity was a factor in creating District 4 in ers and others who assert that they are Republican vot- 1991, but times have changed: the weight of the evidence ers), collectively referred to as "the Committee." The shows that the predominant intent of the 2011 Illinois defendants are the Illinois State Board of Elections (the legislature in maintaining Adopted District 4 in substan- agency charged with implementing the results of the re- tially the same shape as when it was created in 1991 was districting process) and its members, collectively referred a desire to enhance Democratic seats in the state as a to as "the Board of Elections." The United States Con- whole, to keep Democratic incumbents in Districts 3, 4, stitution requires Illinois lawmakers to redraw the state's and 5 with their constituents, to preserve existing district congressional district boundaries after each decennial boundaries, and to maintain communities of interest. census. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XIV, §§ 1 & Because race was not the predominant factor, the Com- 2; id . amend. XV; Ryan v. State Bd. of Elections of State mittee failed to meet its burden of proof on its racial of Ill., 661 F.2d 1130, 1132 (7th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to gerrymander claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights this authority, the Democratic majority in the Illinois Act or the Constitution. General Assembly drafted, debated,1 and passed the Illi- nois Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 (the "Re- I. Facts districting Act") (P.A. 97-14), thereby creating what we refer to as "the Adopted Map." Based on the 2010 Cen- The Committee's racial vote dilution [*7] and ger- sus results, the State of Illinois lost one congressional rymandering claims concern Adopted Districts 3, 4 and seat. The Adopted Map, therefore, eliminates one seat 5, and its political gerrymandering claims concern and establishes boundaries for the state's eighteen re- Adopted Districts 11, 13, and 17. We set forth the facts maining congressional districts. below to provide an overview as necessary to understand the bases of those claims. 1 Albeit briefly, but more about [*5] that lat- er. A. Racial Claims: Adopted Districts 3, 4, and 5 The Committee contends that the Adopted Map vio- This litigation focuses primarily on District 4 in the lates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § Adopted Map, so we begin with the history of District 4. 1973(a) (Count I), the Equal Protection Clause of the Following the 1990 Census, Illinois lost a congressional Fourteenth Amendment, and rights protected by the Fif- seat and the Illinois General Assembly was required to teenth Amendment, because Congressional Districts 3, 4, draw new district boundaries for the state. When the and 5 as drawn intentionally dilute the Latino vote General Assembly failed to undertake its constitutional (Counts II and III). They also allege violation of the obligation to draw a new map, the court in Hastert v. Equal Protection Clause in that Latino ethnicity was the State Bd. of Elections, 777 F. Supp. 634, 637 (N.D. Ill. predominant consideration in drawing Adopted District 4 1991), was called upon to devise one. Hispanic voters Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 50-1 Filed 12/18/11 Page 3 of 23 Page 3 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144302, * also sought the creation of a Latino majority congres- C-shaped District 4, a district that had 59.18 percent of sional district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. the Latino voting age population.2 Id. at 648-50. Both parties agreed that, given population and demo- graphic changes within the City of Chicago, a Latino 2 The map of District 4 adopted by the Hastert majority district was mandated by Section 2. See id. at court can be found in King v. State Bd. of Elec- 640. tions, 979 F. Supp. 582, 586 n.2 (N.D. Ill. 1996). The goal of the litigants was to create a new Latino In 1996, the court was asked to reexamine whether majority district while maintaining the three Afri- District 4 violated the constitution, inter alia, in light of can-American majority districts, [*8] Districts 1, 2, and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I) and Miller 7. The result was a bizarre configuration of District 4. Id. v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995), see King v. State Bd. of at 648 n.