Jeanne Ives Sues to Void Illinois' 2011 Voting Rights Act Over Race-Based Redistricting
Updated
Updated · Bloomberg Law · May 11
Jeanne Ives Sues to Void Illinois' 2011 Voting Rights Act Over Race-Based Redistricting
2 articles · Updated · Bloomberg Law · May 11
A May 8 federal complaint asks a US district court to strike down Illinois' Voting Rights Act, arguing its requirement to consider race in every redistricting plan is unconstitutional.
Jeanne Ives, a former Republican state representative, alleges the 2011 law makes racial considerations a core purpose of legislative map-drawing in Illinois.
The suit was filed by the Public Interest Legal Foundation and frames the law as violating the 15th Amendment and the federal Voting Rights Act.
Last month's Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais underpins the challenge, making this an early major test of whether state voting-rights laws can mandate race-conscious redistricting.
After a major Supreme Court shift, could state laws designed to empower minority voters now be illegal?
How can states protect minority votes if using race in redistricting is now a constitutional minefield?
After Louisiana v. Callais: Illinois Faces Landmark Lawsuit Threatening State Voting Protections
Overview
This report examines the major legal challenge brought by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) against Illinois' voting protections, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. PILF, an organization focused on election integrity, is leveraging this recent ruling, which severely limited Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, to argue that Illinois’ state-level protections are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision has weakened federal safeguards against race-based voter discrimination, leaving communities more vulnerable to unfair electoral maps. As a result, the lawsuit against Illinois could set a precedent, threatening minority representation and the future of voting rights nationwide.