Overview of teh Ruling

The Illinois Supreme Court has denied a motion to challenge the stateS legislative redistricting plan, which was enacted on Sept. 24,2021. The court’s decision, delivered in a per curiam opinion on Wednesday, April 9, centered on the plaintiffs’ delay in filing their complaint. The court concluded that this delay demonstrated a lack of due diligence and that the challenge was barred by laches.

• Motion Denied: The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
• Redistricting Plan Challenged: The challenge targeted the legislative redistricting plan for members of the Illinois General Assembly.
• Laches Cited: The court found the complaint was barred by laches, a legal doctrine addressing undue delay in asserting a right or claim.
• Dissent: Justice Overstreet dissented with a detailed opinion, while Justice Holder White did not participate.

Plaintiffs’ Claims and Constitutional Basis

The plaintiffs argued that the 2021 Enacted Plan violated Article IV, Section 3(a) of the Illinois Constitution, which requires districts to be compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population. They also raised claims of partisan gerrymandering and a lack of political fairness.

Original actions may be brought under article IV, section 3 of the Illinois Constitution. Neither the Constitution,nor Rule 382 governing the procedure for original actions,contains a time limitation. The court directed the parties to file briefs on the issue of whether plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an original action was timely. The court granted leave to the Speaker of the House and the Illinois Senate President to intervene as defendants. Some pertinent procedural details, including the timing of that intervention, are set out in the dissent, which will be treated here in a moment.

The Court’s Reasoning on timeliness and Laches

The court focused on the timeliness of the complaint, noting that while there is no specific time limitation for original actions under the Illinois Constitution, the motion was still subject to the doctrine of laches.

Is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches as it was filed more than three years, and two election cycles, after the redistricting map was enacted in 2021.

Illinois Supreme Court Opinion

Laches requires demonstrating both a lack of due diligence by the plaintiff and prejudice to the opposing party. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence, particularly given the history of expeditious handling of redistricting cases in Illinois.

The court noted that the plaintiffs did not discuss or recognize the expeditious filing and disposition of every previous redistricting case as the adoption of the 1970 Constitution. The court further stated that plaintiffs did not acknowledge the court’s treatment of the most recent redistricting case,from 2012,when the court there also ordered briefing on timeliness and then denied leave to file the complaint. The lapse of time involved in that case was eight months.

Moreover, the court highlighted that a three-judge federal district court panel had rejected challenges to the map under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on Dec.30, 2021, just three months after the map’s enactment. The court stated that the plaintiffs could have brought their argument years ago, and that their claim that waiting multiple election cycles is necessary to reveal the effects of redistricting is unpersuasive. The court was of the opinion that permitting this filing would create uncertainty for both voters and office holders,as to whether any redistricting plan is ever final.The court further stated that data sought to be used by the plaintiffs may now be stale, which could be prejudicial to the parties and the public.

justice overstreet’s Dissent: A Matter of Political Fairness

Justice Overstreet dissented, arguing that the majority had raised the issue of timeliness sua sponte and that the doctrine of laches should not apply in this case. He emphasized the unique nature of the plaintiffs’ claims, which included allegations of intentional partisan gerrymandering.

He began his dissent by stating that the majority raised the issue of the timeliness of the complaint sua sponte. Although issues of timeliness are to be raised via affirmative defenses by defendants, the majority’s sua sponte briefing order required plaintiffs to file an opening brief on timeliness despite the fact that no party had entered an appearance or objected to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the complaint. justice Overstreet related that the (original) defendants’ response to the order was a filing stating that they were taking no position on the issue of timeliness, despite the court’s order.The dissent further relates that on the deadline for the briefing, the intervenors sought to intervene as defendants and raise the laches defense.The dissent states that the effect of that procedure was to invite intervenors to assert laches even prior to the court allowing the motion for leave to file the complaint, despite the fact that the motion for leave was presented to the court unopposed. Justice Overstreet contrasted the procedure in this case with that in the 2012 challenge in which the named defendants had raised laches in a response to the motion for leave to file the complaint. The dissent states that the procedure here abdicated the court’s role as neutral arbiter of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file.

justice Overstreet argued that the claims of partisan gerrymandering distinguished this case from previous redistricting challenges. He noted that while the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), held that such claims are not justiciable under the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions and statutes provide the appropriate standards for state courts to address these issues.

The dissent also stated that there had not been a showing of prejudice.The dissent quotes Justice Thomas’ dissent in Cross, No. 113840 (June 7, 2012) to the effect that while laches may bar the granting of redistricting relief in relation to an imminent election, it does not bar the granting of relief in relation to subsequent elections. Here, plaintiffs are said to not be seeking to invalidate the results of any election or interfere with any upcoming election.

Justice Overstreet concluded that while the court has indicated that political fairness is an Illinois constitutional requirement, the court has yet to provide guidance to as to what that entails, and how that requirement is to be enforced in Illinois. Accordingly,Justice Overstreet would have allowed the motion for leave to file the complaint.

Implications of the Ruling

The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely challenges to redistricting plans. The ruling also highlights the ongoing debate over partisan gerrymandering and the role of state courts in addressing such claims. With Democrats heavily outweighing Republicans in the State House 78-40, State Senate 40-19 and the U.S. House 14-3 [1], the stakes are high in any redistricting dispute.

The decision leaves open questions about the definition and enforcement of political fairness in Illinois redistricting, suggesting that further guidance from the court may be needed in the future.