/
Illinois' race-based Voting Rights Act challenged as unconstitutional

Illinois' race-based Voting Rights Act challenged as unconstitutional


Illinois' race-based Voting Rights Act challenged as unconstitutional

The nation's only public interest law firm dedicated wholly to election integrity says the Supreme Court was right to remove race from the allocation of power.

In the first lawsuit following the Louisiana v. Callais decision declaring states may not use race to allocate power, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has filed suit against Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) and the Illinois Board of Elections challenging the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011, which mandates racial districts.

Adams, J. Christian (PILF) Adams

J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney and founder and chief counsel of PILF, says it is "a very good thing" that the Supreme Court has finally removed race from the allocation of power.

"That's respective of individual dignity. It's what the civil rights movement was all about … and that's why we sued Illinois," he tells AFN. "They actually require all redistricting to be done using race."

The new Illinois maps Gov. Pritzker signed in 2021 meet those requirements to, according to the governor, "adequately preserve minority representation and reflect the diversity of our state."

But Adams points out that the Supreme Court has explicitly declared racial redistricting criteria unconstitutional; if a state law requires the allocation of power based on race, it violates the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

PILF is also currently challenging the California congressional maps under the Fifteenth Amendment as racially motivated draws, with Louisiana v. Callais also providing a basis to invalidate those maps.

Noting that PILF has won redistricting litigation across the United States, Adams thinks things are looking good for Republicans.

Historically, both parties have gerrymandered districts for centuries, but Republicans sparked the current battle, and Adams figures they will end up with 10-15 seats they did not have in the last election.

Republicans currently hold about 220 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A gain of 10–15 seats from redistricting would put them at roughly 230–235 seats, creating a more durable governing majority.

However, a number of GOP-held seats — especially in suburban swing districts in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and parts of California and New York — remain competitive and could realistically flip to Democrats depending on the national political climate and turnout.

And Adams adds that the election the results might not be as good if gasoline is $6 a gallon in November.