Cook County Circuit Court [official website] Judge Diane Larsen on Wednesday blocked [opinion, PDF] a ballot measure proposing an amendment to the Illinois Consitution that aimed to eliminate the General Assembly’s power to draw legislative district boundaries. The proposal advanced by Independent Maps (IM) [advocacy website] seeks to change the current process to avoid a situation where the redistricting and approval could fall into the hands of elected officials of the same party. Under IM’s proposal, the General Assembly’s current power to submit a redistricting plan would be removed, and a new Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) created in its place. The plan also envisions a new and increased role [Chicago Tribune report] for the state Auditor General, and additional responsibilities for the individual justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. Larsen ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on seven of the eleven counts challenging the proposal, ultimately rejecting the redistricting amendment. Among other things, she stated that “the requirement that at least two Illinois Supreme Court justices not have the same political affiliation adds a new eligibility requirement for the office of Judge of the Illinois Supreme Court … and is unconstitutional on that basis.” The court also found the additional duties created for the Illinois Supreme Court justices and the Auditor General to be a violation of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution [text]. According to the court, neither the Supreme Court justices nor the Auditor General are representatives of the legislative branch, and thus outside the scope of Article IV of the Constitution governing legislative redistricting. Dennis FitzSimons, chairman of IM, stated his intention to appeal [press release] the ruling in an effort to keep the referendum on the November 8 ballot.

Voting rights remain a controversial legal issue in the US. Earlier this week, courts in Wisconsin and Texas [JURIST reports] invalidated state voter ID laws. Last month, a three-judge panel upheld [JURIST report] North Carolina’s newly drawn congressional districts. In April the US Supreme Court [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a redistricting decision in Arizona as not discriminatory. Earlier that same month a panel of federal judges rejected a motion [order, PDF] by Representative Corrine Brown [official profile] challenging the current congressional district boundaries in Florida [JURIST report]. In March the Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] regarding an election district plan for Virginia’s Third Congressional District. This district was altered in 2012 in a manner that increased the already majority-African American population, and the district court found the plan unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In November the court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in a challenge to the Three Judge Court Act, which requires the convening of a three-judge district court to decide certain important lawsuits such as those concerning voter redistricting. Last June the court ruled [JURIST report] that the Elections Clause of the US Constitution permits the state of Arizona to adopt a commission to draw congressional districts. In April of last year the court threw out [JURIST report] a North Carolina court ruling that upheld Republican-drawn electoral districts for state and congressional lawmakers.