2013 4 2 League of Women Voters of Chicago - Complaint

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CHICAGO, ) JODI BIANCALANA, BRUCE CROSBY, ) WILLIAM K. CROSBY, STEPHANIE CROWELL, ) IGNAZIA ANGELA DAIDONE, JIM IGNATOWSKI, ) GERALD A. JUDGE, AMELIA KABAT, ERNIE ) LUKASIK, KEITH MCDONALD, ROBERT MCKAY, ) No. 13-cv-2455 LYNN SEERMON, PATRICIA SWINDLE, and ) ALONSO ZARAGOZA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Jury Demanded ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, ) ) Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Introduction

1. Plaintiffs challenge the unlawful early implementation by the defendant City of

Chicago of a new ward redistricting plan and challenge the legality of the redistricting plan itself

under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under Illinois law. The

purpose of the new redistricting plan for the 2015 elections is to entrench the majority of City

Council members in their current offices. The purpose of the plan’s immediate implementation is

to give the incumbents an unfair electoral edge by allowing an unlawful “early bird”

representation of the persons voting in the next City Council elections in 2015. However,

because the City has put in effect immediately the new ward boundaries, the individual plaintiffs

and members of the plaintiff association, League of Women Voters of Chicago, are being

represented by persons they did not elect. As a result, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the

defendant, the City of Chicago, is acting under color of law to deny plaintiffs their right to vote

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1

2

and to be represented by City Council members of their own choosing under the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Such early

implementation is also in violation of state law, namely, 65 ILCS 20/21-36 and Article I, Section

2 and Article III, Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution.

2. In further violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the City has adopted a redistricting plan

that fails to divide the wards equally by population, and thereby denies individual plaintiffs or

members of the plaintiff association, League of Women Voters of Chicago, of the right to an

equal vote as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With

statistical deviation of up to 8.7 percent between low-population and high-population wards, the

new wards differ in population not just by the hundreds, but by the thousands of persons. There

was no practical reason for such departure from principle of “one person, one vote,” except old-

fashioned gerrymandering to get 41 Council members to sign on to boundaries that would be

acceptable to them and facilitate their own re-election. The City rejected alternative plans from

the South Side chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

(NAACP) and Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) that would

have retained the same or a greater number of majority Black and majority Latino wards while

dividing all the wards equally or nearly so by population. By failing to divide the wards equally

by population, the City also has violated state law, 65 ILCS 20/21-36, which requires the wards

to be divided equally “to the extent practicable.”

3. Furthermore, the City has drawn the boundaries of the new Second and Thirty-

Sixth Wards, as well as other wards, in an arbitrary and capricious manner. By doing so, and in

violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the City has deprived individual plaintiffs and members of the

plaintiff association, League of Women Voters of Chicago, of their right to a minimally rational


3

legislative scheme under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Likewise,

the City has violated 65 ILCS 20/21-36, which requires that the fifty wards be composed of

territory that is “compact and contiguous.”

4. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to use its broad equitable authority to

redress constitutional violations and adopt a remedy that will (a) restore the old ward boundaries

for the duration of the current aldermanic terms, (b) approve the designation of a special master

or a committee of respected citizens for the purpose of devising a new redistricting plan or plans,

(c) authorize the special master or committee to develop one or more alternative redistricting

plans that will be fair, impartial, and protect the voting rights of racial minorities, and (d) submit

either a single plan or multiple plans for selection by the City Council or by a referendum of

voters.

Parties

5. Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Chicago (hereinafter “LWV Chicago”) is a

nonpartisan political organization encouraging informed and active participation in government.

It influences public policy through education and advocacy.

6. Plaintiff Jodi Biancalana is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Thirty-

Sixth Ward but has been moved to the Twenty-Ninth Ward and assigned a new City Council

member to represent her currently.

7. Plaintiff Bruce Crosby is a resident of Chicago and living in the Twenty-First

Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections and whose representative

City Council member is now serving constituents other than plaintiff and others in the Twenty-

First Ward without having legal authority to do so.

8. Plaintiff William K. Crosby is a resident of Chicago and living in the Twenty-

First Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections and whose City


4

Council member is now assigned to serve constituents other than plaintiff and others in the

Twenty-First Ward without having legal authority to do so.

9. Plaintiff Stephanie Crowell is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Second

Ward but has been moved to the Twenty-Fifth Ward and assigned a new City Council member to

represent her currently.

10. Plaintiff Ignazia Angela Daidone is a resident of Chicago and should be in the

Forty-Second Ward but has been moved to the Second Ward and assigned a new City Council

member to represent her currently.

11. Plaintiff Jim Ignatowski is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Thirty-Sixth

Ward but has been moved to the Thirty-Eighth Ward and assigned a new City Council member

to represent him currently.

12. Plaintiff Gerald A. Judge is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Thirty-

Second Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections, but has been

moved to the Second Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent him currently.

13. Plaintiff Amelia Kabat is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Thirty-Sixth

Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections but has been moved to the

Thirty-Eighth Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent her currently.

14. Plaintiff Ernie Lukasik is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Thirty-Sixth


Twenty-Ninth Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent him currently.

15. Plaintiff Keith McDonald is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Second


Fourth Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent him currently.


5

16. Plaintiff Robert McKay is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Sixth Ward

under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections but has been moved to the Ninth

Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent him currently.

17. Plaintiff Lynn Seermon is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Second

Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 elections but has been moved to the Twenty-

Eighth Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent her currently.

18. Plaintiff Patricia Swindle is a resident of Chicago and living in the Twenty-

Seventh Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections and whose City

Council member is now assigned to serve constituents other than plaintiff and others in the

Twenty-Seventh Ward without having legal authority to do so.

19. Plaintiff Alonso Zaragoza is a resident of Chicago and should be in the Thirty-

First Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections but has been moved

to the Thirty-Sixth Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent him currently.

20. Plaintiffs Biancalana, Crowell, Daidone, Ignatowski, Judge, Kabat, Lukasik,

McDonald, Seermon, and Zaragoza are in wards with more than 53,912 persons according to the

census taken in 2010, and accordingly have less than an equal right to vote.

21. LWV Chicago also represents members in such oversized wards.

22. LWV Chicago and all individual plaintiffs bring this action to enforce their rights

to equal representation for themselves and other citizens of the City of Chicago under a

redistricting plan that is fair and impartial and protects minority voting rights.

23. Defendant City of Chicago is a body politic and municipal corporation.

Jurisdiction and Venue

24. Plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and

the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.


6

25. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C § 1391

because the Defendant is located in this district and all events and omissions giving rise to the

claims occurred in this district.

Facts

26. As a result of the national census in 2010, and pursuant to 65 ILCS 20/21-37, the

defendant City was obligated to enact an ordinance to redistrict the City into fifty wards.

27. State law, namely 65 ILCS 20/21-36, further provides as follows: “In the

formation of wards the population of each shall be as nearly equal as practicable and each shall

be composed of contiguous and compact territory.”

28. In the census taken in 2010, the City of Chicago experienced a sharp decline in

population, by at least 200,000 persons.

29. The 2010 census determined that the population of the City of Chicago was

2,695,598.

30. Divided equally among the 50 wards, the population of each ward should be

53,912.

31. In 2011, a committee of the City Council – led by Alderman Richard Mell –

conducted hearings to solicit the views of citizens as to adjustment and changes in the existing

ward boundaries and to receive and consider proposed redistricting plans.

32. On January 17, 2012 Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of the City of Chicago, filed a call

for a special meeting of the City Council to be convened on Thursday, January 19, 2012 for the

sole purpose of considering and voting on an ordinance amending Title II, Section 8 of the

Municipal Code regarding ward boundaries.

33. The proposed ordinance dividing the fifty wards was not made public until 9:30

a.m. on January 19, 2012, a half hour before the convening of the City Council.


7

34. On that morning, at 10:00 a.m., the City Council convened and immediately

approved the ordinance attached as Exhibit A (hereafter “January 19, 2012 Ordinance”).

35. There was no floor debate, and the January 19, 2012 Ordinance was approved by

a vote of 41 ayes and 8 nays.

36. The January 19, 2012 Ordinance does not divide the wards equally by population.

In population size, the new wards adopted by the January 19, 2012 Ordinance have deviations of

up to 8.7 percent in population, and many wards depart by several thousands of persons from the

statistical average, namely, 53,912 persons.

37. The table attached as Exhibit B show that many wards have significant deviations

from the statistical average of 53,912 persons.

38. The deviations in population are not necessary to protect minority voting strength.

39. The City received and rejected alternative redistricting plans submitted

respectively by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the

NAACP at hearings held by the City Council’s committee on redistricting.

40. The redistricting plan submitted by the NAACP would have kept a slightly larger

number of “majority Black” wards and the same number of “majority Latino” wards while

dividing the fifty wards equally by population. A copy of the plan submitted by the NAACP with

population tables is attached as Exhibit C.

41. The two redistricting plans proposed by MALDEF would have kept the same

number of majority Black and majority Latino wards while dividing the fifty wards equally or

nearly so in population. Copies of the plans submitted by MALDEF with population tables are

attached as Exhibits D and E.


8

42. Accordingly, there was no practical reason why the City Council could not have

divided the fifty wards equally by population while preserving at least the same number of

majority Black and Latino wards as in the plan adopted by the January 19, 2012 Ordinance.

43. In addition, wards like the Second Ward now have grotesque shapes and

boundaries.

44. Since the City is laid out on a block grid, the boundaries of these wards are

inexplicable and have no rational basis.

45. State law, namely, 65 ILCS 20/21-36 requires that the wards “shall be composed

of contiguous and compact territory.”

46. The new Second Ward is neither “compact” nor genuinely “contiguous.”

47. The new Second Ward winds from Superior Street and Lake Shore Drive in

Streeterville (700 N, 500 E), through a two-block wide strip into a section of the Gold Coast,

North to a strip along North Avenue (1600 N) that is not even one block wide at Larrabee Street

(1600 N, 600 W), then up Clybourn Avenue into Lincoln Park, where it reaches as far north as

Wrightwood Avenue (2600 N), then across the Kennedy Expressway and the Chicago River,

where it curves back south through a narrow strip into a section of Ukrainian Village, where it

reaches its furthest southwest point at Chicago Avenue and Oakley Boulevard (800 N, 2300 W).

See January 19, 2012 Ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit A, at p. 61 (map attachment).

48. While the new Second Ward stretches 3.5 miles from east to west and almost 2.5

miles from north to south, it includes sections that are under a quarter mile wide.

49. The new Second Ward does not include any territory included in the boundaries

of the Second Ward in effect for the 2011 elections.


9

50. Furthermore, while the January 19, 2012 Ordinance states that the new ward

boundaries respect “communities of interest,” wards like the new Second Ward have no apparent

relationship either to “communities of interest,” or to any of the City’s 77 officially designated

neighborhoods.

51. In the case of the Second and Thirty-Sixth Wards, the City Council majority were

also attempting to oust the current City Council members who had been representing those

wards.

52. In both cases, the respective City Council members of the Second and Thirty

Sixth Wards have shown political independence from the City Council majority.

53. In addition, the January 19, 2012 Ordinance fragments some of the best-known

Chicago neighborhoods into multiple wards.

54. The Back of the Yards neighborhood, which makes up the majority of the official

New City Community Area, is divided among five wards (11, 12, 15, 16, and 20).

55. The Logan Square Community Area is divided among five wards (1, 26, 31, 32,

and 35).

56. Chinatown is divided among two wards (11, 25).

57. The January 19, 2012 Ordinance has no companion resolution explaining how the

ward boundaries were determined or the objectives of the City Council in creating such

grotesquely-shaped wards and fragmented neighborhoods.

58. By way of possible objectives, the January 19, 2012 Ordinance contains only the

following statement:

In the formation of wards in such redistricting, as nearly as practicable, each ward shall be compact, contiguous, and of substantially equal population with an acceptable deviation to


10

respect established communities of interest or to achieve other legally valid and permissible objectives.

Ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit A, at p. 3, § 1 (amending § 2-8-300 of the Municipal

Code).

59. However, City Council members individually made public statements that the

real and specific “objective” of the deviations was to draw ward boundaries that would secure

the votes of 41 City Council incumbents.

60. The approval of 41 City Council members was necessary under 65 ILCS 20/21-36

to ensure that the question of redistricting – specifically, a choice between two competing plans –

would not be left to a referendum by the voters.

61. Specifically, 65 ILCS 20/21-36 provides that one fifth of the City Council, or ten

of its fifty members, may petition to require the voters to choose between their own plan and that

of the majority of the Council.

62. The City Council floor leader, Alderman Pat O’Connor, effectively acknowledged

that the real objective of the deviation from one person, one vote as follows: “All we could do is

strive to have the largest number of City Council members available so that we would not have a

referendum — and that’s what we’ve achieved.”

63. The City has specified no other reason or objective for the failure to divide the

wards equally by population.

64. Subsequently, the majority of the City Council, to further protect their chances of

reelection, has sought to implement the new ward boundaries immediately, in advance of the

2015 election.

65. By its own terms, the January 19, 2012 Ordinance states that it is effective

immediately.


11

66. However, by memorandum of February 2, 2012, the Corporation Counsel of the

City of Chicago denied that the boundaries could immediately take effect and that City Council

members could represent the new wards before the expiration of their terms. The memorandum

of Stephen Patton is attached as Exhibit F.

67. Subsequently, by letter of October 11, 2012, seven of the leading members of the

City Council majority that voted for the January 19, 2012 Ordinance circulated a letter stating the

following:

Historically, the recognition of the new ward boundaries has been implemented after the Board of Elections implemented the changes in precincts dictated by the new map and after the Department of Streets & Sanitation re-routed the pick-up routes ward by ward.

At this point in time, the Chicago Board of Elections has completed its changes…The new grid-based garbage collection system obviates the need to change pick-up routes.

As a result, we are proposing that the City Council, from this time on, implement the boundaries as reflected in the map that it passed earlier this year. It is our hope that such action will assist our constituents…

See 10/11/2012 Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit G.

68. In fact, the “action” referred to is intended to assist the incumbents who have to

run for reelection under these boundaries by allowing them early representation rights over the

likely voters in the new wards.

69. By taking over representation in this way, the incumbent City Council members

have the ability to direct aldermanic funds to win favor with the voters in the next election, make

zoning decisions favorably for such voters, and create “obligations” and “favors owed” that

would enhance their chances of reelection in the new wards.

70. At the same time, such implementation creates hardships and dilemmas for

disfavored City Council members, such as those in the Second and Thirty-Sixth wards, since


12

they will lose the right to represent nearly all or all of their constituents under the old ward

boundaries.

71. By letter dated October 30, 2012, Alderman O’Connor wrote Mr. Thomas

Powers, Commissioner, Department of Water of the City of Chicago informing him of the

change in representation:

It is the intention of the majority of the City Council members to begin to immediately recognize the new ward boundaries to allow each Alderman to begin to interact with those constituents within their new ward boundaries with regard to decision making and infrastructure.

See O’Connor letter, attached hereto as Exhibit H, at p. 2.

72. Similar letters went to the Commissioners and heads of a number of other City

departments. Exhibit H at p. 1.

73. On January 14, 2013, Alderman Daniel Solis, Chairman of the Committee on

Zoning, Landmarks, & Building Standards sent a letter to the other aldermen and to the

Commissioner of the City’s Department of Housing & Economic Development, announcing that

the Committee had “begun using the newly remapped wards to consider zoning changes and sign

orders submitted to the committee” and that “the Committee ha[d] begun to defer to the

alderman [sic] of the redistricted wards.” See Solis Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit I (misdated

as January 14, 2012).

74. In March, the chairmen of four more City Council committees (Housing and Real

Estate, License and Consumer Protection, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety, and Transportation and

the Public Way) have announced their intention to use the new ward boundaries for committee

purposes as well.


13

75. The City also implements an “Aldermanic Menu Program” that provides each

Council member with a discretionary budget to use for infrastructure improvements in the

member’s respective ward.

76. Each Council member is provided with a “menu” of infrastructure project options

from which the Council member may select projects for funding.

77. In 2012, each Council member was allocated a $1.32 million Aldermanic Menu

Program budget.

78. The City has authorized or permitted or failed to object to the expenditure of the

funds in the Alderman Menu Program outside of the wards for which they were intended.

79. For instance, the City’s records indicate that the Thirteenth Ward spent an

estimated $17,640 of its menu money on street resurfacing on the 5900 block of South

Rutherford Avenue – a block that was located in the Twenty-Third Ward according to the map in

effect during the 2011 election, but that will be part of the Thirteenth Ward in the upcoming

election. See 2012 Menu Detail for the Thirteenth Ward, attached hereto as Exhibit J, at p. 1.

80. As a result of the implementation of new ward boundaries for the old ward

boundaries that the Council members were elected to represent, there is now confusion and

uncertainty as to which City Council members plaintiffs should approach for help in zoning and

service related matters.

81. The City Council has not expressly approved by resolution or ordinance the right

of City Council members to begin representing plaintiffs on the basis of the new ward

boundaries.

82. Plaintiff Daidone’s experiences provide one example of the effect of the City’s

unlawful early implementation of the new map.


14

83. Alderman Brendan Reilly was elected to serve the Forty-Second Ward, which

included Plaintiff Daidone’s residence, in 2011.

84. Ms. Daidone recently contacted Alderman Reilly to express concerns she had

regarding a proposed Loyola University of Chicago development that would be located within

the boundaries of the Forty-Second Ward in effect in 2011.

85. On March 20, 2013, Alderman Brendan Reilly wrote a letter to Plaintiff Daidone

informing her that the development was located in “the new 2nd Ward” and, thus, that he did not

have “jurisdiction over this matter as it proceeds through the city’s zoning and development

process.” See Reilly Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit K.

86. Alderman Reilly referred Ms. Daidone to Alderman Fioretti, the alderman of the

Second Ward, and stated, “It was a sincere honor to serve as your alderman, and I am confident

that you will be well-served by 2nd ward Alderman Bob Fioretti and his good offices.” Ex. K.

Count I (Mid-term Implementation of Redistricting Plan: Denial of Equal Protection)

87. By the acts set forth above, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the City is

unlawfully implementing the new ward boundaries – and a de facto change in the Council

members authorized to represent plaintiffs – and thereby depriving plaintiffs of their right to vote

and their right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

88. As set forth above, the City has changed the City Council members who will be

recognized for the purpose of representing plaintiffs in zoning changes, sign orders,

infrastructure spending and other city services, as well as other matters that may come before the

City Council.


15

89. The City has made or acquiesced in these changes now in the representation of

plaintiffs without any authority under state law, without any new elections, and without the

benefit of a formal ordinance or resolution.

90. The loss of their constitutional right to be represented by City Council members

of their own choosing constitutes irreparable injury.

91. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this Court to:

A. Declare that in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Defendant, City of Chicago, has

approved, authorized and assisted in implementing the new ward boundaries and

changing the identity of plaintiffs’ elected representatives so as to deprive them of the

right to vote and of their right to the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution;

B. Enjoin Defendant, City of Chicago, on both a preliminary and permanent basis, from

implementing the new boundaries and imposing a new set of elected representatives

upon plaintiffs prior to the 2015 election; and

C. Grant Plaintiffs their legal fees and costs and other appropriate relief.

Count II (Mid-term Implementation of Redistricting Plan: Ultra Vires Act)

92. State law only gives the City the authority to redistrict wards for elections taking

place after December of the year following the decennial census – in this case, after December

2011.

93. State law makes clear that “[a]ll elections of aldermen shall be held from the

existing wards until a redistricting is had as provided for in this article.” 65 ILCS 20/21-38.


16

94. By implementing the new ward boundaries prior to the 2015 election, the City has

effectively applied the new boundaries to the aldermen elected in 2011.

95. Furthermore, such action, which effectively nullifies the results of the 2011 City

Council elections, violates Article I, Section 2 and Article III, Section 4 of the Illinois

Constitution, which have been interpreted by the highest state court as having the identical

requirements of federal law.

96. As a result, the City has committed ultra vires acts that are harming Plaintiffs and

other voters by changing the identity of their elected representatives.

97. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury from such constitutional and statutory

violations of the right to vote.



A. Declare that the City of Chicago has violated 65 ILCS 20/21-36 and acted ultra vires

by implementing the new ward boundaries and changing the identity of their elected

representatives prior to the next City Council elections in 2015;

B. Enjoin defendant City of Chicago from implementing the new boundaries and

changing the identity of their elected representatives prior to the next City Council

elections in 2015; and

C. Grant plaintiffs their legal fees and costs under the Illinois Civil Rights Act, 740

ILCS 23/5 and other appropriate relief.

Count III (Violation of One Person, One Vote: Equal Protection)

99. By the acts set forth above, and by the enactment of a redistricting ordinance on

January 19, 2012, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the defendant City of Chicago has


17

divided the fifty wards so as to deprive the plaintiffs and other citizens of Chicago of an equal

right to vote in the next scheduled election for the City Council to be held in 2015, and to deny

them the mathematical equality of representation in the City Council to which they are entitled

under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

100. In the ward boundaries adopted by the Ordinance, the population deviations

between “low” population and “high” population wards are as high as 8.7 percent.

101. As set forth in Exhibit B, the new wards show significant deviations below or

above the norm of 53,912.

102. There is no practical or lawful reason for failure to provide plaintiffs with a

representation scheme based on one-person, one-vote.

103. The City Council majority adopted this unlawful and unequal Ordinance in order

to obtain the minimum 41 votes necessary to prevent the submission of the question of

redistricting to plaintiffs and other voters.

104. The City rejected other maps that would have preserved minority voting rights

equally well or even better while still dividing the wards equally by population.

105. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury from the violation of their constitutional

rights, since the new ward boundaries are already in effect for purposes of representation.


WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court to;

A. Declare that in adopting the Ordinance of January 19, 2012,, and in violation of 42

U.S.C. §1983, the defendant City of Chicago has deprived or will deprive plaintiffs

and other citizens of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment;


18

B. Enjoin the City of Chicago on a preliminary and permanent basis from implementing

in any manner the aforesaid Ordinance;

C. Direct the City of Chicago as follows: (1) restore the old ward boundaries until the

next City Council elections in 2015; (2) approve the designation of a special master or

a committee of respected citizens for the purpose of devising a lawful new

redistricting plan or plans; (3) authorize the special master or committee to develop

one or more alternative redistricting plans that will divide the fifty wards equally by

population and will be fair, impartial, and protect the voting rights of racial

minorities; and (4) submit either a single plan or multiple plans for selection by the

City Council or, in the alternative, for selection by a referendum of voters; and

D. Grant plaintiffs their legal fees and costs and such other relief as may be appropriate.

Count IV (Violation of State Law Requirement to Divide the 50 Wards Equally by Population)

107. As set forth in 65 ILCS 20/21-36, the City of Chicago is obligated by state law to

ensure that in the formation of wards, “the population of each shall be as nearly equal as

practicable and each shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory.”

108. By the acts set forth above and by adopting a redistricting plan which deviates

from such equality between the wards by thousands of citizens, and doing so for no express or

apparent lawful “practical” reason, the City of Chicago has also violated 65 ILCS 20/21-36.

109. Such action also violates the rights of plaintiffs under Article I, Section 2 and

Article III, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution, which have been interpreted by the highest state

court to have the identical requirements of federal law.

110. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury from these violations since the new

ward boundaries are already in effect.


19

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court to:

A. Declare that in adopting the Ordinance of January 19, 2012, the City of Chicago has

violated 65 ILCS 20/21-36, as well as the rights of plaintiffs under the Illinois

Constitution;

B. Enjoin the City of Chicago on a preliminary and permanent basis from implementing

in any manner the aforesaid Ordinance;

C. Direct the City of Chicago as follows: (1) restore the old ward boundaries for the

duration of the current aldermanic terms; (2) approve the designation of a special

master or a committee of respected citizens for the purpose of devising a lawful new

redistricting plan or plans; (3) authorize the special master or committee to develop

one or more alternative redistricting plans that will be fair, impartial, and protect the

voting rights of minorities; and (4) submit either a single plan or multiple plans for

selection by the City Council or by a referendum of voters.

D. Grant plaintiffs their legal fees and other appropriate relief.

Count V (Arbitrary and Capricious Ward Boundaries: Denial of Equal Protection)

111. As set forth above, and in violation of 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the City has acted under

color of law to replace the wards in which plaintiffs live with ward boundaries, including but not

limited to those of the new Second Ward, that are arbitrary and capricious and have no rational

relationship with any legitimate state purpose.

112. Accordingly, in violation of 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the City has acted under color of

law to deprive plaintiffs living in those wards of their right to a minimally rational scheme of

representation and accordingly of their right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth

Amendment.


20

113. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury from these constitutional violations

since the new ward boundaries are already in effect.



A. Declare that in creating such arbitrary and capricious classifications of citizens for

purposes of voting and representation in City Council elections, the City has violated

42 USC §1983 by depriving plaintiffs of their right to a minimally rational scheme of

representation under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

B. Enjoin the implementation of the January 19, 2012 Ordinance;

C. Direct the City to create a redistricting plan that divides the fifty wards on a

minimally rational basis; and

D. Grant plaintiff their legal fees and costs.

Count VI (Ultra Vires – Violation of State Law)

115. As set forth above, state law, namely, 65 ILCS 20/21-36 requires that the fifty

wards of the City of Chicago shall be composed of territory that is compact and contiguous.

116. Notwithstanding that the City is laid out on a grid, the wards in the Ordinance are

not composed of “territory that is…compact.”

117. For example, the Second Ward as set out in Exhibit A is not compact but has

elongated and looping spaghetti-like shapes with no relationship to any legitimate purpose.


A. Declare that by the adoption of the January 19, 2012 Ordinance, the City has deprived

the plaintiffs of their right to a scheme of representation that provides that all wards,


21

including the Second Ward, shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory,

as provided in 65 ILCS 20/21-36;

B. Enjoin on a preliminary and permanent basis the implementation of the January 19,

2012 Ordinance; and

C. Direct the City to develop and adopt a redistricting plan that is in compliance with 65

ILCS 20/21-36 with respect to each and every one of the City’s fifty wards.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure on all issues so triable.

April 2, 2013 By: /s/ Sean Morales-Doyle One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Thomas H. Geoghegan Sean Morales-Doyle Michael P. Persoon Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 711 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 372-2511


2013 4 2 League of Women Voters of Chicago - Complaint

Documents

suffered irreparable injury

united states constitution

equal protection clause

current aldermanic terms

minimally rational scheme

elected representatives prior

city council member

unlawful early implementation