Right-wing group sues Illinois in first post-Callais attack on a state Voting Rights Act

A right-wing legal group filed a federal lawsuit Friday seeking to strike down Illinois’ Voting Rights Act, opening the first direct challenges to state-level voting protections since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the federal Voting Rights Act.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a conservative legal organization, filed the case on behalf of former Illinois state Rep. Jeanne Ives (R), who previously ran for governor and Congress but lost each race.

The case appears to be the first major lawsuit challenging a state Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, a decision voting rights advocates warned would invite a wave of attacks on laws that protect minority voters from having their political power diluted.

In that ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map with two majority-Black districts, holding that the state relied too heavily on race when it adopted the map. While the decision did not strike down Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, it sharply restricted states from using race-conscious remedies in redistricting — effectively removing a key tool to fight discriminatory electoral maps

Now, PILF is trying to use that decision to attack Illinois’ state VRA altogether.

The lawsuit asks a federal court to block Illinois from enforcing its state VRA, alleging it violates both the federal Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race.

“The Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011 (‘Illinois Voting Rights Act’) mandates the creation of racial districts in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights protected by the Fifteenth Amendments [sic.] to the United States Constitution and Section 2(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” the complaint reads. “The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed ‘the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.’”

The Illinois law at issue requires state legislative districts to be drawn, where applicable, to create crossover, coalition or influence districts — districts where minority voters can elect preferred candidates with help from other voters, join with other minority groups to elect candidates or meaningfully influence election outcomes.

Those protections are tools voting rights advocates have relied on to fight racial vote dilution, or the weakening of a community’s voting power through district line changes. 

But in the wake of Callais, PILF is arguing that those safeguards are unconstitutional because they ultimately require mapmakers to consider race.

“The Illinois Voting Rights Act requires drawing district lines to preserve deliberate racial percentages, racial majorities, and the deliberate preservation of racial influence districts,” the complaint states. “This violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.”

The lawsuit does not challenge just one district or map, but the structure of the Illinois Voting Rights Act itself, claiming the law makes race a central feature of redistricting in Illinois.

“These statutory requirements make racial considerations a core purpose of all legislative line drawing in Illinois,” the complaint states.

The complaint also points to Illinois’ 2021 legislative redistricting plan, which said each district was drawn to comply with the Illinois Voting Rights Act where applicable. PILF argues that this shows the challenged law shaped the state’s current legislative districts.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the Illinois Voting Rights Act unconstitutional and block state officials from enforcing it.

For voting rights advocates, the case offers an early warning that Callais may be used far beyond congressional maps. 

State voting rights laws have become increasingly important as the Supreme Court has narrowed federal voting protections over the years.

Illinois may now be the first major test of whether right-wing litigants can turn Callais into a broader weapon against state laws designed to protect minority voting power. The outcome of this case could reach beyond one state — and put other state-level voting protections at risk.