Hooker v. Illinois State Board of Elections
2016 IL 121077
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Support Independent Maps (Independent Maps) submitted a citizen ballot-initiative to amend Ill. Const. art. IV, § 3 (redistricting), proposing an 11-member Independent Redistricting Commission and procedures for selecting commissioners and a special commissioner if needed.
- The State Board of Elections found the petition had more than the constitutionally required signatures; five days later a taxpayer suit (People’s Map et al.) challenged the amendment’s constitutionality and sought injunctions and declaratory relief.
- Plaintiffs argued the initiative exceeded the scope of Ill. Const. art. XIV, § 3 (initiatives limited to "structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV") and violated the constitutional “free and equal” elections clause by combining unrelated questions.
- Key contested features included: assignment of new duties to the Auditor General, changes affecting the Supreme Court’s role and selection of a Special Commissioner, and removal of the Attorney General’s express redistricting role.
- The Cook County circuit court granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to counts I–VII; Independent Maps appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, which affirmed the circuit court only on the ground that the initiative impermissibly assigns duties to the Auditor General.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initiative is limited to "structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV" (art. XIV, § 3) | Initiative exceeds article XIV § 3 because it adds duties outside Article IV (e.g., Auditor General) and therefore is not limited to Article IV subjects | Initiative reforms redistricting (an Article IV subject); any incidental effects on other offices are germane and allowed | Court: Invalid — initiative assigns new duties to Auditor General (an Article VIII officer), thereby altering other constitutional provisions and exceeding art. XIV § 3 limits |
| Whether assigning duties to the Auditor General is permissible | Plaintiffs: Auditor General’s constitutionally enumerated duties are in Article VIII; adding redistricting selection duties alters Article VIII and is beyond initiative scope | Independent Maps: Changes relate to redistricting in Article IV; voters can prescribe procedural changes and courts should not police policy or burdens | Court: Unlawful — adding substantial, new responsibilities to Auditor General materially affects a separate constitutional office and violates art. XIV § 3 |
| Whether the initiative violates the “free and equal” clause (Ill. Const. art. III, § 3) by combining separate, unrelated questions | Plaintiffs: Initiative bundles distinct, unrelated changes into one proposition, forcing all-or-nothing votes | Independent Maps: All provisions are reasonably related and directed to a single objective—reforming redistricting—so the package is permissible | Court: Not reached (majority) because outcome disposed on Auditor General ground; dissent would have held initiative passes free-and-equal test |
| Whether incidental changes to other constitutional provisions (court jurisdiction, Attorney General role, judicial participation) invalidate the initiative | Plaintiffs: Initiative unconstitutionally alters judicial and executive functions beyond Article IV | Independent Maps: Changes are procedural and germane to redistricting; altering who acts in redistricting is within Article IV amendment power | Court: Majority did not decide these points on the merits; judgment affirmed based on Auditor General issue. Dissenters argued these other objections fail and the initiative should proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Scott v. Grivetti, 50 Ill.2d 156 (1971) (early redistricting post-1970 Constitution and commission use)
- Schrage v. State Board of Elections, 88 Ill.2d 87 (1981) (use of Legislative Redistricting Commission and deadlock resolution)
- People ex rel. Burris v. Ryan, 147 Ill.2d 270 (1992) (redistricting commission deadlock and judicial commentary)
- Cole-Randazzo v. Ryan, 198 Ill.2d 233 (2001) (redistricting litigation and related dissents)
- Beaubien v. Ryan, 198 Ill.2d 294 (2001) (commission deadlock; background on redistricting disputes)
- Chicago Bar Ass’n v. State Board of Elections, 137 Ill.2d 394 (1990) (CBA I) (interpretation of art. XIV § 3 limits on initiatives)
- People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 161 Ill.2d 502 (1994) (CBA II) (further explication of Article XIV § 3 constraints)
- Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 65 Ill.2d 453 (1976) (Coalition I) (initiative scope and court’s role in review)
- Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 83 Ill.2d 236 (1980) (Coalition II) (construction of art. XIV § 3 to effectuate initiative purpose)
- City of Chicago v. Reeves, 220 Ill. 274 (1906) (amendments to one article may legitimately have germane incidental effects on other articles)