McCoy v. Chicago Heights
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8453, 1998 WL 299825, 6 F. Supp. 2d 973 (1998)
Rule of Law:
A federal court remedying a Section 2 Voting Rights Act violation has broad equitable powers to fashion a tailored remedy, and may order cumulative voting in at-large elections if other proposed plans, including those with single-member districts, perpetuate vote dilution or risk unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
Facts:
- African-American voters in Chicago Heights filed complaints in 1987 and 1988, alleging that the City of Chicago Heights' and Chicago Heights Park District's non-partisan, at-large election systems diluted their opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
- The federal court previously found that the at-large system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, noting few African-American candidates of choice were elected, the electorate was racially polarized, the at-large system enhanced discrimination, and African-Americans were denied access to the slating process.
- The court also found that African-Americans in Chicago Heights suffered from the effects of historic discrimination in housing, employment, education, and public accommodations.
- Chicago Heights, with a population of 33,072, was historically governed by a commission form with a mayor and four council members elected at-large, without cumulative voting.
- A consent decree, later approved by Chicago Heights voters in a referendum, established a new governmental structure with six single-member districts for six City Council members and six Park Board Commissioners, plus an at-large elected mayor and Park Board president.
- Under the consent decree system, the mayor, elected at-large, could cast tie-breaking votes, veto ordinances (overridden by 3/5 majority), and appoint the city clerk, city treasurer, and department heads, giving him significant power.
- The Park District's consent decree structure included seven members (six from wards, one at-large president) and also featured an at-large elected president with tie-breaking power, despite Illinois law allowing the president to be elected by board members.
- The existing demographics of Chicago Heights were approximately 54.8% white, 34.8% African-American, and 15% Latino, with a voting age population of 57.36% white, 29.77% African-American, and 12.87% Latino.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1987 and 1988, plaintiff class members filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the City of Chicago Heights, Chicago Heights Election Commission, Chicago Heights Park District, and Stanley Kusper, alleging Section 2 Voting Rights Act violations.
- Pursuant to a consent decree, approved by Judge Will of the District Court on May 24, 1994, the City and Park District abandoned their at-large election method and created a new government system based on six single-member districts and an at-large mayor/Park Board president.
- Two individual plaintiffs, Kevin Perkins and Robert McCoy, appealed the entry of the consent decree to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the consent decree and remanded the case, finding that parties could not consent to statutorily modified forms of government without a judicial finding that such a remedy was necessary to rectify a federal law violation.
- On November 7, 1997, the form of government prescribed in the vacated consent decree was approved by Chicago Heights voters in a referendum.
- On remand, the District Court (Coar, J.) found that the previously existing at-large election system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the governmental structure contained in the consent decree was a modification of statutorily prescribed forms, requiring the court to determine if it set forth a valid remedy.
- The District Court then ordered the parties to propose new governmental structures and voting maps to remedy the violations.
- The City, the Park District, the class plaintiffs, and individual plaintiffs Perkins and McCoy submitted their respective proposals for remedial governmental structures and voting maps.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed remedial election plan for Section 2 Voting Rights Act violations, which retains powerful at-large elected positions or draws district lines predominantly based on race, adequately remedy minority vote dilution, or should a federal court impose an alternative such as cumulative voting in at-large elections?
Opinions:
Majority - Coar, District Judge
No, the proposed remedial plans by the City, Park District, and class plaintiffs, which largely perpetuate the consent decree's governmental structure, do not adequately remedy the Section 2 Voting Rights Act violation. The court found that these plans perpetuate the vote dilution by granting significant power to at-large elected officials (mayor and Park Board president), who often vote with the majority, thereby negating the impact of minority representatives. For example, the strong mayor's power to cast tie-breaking votes, veto ordinances, and make key appointments was seen as an "odd way to remedy a voting rights violation" predicated on the problems of at-large elections. The court also rejected the individual plaintiffs' proposal for seven single-member districts due to the potential for unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, as creating majority-minority districts inevitably relies on "race-conscious calculus" which could subordinate traditional districting criteria to race, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. Instead, the court accepts, in part, the individual plaintiffs' proposal for the structure of government but modifies the election method. The court orders the implementation of a traditional aldermanic form of government for the City, with seven aldermen elected at-large, and a seven-member Park District Board, with its president elected from within its ranks. To address the vote dilution, the court mandates that these at-large elections utilize cumulative voting. This system allows voters to cast as many votes as there are seats to fill and distribute them as they choose, including "plumping" all votes for one candidate, thereby empowering minority groups to elect their candidates of choice without relying on racially drawn district lines. The court reasoned that cumulative voting avoids the pitfalls of racial gerrymandering, allows voters to "draw their own jurisdictional boundaries," and aligns with the "one-person, one-vote" principle, while also conforming to Illinois' historical use of cumulative voting in various contexts. This method ensures representation for minority voters while avoiding continued constitutional challenges inherent in race-based districting.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its embrace of cumulative voting as a remedial measure for Section 2 Voting Rights Act violations, especially when traditional single-member districting poses constitutional challenges related to racial gerrymandering. It reinforces the broad equitable powers of federal courts in fashioning remedies but simultaneously underscores the limitations imposed by Equal Protection Clause concerns when race becomes the predominant factor in drawing district lines. The decision provides a blueprint for courts to consider alternative, non-geographic-based voting systems to achieve minority representation, particularly when seeking to avoid the "politics of second best" inherent in creating majority-minority districts. It shifts the focus from drawing external racial boundaries to empowering individual voters within an at-large system to express their preferences effectively.
