Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: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, ) LYNN SEERMON, PATRICIA SWINDLE, and ) ALONSO ZARAGOZA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, ) ) Defendant. )

No. 13-cv-2455

Jury Demanded

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 plans 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 2 of 21 PageID #: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 oldfashioned 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

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: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 TwentyFirst 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 3

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: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

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

Ward under the boundaries in place in the 2011 City Council elections but has been moved to the Fourth Ward and assigned a new City Council member to represent him currently.

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: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 TwentyEighth 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. 22. LWV Chicago also represents members in such oversized wards. 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. 5

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: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. 2,695,598. 30. 53,912. 31. In 2011, a committee of the City Council led by Alderman Richard Mell Divided equally among the 50 wards, the population of each ward should be The 2010 census determined that the population of the City of Chicago was

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. 6

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: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. 39. The deviations in population are not necessary to protect minority voting strength. 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 Councils 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.

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: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. boundaries. 44. Since the City is laid out on a block grid, the boundaries of these wards are In addition, wards like the Second Ward now have grotesque shapes and

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. 47. The new Second Ward is neither compact nor genuinely contiguous. 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.

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: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 Citys 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. and 35). 56. 57. Chinatown is divided among two wards (11, 25). The January 19, 2012 Ordinance has no companion resolution explaining how the The Logan Square Community Area is divided among five wards (1, 26, 31, 32,

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

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: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 OConnor, 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 thats what weve 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. immediately. 10 By its own terms, the January 19, 2012 Ordinance states that it is effective

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: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 changesThe 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 11

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: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 OConnor 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 OConnor 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 Citys 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.

12

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: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 members 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 Citys 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 Daidones experiences provide one example of the effect of the Citys

unlawful early implementation of the new map.

13

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:14

83.

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

included Plaintiff Daidones 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 citys 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.

14

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: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.

15

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: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. 98. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this Court to: 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 16

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: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. 106. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

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;

17

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: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. 18

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: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. 19

Case: 1:13-cv-02455 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/02/13 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:20

113.

Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury from these constitutional violations

since the new ward boundaries are already in effect. 114. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this Court to: 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 iscompact. 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. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray this Court to: 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,

20

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

21