The voting rights lawsuit in Lincoln's hometown of Springfield prompted national and international interest because it was the first litigated challenge to an at large election system in a northern city. That's the conclusion of Sam Issacharoff, an attorney for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, D.C., and Chandler Davidson, professor of political sociology at Rice University in Houston, Texas, and a cited authority in the U.S. Supreme Court case last year that opened the door even further for voting rights litigation.

A move has begun to examine whether northern cities and other jurisdictions are in violation of the Voting Rights Act, according to Davidson. This movement has prompted lawsuits challenging at-large election systems in several northern cities, and among the most significant is the successful challenge to at-large municipal elections in Springfield. The Springfield case is also significant since it fully explored the implications of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Key to understanding the Springfield case, McNeil v. City of Springfield (No. 85-2365 (CD. Ill. Jan. 12, 1987)), and the probability of more voting rights lawsuits is the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, Thornburg v. Gingles (No. 83-1968, slip op. (U.S., June 30, 1986)). The Supreme Court declared that Congress had the power to pass the 1982 amendments establishing the "results test." In addition, the court's opinion lowered the level of statistical data required to establish a racially polarized voting claim. The need for expensive and exhaustive statistical evidence was eliminated.

"It is a plaintiff's ballgame. It is easier to win a voting rights case than it ever has been before. The amendments and Thornburg restored the status quo," Davidson said.

Before 1980 it was not clear what tests should be applied in voting rights lawsuits because of conflicting opinions in lower federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court established the "intent test" in City of Mobile v. Bolden (446 U.S. 55 (1980)). Prior to the Bolden ruling, vote dilution cases, whether brought on a statutory or constitutional basis, depended on "results," looking at all the circumstances. Under Bolden, plaintiffs had to prove discriminatory intent for an election system to be found "legal. According to Davidson, "[Bolden] threw cold water on voting rights litigation. Many plaintiffs [had little chance to win] after the Bolden decision because a quick search of the records showed there were not any documents to support why a particular form of government was established. It was incredibly burdensome and time-consuming."

The amendments to Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act are the foundation for the Springfield voting discrimination case, as well as the voting rights lawsuits in Danville, Peoria and Chicago Heights, said Don Craven, an attorney for the plaintiffs in all these cases. Craven and Davidson agree that the change in the law made the climate favorable for bringing voting discrimination cases in the North and West.

The Springfield voting rights lawsuit, filed in April 1985, centered on the city's at-large election system and the possibility that it diluted the votes of blacks and kept them from equal participation in the political process. Springfield since 1911 has used the commission form of city government. Under that form, Springfield's government included the city council, which was the legislative body consisting of a mayor, a streets commissioner, a finance commissioner, a public works commissioner and a health and safety commissioner. The mayor and four commissioners were elected at large and had executive duties as well as their duties on the city council.

The court determined that Springfield's at-large election system kept blacks from participating in the electoral process and electing a representative of their choice. During the 11-day trial, testimony focused on socioeconomic disparities between whites and blacks, voting patterns, election results and minority access to the local political structure. In January, U.S. District Judge Harold Baker ruled that blacks are a submerged voting minority in Springfield, where their voting power is diluted, providing them less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives.

After a two-year struggle, and five months after Baker's ruling against the at-large system, the plaintiffs and Springfield officials agreed in mid-June to phase out the city's illegal commission form of government. The compromise allows for a temporary city government for three years with the election set for November: 10 aldermen will be elected from wards, and a mayor, city clerk, director of public works, director of public safety and director of public utilities will be elected city wide. They will take office in January 1988. In 1991, the city will switch to a mayor-aldermanic system with a mayor, city clerk and treasurer elected citywide and 10 aldermen elected from districts. The mayor will then appoint the city department heads with the consent of the council. The June compromise included a halt to further court appeals. Baker approved the settlement in late July.

For almost three decades, the battle to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been fought in federal courtrooms in the Deep South. Reasons for the legal confrontations have ranged from unconstitutional poll taxes to district gerrymandering to minority vote dilution.

Until now voting rights cases have been primarily confined to southern jurisdictions. Voting rights experts agree that the challenges to at-large municipal election systems in Peoria, Danville, Springfield and Chicago Heights illustrate the movement of litigation to the North. The filing of these lawsuits has many local government officials questioning the legality of their election systems. The requirement of proving intent or motivation established in the Bolden ruling had placed a heavy burden of proof upon individuals challenging a discriminatory voting practice. Challengers were forced to search historical records for the reason that a particular election system was adopted. If the research disclosed no overt discriminatory intent against the minority group or was silent on the issue, the challenge would fail. That intent test made it harder to prove voting rights violations in the North than in the South because northern politicians less frequently disclosed discriminatory rationales for the establishment of electoral processes than did their southern counterparts. Overt appeals to racial and ethnic bias have been considered politically damaging in the North much longer than in the South.

In 1982 Congress amended the Voting Rights Act, eliminating the intent requirement and substituting a results test. The amendments were designed to restore the legal standard that guided voting discrimination cases before the Bolden decision. Section 2 of the act was amended to prohibit a state or its political subdivisions from enacting any "standards, practice or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . ." Under this new amendment, a minority group need only establish that a government's electoral process results in or causes a denial or abridgment of its voting strength. The reason why a particular election system was established is no longer a significant factor.

The results test adopted by the 1982 amendments requires that the entire electoral process be examined to determine whether it cancelled out or minimized the voting strength of racial minorities. In addition, Congress intended that the courts look at the historical, social and political circumstances that influenced the electoral process. For example, the court should examine:

• the possible existence of a history of official discrimination represented by such devices as literacy tests;
• the extent of racially polarized voting;
• the existence of possible discriminatory electoral systems such as at-large election systems;
• the participation of minorities in the political process such as candidate slating;
• disparities in employment, health care and education;
• the responsiveness of elected officials to the needs of minorities; and
• the success of minorities in winning public office.

The four recent Illinois cases involving voting rights challenges have all been challenges to at-large election systems. Whether an at-large system or another, the court scrutinizes several factors in determining whether an electoral process results in voting discrimination; they are referred to as Zimmer factors, a term derived from the case of Zimmer v. McKeithen (485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973)). The more these factors exist in a community, the greater the likelihood that the city may be violating the Voting Rights Act (for a complete list, see box, "Zimmer factor checklist").

Many Illinois municipalities, school districts and special purpose districts use at-large elections. Advocates of at-large elections argue that they tend to encourage a community-wide view of problems facing the governmental unit rather than a view limited to a particular area of the community. Regardless of the perceived benefits of at-large election systems, they frequently result in diminished voting strength for minorities: The minority vote is diluted in the pool of the white majority. For example, assume a community has a black population of 10 percent and elects 10 representatives to its governing board from districts of equal population. If the black population is geographically compact and tends to vote in a bloc, there is a strong likelihood of electing a black to the governing board. However, if the same conditions exist except that the community uses an at-large election system, the possibility of electing a black representative is reduced. A minority candidate must obtain a majority of the whole, not just a particular district. This is true if white voters tend to vote for only white candidates. The tendency for white voters to vote for only white candidates and for black voters to vote for black candidates is known in voting rights language as a racially polarized voting pattern. (The definition of minority group varies between different sections of the Voting Rights Act, but generally includes race, color and language minorities. The latter are American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan natives and Americans of Spanish heritage.) In summary, four main points must be established in a challenge to an at-large election system:

• there is a minority group which is sufficiently large that an election of one of its members would be probable if a district system were used;
• the minority group must reside in a geographically distinct area so that if a district system were used, there would be at least one district in which the minority comprised the majority;
• there is a history of racially polarized voting patterns; and
• there is a pattern of the minority being unable to elect representatives.

The Danville voting discrimination lawsuit, Derrickson v. City of Danville (No. 87-2007 (CD. Ill. Feb. 25, 1987)), settled in late February, alleged that the nonpartisan, at-large election of the city council excluded black representation and diluted black voting strength. The black population in Danville, like Springfield's, is geographically compact, politically cohesive and capable of constituting a majority in a single-member district. The settlement, approved by Baker earlier this year, calls for Danville to be governed by a 14-member council elected from seven wards and a mayor elected citywide. The new government should be in place this fall. Voting discrimination lawsuits were pending in August against Peoria and Chicago Heights. They allege statutory violations similar to the Springfield and Danville cases.

Although at-large elections were not the issue, Chicago has been affected by voting rights litigation. The boundaries of the city's 50 wards have been successfully challenged under the Voting Rights Act. The Chicago City Council is made up of 50 aldermen elected from 50 wards. Black and Hispanic voters in 1981 filed a voting rights suit claiming that the new ward map fractured minority populations and packed them into a smaller number of wards than the minority groups were entitled to by pure mathematical calculation. Also, the suit claimed that the ward map resulted in racial retrogression in that the proposed map actually had fewer minority wards than the map it was to replace.

Chicago, like many large cities in the United States, has experienced significant changes in its racial and ethnic makeup. In 1970, the population of the city was approximately 63 percent white, 32 percent black and 7 percent Hispanic. By 1980, the population was 43 percent white, 40 percent black and 14 percent Hispanic. Under the map in effect during the seventies there were 22 white majority wards, 19 black and four Hispanic wards and five wards without any group having a majority. In November 1981 the city council adopted a new map that had 24 white majority wards, 17 black wards, four Hispanic wards and five wards in which no majority was present. Black and Hispanic groups immediately challenged this map under the Voting Rights Act. The federal courts ruled that the map violated the Voting Rights Act. After several hearings, appeals and attempts to settle the suit, a revised map was enacted in 1985 that resulted in a majority of wards for the faction of the Democratic party aligned with Mayor Harold Washington. The ward breakdown is 25 white majority, 19 black majority, four Hispanic majority and two with no group in the majority. Challenges under the Voting Rights Act are not limited to municipalities. School districts and special purpose districts that use at-large election systems to elect their governing boards may face lawsuits. There have already been suits filed against the Peoria Park District, the Peoria School Board, the Springfield Park District, the Springfield School District and the Springfield Metropolitan Exposition and Auditorium Authority. All these suits allege that the process of at-large elections is illegal and dilutes minority voting rights under the Voting Rights Act. On August 13 U.S. District Judge Richard Mills dismissed the lawsuits against the Springfield School District and the Springfield Park District.

Although Craven would not say in mid-June whether any other Illinois municipalities are targeted for voting rights lawsuits, he did say his law firm is looking at several cities that may be in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

According to a March 1987 Chicago Reporter article, 13 Chicago suburbs with significant minority populations use at-large election systems to select their governing boards. Suburbs using at-large elections that have all-white governing boards include Glenwood, Broadview, Hazel Crest, Justice and Steger. In the past blacks have been elected to municipal governing boards in Oak Park and Park Forest, but are not now represented on the governing boards. There are six suburbs with at large elections that have either black or Hispanic representation on their governing boards: Bellwood, Summit, Chicago Heights, Calumet Park and University Park.

In southern Illinois, Carbondale and Centralia are two municipalities that use at-large elections to elect their governing boards and have substantial minority populations.

Both Davidson and Craven stressed that not all at-large election systems are illegal. Homogeneous communities that use at-large election systems are probably not in violation of the Voting Rights Act. "As a community becomes more diverse — economically, racially — it is less desirable for at-large elections," Craven said.

Many other Illinois local government units — municipalities, school districts and special districts — use at-large elections and may be parties to a voting rights lawsuit. These local governments should review their election system to determine if an alterative process should be adopted. In making a decision two important questions must be addressed:

• Is the community vulnerable to a voting rights lawsuit? (In other words, do enough of the so-called Zimmer factors exist that a judge would be persuaded that an at-large election discriminates against minorities?)
• How important is the use of at-large elections? (Is continuation of the system worth the cost of a federal voting rights lawsuit?)

The local government must assess the true cost of litigation. Lawsuits are expensive. Springfield has spent over $1.5 million in legal fees and direct litigation expenses. That figure does not include staff time and time of elected public officials. It also does not include the legal fees of those who challenged and won the lawsuit. Under the Voting Rights Act a government unit that loses a challenge must pay the legal fees of the winning challengers. Many communities may not be able to afford these large fees, and if challenged, may have to reach a settlement rather than risk the expense of deferring a lawsuit.

Furthermore, voting rights litigation is costly for other reasons:

• The litigation diverts attention from other important issues facing the governmental unit.
• The litigation leads to increased division within the community. If racial polarization exists wthin the community, battling over it in court will almost guarantee that those feelings will become more intense.
• The decision about the future of the government is removed from the locally elected officials and given to the federal court. This loss of control is one of the most frustrating aspects of voting rights litigation.

Often community frustration over filing of a voting rights lawsuit leads to "judge bashing." Federal judges find themselves criticized for interfering in local government matters. For instance, in Springfield and Danville, Baker's background as an appointee of President Carter was often pointed to as a significant factor in the outcome of the cases. Many felt a conservative judge would have exercised more judicial restraint and been more sympathetic to the majority.

Such criticism, however, tends to confuse the role of the courts. While it is true that courts, particularly the federal court, should not actively involve themselves in local democratic electoral processes, the fact remains that it was Congress, by enacting the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, that empowered individuals to challenge at-large elections in federal court. The court provides the forum for resolving disputes arising from interpretations of laws passed by Congress. The passage of these amendments may be viewed as an expression of congressional intent to eliminate the last vestiges of voting discrimination. Moreover, the legislative history of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act clearly established that Congress was aware that its amendments could threaten the continued use of at-large elections in many communities. In the end, those amendments passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and with the reluctant support of the Reagan administration. The judiciary's role in the process is merely to apply the law to particular situations where a dispute arises.

A community facing a voting rights lawsuit based on its at-large system may wish to consider alternatives to litigation. The most obvious is adopting a plan that includes electing representatives from districts. Short of going to a system of district elections, a community may wish to adopt an election process that enhances the success of a minority's candidates. Such processes include cumulative voting, plurality elections and candidates running with political party identification. They tend to increase the probability of success for a minority candidate and would weaken a voting rights challenge.

A local government unit that wants to change its voting practices may be faced with a dilemma: State law may not authorize the change. Home-rule governments (about 100 of Illinois' cities and villages) may have such authority, but other local governments would have to seek state legislation to authorize proposed changes.

One alternative for some governmental units, especially for special districts, may be consolidation with a general purpose municipal or county government. Another alternative to election of governing boards may be appointment by a general purpose government. For instance, the board of the Springfield Metropolitan Exposition and Auditorium Authority has proposed in a settlement of its voting rights lawsuit that its members be appointed by the county board. It would be ironic if the appointment alternative were accepted to resolve a voting rights lawsuit since the act was designed to increase minority participation in democratic elections.

Undoubtedly the best way for a community with an at-large election system to avoid a voting rights lawsuit would be to move as quickly as possible to eliminate segregated housing patterns, racially polarized voting patterns and economic and social discrimination. This may be the Land of Lincoln but it is not Utopia. Such truly integrated communities and those which are racially and ethnically homogeneous do not have to worry about voting rights suits. Meanwhile, the others that use at-large elections have to recognize the possibility of a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act.