McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections: Laches Bars Untimely Original Redistricting Challenges

Introduction

In McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections (2025 IL 131480), the Illinois Supreme Court considered an original action under Article IV, § 3 of the Illinois Constitution challenging the legislature’s 2021 redistricting plan for the General Assembly. Tony McCombie and other legislators (the “plaintiffs”) moved for leave to file a declaratory‐injunctive complaint alleging that the new map was not “compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population.” The Speaker of the House and Senate President intervened as defendants. The central issue was not the map’s merits but whether, nearly four years after enactment and two election cycles later, the plaintiffs’ challenge was barred by the equitable defense of laches.

Summary of the Judgment

Per curiam, the Court held that:

Article IV, § 3(a) grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over legislative‐redistricting disputes, but contains no express filing deadline;
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 382 likewise imposes no time limit;
Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ delay—over three years and two election cycles—showed lack of due diligence;
Defendants and intervenors were prejudiced by the delay, which sowed uncertainty and risked reliance on stale data;
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file was untimely and barred by laches, and leave was denied.

Justice Overstreet dissented, arguing that the Court should address plaintiffs’ novel claim of partisan gerrymandering on the merits and outlining procedural irregularities in the sua sponte laches briefing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Tillman v. Pritzker, 2021 IL 126387 — articulated laches as requiring lack of due diligence and prejudice, and distinguished it from statutory limitations.
Pyle v. Ferrell, 12 Ill. 2d 547 (1958) — classic statement of laches as forfeiture for sleeping on rights.
People ex rel. Scott v. Grivetti, 50 Ill. 2d 156 (1971) — first redistricting challenge under the 1970 Constitution, filed two months after map submission.
Schrage v. State Board of Elections, 88 Ill. 2d 87 (1981) — challenge filed 14 days after plan filing.
People ex rel. Burris v. Ryan, 147 Ill. 2d 270 (1991) — challenge filed seven days after plan filing.
Cole-Randazzo v. Ryan, 198 Ill. 2d 233 (2001) — challenge filed two days after plan filing.
Cross v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 113840 (Ill. June 7, 2012) — denied leave after an eight-month delay.
McConchie v. Scholz, 577 F. Supp. 3d 842 (N.D. Ill. 2021) — federal panel rejected Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection challenges to the 2021 plan.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by recognizing its exclusive original jurisdiction under Article IV, § 3(b) of the Illinois Constitution to determine whether legislative districts meet constitutional criteria. Finding no express filing deadline in the Constitution or Rule 382, the majority turned to laches, an equitable doctrine that fills procedural gaps when a party “knowingly sleeps upon his rights.” Applying Tillman and Pyle, the Court identified two elements:

Lack of Due Diligence: Plaintiffs waited more than three years to file, despite knowing of the map’s alleged flaws and after federal litigation had already failed to overturn the plan.
Prejudice: The delay threatened reliance interests of officeholders, voters, and administrative bodies, and risked basing any remedy on outdated census data.

Having found both elements present, the majority concluded that laches barred the complaint and denied leave to file.

Impact

This decision establishes that, although no express statute of limitations governs original Illinois Supreme Court redistricting actions, equitable timeliness via laches will control. Future litigants must promptly challenge enacted maps or face dismissal. The ruling promotes finality in redistricting and shields election administration from perpetual uncertainty. At the same time, it invites litigants to file within months—if not weeks—of enactment, as in past cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court alone may hear certain cases first, without them passing through lower courts. For legislative‐redistricting disputes, this is mandated by the Illinois Constitution.
Laches: An equitable defense that denies relief when a claimant unreasonably delays enforcement of a right, causing unfair harm to the opposing party.
Compactness: A traditional redistricting standard requiring districts to be reasonably shaped, avoiding extreme contortions or sprawl.
Partisan Gerrymandering: Drawing district lines to systematically advantage one political party. Although federal claims were closed by Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), state courts may still address them under state constitutional provisions.

Conclusion

McCombie v. Illinois State Board of Elections clarifies that equitable doctrines—specifically laches—govern the timeliness of original redistricting challenges in the Illinois Supreme Court. Litigants challenging a legislative map must act swiftly or forfeit their claims. The decision strikes a balance between ensuring constitutional compliance and preserving electoral stability. Justice Overstreet’s dissent underscores ongoing debates over procedural fairness and the Court’s role in policing partisan gerrymandering under state law. Going forward, Illinois litigants will look to this case as the benchmark for when and how to assert constitutional objections to legislative districting.