Examining the
Questions That Matter

New Illinois argues that concentrated political power and legislative practices diminish the influence of rural, small-town, and suburban communities. The grievance connects these concerns to its understanding of government deriving authority from the consent of the governed.

It discusses population-based legislative districts, gerrymandering, and the Speaker’s control over legislation as factors the organization believes limit meaningful representation.

This grievance argues that election integrity is essential to representative government and that fraudulent votes undermine legitimate voters’ influence. It cites historical Illinois cases and allegations involving ballot manipulation, registration problems, and other misconduct.

Its examples and interpretations reflect the document’s historical account. This summary does not establish that fraud occurred in any subsequent election or determined a particular election outcome.

New Illinois contends that partisan district boundaries entrench political power and weaken voter influence. The grievance describes packing and cracking, in which voters are concentrated in a few districts or divided across several districts to reduce their electoral impact.

It also discusses district compactness, uncontested races, and unsuccessful map-reform efforts as reasons the organization seeks a different approach to representation.

This grievance criticizes the use of placeholder bills whose substantive language is added or replaced late in the legislative process. New Illinois argues that such changes can leave legislators and the public with too little time to understand significant proposals.

The document distinguishes deadline-related placeholders from bills whose original subject is replaced. Its central concern is transparency, meaningful review, and the opportunity for public participation.

New Illinois argues that Illinois House procedures concentrate excessive power in the Speaker through committee appointments, membership changes, control of which bills receive votes, and the timing of legislative action.

The grievance maintains that these practices weaken debate and accountability. It addresses the rules and leadership circumstances discussed in 2021, rather than serving as a description of today’s House rules.

This grievance opposes assigning a participating state’s presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. New Illinois argues that the arrangement would weaken state-level influence and the protections it associates with the Electoral College.

It also raises constitutional objections and criticizes the legislative process used for Illinois’ participation. These are the organization’s arguments; this summary does not present them as settled judicial findings or describe the compact’s current status.

New Illinois objects to the police-power qualification in the Illinois Constitution’s right-to-bear-arms provision. The grievance argues that the wording has enabled restrictions the organization regards as inconsistent with individual firearm rights.

It discusses the state constitutional convention, historical handgun-ban litigation, and later Supreme Court decisions. This is a summary of the organization’s position, not current guidance on firearm laws.

This grievance focuses on how Illinois’ 2021 legislative maps were developed and adopted. New Illinois criticizes the use of data before the delayed census release, limited public review, and what it describes as a secretive, partisan process.

Unlike Grievance 3, which addresses gerrymandering more broadly, this statement centers on the decisions, transparency, and participation surrounding a specific redistricting cycle.

New Illinois uses this grievance to bring together its broader objections to state government. It characterizes the concentration and exercise of power as unjust, citing concerns about representation, rights, public debt, administrative decisions, and government performance.

The document explains why the organization believes a new state is warranted. Its terminology and conclusions are advocacy positions, not independent legal findings.