HR0385LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1
HOUSE RESOLUTION

 
2    WHEREAS, Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Illinois
3Constitution of 1970, in the year following each federal
4decennial census year, the General Assembly by law shall
5redistrict the Legislative Districts and the Representative
6Districts; and
 
7    WHEREAS, In late 2010, the United States Census Bureau
8released its 2010 population totals for Illinois; and
 
9    WHEREAS, The Redistricting Transparency and Public
10Participation Act requires committees of the Senate and House,
11or a joint committee, to hold public hearings statewide and
12receive testimony and inform the public on the existing
13Legislative and Representative Districts; and
 
14    WHEREAS, The Illinois General Assembly, in considering
15redistricting issues over the past two years, conducted over
16forty hearings throughout the State during that time; and
 
17    WHEREAS, At those hearings, the Illinois General Assembly
18heard from experts in the area of redistricting, considered
19comments from public officials and members of the general
20public, and received proposals submitted by members of the
21public and stakeholder groups; and
 

 

 

HR0385- 2 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    WHEREAS, The Illinois General Assembly has drafted a plan
2for redistricting the Legislative Districts and the
3Representative Districts (the "2011 General Assembly
4Redistricting Plan"); therefore, be it
 
5    RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
6NINETY-SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that
7in establishing boundaries for Illinois Legislative and
8Representative Districts ("Districts"), the following
9redistricting principles were taken into account:
10        (i) each of the Districts contained in the 2011 General
11    Assembly Redistricting Plan was drawn to be substantially
12    equal in population, so that as nearly as practicable, the
13    total population deviation between Districts in zero;
14        (ii) each of the Districts contained in the 2011
15    General Assembly Redistricting Plan was drawn to be
16    consistent with the United States Constitution;
17        (iii) each of the Districts contained in the 2011
18    General Assembly Redistricting Plan was drawn to be
19    consistent with the federal Voting Rights Act, where
20    applicable;
21        (iv) each of the Districts contained in the 2011
22    General Assembly Redistricting Plan was drawn to be compact
23    and contiguous, as required by the Illinois Constitution;
24        (v) each of the Districts contained in the 2011 General

 

 

HR0385- 3 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Assembly Redistricting Plan was drawn to be consistent with
2    the Illinois Voting Rights Act of 2011, where applicable;
3    and
4        (vi) each of the Districts contained in the 2011
5    General Assembly Redistricting Plan was drawn taking into
6    account the partisan composition of the District and of the
7    Plan itself; and be it further
 
8    RESOLVED, That in addition to the foregoing redistricting
9principles, each of the Districts contained in the 2011 General
10Assembly Redistricting Plan was drawn to reflect a balance of
11the following redistricting principles: the preservation of
12the core or boundaries of the existing Districts; the
13preservation of communities of interest; respect for county,
14township, municipal, ward, and other political subdivision
15boundaries; the maintenance of incumbent-constituent
16relationships and tracking of population migration; proposals
17or other input submitted by members of the public and
18stakeholder groups; public hearing testimony; other incumbent
19requests; respect for geographic features and natural or
20logical boundaries; and other redistricting principles
21recognized by state and federal court decisions; and be it
22further
 
23    RESOLVED, That the House hereby adopts and incorporates by
24reference all information received by the House Redistricting

 

 

HR0385- 4 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Committee or the Senate Redistricting Committee that was
2submitted by the general public and stakeholders in person at
3the hearings; by e-mail; by U.S. mail; by facsimile; or in
4person at the public access stations provided by the House and
5Senate in Springfield, Illinois and in Chicago, Illinois; that
6the House further adopts and incorporates by reference
7transcripts of proceedings for all of the redistricting
8hearings conducted by either the House or Senate or both; and
9that all information received by the House or Senate or both,
10including but not limited to, the aforementioned information,
11was subsequently posted at one of the following websites:
12www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/hearing.asp?CommitteeID=956,
13www.ilsenateredistricting.com, and
14www.ilhousedems.com/redistricting; and be it further
 
15    RESOLVED, That the following summary describes the general
16characteristics of each Representative District and makes
17reference to some but not all of the redistricting principles
18that were considered in drawing that District. The term
19"proposed RD", followed by a number, will refer to the
20Representative District proposed in the 2011 General Assembly
21Redistricting Plan, and the term "current RD", followed by a
22number, will refer to the Representative District under the
23current, existing plan adopted in 2001:
 
24    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 1

 

 

HR0385- 5 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 1 has a population
2of 101,561. Proposed RD 1 has a population of 108,734, the
3equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
4"one person, one vote" principle.
5    Proposed RD 1 includes portions of current RDs 1, 6, 21,
623, and 32 with 38.03% of the population coming from current RD
71. Proposed RD 1 is different in shape from current RD 1 due in
8part to population shifts and the need to increase the total
9population of the district by 7,173.
10    Even though proposed RD 1 is different geographically, it
11is similar demographically and shares many of the
12characteristics of current RD 1. Proposed RD 1 has more clearly
13defined borders made up of permanent fixtures such as railroad
14lines and expressways. The boundaries of proposed RD 1 are the
15Stevenson Expressway to the north, the New City neighborhood to
16the east, Chicago Lawn to the south and a section of Garfield
17Ridge to the west. In order to ensure equal population,
18proposed RD 1 moves south and west into current RD 6, west into
19current RD's 21 and 23, and south into current RD 32. Proposed
20RD 1 consists of portions of the southwest side of Chicago and
21most of the wards that make up current RD 1, including parts of
22the 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 20th and 23rd wards in
23Chicago. This includes the neighborhoods of Archer Heights,
24Brighton Park, New City, Gage Park, Chicago Lawn, Garfield
25Ridge, and West Elsdon. A portion of the municipality of Forest
26View is added to proposed RD 1.

 

 

HR0385- 6 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Despite population loss requiring proposed RD 1 to move
2south and west, proposed RD 1 retains similar demographics as
3current RD 1. The 14th ward continues to make up much of
4proposed RD 1 and dominates the north and central parts of the
5district. Included in this ward are the neighborhoods of Archer
6Heights, Brighton Park, a segment of West Elsdon, and Gage
7Park. These neighborhoods are heavily populated with blue
8collar, working class Hispanic families, which is similar
9demographically to the rest of the ward.
10    The 16th Ward portion of proposed RD 1 consists of the Gage
11Park, Chicago Lawn, and New City neighborhoods. Gage Park
12overlaps into both the 14th and 16th wards, makes up much of
13the eastern part of the district, and runs through the center
14of proposed RD 1. The New City portion of proposed RD 1 is also
15on the eastern border. Both Gage Park and New City have large
16Hispanic populations, as well as the largest African American
17population in proposed RD 1.
18    The Chicago Lawn neighborhood, which is in the 15th, 16th,
19and 18th wards, is in the southern portion of proposed RD 1.
20This portion of proposed RD 1 consists of single family homes,
21traditional Chicago bungalows, apartment buildings and
22Marquette Park. On the southwest side of the district, the
23border is defined by Central Park Ave. and the Grand Trunk
24Western Rail Road. The West Elsdon neighborhood, tucked in a
25western corner of proposed RD 1, includes the core of proposed
26RD 1's Asian population.

 

 

HR0385- 7 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Several means of transportation help make up the borders of
2proposed RD 1 and the communities of proposed RD 1 are tied
3together by the transportation industry. The most northern
4portion of proposed RD 1 is bordered by Interstate 55, which
5gives local residents access to the southwest suburbs, Will
6County and more importantly Downtown Chicago where many people
7commute for work. In addition to the expressway, the CTA Orange
8Line runs through proposed RD 1 and the Metra Heritage Line
9runs through the north end of proposed RD 1 providing easy
10access to the southwest suburbs and Downtown Chicago. The large
11north/south streets that run throughout the district, such as
12Pulaski, Kedzie, Western, and Damen, provide many residents
13with easy access to shopping areas, schools, colleges and jobs.
14There are also several freight lines that run through proposed
15RD 1 mainly on the outer borders. Several neighborhoods
16included in proposed RD 1 are heavily influenced by the
17transportation industry. Brighton Park and Archer Heights both
18have transportation facilities and railroads in their
19neighborhoods, and proposed RD 1 unites these communities of
20interest. Both Archer Heights and Brighton Park have seen an
21influx of new residents, partially as a result of their
22proximity to Midway Airport.
23    Socioeconomically, proposed RD 1 is very diverse. The
24northwest and far west sides of proposed RD 1 have a base of
25residents with a median income of $44,000 to $99,000, whereas
26the south end of the district has residents with a median

 

 

HR0385- 8 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1income of $2,499 to $44,000. As with the other demographics of
2proposed RD 1, this is consistent with current RD 1.
3    The neighborhoods in proposed RD 1 are diverse,
4multi-ethnic communities where local businesses coexist with
5larger commercial chain stores and restaurants. These
6communities have distinct neighborhood qualities while
7maintaining the convenience of urban amenities as well.
8Proposed RD 1 brings these communities together to unite these
9communities of interest.
10    In current RD 1, the Hispanic voting-age population is
1174.14%. In proposed RD 1, the Hispanic voting-age population is
1268.26%. The partisan composition in proposed RD 1 is slightly
13lowered but still remains substantially similar to the current
14composition under current RD 1. (Throughout these summaries,
15partisan composition in a particular district was derived from
16an analysis of voter behavior based on candidate performance in
17numerous races over several election cycles.) Proposed RD 1 has
18an African American voting-age population of 11.97%, and an
19Asian voting-age population of 1.34%.
 
20    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 2
21    According to the 2010 census, current RD 2 has a population
22of 91,849. Proposed RD 2 has a population of 108,734, the
23equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
24"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 2 is different in
25shape from current RD 2 due, in part, to population shifts and

 

 

HR0385- 9 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the need to increase the total population of the district by
216,885.
3    Of the population in proposed RD 2, 63.46% reside in
4current RD 2. In order to gain the necessary population, RD 2
5acquires land to the southwest and northeast. The northern
6border of current RD 2 remains the same, but is extended to
7square off the northeast corner. This extension is necessary to
8gain population and make the district more compact and
9contiguous.
10    The eastern border of proposed RD 2 shifts east and extends
11north from the entrance of I-90/94 up to 16th Street. The
12southern border of the district extends southwest from 31st
13Street and the Dan Ryan expressway to 42nd Street and
14California Avenue. It then extends north to 38th Place and east
15half a mile to Western Ave. where it runs north on the western
16border to the northern border at 17th Street. The western
17border of proposed RD 2 is similar to that of current RD 2,
18except for the southwest expansion that is west of Western
19Avenue and south of Pershing Road. This expansion is made
20because of the need to add a large number of residents to the
21district. Proposed RD 2 recedes completely from South Lawndale
22and removes a small northwest portion of current RD 2,
23partially to keep the traditional boundaries of Chinatown in
24one district.
25    Proposed RD 2 is located entirely within Chicago, as is
26current RD 2, and includes portions of the Chicago

 

 

HR0385- 10 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1neighborhoods of Armour Square, Bridgeport, Brighton Park,
2Lower West Side, McKinley Park, Near South Side, and New City.
3Brighton Park is not in current RD 2.
4    The sections added in proposed RD 2 have a similar income
5level as the majority of current RD 2. These communities of
6interests are grouped together with the other areas at the
7$2,499 to $44,000 income level range. The center of proposed RD
82 has an area of income level in the $44,000 to $68,000 range
9and a small part of proposed RD 2 has a range of $68,000 to
10$148,000.
11    One of the most significant changes from current RD 2 in
12proposed RD 2 is that it adds a new area in the northeast so
13that the traditional boundaries of Chinatown are within one
14district. Witnesses at the House Redistricting Committee
15Hearing in Chicago on April 21, 2011, testified to the
16importance of keeping Chinatown in one district. C. W. Chan
17from the Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community,
18Ester Wong from the Chinese American Service League, Tony Shu
19from the Chicago Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Ami Gandhi
20of the Asian American Institute all asked that Chinatown to be
21kept in one representative district.
22    In addition to the entrance of I-90/94 at the northeastern
23corner of proposed RD 2, I-55 cuts through the middle of
24proposed RD 2 as it does in current RD 2, making it easy for
25residents of the district to access transportation options.
26Several train routes serve proposed RD 2, as they do in current

 

 

HR0385- 11 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1RD 2: The CTA Red line runs through the Armour Square
2neighborhood, the Pink and Blue lines run east-west through the
3northwest corner of proposed RD 2, the Orange line runs
4diagonally through proposed RD 2, and the Metra Heritage line
5runs through proposed RD 2 as well. In addition to the
6interstate highways and multiple train routes, proposed RD 2,
7as well as the current district, has the Sanitary and Ship
8Canal that cuts through from east to west running parallel to
9I-55. Transportation in this district allows for a large
10industrial area that not only serves Chicago, but the nation.
11    Proposed RD 2 maintains a majority of its core from current
12RD 2 and preserves the incumbent-constituent relationship that
13has been built over 14 years of the same continued
14representation. The partisan composition is substantially the
15same when compared to current RD 2. Current RD 2 has a Hispanic
16voting-age population of 63.93%, and proposed RD 2 has a
17Hispanic voting-age population of 52.77%. Proposed RD 2 has an
18African American voting-age population of 2.93% and an Asian
19voting-age population of 23.47%.
 
20    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 3
21    According to the 2010 census, current RD 3 has a population
22of 101,435. Proposed RD 3 has a population of 108,734, the
23equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
24"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 3 is different in
25shape from current RD 3 due, in part, to population shifts and

 

 

HR0385- 12 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the need to increase the total population of the district by
27,299.
3    Of the population in proposed RD 3, 71.12% reside in
4current RD 3. While maintaining the core of current RD 3,
5boundaries are moved in the northwest, south, and southeast
6parts. Proposed RD 3 has narrower portions in the western Logan
7Square and Hermosa neighborhoods than current RD 3. The
8boundaries also run northwest into more of Belmont Cragin,
9Montclare, Dunning and Austin. A significant geographic
10difference is that the western border of proposed RD 3 is wider
11from north to south than current RD 3, primarily to bring in
12the necessary population and maintain communities of interest.
13Proposed RD 3 is bordered by major thoroughfares, including
14North Harlem Avenue on a portion of the western border, West
15Irving Park Road to the far north, Belmont Avenue in the
16north-central, Fullerton and Wrightwood Avenues in a portion of
17the northeast border, and the corner of N. Cicero and W. North
18Avenue in the southeast.
19    Proposed RD 3 is entirely in Cook County and the vast
20majority is in the city of Chicago, with the exception of a
21small portion of the western border in Elmwood Park. Like
22current RD 3, proposed RD 3 keeps the Belmont Cragin
23neighborhood as the largest and most central neighborhood in
24the district, while adding new neighborhoods that share many
25common interests. Both current and proposed RD 3 includes
26portions of the Hermosa, Logan Square, Dunning, Portage Park,

 

 

HR0385- 13 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1and Montclare neighborhoods. Proposed RD 3 adds a small portion
2of the Austin neighborhood. The new sections of Dunning and
3Montclare neighborhoods in proposed RD 3 are consistent in
4ethnicity, median income, and share the same main artery
5streets. The section of north Austin included in proposed RD 3
6is scarcely populated and includes industrial areas that are
7staffed by many Belmont Cragin and Montclare residents. In
8addition to population concerns, the section of Elmwood Park is
9included in proposed RD 3 to capture Hispanic growth in that
10pocket of the city.
11    The Chicago wards within proposed RD 3 share socioeconomic
12traits, including that they are primarily single family
13"bungalow" homes and have similar median incomes. The area is
14best described as a working class "bungalow belt" region. The
15residents of the neighborhoods are majority Hispanic, mixed
16with white ethnic residents who are often of Polish and German
17decent. Many of the Hispanic residents are second and third
18generation Americans and move into the area from areas with
19higher crime in order to purchase homes and raise families in a
20safer environment. In both cases, the newer and older
21residents, there are strong family and common interest and
22community values that shape the area. The residents are from
23mixed backgrounds but have similar immigrant roots and have a
24shared interest in building and maintaining communities with
25good schools, adequate policing and financial opportunities.
26Both the Hispanic and white residents are mostly working class,

 

 

HR0385- 14 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1blue-collar with predominantly lower-middle to middle median
2incomes between $2,500 and about $68,000. A segment of
3upper-middle income residents live near the Brickyard Mall in
4western Belmont Cragin.
5    Proposed RD 3 contains a substantial majority of its core
6from current RD 3 and preserves the incumbent-constituent
7relationship that has developed over the previous 5 years. The
8partisan composition of proposed RD 3 has dropped slightly in
9comparison to current RD 3 but still remains strong. Current RD
103 has a Hispanic voting-age population of 74.42%, and proposed
11RD 3 has a Hispanic voting-age population of 60.85%. Proposed
12RD 3 has an Asian voting-age population of 2.77% and an African
13American voting-age population of 4.47%.
 
14    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 4
15    According to the 2010 census, current RD 4 has a population
16of 92,536. Proposed RD 4 has a total population of 108,734, the
17equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
18"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 4 is different in
19shape from current RD 4 due, in part, to population shifts and
20the need to increase the total population of the district by
2116,198.
22    Of the population in proposed RD 4, 76.94% reside in
23current RD 4. As under current RD 4, proposed RD 4 is entirely
24within Cook County and the City of Chicago. Under both maps,
25the residents are served by the Chicago Public Schools, City

 

 

HR0385- 15 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Colleges of Chicago, Chicago Public Library System, Chicago
2Park System, Chicago Police Department and the Chicago Fire
3Department. Under both districts, the residents are within Cook
4County Board Districts 1, 8, and 12. Current RD 4 contains
5portions of the Chicago's 1st, 26th, 27th, 30th, 32nd, 35th,
6and 37th Wards. Proposed RD 4 maintains these wards and adds a
7portion of the 31st Ward on the western edge of the district.
8This is due to the need to add population to proposed RD 4.
9    The portions of West Town within current RD 4 are very
10similar to proposed RD 4, with some losses on the northeast
11side of Milwaukee Avenue. When current RD 4 was drawn, this
12area had a greater Hispanic population than it does now. With
13this loss, there are gains in the Logan Square neighborhood in
14the north, to Humboldt Park in the west, and to Hermosa in the
15west under proposed RD 4. Of interest, Marisol Morales,
16Co-Chair of the Puerto Rican Agenda, commented at the Chicago
17Downtown Redistricting Hearing on April 21, 2011 that she
18wanted to see the Humboldt Park community within a primarily
19Hispanic district. Additionally, Chicago Park District's
20Humboldt Park, which is at the center of both current and
21proposed RD 4, sits between the neighborhoods of West Town to
22the east and Humboldt Park to the west. As with current RD 4,
23the park boundaries of Humboldt Park are completely intact
24under proposed RD 4.
25    The median income of proposed RD 4 slightly decreases in
26comparison to current RD 4. This is due to the loss of eastern

 

 

HR0385- 16 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1portions of current RD 4, which had a higher median income
2ranging from $68,000 to $148,000, and the addition of parts to
3the west and north, which have lower median incomes ranging
4from $2,499 to $44,000.
5    The southern border of proposed RD 4 has very similar
6boundaries as current RD 4. This border in large part follows
7Metra's Milwaukee District North and Milwaukee District West
8train tracks. Grand Avenue also serves as a southern boundary
9in portions of both current RD 4 and proposed RD 4. To the
10south of the train tracks and Grand Avenue lies an African
11American population. If this population had been included
12within proposed RD 4, the district might not be a majority
13Hispanic district.
14    Proposed RD 4 keeps a substantial majority of the core from
15current RD 4 and preserves the incumbent-constituent
16relationship that has developed over the past 10 years. The
17partisan composition is very similar to current RD 4. In
18current RD 4, there is a Hispanic voting-age population of
1944.08%. In proposed RD 4, there is a Hispanic voting-age
20population of 50.70%. Proposed RD 4 has an African American
21voting-age population of 8.11% and an Asian voting-age
22population of 2.91%.
 
23    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 5
24    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 5 has a population
25of 102,436. Proposed RD 5 has a population of 108,734, the

 

 

HR0385- 17 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
2"one person, one vote" principle.
3    Of the population in proposed RD 5, 53.13% reside in
4current RD 5. Proposed RD 5 adds population to the south,
5southeast, and west. Proposed RD 5, like current RD 5, is an
6urban district with cultural, economic, and ethnic diversity
7stretching in a corridor from the Near North Side, through
8Chicago's Loop, into the Near South Side, and through the South
9Side neighborhoods of Armour Square, Douglas, Fuller Park,
10Grand Boulevard, Washington Park, Greater Grand Crossing, New
11City, Woodlawn, Avalon Park and South Shore. Residents of
12current and proposed RD 5, whether hailing from the northern or
13southern portion of the district, come together downtown for
14work, recreation and to shop for goods and services.
15    Proposed RD 5 is substantially similar to current RD 5,
16preserving linkages for current communities of interest and
17retaining essentially the same shape and similar boundaries for
18the northern three-fourths of the district; the southern
19boundary has been shifted southeast to include portions of
20Wards 5 and 8.
21    As with current RD 5, the heart of proposed RD 5 are Wards
222, 3, 20 and 42; both current and proposed RD 5 also include to
23a much smaller extent Ward 4. At its extended southern end,
24proposed RD 5 adds Wards 5, 6, and 8. Proposed RD 5 drops four
25wards (11, 25, 27 and 43) found in current RD 5. Proposed RD 5
26splits one fewer wards than does current RD 5.

 

 

HR0385- 18 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Currently the Greater Chinatown area is divided among
2multiple representative districts, including current RD 5. At a
3redistricting hearing held in Chicago on April 21, 2011, C.W.
4Chan of the Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community
5and Ester Wong, Executive Director of the Chinese American
6Service League, testified that they would like to see Chinatown
7unified within one representative district, as its residents
8are of a common ethnic background, many are recent immigrants,
9and they face similar challenges related to learning English as
10a second language, finding employment, and meeting the special
11health care challenges of their elderly. To accommodate this
12request, the portion found in current RD 5 was removed and is
13now included in proposed RD 2 with all of Greater Chinatown.
14    With the boundary adjustments to add needed population, the
15partisan composition of proposed RD 5 stays roughly the same
16compared to current RD 5 with a slight increase in the existing
17partisan advantage. The African-American voting-age population
18of proposed RD 5 is nearly identical to that in current RD 5
19when it was drawn in 2001. The northern core of the district is
20left relatively intact, allowing for the continuity of a
21sizeable portion of the incumbent-constituent relationships
22that have developed over nine years.
23    Proposed RD 5 has an African American voting-age population
24of 52.07%, an Asian voting-age population of 7.91%, and a
25Hispanic voting-age population of 3.83%.
 

 

 

HR0385- 19 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 6
2    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 6 has a population
3of 86,931. Proposed RD 6 has a population of 108,734, the
4equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
5"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 6 is different in
6shape from current RD 6 due, in part, to population shifts and
7the need to increase the total population of the district.
8    Of the population in proposed RD 6, 64.81% reside in
9current RD 6. The shape of proposed RD 6 reflects the need to
10gain population within the district and neighboring districts.
11    Proposed RD 6 continues to be entirely within Chicago and
12Cook County. Proposed RD 6 includes small portions of the
13neighborhoods of the near west side and near north side, west
14of Chicago's downtown. This extends further north than current
15RD 6 in order to add some of the 21,803 persons needed to
16achieve equal population.
17    South of W. 31st Street, proposed RD 6 takes in portions of
18current RD 6, then closely resembles the shape of current RD 6,
19except for small areas in the east (in the New City, Fuller
20Park, Englewood, and Washington Park neighborhoods) and west
21(in the New City and Gage Park neighborhoods) of current RD 6,
22where residents are included in neighboring districts, in part,
23to achieve equal population and keeps a community of interest
24intact. The western border of current RD 6 is shifted east to
25add Hispanic areas to proposed RD 1.
26    Proposed RD 6 adds the majority of the Fuller Park

 

 

HR0385- 20 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1neighborhood. This area is predominately African American.
2Further south, the proposed RD 6 loses residents on the east
3side of Englewood to proposed RD 5, which also needs to add
4population. Proposed RD 6 adds a small African American area in
5the southwest corner of the district in Chicago Lawn.
6    Despite having to overcome the most significant population
7loss of any representative district, and having limited options
8for finding population among adjacent districts that have
9suffered significant drops as well, proposed RD 6 maintains the
10core of the existing district and largely preserves the
11incumbent-constituent relationships that have developed over
12more than five years. The northern extension of current RD 6
13shifts east and heads further north under proposed RD 6 to find
14population that is predominantly Caucasian and Asian. As a
15result, the voting-age population for African-Americans, which
16in 2011 stands at over 58% under current RD 6, drops almost 8
17percentage points. The partisan composition of the district
18remains roughly the same.
19    Proposed RD 6 has an African American voting-age population
20of 50.44%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 15.79%, and an
21Asian voting-age population of 6.38%.
 
22    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 7
23    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 7 has a current
24population of 97,427. Proposed RD 7 has a population of
25108,734, the equal population target, and is therefore

 

 

HR0385- 21 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
2RD 7 is different in shape from current RD 7 due, in part, to
3population shifts and the need to increase the total population
4of the district by over 11,000 people.
5    Of the population in proposed RD 7, 71.17% reside in
6current RD 7. In order to achieve equal population, proposed RD
77 has expanded in overall size. This expansion also accounts
8for other proposed districts which must gain population to
9achieve the equal-population target. As it becomes larger,
10proposed RD 7 has also become more compact, losing the section
11of current RD 7 that extends into Oak Park and the City of
12Chicago. All of proposed RD 7 is within Cook County, as is
13current RD 7.
14    Proposed RD 7 contains two townships in Cook County,
15Proviso Township and River Forest Township. Proposed RD 7
16includes all or major portions of River Forest, Forest Park,
17Maywood, Bellwood, Broadview, Hillside, Berkeley, Westchester,
18and La Grange Park, as well as small sections of Melrose Park,
19Western Springs, and Northlake. Unlike current RD 7, proposed
20RD 7 preserves the boundary with Melrose Park to keep most of
21the municipality intact in a neighboring district, with the
22exception of a small portion at the eastern edge of Melrose
23Park which is added for population purposes.
24    All of River Forest is within proposed RD 7, and the
25northeast border of proposed RD 7 follows the northeast corner
26of River Forest. Many residents of River Forest commute to jobs

 

 

HR0385- 22 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1in the city by taking the Metra Union Pacific-West line, which
2has a stop in the community. Within River Forest are the Cook
3County Forest Preserves of Thatcher Woods and Thatcher Woods
4Glen. Unlike current RD 7, proposed RD 7 keeps the entirety of
5River Forest within one district instead of splitting it into
6two representative districts.
7    The southern Proviso Township communities of LaGrange
8Park, Westchester, and Western Springs included in proposed RD
97 share a large forested area, Salt Creek Woods Nature
10Preserve, as well a nearby Metra line. These towns share a
11common upper median income and demographic makeup with those
12included in the northeast sections of proposed RD 7. These
13communities are united with others in proposed RD 7 by the
14roads and rail services that act as a western gateway into
15Chicago. Additionally, all of the municipalities included
16within proposed RD 7 share a common interest in the county and
17community college services available throughout proposed RD 7.
18Expanding current RD 7 to include these territories also helps
19proposed RD 7 gain needed population and allows it to better
20follow township boundaries.
21    Proposed RD 7's northern border separating Melrose Park
22from Maywood and Bellwood follows the municipal boundary and
23the area's racial demographics. Melrose Park is largely
24separated from the rest of Proviso Township in proposed RD 7
25because of its very high concentration of Hispanic residents.
26    Proposed RD 7's central area is comprised of the largely

 

 

HR0385- 23 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1African American, lower income communities of Bellwood,
2Maywood and Broadview. These communities have a shared a common
3median income and share concerns on issues of transportation,
4economic opportunities, gang violence and neighborhood safety.
5    The changes to the district allow proposed RD 7 to maintain
6the core of current RD 7 and preserve the
7incumbent-constituency relationship that has developed over
8the last ten years. The partisan composition of proposed RD 7
9still favors the incumbent party but drops somewhat. The
10boundary adjustments necessary to compensate for a substantial
11population loss result in a sizeable drop in African-American
12population and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic population.
13    Proposed RD 7 contains a 45.08% African American voting-age
14population, a 2.92% Asian voting-age population and a 12.29%
15Hispanic voting-age population.
 
16    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 8
17    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 8 has a population
1894,072. Proposed RD has a population of 108,734, the
19equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
20"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 8 is different in
21shape from current RD 8 due, in part, to population shifts and
22the need to increase the total population of the district by
23over 14,000.
24    Of the population in proposed RD 8, 62.65% reside in
25current RD 8. Proposed RD 8 preserves the core of current RD 8,

 

 

HR0385- 24 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1while expanding west into the suburbs to gain population and
2preserve communities of interest. Several boundary lines in
3proposed RD 8 are the same as the current RD 8, and the new
4district lines follow roadways and other natural corridors. The
5eastern border of proposed RD 8 moves slightly west to
6accommodate a neighboring district to the east that needed to
7gain population. To accommodate this westward shift, proposed
8RD 8 gains African American population north of West Quincy
9Street in Chicago's 28th and 29th Wards, and north of Division
10Street and east of Central Avenue in the 37th Ward.
11    Like current RD 8, proposed RD 8 contains portions of Oak
12Park, Berwyn, Riverside, and Proviso Townships, but proposed RD
138 also adds a small portion of Lyons Township to gain
14population. With this expansion, proposed RD 8 increases its
15population in North Riverside and adds portions of Brookfield,
16La Grange, La Grange Park, and Western Springs. Similar to the
17current RD 8, proposed RD 8 still contains portions of Chicago
18Wards 24, 28, 29, and 37 within the Austin neighborhood. North
19Riverside is included in its entirety which is an improvement
20upon the current map which divided the neighborhood nearly in
21half.
22    The Austin neighborhood in Chicago and portions of Berwyn
23in proposed RD 8 have a higher rate of vacant property (11% and
2425% vacant housing rate) than the rest of the district, which
25has less than 10% vacant housing. Combining Austin and Berwyn
26in the proposed RD 8 strengthens a community of interest around

 

 

HR0385- 25 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the need to remedy the housing crisis impacting these areas.
2    Austin and Berwyn also have separate, large, homogeneous
3minority populations. Most of Austin is predominantly African
4American, while most of Berwyn is predominantly Hispanic. Oak
5Park has a considerable minority population as well, but
6populations of African Americans, Asian Americans, and
7Hispanics are intermixed within Oak Park.
8    While racial demographics differ, Oak Park and La Grange
9form a community of interest as commuter suburbs. While most of
10the suburban portion of proposed RD 8 has a median income
11between $44,205 and $98,750, parts of La Grange, LaGrange Park
12and Oak Park have a higher median income range between $98,750
13and $147,955. These communities do, however, share similar
14values, seeking safer neighborhoods and better schools for
15their families while enjoying easy access to transportation to
16Chicago. Oak Park is connected to Chicago by the CTA Blue Line
17and Green Line in addition to its proximity to Interstate 290
18and North Avenue. La Grange is connected to Chicago by the
19Burlington Northern Santa Fe Metra Line with two stops in La
20Grange, in addition to its proximity to Interstate 294,
21Interstate 290 via Highway 12/20, and Ogden Avenue. Combining
22these two similar suburban areas strengthens this community of
23interest in proposed RD 8.
24    Proposed RD 8 retains a significant core of its current
25district and preserves what incumbent-constituent
26relationships may have developed since 2007. The expansion to

 

 

HR0385- 26 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the west and southwest to compensate for one of the largest
2population losses of any district adds population that is
3largely Caucasian and Hispanic, leading to a slight drop in
4overall African-American voting-age population in proposed RD
58. That same expansion picks up largely individuals who have
6voted predominantly Republican and, thereby, reduces the
7incumbent's partisan advantage by a fair amount, though the
8advantage remains strong.
9    The proposed RD 8 has an African American voting-age
10population of 55.29%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
1111.58%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.87%.
 
12    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 9
13    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 9 had a population
14of 112,861. Current RD 9 has a population of 108,734, the
15equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
16"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 9 is different in
17shape from current RD 9 due, in part, to population shifts and
18the need to decrease the total population of the district by
194,127.
20    Proposed RD 9 has a substantially similar shape to current
21RD 9, and 84.62% of its population resides in current RD 9. It
22is located entirely within the city of Chicago and covers
23portions of Wards 2, 12, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 42. The only
24ward in current RD 9 that is not included in current RD 9 is
25Ward 43.

 

 

HR0385- 27 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 9 includes almost all of the North Lawndale and
2Near West Side community areas and takes in smaller portions of
3East Garfield Park, West Garfield Park, South Lawndale, the
4Loop, the Lower West Side, West Town, Near North Side and
5Lincoln Park.
6    Proposed RD 9 has experienced gentrification over the last
710 years, with more Caucasians moving in from the Loop and
8other areas of the city into predominantly African American
9neighborhoods that have redeveloped to attract young
10professionals. This trend is pushing further westward in
11proposed RD 9 and higher income families are residing in the
12eastern portion of proposed RD 9. Proposed RD 9 recedes from
13portions of the Loop, the Near West Side, the Lower West Side,
14West Town, West Garfield Park, the Near South Side and the Near
15North Side.
16    Proposed RD 9 recognizes a vital community of interest in
17the Illinois Medical District, one of the largest medical
18districts in the Unites States. This community of interest,
19which includes the John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County,
20Rush University Medical Center, University of Illinois College
21of Medicine, and the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, is
22essential to the health and well-being of local residents.
23    Another community of interest recognized by proposed RD 9's
24borders is the University of Illinois-Chicago Campus, which
25lies wholly within proposed RD 9 and contributes a significant
26amount of revenue and population to the surrounding area.

 

 

HR0385- 28 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Much of proposed and current RD 9 is serviced by the
2Eisenhower Expressway/I-290, which provides a vital
3transportation link and source of commerce. Portions of the
4Ryan Expressway/I-94 also run through proposed RD 9. In
5addition, the CTA Blue Line and Pink Line run through the
6majority of proposed RD 9 and helps local residents move around
7the district and city.
8    Proposed RD 9 adds additional territory to the northeast
9corner of current RD 9, bringing in pockets of low-income,
10African American residents in the 27th and 43rd Wards who share
11similar demographics of wealth, housing stock, race, and voting
12patterns with proposed RD 9's west side.
13    The boundary adjustment to the west accommodates the
14expansion needs of proposed RD 6, which suffered the greatest
15population loss of any current representative district. The
16subsequent northern expansion picks up necessary population.
17The partisan and racial compositions of proposed RD 9 are
18roughly equivalent to what they would be under current RD 9.
19    Proposed RD 9 has an African American voting-age population
20of 50.08%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 7.89%, and an
21Asian voting-age population of 9.49%.
 
22    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 10
23    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 10 has a
24population of 95,447. Proposed RD 10 has a population of
25108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore

 

 

HR0385- 29 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. The minor
2differences in shape between proposed RD 10 and current RD 10
3are due, in part, to population shifts and the need to increase
4the total population of the district.
5    Proposed RD 10 is very similar in shape to current RD 10,
6and 81.52% of its population resides in current RD 10. Proposed
7RD 10 moves west largely following existing district lines and
8narrows as it moves west so as to not impede the boundaries of
9proposed RD 4 immediately to the north. In the eastern portion
10of proposed RD 10, the west boundary is moved from along
11Kennedy Expressway to North Milwaukee Avenue, allowing the
12district to add more population with similar socioeconomic
13characteristics as the southeastern portion of proposed RD 10.
14    Current and proposed RD 10 includes the neighborhood
15communities of Humboldt Park, West Garfield Park, East Garfield
16Park, Near West Side, Near North Side, Lincoln Park, Logan
17Square, Austin, North Lawndale, and West Town. To achieve equal
18population, RD 10 includes more of Garfield Park, Austin, and
19West Town than current RD 10. Similar to current RD 10,
20proposed RD 10 is located entirely within Cook County and the
21city of Chicago. It includes almost all of the same Chicago
22Wards as current RD 10, including Wards 1, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32,
2337 and 43. The only significant changes to existing wards are
24additional population added on the northeast end of the 1st
25Ward, the east corner of the 27th Ward, the northwest corner of
26the 24th Ward, and western portions of the 28th and 37th Wards.

 

 

HR0385- 30 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 10 runs along similar lines as two major
2highways at some points: I-94 / Kennedy Expressway runs north
3to south along the eastern portion of the district and
4intersects with I-290 / Eisenhower Expressway which runs along
5parts of proposed RD 10's southern border. The intersection of
6these two highways takes place just outside the southeast
7corner of proposed RD 10, but the two highways nevertheless
8serve as a frame for both current and proposed RD 10. In
9addition to the highways, public transportation is a binding
10factor between the east and west portion of proposed RD 10. The
11CTA Green Line runs directly through the eastern portion of
12proposed RD 10 and links the communities of Humboldt Park, West
13Garfield Park, and East Garfield Park with West Town and the
14Near West Side. The CTA Blue Line runs along I-290 on the
15southern border of proposed RD 10 and then moves diagonally
16northwest into the western portion of the district. Residents
17from either portion of proposed RD 10 can easily travel from
18one end to the other by accessing the Green Line just east of
19Garfield Park in the west to the Blue Line that runs along
20Milwaukee Avenue in the east. This makes travel for commerce,
21recreation or employment convenient throughout proposed RD 10.
22    The partisan and racial composition of proposed RD 10
23remains essentially the same as they exist currently under
24current RD 10.
25    Proposed RD 10 contains an African American voting-age
26population of 50.83%, an Asian voting-age population of 2.53%,

 

 

HR0385- 31 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1and a Hispanic voting-age population of 12.40%.
 
2    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 11
3    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 11 has a
4population of 108,125. Proposed RD 11 has a population of
5108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
6perfectly compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
7    Proposed RD 11 is located entirely within Chicago, and
887.79% of its population resides in current RD 11. Generally,
9proposed RD 11 maintains the boundaries of current RD 11, but
10expands the district slightly to the west to increase the
11population of the district. Proposed RD 11, similar to current
12RD 11, contains neighborhood communities of interest. It
13contains almost all of North Center and western Lakeview,
14retains a significant portion of the Lincoln Park neighborhood
15in the southern portion of the district, and includes to the
16north Lincoln Square and Ravenswood Manor within Albany Park. A
17larger portion of Logan Square is in proposed RD 11, as are
18portions of Irving Park and Avondale, which are in current RD
1911. Proposed RD 11 retains almost all of the wards in current
20RD 11, including the 1st, 32nd, 33rd, 43rd, 44th, and 47th
21wards and more of the 1st ward.
22    Included within the boundaries of proposed RD 11 are many
23shopping and dining options that allow residents to experience
24urban living without the necessity of being tied to a car. The
25residents are generally Caucasian and affluent. Many work and

 

 

HR0385- 32 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1travel to downtown Chicago using public transportation, and
2when not working, enjoy the amenities of their neighborhoods.
3    Proposed RD 11 preserves a vast majority of the core of
4current RD 11. The partisan composition of proposed RD 11 is
5substantially similar to the current partisan composition
6under current RD 11.
7    Minority populations are generally scattered throughout
8proposed RD 11. The western boundary of proposed RD 11 borders
9communities with significant Hispanic populations. The
10voting-age population of African Americans is 3.13%, the
11voting-age population of Hispanics is 10.13%, and the
12voting-age population of Asians is 5.77%.
 
13    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 12
14    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 12 has a
15population of 99,579. Proposed RD 12 has a population of
16108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
17compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
18RD 12 is different in shape from current RD 12 due, in part, to
19population shifts and the need to increase the total population
20of the district by 9,155.
21    Of the population in proposed RD 12, 83.44% reside in
22current RD 12. Like current RD 12, proposed RD 12 is located
23entirely within Chicago and includes almost entirely Chicago
24Wards 43, 44 and 46, and portions of Wards 27, 42, and 48. To
25gain population, current RD 12 picks up more of Wards 44 and

 

 

HR0385- 33 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

146, and gains small sections of Ward 48 and Ward 27. Proposed
2RD 12 is almost entirely within the Cook County Board of
3Commissioners District 10, with a small portion of County
4District 2 that is more similar in median income to District 10
5than the rest of District 2. This is similar to current RD 12.
6    Proposed RD 12 contains the same four neighborhoods
7included in current RD 12 in roughly the same proportions: Lake
8View, Lincoln Park, Uptown and the Near North Side. These
9neighborhoods are similar demographically and economically.
10Their proximity to Lake Michigan, the easy commute to the
11downtown business district, and the large number of
12restaurants, shops and other attractions within these
13neighborhoods make them a preferred place to live for active
14people in their twenties and thirties and young families.
15    Proposed RD 12, like current RD 12, is a higher income
16district, with median incomes ranging from $44,000 to $250,000.
17While Uptown is one of the more economically diverse
18neighborhoods in the area, the proposed and current RD 12
19contain the portions of this neighborhood that are higher
20income and have more in common with the high income areas in
21the three other neighborhoods. Proposed RD 12 gains population
22at the southern end of the district in the Near North Side
23neighborhood, which makes sense, as those residents are
24economically similar to those in current RD 12.
25    The most important economic driver for the area is tourism
26and entertainment. The proposed district continues to contain

 

 

HR0385- 34 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Wrigley Field, the Metro Theatre, the Lincoln Park Zoo and
2Lincoln Park. These attractions provide an identity for the
3neighborhoods in the area and economically support the
4communities around them, so it is important to continue to keep
5these areas intact. The people of this area of the city
6strongly identify with their proximity to the lakefront, the
7large amount of open space and the numerous outdoor activities
8associated with it. Proposed RD 12 takes this community of
9interest into account by adding needed population without
10expanding the district too far to the west and away from Lake
11Michigan. Recognizing this connection to the lake, a portion of
12the additional area in the Uptown neighborhood that is added to
13the proposed RD 12 is along the lakefront, as opposed to areas
14further west.
15    Lake Michigan serves as the eastern border of the district.
16Lincoln Park and the lakefront are the large areas of open
17space that are attractive to local residents. The other portion
18of proposed and current RD 12 is very densely populated,
19containing many apartment and condominium complexes. Natural
20attractions within Lincoln Park include the South Lagoon, the
21North Pond and Diversey, Belmont and Montrose Harbors.
22Residents of the area are attracted to the unique combination
23of an active and busy urban area adjacent to large natural
24spaces that encourage outdoor recreation. It was important to
25keep the park area intact as a part of the district because of
26the strong ties that residents of current and proposed RD 12

 

 

HR0385- 35 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1have with the park.
2    Proposed RD 12 maintains most of the core of current RD 12
3and preserves incumbent-constituent relationships that have
4developed over the past 8 election cycles. The partisan
5composition of proposed RD 12 is slightly higher than the
6current composition of current RD 12.
7    Proposed RD 12 contains a 5.04% African American voting-age
8population, a 6.32% Hispanic voting-age population, and a 6.98%
9Asian voting-age population.
 
10    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 13
11    According to the 2010 U.S. Census, current RD 13 has a
12population of 94,987. Proposed RD 13 has a population of
13108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
14compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
15RD 68 is different in shape from current 68 due, in part, to
16population shifts and the need to increase the total population
17of the district by 13,747.
18    Proposed RD 13 is located entirely within Chicago. It
19expands to the west and slightly northeast; however, to keep
20proposed RD 13 compact as population is added to the west, the
21district recedes from east and southeast areas that contain
22significant amounts of open space. Even though proposed RD 13
23shifts west, the core of current RD 13 remains intact. Of the
24population in proposed RD 13, 77.38% reside in current RD 13.
25    In order to recognize the importance of neighborhoods

 

 

HR0385- 36 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1within Chicago, proposed RD 13 attempts to keep intact many
2neighborhoods and communities of interest. Proposed RD 13
3includes portions of eight Chicago Neighborhoods. Proposed RD
413 contains more of the Lincoln Square neighborhood than
5current RD 13. Like current RD 13, proposed RD 13 contains most
6of the Uptown Neighborhood. As the median income of the Uptown
7Neighborhood south of Montrose Avenue increases to a higher
8level than most of proposed RD 13, the portions of Uptown south
9of Montrose are removed to maintain a similar income level
10throughout proposed RD 13. Proposed RD 13 maintains the western
11portion of the Edgewater neighborhood and extends to include
12one block east between Bryn Mawr Avenue and Foster Avenue and
13north to Devon Ave to encompass all of the Edgewater
14Neighborhood west of Clark Street. While this is part of the
15larger Edgewater Neighborhood, residents have organized the
16West Edgewater Area Residents (WEAR) Organization as the
17commercial corridor of Clark Street and the Andersonville
18Neighborhood divide the neighborhood into smaller, more
19distinct communities of interest.
20    The southern border of proposed RD 13 is very similar to
21current RD 13, including the same portion of the North Center
22Neighborhood. Proposed RD 13 also includes a larger portion of
23the West Ridge Neighborhood and part of the North Park
24Neighborhood to increase the representation of these
25communities of interest. The portion of North Park and West
26Ridge included in proposed RD 13 include significant Asian

 

 

HR0385- 37 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1American populations, including local ethnic businesses,
2retail establishments, and the Asian Human Services facility
3located in the northwestern corner of the proposed district.
4Proposed RD 13 adds small portions of the Albany Park and
5Lakeview Neighborhoods.
6    Proposed RD 13 contains six Chicago wards. It includes most
7of the 40th Ward south of Devon Avenue. With westward
8expansion, proposed RD 13 contains a larger portion of the 47th
9Ward west of Lincoln Avenue and north of Eastwood Avenue and
10maintains nearly the same southern border as current RD 13 in
11the 47th Ward along Lincoln Avenue and Montrose Avenue.
12Proposed RD 13 contains less of the 46th Ward but has a more
13defined border along Montrose Avenue to the south and Lake
14Shore Drive to the east. Much of the population of the 46th and
1547th Wards that proposed RD 13 removes are higher wage earners
16than residents in other parts of proposed RD 13. These two
17wards are now more equally split between representative
18districts according to economic similarities. Proposed RD 13
19also has a small portion of the 48th Ward south of Foster Ave.,
20the northern tip of the 33rd Ward, and the southeastern corner
21of the 50th Ward in order to gain population. Current RD 13
22only contains one block of the 50th Ward, while proposed RD 13
23contains a larger area of the 50th Ward to increase this
24community of interest with the 50th Ward.
25    As stated by Lowell Jaffe and Anthony Martinez of the Civil
26Rights Agenda during the April 25, 2011 House Redistricting

 

 

HR0385- 38 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Hearing, current and proposed RD 13 includes a significant
2number of persons who identify themselves as lesbian, gay,
3bisexual, or transgender. Proposed RD 13 maintains this
4community of interest.
5    Proposed RD 13 maintains a significant portion of the core
6of current RD 13 and preserves incumbent-constituent
7relationships built over the past 5 years. The partisan
8composition is almost identical to the current composition
9under current RD 13.
10    There are significant racial and minority communities of
11interest included in proposed RD 13. The district keeps
12together an African American community heavily concentrated
13along the southeastern border. Smaller pockets of African
14American population are also found north of Peterson Avenue
15(Highway 14) along proposed RD 13's northern border. Combined
16with other Asian populations throughout the proposed district,
17proposed RD 13 has an Asian American voting-age population of
1814.3%. Proposed RD 13 keeps the Asian population in the western
19half of the district together and maintains a small but
20consistent Hispanic population throughout proposed RD 13 at a
21higher concentration than surrounding areas. Proposed RD 13
22contains 11.66% African American voting-age population and a
2316.99% Hispanic voting-age population.
 
24    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 14
25    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 14 has a

 

 

HR0385- 39 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population of 93,160. Proposed RD 14 has a population of
2108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
3compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
4RD 14 is different in shape from current RD 14 due, in part, to
5population shifts and the need to increase the total population
6of the district by 15,574.
7    Of the population in proposed RD 14, 81.31% reside in
8current RD 14. Despite a few relatively minor differences,
9proposed RD 14 preserves the social, economic, cultural and
10ethnic characteristic of current RD 14. Proposed RD 14 gains
11population by expanding current RD 14 to the north and west.
12While proposed RD 14 is geographically larger than current RD
1314, proposed RD 14 is more cohesive because it unifies areas
14that share similar interests. Thus, changes in the map are due
15in part to population migration, the need to gain population
16within the district and the desire to keep communities of
17interest intact.
18    Like current RD 14, proposed RD 14 includes all or parts of
19Chicago Wards 40, 48, 49 and 50, which are located on the far
20North Side of Chicago. Proposed RD 14 also extends into a small
21portion Evanston and now includes the entire 49th Ward of
22Chicago. This change places the whole 49th Ward in one state
23representative district, rather than two. This allows for the
24unification of almost all of Rogers Park, as requested by
25several witnesses during the House Redistricting Hearings.
26During the House Redistricting Committee Hearing in Chicago on

 

 

HR0385- 40 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1April 21, 2011, Jim Ginderske, representing Neighbors for a
2Healthy Rogers Park, testified that neighborhood residents
3wanted to see their community unified within proposed RD 14.
4The part of Rogers Park that is currently represented by a
5majority suburban district is moved into proposed RD 14 to
6better meet the needs of its residents. An adjacent portion of
7Evanston is also included, due in part to population and
8because it shares similar interests and neighborhood resources
9with the 49th Ward.
10    The southern border of proposed RD 14 generally follows
11much of the southern border of the 48th Ward and Edgewater
12neighborhood. A small part of the 50th Ward is located in
13current and proposed RD 14. This area is one of the
14lowest-income areas of the 50th Ward and is more economically
15similar to parts of the 40th and 49th wards located in proposed
16RD 14 than to surrounding precincts in the 50th Ward. Thus, it
17is included in proposed RD 14 so that these residents, who
18share socioeconomical interests, remain in one district. The
19furthest most boundary streets for proposed RD 14 are Mulford
20Street on the north, Foster Avenue on the south, Lake Michigan
21on the east, and Dewey Avenue on the west. Lake Shore Drive
22parallels the district to the east and connects it to downtown
23Chicago.
24    Despite the addition of new land into the district,
25proposed RD 14 largely maintains the same ethnic diversity and
26vibrant cultural offerings that make current RD 14 unique.

 

 

HR0385- 41 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Proposed RD 14 includes the neighborhoods of West Ridge,
2Edgewater, and almost all of Rogers Park (West Ridge and
3Edgewater are in current RD 14, but Rogers Park is not). The
4result is that the lakefront neighborhoods of Edgewater and
5Rogers Park, which share many common characteristics, are now
6located in a single representative district. A very small
7portion of proposed RD 14 also includes a small portion of the
8Uptown neighborhood that is similar to the other communities
9located within proposed RD 14. As in current RD 14, proposed RD
1014 includes the campus of Loyola University-Chicago and
11surrounding neighborhoods are kept together as part of proposed
12RD 14, as they are in current RD 14.
13    Socioeconomically, proposed RD 14 is largely made up of
14middle-class families (median annual income between $44,000
15and $99,000) with some lower-income areas (median annual income
16$44,000 or less) in the northern part of the district. Proposed
17lakefront representative districts to the immediate north and
18south have higher median annual incomes than do neighborhoods
19in proposed RD 14.
20    Proposed RD 14 keeps together in one representative
21district the Hispanic population that is split between
22Chicago's 49th and 50th wards. There are also significant
23numbers of Asians in the southern portion of the district and
24persons of Swedish, Indian and Korean descent throughout
25proposed RD 14. Additionally, current RD 14 and proposed RD 14
26are home to one of the largest LGBT communities in Chicago and

 

 

HR0385- 42 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the nation.
2    Proposed RD 14 preserves a vast majority of the core of
3current RD 14. The partisan advantage increases slightly in
4favor of the incumbent compared to the current composition
5under current RD 14.
6    Proposed RD 14 contains an African American voting-age
7population of 21.72%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
816.39%, and an Asian voting-age population of 9.90%.
 
9    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 15
10    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 15 has a
11population of 104,676. Proposed RD 15 has a population of
12108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
13compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
14RD 15 is different in shape from current RD 15 due, in part, to
15population shifts and the need to increase the total population
16of the district by 4,058.
17    Of the population in proposed RD 15, 73.06% reside in
18current RD 15. The northwest border of current RD 15 shifts
19west to gain population. Proposed RD 15 gains population from
20Maine Township to the northwest. Proposed RD 15 removes small
21portions of Chicago, Niles, and Lincolnwood in order to account
22for neighboring districts that need to gain population and to
23keep communities of interest together. A small portion of
24current RD 15 in Northfield Township, the northern most point
25of current RD 15, is not included in proposed RD 15. This is

 

 

HR0385- 43 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1done in part to consolidate proposed RD 15 within Chicago and
2the Cook County Townships of Niles and Maine.
3    Similar to current RD 15, proposed RD 15 is located
4entirely within Cook County. Proposed RD contains portions of
5Chicago, Glenview, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Park
6Ridge, and Skokie. The addition of Park Ridge and sections of
7Glenview and Niles in the northwest add population to proposed
8RD 15.
9    Proposed RD 15 keeps most of the core of current RD 15 and
10maintains incumbent-constituent relationships formed over the
11past 7 years. The partisan composition is nearly identical to
12the current composition under current RD 15.
13    Proposed RD 15 has an African American voting-age
14population of 2%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 12.36%,
15and an Asian voting-age population of 21.03%.
 
16    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 16
17    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 16 has a
18population of 105,607. Proposed RD 16 has a population of
19108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
20compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
21RD 16 is different in shape from current RD 16 due, in part, to
22population shifts and the need to increase the total population
23of the district by 3,127.
24    Of the population in proposed RD 16, 90.43% reside in
25current RD 16. The core of proposed RD 16 is generally the same

 

 

HR0385- 44 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1as current RD 16; however, its boundaries extend northeast,
2northwest, and southwest to reach the target population and
3protect communities of interest. Like current RD 16, proposed
4RD 16 includes Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Skokie, and a portion
5of the 50th Ward in Chicago.
6    Several major roads and streets bind proposed RD 16
7together and also serve as logical boundaries. The eastern
8boundary of proposed RD 16 follows very closely with the
9boundaries of current RD 16. The difference in the southwestern
10border comes from proposed district following Devon and Touhy
11Avenues. The I-94 Edens Expressway serves as the border of a
12portion of proposed RD 16 and proceeds north through the Morton
13Grove portion. The artery street of Dempster serves as a border
14in a portion of the northwest part of the district, as do
15Highway 41, Skokie Boulevard, and Main Street in Skokie. On the
16east side of proposed RD 16, Howard Street, Western/Asbury
17Avenue and Ridge Boulevard all serve as borders. U.S. Highway
1814/Peterson Ave and W. Devon Ave serve as borders in the
19southern part of the district. Highway 14 keeps major traffic
20patterns together by intersecting with Highway 41. Several main
21routes easily connect the communities throughout proposed RD
2216, including Route 41/North Lincoln Avenue running southeast
23to northwest through Chicago, Lincolnwood and Skokie, Route
2450/Highway 41/Skokie Boulevard running north to south in Niles
25Township, Devon Avenue and Touhy Avenue running east to west
26and connecting the Chicago portion of proposed RD 16 to the

 

 

HR0385- 45 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Niles Township portion.
2    Proposed RD 16 strives to keep several communities of
3interest intact. Proposed RD 16, similar to current RD 16,
4includes a portion of Chicago's West Ridge neighborhood, which
5includes a community of Hasidic Jewish residents who generally
6walk to religious services. Proposed RD 16 keeps together this
7neighborhood as well as a group of Synagogues between Howard
8Street to the north, McCormick Boulevard to the west, Peterson
9Avenue to the south and Western Avenue to the east. Proposed RD
1016 includes a portion of the North Park neighborhood, which is
11home to the majority of Hispanic residents located within
12proposed RD 16.
13    Proposed RD 16 maintains a majority of the core of current
14RD 16 and preserves the incumbent-constituent relationship
15developed over the last 12 election cycles. The partisan
16composition is almost identical to the current composition
17under current RD 16.
18    Proposed RD 16 has an Asian voting-age population of 26.4%.
19This population, while scattered throughout the district, is
20most populous in the Niles Township area. This increase is due
21to the fact that proposed RD 16 maintains similar boundaries
22and adds high-percentages of Asian population areas in the
23northwest and southwest corners of Niles Township. The Hispanic
24voting-age population is 12.45% percent. The African American
25voting-age population is 6.83%. The majority of the Hispanic
26and African American population is centered in Chicago's 50th

 

 

HR0385- 46 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Ward, the southeast part of the proposed RD 16.
 
2    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 17
3    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 17 has a
4population of 108,911. Proposed RD 17 has a population of
5108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
6compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
7RD 17 is different in shape from current RD 17 due, in part, to
8population shifts.
9    Of the population in proposed RD 17, 79.35% reside in
10current RD 17. Proposed RD 17 moves a portion of the northern
11border further south and extends the district further west.
12Like current RD 17, proposed RD 17 includes the townships of
13Evanston, Northfield, New Trier and Niles and the
14municipalities of Evanston, Glenview, Golf, Morton Grove,
15Northbrook, Skokie and Wilmette. Unlike current RD 17, proposed
16RD 17 does not include the villages of Winnetka, Glencoe and
17Northfield.
18    Proposed RD 17 is now more centralized in the north
19suburban Chicago area. This brings more uniformity to a
20district that was comprised of many split municipalities. The
21southern dip of proposed RD 17 reflects a change in wealth in
22the municipality of Glenview. The boundary line in Glenview,
23which is in the central portion of the district, is Lake Avenue
24and proposed RD 17 covers the area south of Lake. North of Lake
25is now in proposed RD 18 and that area is made up of some of the

 

 

HR0385- 47 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1wealthiest residents of the north shore area.
2    Proposed RD 17 shares many of the resources available under
3current RD 17. For example, proposed RD 17 is still composed of
4the following school districts: Avoca, Evanston Community
5Consolidated SD 65, Glenview Community Consolidated SD 34, Golf
6Elementary School SD 67, Morton Grove SD 70, Northbrook SD 28,
7Northbrook/Glenview SD 30, Skokie SD 68, 69 & 73-5, West
8Northfield SD 31 and Wilmette SD 39. Proposed RD 17's
9additional population east of McCormick Road attend the same
10school (Evanston Community Consolidated SB 56) as those in the
11northeastern part of the district.
12    Some of the larger employers in proposed RD 17 are: Pfizer,
13Skokie Hospital, Woodward-MPC Airframe Systems, NorthShore
14University Health System - Skokie Branch, Kraft Foods, ABT
15Electronics, Glenbrook Hospital, and Anixter.
16    Proposed RD 17 offers several transportation options that
17allow residents to get from one end of the district to the
18other. McCormick Boulevard links the southeastern part of the
19district to the northeastern part. Dempster Street runs east
20and west along the southern border. Along this roadway you will
21find many grocery stores, restaurants and other shopping
22centers, but the importance of this road is how it links
23commuters to the CTA's Yellow Line and the Edens Expressway
24(I-94). Milwaukee Avenue/I-294 provides the west side of the
25district with the same kind of access as the east side. I-294
26connects the district with the north and northwest suburbs.

 

 

HR0385- 48 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Milwaukee Avenue runs northwest to southeast and gives the
2district the ability to have an easily accessible road that
3connects to O'Hare International Airport as well connecting the
4district to many of the popular neighborhoods on the north side
5of Chicago.
6    Proposed RD 17's boundaries preserve a large majority of
7the core of current RD 17. The partisan advantage in favor of
8the incumbent increases compared to current RD 17.
9    Proposed RD 17 has a 16.61% Asian American voting-age
10population, a 5.63% Hispanic voting-age population, and a 3.79%
11African American voting-age population.
 
12    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 18
13    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 18 has a
14population of 103,308. Proposed RD 18 has a population of
15108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
16compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
17RD 18 is different in shape from current RD 18 due, in part, to
18population shifts and the need to increase the total population
19of the district by 5,426.
20    Of the population in proposed RD 18, 76.46% reside in
21current RD 18. Proposed RD 18 is now an entirely suburban
22district. The Chicago portion of current RD 18 is removed to
23allow proposed RD 14 to gain population and preserve the Rogers
24Park Neighborhood. Proposed RD 18 extends north along the
25lakeshore and west into the northern suburbs. The borders of

 

 

HR0385- 49 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1proposed RD 18 through Evanston and Wilmette are similar to
2current RD 18.
3    Like current RD 18, proposed RD 18 contains all or most of
4Evanston, Kenilworth, Wilmette and Winnetka. To increase
5population, proposed RD 18 adds all of Northfield, and portions
6of Glencoe, Glenview, and Northbrook. Proposed RD 18 continues
7to have portions of Evanston and New Trier Townships, and adds
8a large portion of Northfield Township.
9    With the increase in population in the northern suburbs,
10transportation has become a major concern for residents,
11especially commuters, who have to travel on congested east-west
12corridors to reach major north-south highways or public
13transportation hubs. Commuters have increasingly become a
14community of interest in the suburbs. Proposed RD 18 increases
15the representation for the east-west transportation needs of
16the region. Proposed RD 18 includes portions of three major
17north-south roadways, including Green Bay Road in the east,
18Interstate 94/Highway 41 in the center, and Waukegan Road/Route
1943 on the western border. Route 43 divides the village of
20Northbrook along this major transportation corridor. Proposed
21RD 18 also includes portions of major east-west roadways,
22including Willow Road in the central part of the district,
23Dundee Road in the north, and Lake Cook Road in the northwest.
24Proposed RD 18 also contains several major railroads, including
25public transportation lines.
26    Proposed RD 18 also includes a greater portion of the North

 

 

HR0385- 50 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Branch of the Chicago River and the Skokie Lagoon. This major
2watershed area is an important regional drainage area and
3historic flood zone. Additionally, much of the land in the new
4western portion of proposed RD 18 is open space and wooded
5areas which help absorb heavy rainwater throughout the
6floodplain. Combining more of this watershed into a single
7district will help improve representation for the community of
8interest along this floodplain and accounts for the large
9geographic increase in the size of proposed RD 18.
10    Several major businesses and employers are kept together in
11proposed RD 18, including Northwestern University, North Shore
12University Health System, Underwriters Laboratories, Kraft
13Foods and Stephan Company. Several major religious sites are
14located within proposed RD 18 and help preserve a diverse
15religious community throughout the district. Religious
16landmarks include the Baha'i Temple in Wilmette, Society of the
17Divine World Techny Towers in unincorporated Northfield
18Township, the Lutheran Church of Ascension in Northfield,
19Temple Jeremiah in Northfield, Beth Emet Synagogue in Evanston,
20and the Unitarian Church of Evanston.
21    Proposed RD 18 has diverse communities of interest
22reflected in the income ranges of different portions of the
23district. While much of proposed RD 18 has an upper-middle
24class and upper class median incomes in excess of $100,000, the
25southeastern portion of the district west of the CTA Purple
26Line route is a middle class community of interest with median

 

 

HR0385- 51 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1incomes ranging between $50,000 and $100,000. The lakefront is
2an upper class community of interest, with median incomes
3exceeding $150,000. The area further west of the major
4Interstate and lakefront is an upper-middle class community of
5interest with median incomes ranging from $100,000 to $150,000.
6    The boundaries of proposed RD 18 maintain a significant
7portion of the core of current RD 18. The partisan advantage in
8favor of the incumbent drops compared to current RD 18.
9    There are significant Jewish populations dispersed
10throughout proposed RD 18 that are preserved as a community of
11interest in parts of Evanston, Northbrook, Glencoe, Wilmette
12and Winnetka. Additionally, proposed RD 18 has an African
13American voting-age population of 10.55%, a Hispanic
14voting-age population of 5.67%, and an Asian voting-age
15population of 9.26%.
 
16    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 19
17    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 19 has a
18population of 104,460. Proposed RD 19 has a population of
19108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
20compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
21RD 19 is different in shape from current RD 19 due in part to
22population shifts and the need to increase the total population
23of the district by 4,274.
24    Of the population in proposed RD 19, 61.27% reside in
25current RD 19. The northern and eastern borders of the district

 

 

HR0385- 52 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1stayed relatively the same; however, due to population change,
2proposed RD 19 shifted to the south and the west to include
3more of the 36th Ward and Harwood Heights. The areas added
4share many commonalities with current RD 19. The wards,
5townships and neighborhoods of proposed RD 19 all remain the
6same as under current RD 19. By keeping those areas the same,
7residents of proposed RD 19 will be able to maintain the same
8quality city services, schools, parishes and community
9activities that have been available to them.
10    Proposed RD 19 is located on the northwest side of the City
11of Chicago and the suburbs of Harwood Heights and Norridge.
12Proposed RD 19 consists of parts of the 36th, 38th, 41st and
1345th wards in Chicago, which includes the neighborhoods of
14Dunning, Forest Glen, Jefferson Park, Norwood Park and Portage
15Park. The boundary lines of proposed RD 19 consist of Devon
16Avenue on the north, the Edens Expressway (I-94) on the east,
17the Milwaukee Railroad on the south, and Schiller Woods Forest
18Preserve on the west.
19    Chicago's 45th Ward makes up a majority of proposed RD 19
20(it is separated along essentially the same line as under
21current RD 19) and dominates the northern and eastern parts of
22proposed RD 19 with the neighborhoods of Jefferson Park and
23Portage Park. Jefferson Park is one of Chicago's most diverse
24neighborhoods because of its rich history of Irish, Polish and
25Hispanic immigrants that have settled in the area and raised
26families. Those ethnic groups also make up a significant

 

 

HR0385- 53 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1portion of the local businesses in the area. The neighborhood
2has maintained its features because, unlike other Chicago
3neighborhoods, it has not experienced the same level of urban
4sprawl. There are new condos that make up portions of the
5neighborhood, but for the most part it consists of many single
6family homes and families that have lived in the area for
7generations. The rest of the ward includes Portage Park, which
8is also located within then 38th Ward. The neighborhood is
9known for its quality schools, parishes and thriving business
10community along Milwaukee Avenue. These two neighborhoods make
11up a significant portion of the Hispanic population in proposed
12RD 19, mostly populated in the southern part of Jefferson Park
13and the northeastern part of Portage Park, is kept intact as a
14community of interest.
15    The 38th Ward, the next largest Ward in proposed RD 19,
16consists of portions of Portage Park and Dunning. Portage Park
17overlaps into both the 45th and 38th wards and makes up the
18eastern part that runs through the middle of current and
19proposed RD 19. The Dunning neighborhood runs along the
20southern part to the western part of proposed RD 19 where it
21bumps up against the suburb of Harwood Heights.
22    The 36th Ward, located in the western part of proposed RD
2319, includes portions of Dunning. This portion of the Dunning
24neighborhood is made up of many single family homes and is
25spaced out because of its large cemeteries and forest preserve
26areas. This open space creates a quiet atmosphere in the city

 

 

HR0385- 54 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1which brings in a lot of city workers that must meet residency
2requirements.
3    The villages of Norridge and Harwood Heights are north of
4the 36th Ward. These small communities are made up of single
5family homes surrounded by a busy business community. Over the
6years there have been some small condo developments, but those
7are limited to the busier roads like Harlem and Montrose
8Avenues. These communities are included to a greater extent in
9proposed RD 19 to allow all of Union Ridge School District to
10be included in the same district rather than splitting it into
11two districts.
12    The far northwestern border of proposed RD 19 is the 41st
13Ward, which is made up of the neighborhood of Norwood Park.
14This neighborhood, much like the other neighborhoods in current
15and proposed RD 19, is made up of old Cape Cod, bungalow and
16ranch homes that are inhabited by many city workers.
17    Socioeconomically, the district is very homogeneous. While
18some portions of the northside of proposed RD 19 may be
19wealthier than the middle part of the district, the area is
20still predominantly working-middle class, with a median income
21ranging from around $44,000 to about $99,000. This
22characteristic is consistent with current RD 19.
23    Minority populations primarily residing within specific
24areas of proposed RD 19 are preserved as a community of
25interest. In the Dunning community, a majority of the African
26American population resides along Oak Park Avenue on the east,

 

 

HR0385- 55 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Irving Park Road on the south, Harlem on the west, and Forest
2Preserve Avenue on the north. Hispanics within proposed RD 19
3mainly reside in the southeast part of proposed RD 19 in the
4Dunning and Portage Park neighborhoods.
5    Proposed RD 19 maintains a majority of the core of current
6RD 19 and preserves the incumbent-constituent relationship
7created over the past 7 election cycles. The partisan advantage
8in favor of the incumbent drops very slightly compared to
9current RD 19.
10    Proposed RD has an African American voting-age population
11of .97%, an Asian voting-age population of 6.41%, and a
12Hispanic voting-age population of 17.43%.
 
13    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 20
14    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 20 has a
15population of 105,228. Proposed RD 20 has a population of
16108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
17compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
18RD 20 is different in shape from current RD 20 due, in part, to
19population shifts and the need to increase the total population
20of the district by 3,506.
21    Proposed RD 20 includes portions of current RDs 15, 20, 57,
2265, and 77. Nearly half of the residents in proposed RD 20 live
23in current RD 20. The proposed district maintains a large
24portion of Chicago and Norridge and the northeastern boundary
25of proposed RD 20 is essentially the same as current RD 20. To

 

 

HR0385- 56 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1gain the appropriate population, proposed RD 20 acquires
2territory to the west, a change that reflects the growing
3suburban nature of residents. This westward expansion is broken
4down into two areas for ease of description: northwestern and
5southwestern. These two expansion areas take in portions of the
6suburban communities of Park Ridge, Rosemont and Schiller Park
7and share common characteristics with the portion of Chicago
8contained in proposed RD 20.
9    The northwestern expansion area: The westernmost boundary
10is created by I-294 and the Northwest Highway, appropriate and
11natural boundaries that are easily recognizable to
12constituents. The border follows Ridgewood Cemetery and the
13Golf Glen Shopping Center along Dee Road, adjusting slightly to
14take in population, and then moving over to Western Avenue to
15take in Advocate Lutheran General Hospital. Proposed RD 20 then
16turns east onto Oakton Avenue, moves over into Niles along the
17border of the current RD 20 map. The northwestern expansion
18area takes in a portion of Park Ridge because of the need to
19add population and the commonalities between residents of Park
20Ridge and others living in proposed RD 20.
21    The southwestern expansion area: The westernmost boundary
22is created by O'Hare International Airport, just outside the
23district, while the Des Plaines River helps to create a natural
24boundary in this expansion area. The southern border of
25southwestern expansion area follows Belmont Avenue then moves
26north along the eastern side of the O'Hare International

 

 

HR0385- 57 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Airport and Mannheim Road. Proposed RD 20 moves an eastern
2direction along Touhy Avenue, then southeast to catch the Des
3Plaines River and the Kennedy Expressway. This expansion takes
4in the entire community of Schiller Park, a large portion of
5Rosemont, and portions of Franklin Park and Des Plaines. These
6borders allow the neighborhoods surrounding Maine South High
7School to remain intact and within other districts located
8between the two westward expansion areas, while recognizing
9that the residents of the southwestern expansion area share
10commonalities with others living in proposed RD 20.
11Additionally, the southwestern expansion of proposed RD 20
12includes Chevalier Woods and Robinson Woods North, both under
13the jurisdiction of the Cook County Forest Preserves. They are
14two of the more northern forest preserves in a chain of several
15Cook County Forest Preserves. This southwestern expansion
16keeps a string of five small forest preserves and the
17neighborhoods that surround them together in one district. The
18other three forest preserves that are in current RD 20 are
19Robinson Woods, Schiller Woods North, Che-Che-Pin-Qua Woods.
20They remain intact in proposed RD 20.
21    Proposed RD 20 includes the entire community of Schiller
22Park, larger portions of Norridge and Chicago, and sections of
23Des Plaines, Niles, Park Ridge, Rosemont, Harwood Heights and
24Franklin Park. Most of proposed RD 20 is in Cook County Board
25District 17, but there are sections of County Board District 12
26(similar to the current district), County Board District 15 and

 

 

HR0385- 58 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1County Board District 16. Proposed RD 20 contains portions of
2Chicago, Leyden, Niles, Maine and Norwood Park Townships, with
3expansion into more of Niles, Norwood Park, Leyden Township,
4and Maine townships. Those additions are made to reach equal
5population.
6    Proposed RD 20 contains portions of Chicago Wards 36 and
741. These Wards include portions of the neighborhoods of
8Dunning, Norwood Park and O'Hare, as well as all of Edison
9Park. Dunning shares a border with Chicago's suburbs, is mostly
10residential, and includes a significant amount of residential
11green space and commercial areas. Norwood Park has winding
12roads, rather than typical Chicago street grid, has a lot of
13green space, is mostly residential and has some commercial
14areas. The O'Hare neighborhood is mostly residential, includes
15acres of green space and has some commercial areas of
16restaurants and stores. These Chicago neighborhoods are
17similar to the near northwest suburbs that are included in
18proposed RD 20, which also have mostly single-family homes with
19larger lots and areas with large parks. There are fewer public
20transportation options in this section of Chicago, with more of
21a reliance on personal vehicles. I-90, I-290 and I-294 all run
22through the district. All of these communities are linked by
23Routes 14, 21, 43, 49, and the Chicago Northwestern Rail Road.
24    Proposed RD 20 contains a portion of the Chicago Public
25School District 299, Des Plaines CCSD 62, East Maine SD 63,
26Norridge SD 80, Park Ridge CCSD 64, Niles ESD 71, Pennoyer SD

 

 

HR0385- 59 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

179, Rosemont ESD 78 and Schiller Park SD 81. The CPS schools
2located in the proposed and current RD 20 are considered some
3of the best in the city and are a draw for many families to the
4area. This is evidenced by high test scores and stable property
5values. Similar to the suburbs located in proposed RD 20, the
6section of the district that is served by CPS is an area with
7middle class families and an established housing stock. The two
8expansion areas also include additional green space and parks,
9something that is valued by local residents who choose to live
10in a less dense population area as compared to those a few
11miles east.
12    Proposed RD 20, as a whole, constitutes a community of
13interest bound by access to high quality schools and
14middle/upper middle class housing stock, as well as a shared
15identity in terms of shopping options, transit, and access to
16government services. While the residents of proposed RD 20 may
17work in Chicago, and some may actually live within the city's
18boundaries, there exists a clear identity that separates
19proposed and current RD 20 residents from being associated with
20the city's more urban areas. Residents of proposed RD 20, in
21both the Chicago portion and the suburban areas, form a
22community of interest by their distinctly suburban nature, as
23can be seen in their housing stock, travel patterns and income.
24Income levels in the proposed RD 20 vary from $44,000 to
25$250,001, with most of families in the $44,000 to $99,000
26range.

 

 

HR0385- 60 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    The partisan advantage in favor of the incumbent increases
2slightly compared to current RD 20.
3    Proposed RD 20 contains 1.25% African-American voting-age
4population, a 9.59% Hispanic voting-age population, and a 8.33%
5Asian voting-age population.
 
6    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 21
7    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 21 has a
8population of 106,993. Proposed RD 21 has a population of
9108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
10compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
11RD 21 is different in shape from current RD 21 due, in part, to
12population shifts and the need to increase the total population
13of the district by 1,741.
14    Proposed RD 21 includes portions of current RDs 1, 2, 21,
1523, and 24. Proposed RD 21 is located entirely within Cook
16County and includes portions of Bedford Park, Chicago, Cicero,
17Forest View, Lyons, McCook, Riverside, Stickney, and Summit.
18Proposed RD 21 strives to keep together several communities of
19interest and transportation hubs, including major roadways and
20railways.
21    Proposed RD 21 includes portions of the Chicago
22neighborhoods of Archer Heights, Brighton Park, Garfield
23Ridge, Lower West Side , McKinley Park, and South Lawndale. The
24Lower West Side and McKinley Park communities included in
25proposed RD 21 are minimal in terms of population and land size

 

 

HR0385- 61 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1and reflect the border's path along a railroad and Western
2Avenue. The eastern border of proposed RD 21 crosses over the
3Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to include residents in the
4Brighton Park neighborhood, including those with a lower median
5income, who are similar to many other residents in proposed RD
621. On the western end of proposed RD 21, the district
7incorporates a portion of the minority population, which was a
8factor in splitting Cicero.
9    Proposed RD 21 has a lower-middle median income. This
10creates a community of interest that spans virtually the entire
11proposed RD 21, with the exceptions of a higher income area in
12Riverside and an upper-middle income census block in the
13Garfield Ridge area of Chicago. The majority of proposed RD 21
14also shares similar housing stock.
15    Because proposed RD 21 is a combination of population from
16other districts, it is impossible to compare its Hispanic
17voting-age population under the current plan to the proposed
18district. However, the vast majority of its population comes
19from current RD 23 (81.15% Hispanic voting-age population) and
20current RD 1 (74.14%), so it is fair to say that proposed RD
2121's Hispanic voting-age population represents a drop in
22percentage.
23    Proposed RD 21 has an African American voting-age
24population of 12.29%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
2560.14%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.88%.
 

 

 

HR0385- 62 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 22
2    According to the 2010 census, current RD 22 has a
3population of 111,664. Proposed RD 22 has 108,734 people, the
4equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
5"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 22 is different
6in shape from current RD 22 due, in part, to population shifts
7and the need to decrease the total population of the district
8by 2,930.
9    Proposed RD 22 includes portions of current RDs 21, 22, 23,
1031, and 32. Of the population in proposed RD 22, 45.50% reside
11in current RD 22. The geographic territory of the district is
12considerably reduced to become more compact, contiguous and
13square.
14    Proposed RD 22's boundaries expand a modest degree to the
15northwest, north, northeast and east, while retracting
16significantly in the west and southwest. The following Chicago
17wards are in proposed RD 22: most of the 13th Ward, small
18portions of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Wards, and approximately
19half of the 23rd Ward.
20    Proposed RD 22 contains several Chicago neighborhoods,
21including most of West Elsdon, and portions of Gage Park and
22Archer Heights in the northeast; half of Garfield Ridge in the
23northwest; all of Clearing; all of West Lawn; a small portion
24of Ashburn in the southeast; and a portion of Chicago Lawn on
25the east. Small portions of the suburban towns of Bedford Park
26and Burbank located in current RD 22 remain in proposed RD 22,

 

 

HR0385- 63 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1while Bridgeview, Burr Ridge, Countryside, Justice, Hodgkins,
2Indian Head Park, and Willow Springs are removed from proposed
3RD 22. Removing these towns allows the district to be more
4compact. A small portion of the eastern half of the Bedford
5Park neighborhood is an industrial area with rail yards and it
6is separated from the more populated western half of the
7neighborhood by the major north-south arterial road Harlem
8Avenue. The eastern portion of Bedford Park is included in
9proposed RD 22 while the more populous, less industrial western
10half is in the adjacent proposed RD 23. Whereas current RD 22
11split portions of five Cook County Board Districts, proposed RD
1222 splits only two Districts.
13    Both current and proposed RD 22 includes Chicago's Midway
14International Airport, a major economic engine for the city and
15significant employer of residents in both the current and
16proposed RD 22. Midway, like most airports, is a major economic
17engine that binds the area as a community of common interest.
18Many local residents work at the airport in various capacities
19or in the multiple service industry businesses around the
20airport including hotels, restaurants, and transportation and
21parking services. The airport also dictates characteristics of
22the community including economic development projects,
23construction, traffic congestion, noise policing and public
24safety, all contributing to a community of interest that is
25best served by being kept in proposed RD 22.
26    The economic makeup of much of proposed RD 22 is fairly

 

 

HR0385- 64 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1homogeneous, with an average family income range from $44,000
2to $99,000. The majority of the district falls between $44,000
3and $68,000, with a segment of Gage Park with a median income
4of less than $44,000 and segments in Garfield Ridge and
5Clearing with a median income between $68,000 and $99,000. A
6large portion of proposed RD 22 is made up of grid streets with
7single-family "bungalow" homes. Proposed RD 22 allows for a
8community of economic parity in terms of income, housing
9values, and quality of living, to remain in one district.
10    Proposed RD 22 preserves the eastern core of the district
11and, at least to that extent, preserves the
12incumbent-constituent relationship that has existed since
131971. The partisan composition of proposed RD 22 is higher than
14the current partisan composition of current RD 22. For more
15discussion of the boundaries of proposed RD 22, refer to the
16summary of proposed RD 24.
17    The Hispanic population in the city is growing on the
18Southwest Side and proposed RD 22 keeps this community of
19interest together. Proposed RD 22 has an African American
20voting-age population of 2.55%, a Hispanic voting-age
21population of 60.21%, and an Asian voting-age population of
221.07%.
 
23    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 23
24    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 23 has a
25population of 104,427. Proposed RD 23 has a population of

 

 

HR0385- 65 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
2compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
3RD 23 is different in shape from current RD 23 due, in part, to
4population shifts and the need to increase the total population
5of the district by 4,307.
6    Proposed RD 23 is a collection of suburban Cook County
7communities west of Chicago. Proposed RD 23 includes portions
8of current RDs 8, 21, 22, 23, 31, 41, and 82. The northern
9border of proposed RD 23 extends north to encompass much of the
10town of Riverside, which is currently divided into three
11representative districts. The northern and eastern boundary
12extends to include small portions of Berwyn and a large portion
13of Cicero, while removing portions of La Grange, La Grange
14Park, and Chicago.
15    Proposed RD 23 takes in CSX-Bedford Park on the southeast
16and loosely runs along LaGrange Road on the west and west along
1783rd Street and 87th Street on the southern border.
18    Proposed RD 23 contains several major roadways and key
19intersections that serve as major transportation and freight
20corridors connecting several communities throughout the
21region. Ogden Avenue and the north-south corridors of Harlem
22Avenue, Archer Avenue, and La Grange Road (Highway 12/45) allow
23commercial and residential travelers to access the
24interstates. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Des
25Plaines River also bisect proposed RD 23, providing additional
26shipping and commercial corridors.

 

 

HR0385- 66 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 23 contains all or portions of McCook,
2Riverside, Summit, Berwyn, Brookfield, Cicero, Countryside, La
3Grange, La Grange Park, Bedford Park, Bridgeview, Hickory
4Hills, Hodgkins and Justice. Proposed RD 23 contains the
5following townships: Berwyn, Lyons, Proviso, Riverside, and
6Stickney. For more discussion of the boundaries of proposed RD
723, refer to the summary of proposed RD 24.
8    The majority of proposed RD 23 has an average median income
9of $44,205 to $68,654, with small portions throughout the area
10reaching a median income up to $99,000 and La Grange and
11Riverside incomes reaching further to $148,000. A small section
12in Berwyn and a segment in Cicero have a median income of less
13than $44,205.
14    The partisan composition of proposed RD 23 is similar to
15current RD 21, the incumbent's current district.
16    Proposed RD 23 has an African America voting-age population
17of 4.07%, Hispanic voting-age population of 46.27%, and an
18Asian voting-age population of 1.88%.
 
19    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 24
20    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 24 has a
21population of 104,433. Proposed RD 24 has a population of
22108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
23compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
24RD 24 is different in shape from current RD 24 due, in part, to
25population shifts and the need to increase the total population

 

 

HR0385- 67 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1of the district by 4,301.
2    Proposed RD 24 includes most of Berwyn, a large portion of
3Cicero, portions of Riverside, Brookfield, and Stickney, and
4parts of Chicago's 22nd Ward. The southern border is made up of
5the city limits of Cicero and Berwyn, with the exception of the
6largely non-residential areas around Hawthorn Racecourse. The
7southern border also picks up a small part of the municipality
8of Stickney on the village's northwest side. The northern
9border is primarily along 15th Street in Berwyn and 26th Street
10in Cicero. Proposed RD 24 heads east into Chicago's South
11Lawndale community, which includes portions of Little Village.
12The proposed district extends southwest to add portions of
13Riverside and Brookfield.
14    The boundaries and minority composition of proposed RD 24
15were the subject of much debate. In an initial configuration of
16representative districts on the south side of Chicago,
17contained in House Amendment # 1 to House Bill 3760, there were
18complaints from minority voting rights organizations and
19others about the dispersion of Hispanic voting-age population
20among certain representative districts. Specifically, the
21complaints were directed at the allocation of this population
22among proposed RDs 1 (78.29%), 21 (75.20%), 22 (51.96%), and 24
23(75.92%). A subsequent proposal drafted by House and Senate
24Democratic staff, never filed as legislation, attempted to even
25out the allocation and resulted in Hispanic voting-age
26population as follows: 68.26% for proposed RD 1; 60.14% for

 

 

HR0385- 68 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1proposed RD 21; 60.21% for proposed RD 22; and 87.45% for
2proposed RD 24. The proposal and attempt to settle differences
3were complicated by the fact that representative districts are
4"nested" in legislative (Senate) districts, and thus any change
5in representative boundaries could affect the composition of
6Senate districts. They were further complicated by the desire
7not to encroach on the population of adjacent proposed RD 6,
8because of its population needs and composition.
9    Further criticism resulted from the proposal described
10above, not over the Hispanic voting-age populations for
11proposed RDs 1, 21, or 22, but over proposed RD 24's 87.45%
12figure. As a result of discussions and attempts at a political
13compromise, and to avoid any claim of unnecessary packing of a
14minority in a single district that was raised by interested and
15expert parties, the boundaries of proposed RD 24 are now drawn
16such that the Hispanic voting-age population of proposed RD 24
17is changed from its current 2011 figure of 78.44% to 69.93%,
18and adjacent proposed RD 23 would now have a Hispanic
19voting-age population of 46.27% compared to 27.28% as
20originally proposed in House Bill 3760.
21    Proposed RD 24 has a Hispanic voting-age population of
2269.93%, an African American voting-age population of 2.56%, and
23an Asian voting-age population of 1.29%.
 
24    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 25
25    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 25 has a

 

 

HR0385- 69 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population of 91,147. Proposed RD 25 has a population of
2108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
3compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
4RD 25 is different in shape from current RD 25 due, in part, to
5population shifts and the need to increase the total population
6of the district by 17,587.
7    Proposed RD 25, like current RD 25, is a highly urban
8district with great cultural, economic, religious and ethnic
9diversity located along the shores of Lake Michigan on
10Chicago's South Side. Proposed RD 25 is similar to current RD
1125, preserving ties of current communities of interest while
12expanding to the north and south in order to make up for a
13substantial loss of population over the last 10 years. Of its
14population, 67.41% reside in current RD 25.
15    As with current RD 25, proposed RD 25 includes Chicago
16Wards 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 20. Larger portions of Wards 8 and 10
17are added to acquire the necessary population. Proposed RD 25
18expands on the current RD 25's territory in Kenwood on the
19northern edge of the district, keeps its Hyde Park boundary
20line unchanged following Ellis Avenue, keeps mostly to the same
21boundary lines as it moves through Woodlawn, moves further to
22the east in South Shore in a stair step fashion, retains much
23of South Chicago, before swinging west to take in a third of
24Calumet Heights, expanding its western and southern boundaries
25in the northeastern corner of South Deering, before moving
26south to take in nearly all of the East Side, and then taking a

 

 

HR0385- 70 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1zig zag pattern to exclude largely industrial areas in the
2northwestern corner of Hegewisch while capturing park and
3residential areas in its northeastern corner, turning north to
4follow the border of Illinois and Indiana before terminating in
5Lake Michigan.
6    Like current RD 25, proposed RD 25 includes major medical,
7educational, and cultural institutions, including the
8University of Chicago and its affiliated medical center, La
9Rabida Children's Hospital, the Museum of Science and Industry,
10Frank Lloyd Wright's Robie House, the Smart Museum of Art, and
11numerous theological seminaries. These institutions employ and
12educate people who live in neighborhoods within and surrounding
13proposed RD 25.
14    Proposed RD 25 maintains the core of current RD 25 and
15preserves the incumbent-constituency relationship, which is
16very important in this district since the incumbent has been
17serving the community for 32 years and has a very strong
18relationship with the residents as well as the community
19itself. The population and boundary shifts result in a very
20high drop in African-American voting-age population and a
21strong gain in Hispanic voting-age population. The partisan
22composition is relatively unchanged from current to proposed RD
2325.
24    Proposed RD 25 preserves an African American community in
25the center, a Hispanic community in the south, and an Asian
26community in the northern part. Proposed RD 25 has an African

 

 

HR0385- 71 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1American voting-age population of 50.42%, a Hispanic
2voting-age population of 21.79%, and an Asian voting-age
3population of 5.00%.
 
4    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 26
5    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 26 has a
6population of 114,220. Proposed RD 26 has a population of
7108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
8compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
9RD 26 is different in shape from current RD 26 due, in part, to
10population shifts and the need to decrease the total population
11of the district by 5,486.
12    Of the population in proposed RD 26, 71.33% reside in
13current RD 26. Proposed RD 26 has many similarities to current
14RD 26, keeping much of the same shape that has been in
15existence for the past 10 years.
16    Like current RD 26, proposed RD 26 includes the 2nd, 3rd,
174th, 5th, 20th, 42nd and 43rd wards in the City of Chicago.
18Proposed RD 26 adds portions from the 7th, 8th and 10th wards
19while removing a portion of the 6th Ward found in current RD
2026. These changes help proposed RD 26 remove the necessary
21population, maintain the core of current RD 26, and help
22adjoining proposed districts preserve communities of interest.
23    To keep proposed RD 26 close to its current form, it
24maintains the same 43rd Ward northern boundary, with Lake
25Michigan serving as the eastern boundary for the northern

 

 

HR0385- 72 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1portion of the district. To reduce population, proposed RD 26
2moves its most western boundary closer starting just north of
3Division Street on the near north side until the northern half
4of the 4th Ward. It resumes a western border close, or
5identical, to current RD 26 as it moves through the rest of the
64th Ward. Proposed RD 26 keeps the same western boundary in the
7first half of the 20th Ward as the current RD 26 and then moves
8east in the southwestern 5th Ward to reduce population. It then
9stairsteps to the southeast through the northern 8th and
10western 7th Ward. At its southern border in the 7th Ward,
11proposed RD 26 stays close against the eastern side of the
12Chicago Skyway, going no further than 91st Street and Metra's
13South Chicago line tracks in its southeastern corner.
14    Included in proposed RD 26 are the neighborhoods of: Near
15North Side, Loop, Near South Side, Douglas, Oakland, Grand
16Boulevard, Kenwood, Hyde Park, Washington Park, Woodlawn,
17South Shore, South Chicago and Calumet Heights. These
18neighborhoods are all connected by their proximity to downtown
19Chicago and access to the numerous transportation lines that
20exist within proposed RD 26. Throughout proposed RD 26, the
21Metra Electric and South Shore commuter rail lines give
22residents access to southern parts of the city and the suburbs.
23These provide easy access to the Chicago Loop's services,
24merchants, restaurants, and recreational activities.
25    Proposed RD 26 contains a number of Chicago's most famous
26institutions and attractions that give the district its unique

 

 

HR0385- 73 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1character, including the University of Chicago, Grant Park,
2Navy Pier, McCormick Place, Soldier Field, John G. Shedd
3Aquarium, Field Museum, Alder Planetarium, and DuSable Museum
4of African American History. All of these landmarks provide
5great employment opportunities for residents, and the public
6transit options, including buses, make it easy to get from one
7end of the district to the other. For an urban district,
8proposed RD 26 includes significant amounts of open space,
9including Grant Park, the lakefront's Burnham Park, Washington
10Park, and the western portion of the Midway Plaisance.
11    These areas form a community of interest because the
12residents share concerns about the lakefront including
13maintenance of the beaches and pollution control. In addition,
14the residents of proposed RD 26 have a shared urban lifestyle,
15forming a community of interest.
16    Proposed RD 26 preserves the core of the existing district.
17The shifting of the boundaries, primarily to the west to
18accommodate other districts' expansion and to the south to add
19population, results in an increase in Hispanic voting-age
20population and a small increase in the partisan incumbent
21advantage.
22    Proposed RD 26 has an African American voting-age
23population of 54.00%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
245.81%, and an Asian voting-age population of 7.92%.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 27

 

 

HR0385- 74 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 27 has a
2population of 97,634. Proposed RD 27 has a population of
3108,734 and is therefore compliant with the "one person, one
4vote" principle. Proposed RD 27 is different in shape from
5current RD 27 due in part to population shifts and the need to
6increase the total population by 11,100.
7    Proposed RD 27 was drawn to increase its population,
8preserve communities of influence, and increase its
9compactness. Proposed RD 27 adds population in Chicago and
10expands its boundaries in several suburban communities to
11achieve equal population. Of the population in proposed RD 27,
1275.73% reside in current RD 27.
13    Calumet Park is removed entirely from proposed RD 27 so it
14can lie entirely within proposed RD 28. Palos Park is also
15removed from proposed RD 27. Although it will still be split,
16it will remain mostly in a single representative district and
17entirely within one senatorial district adjacent to proposed RD
1827.
19    Proposed RD 27 shifts east in the City of Chicago to add
20population while receding from parts of Blue Island, Beverly,
21and the Washington Heights neighborhoods. Proposed RD 27
22expands east into the Chicago neighborhoods of Morgan Park,
23Roseland, West Pullman, and Chatham and adds more of the
24suburban communities Alsip, Crestwood, Palos Heights and
25Robbins. Additionally, proposed RD 27 takes in a small portion
26of Orland Park to gain population.

 

 

HR0385- 75 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 27 extends east to take in two stations along
2the CTA Red Line "L" and the district continues to include
3portions of the Rock Island Metra Line and the Electric South
4Shore Metra Line. Several major north-side roads are included
5in proposed RD 27, including the Dan Ryan Expressway, Western
6Ave, Cicero Ave and Harlem Ave. I-294 runs through the center
7of proposed RD 27 and has an interchange at Cicero Ave. 127th
8St. remains one of the few east-west corridors in the district.
9    Most of proposed RD 27 has a median income between $44,000
10and $68,000. Small areas in Chicago and large portions of the
11western suburbs in proposed RD 27 have upper-middle class
12incomes between $68,000 to $99,000, with some higher income
13residents in Palos Heights and Orland Park earning a median
14income between $99,000 and $148,000.
15    In addition to the socioeconomic division proposed RD 27
16follows through Blue Island, the suburban community is racially
17divided along proposed RD 27's boundary. To the east and south
18of proposed RD 27, Blue Island is more racially segregated
19between Whites, African Americans and Hispanics. The portion of
20Blue Island within proposed RD 27 contains a middle-class
21population that is more racially diverse. This population is
22more similar to the racially diverse populations of Alsip,
23another Cook County suburban community. Taking in more of Alsip
24not only increases the population for proposed RD 27, but also
25increases the racially diverse suburban community of interest
26in proposed RD 27 as these minority populations are more

 

 

HR0385- 76 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1similar to each other than to the minority areas of Chicago.
2    Proposed RD 27's expansion meets the population target
3while allowing the district to maintain its core and preserve
4the incumbent-constituency relationship that has been formed
5over the past 12 election cycles. The incumbent has developed
6strong relationships with her constituents, and strong ties to
7the community, in over two decades representing this area.
8Proposed RD 27 maintains the same overall partisan composition
9of current RD 27 as it currently exists. Proposed RD 27
10contains roughly the same racial composition of the district as
11originally drawn in 2001, with African-American voting-age
12population dipping by over four percent.
13    Proposed RD 27 has an African American voting-age
14population of 57.86%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
157.33%, and an Asian voting-age population of 0.97%.
 
16    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 28
17    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 28 has a
18population of 93,237. Proposed RD 28 has a population of
19108,734 and is therefore compliant with the "one person, one
20vote" principle. Proposed RD 28 is different in shape from
21current RD 28 primarily due to population shifts and the need
22to increase the total population by 15,497 but maintains
23current RD 28's basic shape.
24    Of the population in proposed RD 28, 66.66% reside in
25current RD 28. Overall, the shape of proposed RD 28 is very

 

 

HR0385- 77 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1similar to current RD 28 and preserves linkages for current
2communities of interest, as well as keeps currently joined
3municipalities together. Proposed RD 28 has African American
4core populations in Wards 9 and 34 in Chicago, as well as in
5Calumet Park, Blue Island and Robbins.
6    Boundaries for proposed RD 28 are kept very similar to
7current RD 28. Many municipalities in current RD 28 lost
8population or had insignificant gains, especially Chicago,
9therefore it was necessary to expand proposed RD 28 into cities
10that grew, such as Tinley Park and Orland Park. The territory
11added in this area in Oak Forest, Orland Park, and Tinley Park
12are similar in income levels to Crestwood and Midlothian in the
13geographic center of proposed RD 28.
14    Proposed RD 28 lies entirely within Cook County. It
15contains all or portions of the following townships: Calumet,
16Worth, Bremen, Thornton, and Orland. These are the same
17townships in current RD 28.
18    Proposed RD 28 contains portions of the following cities,
19towns, and villages: Chicago, Calumet Park, Blue Island,
20Robbins, Crestwood, Midlothian, Oak Forest, Orland Park and
21Tinley Park. All of these municipalities, except for Tinley
22Park, are already included in current RD 28.
23    Proposed RD 28 is served by the following school districts:
24Chicago Public Schools 299, Calumet Public School District 132,
25General George Patton School District 133, Cook County School
26District 130, Posen-Robbins Elementary School District 143-5,

 

 

HR0385- 78 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1West Harvey-Dixmoor Public School District 147, Midlothian
2School District 143, Forest Ridge School District 142,
3Community Consolidated School District 146, Arbor Park School
4District 145, Orland School District 135, and Kirby School
5District 140.
6    Residents are moving from this area further into the South
7Suburbs, south of I-80 and closer to the Cook-Will County
8border. Proposed RD 28 has a diverse mix of income levels,
9ranging from low income ($2,499-$44,205) to upper middle-class
10($98,750-$147,955). The low income census blocks are near the
11northeastern corner of the district, starting in Chicago, and
12concentrated around Blue Island and Robbins. The western half
13of proposed RD 28 is more uniform in their median income.
14    Residents in proposed RD 28 share the concern of access to
15reliable public transportation, mainly providing access to
16jobs, both in Chicago and across Cook County. The residents
17also care about improvements to local highways, construction of
18Interstates 57, 94, and 294, and the reduction of stress on
19local roads that are used by trucks to switch highways.
20Proposed RD 28 has easy access to multiple Metra stations with
21Blue Island as the location where the Rock Island line splits.
22    Proposed RD 28's area east of I-294 is populated by a
23majority of African Americans with some Hispanic residents in
24the Blue Island area. Both the Chicago neighborhoods in the
25southwest side of the city and the suburban areas in this
26portion of proposed RD 28 share common concerns of urban

 

 

HR0385- 79 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1communities and have similar needs in terms of access to social
2services. The eastern half of proposed RD 28 is also bound
3economically by the fact that the residents are largely blue
4collar and live in industrial communities bordered on the south
5by Calumet Sag Channel which is used for barge traffic for
6industry. Hispanics in the Blue Island community are majority
7Catholic and live near St. Donatus Parish.
8    West of I-294, proposed RD 28 maintains its shape, but the
9need to add population requires proposed RD 28 to take in
10larger portions of Orland Park and Tinley Park south of Tinley
11Creek Woods. This western portion of proposed RD 28 is a
12suburban community of working class residents and retirees. The
13areas added by proposed RD 28 are not as sprawling and affluent
14as portions of Orland Park and Tinley Park to the northwest and
15southwest, and therefore fit more naturally with other
16communities included in proposed RD 28. This community is
17largely centered by two major roads, Route 6 / 159th Street,
18which provides access to downtown Chicago and the collar
19counties, and Route 43 / Harlem Avenue, which provides access
20to I-294.
21    The expansion of the proposed RD 28 maintains the core of
22the current district and the general demographic makeup of
23current RD 28. Proposed RD 28 preserves the
24incumbent-constituency relationships that have formed over the
25past 4 election cycles. The boundaries maintain the partisan
26composition of the current district. Proposed RD 28 drops its

 

 

HR0385- 80 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1African-American voting-age population by over eight percent
2compared to the district as originally drawn in 2001.
3    Proposed RD 28 has an African American voting-age
4population of 52.76%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
57.98%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.37%.
 
6    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 29
7    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 29 has a
8population of 96,394. Proposed RD 29 has a population of
9108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
10compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
11RD 29 is different in shape from current RD 29 due in part to
12population shifts and the need to increase the total population
13of the district.
14    Despite that change of population, proposed RD 29 is
15similar to current RD 29 and maintains the core of the district
16while adding communities that are similar to current RD 29. The
17majority of proposed RD 29 contains residents of current RD 29
18and portions of current RDs 28, 30, 79, and 80.
19    Like current RD 29, proposed RD 29 includes portions of the
20communities of Calumet City, Dolton, Burnham, Ford Heights,
21Lansing, Lynwood, Glenwood, Thornton, and South Holland, as
22well as portions of Chicago's 9th Ward. The main difference
23between current and proposed RD 29 is that proposed RD 29 goes
24further south into the suburbs and Will County to pick up
25communities that share the same interests and to achieve equal

 

 

HR0385- 81 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population.
2    The east side of the boundary is Route 394 which helps
3create a natural boundary for the district, but also serves as
4a major roadway for the constituents on the east side of the
5district that need to go north or south. On the south end of
6the district, proposed RD 29 borders are made up of the
7southern edges of Crete and Monee Townships in Will County.
8These boundaries are defined geographic lines but also serve as
9a separation from the more rural parts of Will County and the
10more urban ones. On the west side of the district, in the Cook
11County portion, the boundary is State Street and Halsted. These
12two roads serve as natural boundaries for the district but also
13serve as a means of transportation for the residents to get
14north or south, but also connect them to several of the
15highways in the district. The north end of the district is in
16the 9th ward in the West Pullman neighborhood. This district
17serves as a border and separates neighborhoods in the Chicago
18part of the district.
19    Proposed RD 29 adds portions of the communities of Chicago
20Heights, Sauk Village, Steger, Crete, University Park and
21Monee. Over the years, there has been a shift in population
22from Chicago into the south suburbs. Now that shift in
23population is moving from the near south suburbs to the
24southern part of Cook County and into the collar counties.
25Thus, proposed RD 29 extends into Will County to respond to
26population shifts and to capture additional population to reach

 

 

HR0385- 82 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1equal population. The new communities added to proposed RD 29
2are similar demographically to communities in current RD 29,
3and they share similar housing stock.
4    Prof. Robert Starks testified at the Chicago South hearing
5that African Americans who moved from Chicago to south and
6western suburbs should be incorporated into districts with
7other African Americans. He also testified that many African
8Americans who moved south and west out of the city did not move
9voluntarily but instead were forced out as a result of the
10closure of public housing projects in the city. Ten years ago,
11the communities of Sauk Village, Steger and Crete, were
12primarily Caucasian. Now these communities have a considerable
13number of African Americans, reaching 75% of the voting-age
14population in areas of Crete, Sauk Village, and Steger.
15Proposed RD 29 keeps African Americans who have moved into the
16areas of Crete, Sauk Village, and Steger together with African
17Americans to the north. These communities are added to current
18RD 29 because the residents share similar incomes, racial
19backgrounds, and lifestyles. These communities relate more to a
20suburban Chicago lifestyle than the rural lifestyle of southern
21Will County.
22    Many of the thoroughfares in proposed RD 29 connect the
23south end of the district with the north end and the city of
24Chicago. Many of the residents in proposed RD 29 use these
25roadways to commute north to work, shop, and attend church.
26Highways like Illinois Route 394, the border of the district,

 

 

HR0385- 83 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1connect proposed RD 29 directly to the south side of Chicago as
2well as Downtown Chicago. Dixie Highway, which is centrally
3located in proposed RD 29, links the southern part of the
4district to the northern part and gives residents access to
5many local businesses, universities, colleges, and the
6neighboring south suburbs. The other main north south highway
7is I-57. This highway gives residents on the west side of
8proposed RD 29 a highway that connects them to the other south
9suburbs as well as an alternative route into the city of
10Chicago. All of these north-south roads are connected in the
11central part of the district by Interstate 80 which gives
12residents access to the western suburbs and Indiana.
13    Other points of interest that link proposed RD 29 together
14are that the majority of the residents in these communities
15have more in common with the south suburbs of Chicago than the
16rural sections of Will County. These areas are not farmland.
17They are more urban and have more of a suburban feel than a
18rural one. In fact, many of the high schools in these
19communities compete against the south suburban schools more so
20than they do against any of the areas to the south of them in
21Will County.
22    Socioeconomically, proposed RD 29 is fairly homogeneous.
23While portions in the northern part of the district are at a
24lower median income level, the majority of proposed RD 29 is
25made up of middle working class families having median income
26of $44,000 to $99,000. As with the majority of the other

 

 

HR0385- 84 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1demographics, this trait is similar to what it is under current
2RD 29.
3    Proposed RD 29 maintains the core of the existing district
4and nearly the same partisan composition. The African-American
5voting-age population was 55.23% in the district as originally
6drawn in 2001 and climbed to over 68% in 2011. With proposed RD
729, the voting-age population for African-Americans drops to
861.89%.
9    Proposed RD 29 contains a Hispanic voting-age population of
105.30% and an Asian voting-age population of 0.72%.
 
11    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 30
12    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 30 has a
13population of 98,066. Proposed RD 30 has a population of
14108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
15compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
16RD 30 is different in shape from current RD 30 due in part to
17population shifts and the need to increase the total population
18of the district.
19    Proposed RD 30 includes 73.04% of current RD 30, with
20expansions necessary to achieve equal population. Proposed RD
2130 removes a section of the city of Chicago on the northern
22edge and expands the boundaries to the south and west to
23achieve equal population. With these changes, proposed RD 30 is
24an entirely suburban district.
25    At the southernmost point of the district, proposed RD 30

 

 

HR0385- 85 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1extends west to include more of Homewood and maintains the most
2populous part of Homewood in one district. To gain population,
3proposed RD 30 extends west of the westernmost boundary of
4current RD 30 in to Oak Forest. The boundary of current RD 30
5expands southwest to the border shared by the cities of Harvey
6and Markham. Proposed RD 30 keeps completely intact Posen,
7Dixmoor, Phoenix, and East Hazel Crest and keeps most of Harvey
8and Homewood in one district.
9    Proposed RD 30 does not split more townships than current
10RD 30. Unlike current RD 30, proposed RD 30 includes a small
11portion of northeast Rich Township. The split in Rich Township
12occurs to maintain the base of Homewood and achieve equal
13population.
14    The income levels in proposed RD 30 vary, as in current RD
1530, with the lowest incomes ranging from $2,499 to $44,000 and
16higher incomes of $68,000 to $148,000 along the western and
17southern sections.
18    Despite the boundary changes, proposed RD 30 maintains the
19core of its existing district and preserves the
20incumbent-constituency relationships that have formed over
21much of the last decade. The boundary adjustments maintain
22approximately the same partisan composition of current RD 30 as
23it exists in 2011. The African-American population of the
24district has dropped compared to the district as it was
25originally drawn in 2001.
26    Proposed RD 30 contains an African American voting-age

 

 

HR0385- 86 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population of 51.86%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
213.13%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.22%.
 
3    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 31
4    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 31 has a
5population of 98,298. Proposed RD 31 has a population of
6108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
7compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
8RD 31 is different in shape from current RD 31 due, in part, to
9population shifts and the need to increase the total population
10of the district by 10,436.
11    Of the population in proposed RD 31, 58.45% reside in
12current RD 31. Proposed RD 31 extends to the southwestern
13suburbs to gain necessary population. Like current RD 31,
14proposed RD 31 remains mostly in the city of Chicago. Proposed
15RD 31 moves into the southwestern suburbs of Chicago Ridge,
16Palos Hills, Hometown, Willow Springs, Hodgkins, Countryside,
17and Burr Ridge in order to gain population.
18    With this expansion, proposed RD 31 maintains similar
19median incomes and reflects the general trend of Chicago
20residents moving west. Socioeconomically, proposed RD 31 is
21predominately made up of working class families. There are many
22transportation corridors and options available in this area in
23order to get to work each day. Proposed RD 31 contains three
24Metra lines: the Heritage line runs through the northwest
25portion of proposed RD 31; the Rock Island-Main line runs

 

 

HR0385- 87 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1through the eastern portion; and the SouthWest Service line
2runs through the northeast and central portions of proposed RD
331.
4    Proposed RD 31 maintains the core of its district and
5preserves an incumbent-constituent relationship that has
6existed since 1985; the incumbent is one of the House's
7longest-serving members. The African-American population drops
8by seven percent, primarily due to the expanded western and
9northwestern boundaries, which pick up an overwhelmingly
10Caucasian and, to a far lesser extent, Hispanic population. The
11partisan advantage for the incumbent diminishes slightly under
12proposed RD 31 compared to current RD 31, also due to the west
13and northwest expansion.
14    Proposed RD 31 has an African American voting-age
15population of 53.78%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
166.21%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.1%.
 
17    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 32
18    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 32 has a
19population of 93,008. Proposed RD 32 has a population of
20108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
21compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
22RD 32 is different in shape from current RD 32 due, in large
23part, to population shifts and the need to increase the total
24population of the district by over 15,000 people.
25    Of the population in proposed RD 32, 53.26% reside in

 

 

HR0385- 88 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1current RD 32. Proposed RD 32 has slight variations in its
2borders within the City of Chicago and expands west of Pulaski
3Avenue into suburban Cook County, in part to gain population,
4without adversely affecting the communities of interest within
5the district. Chicago's border in proposed RD 32 is very
6similar in shape to current RD 32. In both current and proposed
7RD 32, Kennedy-King College anchors its eastern end. In its
8western half, the territory added to proposed RD 32 is similar
9in shape and boundary lines to current RD 32. Proposed RD 32
10extends into the suburban Cook County communities of Burbank,
11Bridgeview, Justice, Hickory Hills and Oak Lawn to gain
12population. At proposed RD 32's western terminus in Justice,
13the district includes a group of African American residents,
14otherwise isolated in that region but sharing a community of
15interest with African American residents in the eastern half of
16the district. Proposed RD 32 has a Hispanic community of
17interest west of Central Park Avenue that extends from the city
18into the district's suburban communities.
19    Proposed RD 32 recedes entirely from Chicago's 16th Ward
20and from small portions of Chicago Wards 13, 15, and 18. The
21portion of Ward 18 removed is in the Chicago Lawn and West Lawn
22neighborhoods, which consists primarily of Hispanic residents.
23This was done, in part, to add population and increase the
24Hispanic residents within the adjoining district. Marquette
25Park, a non-residential park, which is in current RD 32, is not
26included in proposed RD 32. The removal provides a natural

 

 

HR0385- 89 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1boundary for proposed RD 32. Proposed RD 32 also recedes
2entirely out of the 16th Ward; like current RD 32, proposed RD
332 continues to contain portions of Chicago Wards 6, 13, 15,
417, 18, 20 and 21 and the neighborhoods of Ashburn, Chicago
5Lawn, Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, West Englewood and
6Woodlawn.
7    The boundaries of proposed RD 32 reflect the competing
8goals of preserving the existing district balanced against the
9need to obtain a significant amount of population to reach the
10equal population target. The largest expansion, the move
11westward for this population, adds Hispanic and Caucasian
12population. The African-American voting-age population of the
13district, which had held steady since 2001 at approximately
1468%, now drops significantly to 52%.
15    Proposed RD 32 has an African American voting-age
16population of 52.02%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
1715.86%, and an Asian-American voting-age population of 1.34%.
 
18    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 33
19    According to 2010 Census, current RD 33 has a population of
2093,407. Proposed RD 33 has a population of 108,734, the
21equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
22"one person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 33 is different
23in shape from current RD 33 due, in part, to population shifts
24and the need to increase the total population of the district
25by 15,327.

 

 

HR0385- 90 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Of the population in proposed RD 33, 43.64% reside in
2current RD 33. Many of the borders in the northern end of
3proposed RD 33 are identical to current RD 33, but proposed RD
433 moves south to capture the communities of Burnham, Calumet
5City, Lansing, Lynwood, Sauk Village and a tiny sliver in Ford
6Heights. Proposed RD 33 is located entirely within Cook County.
7    The southern border of proposed RD 33 is formed by the
8Cook-Will County line and runs from the Illinois-Indiana state
9line to S. Torrence Avenue, a major north-south roadway. The
10western border follows Torrence Avenue north to Interstate
1180/94, with some adjustments along the border of the Lansing
12Woods Forest Preserve and other areas to achieve equal
13population. Heading east on I-80/94, the border moves north
14largely along Burnham Road, with slight adjustments for
15population. Just past Michigan City Road, the border follows
16several streets, mainly to pick up needed population, before
17moving northwest along the Chicago South Shore and South Bend
18Railroad Line. The border follows the rail line until it
19rejoins S. Torrence Avenue, and then moves northwest along the
20Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Line. Proposed RD 33 then
21follows S. Cottage Grove Avenue north, turning east along E.
2279th Street. Forming the proposed district's eastern border,
23the district line moves generally southward until reaching E.
2495th Street, then eastward until moving south again along S.
25Torrence Avenue. From this point, the border moves generally
26southeast along several roads until reaching the Indiana border

 

 

HR0385- 91 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1just north of Wolf Lake. The final portion of the eastern
2border follows the Illinois-Indiana state line until reaching
3the Cook-Will County line in the southeastern corner of the
4district.
5    According to land use data, proposed RD 33's area outside
6of the City of Chicago is largely urban, a characteristic
7shared with those residing in Chicago portion of the district.
8The communities in proposed RD 33 are home to many public
9employees, namely those working for municipal and county
10governments. Many police officers, firefighters and other City
11of Chicago workers live in proposed RD 33 because it allows
12them to meet residency requirements and still have easy access
13to the suburbs. In the suburban communities, most public
14employees or white collar workers reside east of S. Torrence
15Avenue, where housing stock is different than those residing
16west of the street. This common threat ties the communities
17together.
18    Proposed RD 33, like the current district, has a community
19of interest made up of low to middle income residents. With the
20exception of two small areas where residents earn between
21$68,000 and $99,000 per year, the proposed district's resident
22earn below $68,000, with some areas of population showing a
23median income of under $44,000.
24    Proposed RD 33 also keeps the Ford automobile factory in
25the district, a key employer for residents in both the Chicago
26and south suburban portions of proposed RD 33. A number of

 

 

HR0385- 92 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1manufacturing facilities exist in the area around the Ford
2factory, and many employees of these facilities have chosen to
3live in the surrounding communities. These manufacturing
4facilities and their workers are vital parts of proposed RD 33
5and form a community of interest.
6    With the closure of public housing units in south Chicago,
7many families relocated to the south suburbs, specifically in
8the areas contained in proposed RD 33. These individuals have
9strong ties to the Chicago portion of proposed RD 33 in the
10churches they attend, their places of employment and banking.
11By moving the current district's southern border further south,
12it allows district residents who still have family and friends
13in Chicago to share the same representative.
14    Proposed RD 33 keeps African Americans in Chicago together
15with African Americans in the communities of Burnham, Calumet
16City, Lansing, Lynwood and Sauk Village recognizing an
17important community of interest. This is especially important
18as many African Americans residing in the southern part of the
19proposed district previously lived in Chicago.
20    Proposed RD 33's ability to retain the core of its
21district, and to preserve the incumbent-constituent
22relationship enjoyed over the last decade, is hampered by the
23southward expansion of the district's boundaries necessary to
24compensate for a substantial population loss. But the need to
25move south is almost unavoidable: much of its eastern border is
26immovable, most of the surrounding districts also suffer from

 

 

HR0385- 93 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population loss, and in any event, the population has migrated
2primarily southward. Current RD 33's African-American
3voting-age population, which has hovered around 66% since the
42001 map was drawn, drops to just below 62% with the boundary
5changes. The partisan advantage for the incumbent suffers a
6moderate drop as well.
7    Proposed RD 33 has an African American voting-age
8population of 61.98%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
911.7%, and an Asian voting-age population of 0.48%.
 
10    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 34
11    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 34 has a
12population of 95,793. Proposed RD 34 has a population of
13108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
14compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
15RD 34 is different in shape from current RD 34 due, in large
16part, to population shifts and the need to increase the total
17population of the district by 12,941.
18    Of the population in proposed RD 34, 49.36% reside in
19current RD 34. It gains the population needed to meet the equal
20population number by extending further south, adding portions
21of Chicago's south suburbs and portions of eastern Will and
22Kankakee counties. In the Cook County portion of proposed RD
2334, the borders closely resemble the borders of current RD 34
24or follow major thoroughfares. Outside Cook County, proposed RD
2534's borders follow township lines or natural boundaries, as

 

 

HR0385- 94 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1best as possible, deviating at points for purposes of equal
2population.
3    Proposed RD 34 is made up of portions of the south side of
4Chicago, portions of Chicago's south suburbs, and portions of
5Will and Kankakee counties. As neighboring proposed
6representative districts in Chicago pushed southward and
7westward in response to population migration, the boundaries of
8proposed RD 34 followed suit, pushing slightly west from
9current RD 34 in Chicago. Proposed RD 34 includes portions of
10Burnham, Calumet City, and Lansing. Extending current RD 34
11southward using these boundaries creates a logical path for
12adding the population needed while also allowing proposed RD 34
13to preserve the core of current RD 34.
14    Robert Starks, from the Harold Washington Institute for
15Research and Policy Studies, testified at the House
16Redistricting Hearing on April 20, 2011 at Chicago State
17University that too much of the African American population has
18left the city for the south and western suburbs. He stated that
19these relocated residents should be incorporated into existing
20African American districts or placed into coalition districts
21or influence districts. He wants to ensure African Americans
22have representation at all levels of the state legislature.
23Proposed RD 34 follows the migration of African Americans out
24of the south side of Chicago by adding pockets of African
25Americans in Crete Township in Will County and Ganeer Township
26in Kankakee County.

 

 

HR0385- 95 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Additionally, with the closure of public housing units in
2south Chicago, many families relocated to the south suburbs,
3specifically in the areas contained in proposed RD 34. These
4individuals still have strong ties to the Chicago portion of
5proposed RD 34 in the churches they attend, their places of
6employment and banking. By moving proposed RD 34's southern
7border further south, it allows district residents who still
8have family and friends in Chicago to share the same
9representative. Robert Starks testified that African Americans
10who moved from Chicago to south and western suburbs should be
11incorporated into other African Americans districts, given
12that many African Americans who moved south and west out of the
13city did not move voluntarily, but instead were forced out as a
14result of the closure of public housing projects in the city.
15    The Chicago boundaries of proposed RD 34 follow very
16closely to the boundaries of current RD 34 in its northern
17portion. Proposed RD 34 shifts slightly westward as neighboring
18representative districts to the east move westward in search of
19population. Proposed RD 34 also follows well-established
20roadways and other boundaries. On its western border, proposed
21RD 34 follows major roads such as the Dan Ryan Expressway and
22Cottage Grove Avenue, and a railroad. As proposed RD 34 extends
23southward into Chicago's south suburbs, the western boundary
24likewise shifts west, along the Shabonna Woods Forest Preserve
25and then follows the Bishop Ford Expressway/Interstate 394
26southward to the Cook/Will county line.

 

 

HR0385- 96 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    The eastern border also closely resembles the boundaries of
2current RD 34, Route 20/12, a railroad, Torrence Avenue (which
3is one of the major roads in the Southland), Burnham Avenue,
4Interstate 80/294, the Lansing Woods Forest Preserve, and back
5down Torrence Avenue to the Cook/Will county line, at which
6point proposed RD 34 travels east to include a portion of Crete
7Township.
8    In Will County, proposed RD 34 attempts to keep as many
9townships as possible intact. It splits Crete Township,
10following along Route 1/Dixie Highway (a heavily traveled road
11in the south suburbs), State Street, Burville Road, and the
12Bishop Ford Expressway/Interstate 394. This split is done for
13purposes of equal population, and it keeps the municipality of
14Crete almost solely within a neighboring representative
15district. Washington Township is split along West Eagle Lake
16Road and Route 1/Dixie Highway to add population from a portion
17of Beecher, then along West Beecher Road, splitting York
18Township, leaving the majority of Peotone, and the portion that
19may make up the proposed South Suburban Airport, in the
20Kankakee County-based proposed RD 79. In Kankakee County,
21proposed RD 34 almost exclusively travels along township lines
22to include Manteno, Sumner, and Yellowhead townships. Where the
23southern boundary of proposed RD 34 follows mostly along the
24Kankakee River, it splits Ganeer Township to include a
25concentration of African Americans residents. Proposed RD 34
26includes almost all of Momence and continues its southern

 

 

HR0385- 97 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1border along the Kankakee River. The municipalities in proposed
2RD 34 are kept mostly intact, except for Peotone and virtually
3all of Bourbonnais, which are split along township lines and
4geographic boundaries.
5    Socioeconomically, the north and south ends of proposed RD
634 are very similar to each other. While there are pockets of
7low-income households in the Riverdale, Grand Crossing,
8Chatham, and South Deering neighborhoods in Chicago and Ford
9Heights in the south suburbs, the rest of proposed RD 34 is
10predominantly lower-middle income to middle income.
11    While proposed RD 34 contains several major interstates and
12highways, it also has numerous railroads. Proposed RD 34
13contains a section of the Metra Electric line that allows daily
14commuters from the south suburbs to travel to and from Chicago.
15The City of New Orleans Amtrak line passes through the district
16as well as a number of major commercial lines that link
17Chicago's industrial areas to intermodal yards and main lines
18allowing freight to be shipped to the East and West coasts. The
19residents of proposed RD 34 share a common interest in ensuring
20that rail service is provided and maintained within the region.
21    Proposed RD 34 follows the migration of African Americans
22out of the southside of Chicago and links them with segments of
23African-Americans in Crete Township and Ganeer Township in
24Kankakee County.
25    The incumbent has served this district for 16 years, and
26the northern portion of proposed RD 34 is preserved, allowing

 

 

HR0385- 98 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1for the maintenance of the incumbent-constituent relationship
2at least to that extent. The ability to retain more of current
3RD 34's core is frustrated by the need to add almost 13,000 in
4population to ensure equal population, as well as the fact that
5searching for population from adjacent districts to the east,
6west, and north would entail removing population from districts
7that likewise have suffered population losses of over 10,000
8each. (The lone exception is a miniscule shared border with
9proposed RD 5, which suffered a population loss of over 6,000.)
10The logical expansion is southward, especially given that this
11movement follows the population migration. This expansion
12leads to the addition of mostly Caucasian and Hispanic voters.
13As a result, proposed RD 34's African-American voting-age
14population, which under current RD 34 started in 2001 at over
1568% and had climbed to almost 75% under the 2010 census,
16dropped almost seventeen percent under proposed RD 34. The
17partisan advantage for the incumbent drops significantly but
18remains strong.
19    Proposed RD 34 would include an African American voting-age
20population of 58.13%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
216.50%, and an Asian voting-age population of 0.35%.
 
22    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 35
23    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 35 has a
24population of 105,864. Proposed RD 35 has a population of
25108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore

 

 

HR0385- 99 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
2RD 35 is different in shape from current RD 35 due, in part, to
3population shifts and the need to increase the total population
4of the district.
5    Proposed RD 35, located in Cook County, has 49.36% of its
6residents from current RD 35. While allowing surrounding
7districts to gain population, proposed RD 35 maintains its
8general shape, and expands into the northeast and southwest to
9increase the necessary population. The east end of proposed RD
1035 maintains similar boundaries as current RD 35. As with
11current RD 35, proposed RD 35 contains parts of Chicago
12neighborhoods of Beverly, Mount Greenwood and Morgan Park.
13Proposed RD 35 expands into portions of Auburn Gresham and
14Washington Heights in order to gain population.
15    Moving west vertically, proposed RD 35 follows similar
16patterns as current RD 35 through the city of Merrionette Park
17and parts of the cities of Alsip, Oak Lawn, Worth, Palos Park
18and Palos Heights. In order to pick up the necessary
19population, proposed RD 35 expands further into the southwest
20suburbs and includes most of the city of Orland Park and all of
21Orland Hills. The section of proposed RD 35 moving westward
22narrows when compared to current RD 35 to accommodate the need
23for more increasing population in neighboring proposed RDs 28
24and 36. Proposed RD 35 splits three townships (current RD 35
25splits four) and has two entire cities and seven split cities
26(current RD 35 has ten split cities).

 

 

HR0385- 100 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    The townships and municipalities within proposed RD 35 are
2united by common socioeconomic characteristics associated with
3the southwest Chicago land area. The majority of residents
4within these places are single-family homeowners who move into
5these communities to take advantage of their housing values,
6quality schools, and low crime rates. Many residents live in
7the southwest part of the city of Chicago because they want to
8be in a more "suburban" setting rather than a more urban area.
9Many of the residents of the suburban townships have either
10moved form Chicago themselves or are the children of former
11Chicago residents. Outside of the African-American communities
12in the northeast corner of the district, most of the residents
13are of Irish, Polish, or Italian decent.
14    Proposed RD 35 includes portions of Chicago Wards 19 and
1520, including the neighborhoods of Auburn-Gresham, Washington
16Heights, Beverly, Morgan Park, and Mount Greenwood to increase
17population, while preserving communities of interest in
18neighboring districts. As with current RD 35, proposed RD 35
19contains the majority of the community of Beverly and Mount
20Greenwood. Beverly and Mount Greenwood represent a racially
21mixed community of interest with a high percentage of home
22owners who work for Chicago governmental agencies, including
23residents serving as police officers, fire fighters, and
24paramedics. These homeowners reside in Beverly because of the
25quality of homes, lower crime rates and better schools than
26many other Chicago neighborhoods. These residents have similar

 

 

HR0385- 101 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1transportation patterns, and use the Dan Ryan Expressway or the
2Metra Rock Island commuter train route to access downtown
3Chicago.
4    The Chicago residency requirement also ties the eastern
5portion of the district with the western suburban portion
6through the migration of retired city workers who have trended
7further into the southwest suburbs of Orland, Palos and Tinley
8Park after they are no longer bound by residency.
9    The narrow middle portion of proposed RD 35 maintains the
10core of suburban communities that are within current RD 35
11while expanding southwest into Orland Park and Orland Hills.
12The suburban section of the district has similar household
13incomes between $44,000 and $99,000. The western section of the
14district contains the vast majority of Orland Park and all of
15Orland Hills. The Cook County border serves as the western
16border for the district.
17    Religion is another binding factor between the Chicago
18portion of proposed RD 35 to the east and the suburban portion
19to the west. Beverly and Mount Greenwood are home to a number
20of Catholic parishes. Many of these Catholic residents,
21especially older or retired residents, move south and west when
22they are no longer bound by Chicago residency requirements, or
23to take advantage of the additional space, larger homes and
24backyards, and quieter quality of life in the suburbs. Many of
25these residents who have migrated from Beverly and Mount
26Greenwood into Palos and Orland Townships also populate several

 

 

HR0385- 102 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Catholic churches throughout the suburbs.
2    Major roads in proposed RD 35 include I-294, which runs
3through the narrow vertical center of the district and provides
4access to the City of Chicago and northwest suburbs going
5north, and to I-80 going south which provides access to Joliet
6and I-57, both of which are used by trades and local businesses
7to access collar counties. Southwest Highway which begins on
895th Street in the neighboring RD 36 provides easy access into
9the Palos / Orland area and allows for easy travel between the
10east and west sections of RD 35. In the western portion of the
11district, Route 45 and Route 6 / 159th Street are major artery
12streets that intersect at the southern end of the western
13portion of the district.
14    A majority of the population within proposed RD 35 resides
15in current RD 35. The current partisan composition of proposed
16RD 35 is slightly higher than the current composition of
17current RD 35.
18    Proposed RD 35 has an African American voting-age
19population of 16.44%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
205.83%, and an Asian voting-age population of 2.65%.
 
21    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 36
22    According to the 2010 census, current RD 36 has a
23population of 103,284. Proposed RD 36 has a population of
24108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
25compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed

 

 

HR0385- 103 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1RD 36 is different in shape from current RD 36 due, in part, to
2population shifts, the need to increase the total population of
3the district by 5,450, and efforts to preserve communities of
4interest.
5    Of the population in proposed RD 36, 62.73% reside in
6current RD 36. Proposed RD 36 moves south and west of current
7RD 36 to gain needed population while respecting the population
8requirements of adjoining districts. Adjoining RD 31 is an
9African American majority district, which had to start moving
10west to increase population and remain within Cook County. The
11densest African American communities in proposed RD 31 are in
12the 17th, 18th, and 21st Chicago Wards. Proposed RD 36
13transfers portions of Chicago Wards 18 and 21 in the
14northeastern portion of current RD 36 to proposed RD 36. These
15portions have a high density of African American communities
16and are therefore included in proposed RD 31 in order to
17solidify the communities of interest and preserve proposed RD
1831 as an African American majority district.
19    Like current RD 36, proposed RD 36 is entirely within Cook
20County and centers around Evergreen Park and Oak Lawn. Proposed
21RD 36 adds portions of Oak Lawn, Chicago Ridge and Palos Hills
22(all in current RD 36) and expands to include sections of Worth
23and Palos Heights. Additional portions of the Chicago
24neighborhoods of Beverly and Mount Greenwood are also included
25in RD 36. The western border of proposed RD 36 expands to the
26Cook County border, in part to accommodate for population loss

 

 

HR0385- 104 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1in the east. A significant section of the western portion is
2within a forest preserve located in Lyons Township. Proposed RD
336 expanded into much of the township to reach pockets of
4population surrounding the forest preserve, both north (Willow
5Springs) and south (Palos Park). Much of the suburban area
6added to proposed RD 36 is socioeconomically and
7demographically similar to other portions of current and
8proposed RD 36. The median income ranges from $44,000 to
9$99,000, which is similar to current RD 36.
10    Current and proposed RD 36 has a significant number of
11persons who identify with the Catholic Church or choose to send
12their children to neighborhood Catholic Schools. Brother Rice
13High School and Mother McAuley High School remain in proposed
14RD 36 at the confluence of Chicago, Evergreen Park and Oak
15Lawn. Many residents have ties to these schools that last long
16after their children have graduated.
17    Proposed RD 36 is tied to Chicago's downtown, where many
18work and seek entertainment, via Metra's South West Service
19train line which runs through the heart of the district.
20Downtown Chicago is also easily accessed by automobile via the
21Interstate System. Interstate 294 also runs through proposed RD
2236. Interstates 55, 57, 80 and 94 are all nearby and accessible
23via on ramps or from Interstate 294.
24    Proposed RD 36 maintains a majority of the core from
25current RD 36. The partisan advantage in favor of the incumbent
26is lower than current RD 36.

 

 

HR0385- 105 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 36 has an African American voting-age
2population of 12.21%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 8.7%,
3and an Asian voting-age population of 2.23%.
 
4    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 37
5    Proposed RD 37 contains 108,734, the equal-population
6target, and is therefore compliant with the "one person, one
7vote" principle. Several districts shifted due to population
8issues, and thus proposed RD 37 contains portions of 3 current
9representative districts.
10    Proposed RD 37 is located in Cook and Will counties and
11contains portions of current RD's 37 and 81. Proposed RD 37
12lies mainly within the suburbs of Will County, with a small
13portion of Cook County. Proposed RD 37 contains portions New
14Lenox, Frankfort, Homer, and Orland Townships. Portions of the
15following communities are located within proposed RD 37:
16Mokena, Tinley Park, Frankfort Square, New Lenox, Frankfort,
17Orland Park, Homer Glen, Lockport, and Joliet. Proposed RD 37
18unites communities that are demographically and culturally
19similar to towns that are part of current and proposed RD 37,
20including Homer Glen, Joliet, Lockport, Orland Park, and New
21Lenox. On its western edge, the proposed RD 37 observes the
22same boundary line that existed between the current RD 37 and
23adjacent current RD 85 and current RD 86. This ensures that
24sections can be preserved in those proposed neighboring
25districts, as well.

 

 

HR0385- 106 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 37 is fairly economically homogeneous, with
2median annual income falling in the $85,000.01 - $115,000
3range, save for a smaller and wealthier section of southwestern
4Mokena. Proposed RD 37 is unified by its major transportation
5corridors, Interstate 80, which runs through the middle,
6Interstate 355, which connects New Lenox to the western
7suburbs, and major north-south roads traversing the district,
8including (from east to west) 80th Avenue, LaGrange Road (US
945), Wolf Road, Cedar Road, Cougar Road, and Farrell Road
10Lincoln Highway (US 30) runs along the southern border. Metra's
11Rock Island commuter rail line, which connects Joliet to
12downtown Chicago, crosses the entirety of the district with
13stops in New Lenox, Mokena, Hickory Creek, and Tinley Park. The
14commuters who use this line create a community of interest.
15    A majority of the population within proposed RD 37 resides
16within current RD 81, the incumbent's current district.
17Proposed RD 37 keeps the incumbent within the core of the
18district, thus preserving incumbent-constituent relationships
19developed over the past 7 election cycles. However, the
20partisan composition of proposed RD 37 is slightly lower than
21the incumbent's current district.
22    Proposed RD 37 contains an African American voting-age
23population of 1.36%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 4.61%,
24and an Asian voting-age population of 2.71%.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 38

 

 

HR0385- 107 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 38 has a
2population of 111,279. Proposed RD 38 has a population of
3108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
4compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
5RD 38 is different in shape from current RD 38 due, in part, to
6population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
7of the district by 2,545.
8    Compared to current RD 38, proposed RD 38 shifts to the
9west. One reason for this shift is the southward and westward
10push of surrounding districts that need to gain population.
11Despite proposed RD 38's move west, 65.66% of the population is
12in current RD 38. The northeast corner of the district is
13slightly reduced and the eastern border moves west. The
14northeast corner contains a staircase shaped boundary that
15almost exactly follows the border line of Hazel Crest and
16Homewood. The northwest boundary of the district is extended
17north, mainly to achieve equal population. The southwest border
18of proposed RD 38 remains the same as current RD 38. As in
19current RD 38, proposed RD 38 represents portions of the
20communities of Country Club Hills, Flossmoor, Olympia Fields,
21Park Forest, Hazel Crest, Markham, Matteson, Richton Park,
22Harvey, Frankfort and Oak Forest. Proposed RD 38 adds the
23communities of Tinley Park and Frankfort Square.
24    The residents of the communities within proposed RD 38
25share many common characteristics. As a whole, proposed RD 38
26is a largely middle income district with a median income range

 

 

HR0385- 108 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1of $65,000 to $85,000 per year. Although there are minor
2variances within the district, this range is noticeably higher
3than districts to the north and east, while it is lower than
4those in districts to the south and west. Proposed RD 38
5creates a community of interest containing upwardly mobile,
6middle class minorities. The additional population from Tinley
7Park and Frankfort Square share some socioeconomic
8similarities with the residents of Olympia Fields in terms of
9their median income of $85,000-$115,000 per year.
10    Similar to current RD 38, proposed RD 38 includes a large
11Cook County forest preserve area and preserves the Interstate
1257 and Interstate 80 corridors at the heart of the district.
13These roadways are a major source of commerce, allow local
14residents to reach their destinations with ease, and will be a
15driving factor in job growth.
16    Despite the westward shift of proposed RD 38 to accommodate
17the population needs of surrounding districts, proposed RD 38
18maintains the core and shape of current RD 38 and preserves the
19relationship between this five-year incumbent and many of his
20constituents. Proposed RD 38's African-American voting-age
21population drops substantially from the 2010 census figures for
22current RD 38, which was 71 percent. The partisan advantage to
23the incumbent drops as well but remains strong.
24    Proposed RD 38 has an African American voting-age
25population of 51.14%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
264.15%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.95%.
 

 

 

HR0385- 109 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 39
2    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 39 has a
3population of 95,126. Proposed RD 39 has a population of
4108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
5compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
6RD 39 is different in shape from current RD 39 due, in part, to
7population shifts and the need to increase the total population
8of the district by 13,608.
9    Proposed RD 39 contains portions of current RD's 3, 14, 19,
1039, and 40. Of its population, 58.53% reside in current RD 39.
11To achieve equal population, the western half of current RD 39
12shifts north and west, the northern boundary in the eastern
13half shifts south, and the southern boundary shifts slightly
14north. Proposed RD 39 lies entirely within Cook County on
15Chicago's Northwest Side.
16    The major boundary streets in proposed RD 39 include Irving
17Park Road and West Belle Plaine to the north, Fullerton and
18Armitage Avenues to the south, Western Avenue to the east,
19Melvina and Austin Avenues to the west, and Milwaukee and Barry
20Avenues to the north. Other major arterial streets running
21north-south include Central Avenue, Laramie Avenue, Cicero
22Avenue, Pulaski Road, and Kedzie Avenue. The streets running
23east-west are Fullerton Avenue, Diversey Avenue, Belmont
24Avenue, Addison Street and Irving Park Road.
25    Portions of the following Chicago wards are located in

 

 

HR0385- 110 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1proposed RD 39: 45, 1, 26, 30, 31, 35, and 38. The majority of
2split wards found in current RD 39 are also found in proposed
3RD 39: wards 1, 26, 30, 31, and 35. As with current RD 39,
4proposed RD 39 includes split Cook County Board districts 8 and
512.
6    Proposed RD 39 includes portions of the following
7neighborhoods: Belmont Cragin, Hermosa, Avondale, Logan Square
8(all of which are found in part within current RD 39), Portage
9Park, and Irving Park. These neighborhoods are either
10predominantly Hispanic or have growing Hispanic populations.
11On the western border, proposed RD 39 includes an eight-block
12section of the Dunning neighborhood, half of which is made up
13of the campus and playing field of the Chicago Academy
14elementary and high schools, which serve residents from
15proposed RD 39. Residents in proposed RD 39 are linked by the
16Logan Square Boulevards Historic District and the Six Corners
17shopping district, which are preserved within proposed RD 39.
18    Residents of proposed RD 39 have many public transportation
19options, including the CTA Blue Line, which runs from suburban
20Park Forest through downtown Chicago and out to O'Hare airport,
21with a stop in the district at Irving Park; multiple CTA bus
22routes, connecting to commuter rail and other routes; and the
23Metra commuter railroad's Milwaukee District/North Line, which
24begins in Chicago and ends in north suburban Fox Lake near the
25Wisconsin border, runs on a northwest to southeast diagonal and
26stops in the district at the Grayland station.

 

 

HR0385- 111 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 39 is primarily made up of middle-income
2households with a median income of between $45,000 and $70,000.
3There is a segment of upper-middle income households in the
4northwestern section of proposed RD 39, east of Cicero Avenue
5and north of Addison Street and east of Austin Avenue and north
6of Addison Street, and sections of households earning under
7$45,000. Generally, proposed RD 39 remains similar
8socioeconomically.
9    Proposed RD 39 has an African American voting-age
10population of 3.16%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
1155.06%, and an Asian voting-age population of 3.46%. As
12Hispanic growth in Chicago is trending northwest, the district
13moves in that direction to keep this community of interest
14together and avoid diluting its voting strength, while gaining
15the necessary population. Proposed RD 39 extends northward on
16its northwest side to grab a portion of Kimball Avenue. This
17allows more Hispanic residents to be included in proposed RD
1839, in response to expert and legal testimony provided at the
19House Redistricting hearing on May 24, 2011.
 
20    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 40
21    According to the 2010 census, current RD 40 has a
22population of 92,752. Proposed RD 40 has a population of
23108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
24compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
25RD 40 is different in shape from current RD 40 due, in part, to

 

 

HR0385- 112 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population shifts and the need to increase the total population
2of the district by 15,982.
3    Of the population in proposed RD 40, 71.57% reside in
4current RD 40. Changes were made in part to meet the equal
5population requirement, make the district more compact, and
6maintain communities of interest in the district. Portions of
7current RD 40 extending to the southwest and southeast were
8eliminated. The southern border of the district was extended to
9encompass the Avondale neighborhood, and the western border was
10extended to take in more of Irving Park and a portion of
11Portage Park.
12    Most of the western, northern and eastern borders are
13nearly identical. To accommodate a general shift in urban
14population, small portions of current RD 40 along the northern
15and eastern borders were given to neighboring districts to
16increase their populations to meet equal population
17requirements. The western border of proposed RD 40 is expanded
18to add more of Chicago's 38th and 39th Wards, while adding a
19portion of the 45th Ward.
20    The southwestern extension of the district was removed,
21making proposed RD 40 more compact. The southern boundary of
22proposed RD 40 is extended to encompass the majority of the
23Avondale neighborhood to protect this community of interest.
24This also allows proposed RD 40 to incorporate more of the 35th
25Ward.
26    As with current RD 40, proposed RD 40 is entirely with the

 

 

HR0385- 113 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1City of Chicago. Proposed RD 40 contains portions of Wards 1,
230, 33, 35, 38, 39, and 45. To make the district more compact,
3portions of the 30th and 38th Ward in current RD 40's southwest
4side and the 31st Ward are removed. Current RD 40 and proposed
5RD 40 both contain portions of Cook County Board Districts 8
6and 12.
7    The northern border of current RD 40 is substantially
8maintained to preserve the Albany Park Neighborhood. Albany
9Park has one of the highest foreign-born populations in the
10city and is the third most diverse zip code in the country with
11more than 40 languages spoken in the area's public schools.
12Residents are from regions of Central America, South America,
13Eastern Europe, India, Southeast Asia and Eastern Asia. At the
14April 21, 2011 Redistricting Hearing in Chicago-Downtown,
15Hyeyoung Lee of Korean American Community Services testified
16that Albany Park residents with roots in Korea and other parts
17of Asia have shared cultural and social similarities and
18contributed to the redevelopment of Lawrence Avenue into a
19commercial corridor. This community of interest along Lawrence
20Avenue within the Albany Park Neighborhood has been preserved
21in a single district within proposed RD 40 in the same manner
22that it is in current RD 40.
23    The middle section of proposed RD 40 contains the Irving
24Park Neighborhood. The majority of the Irving Park Neighborhood
25is within proposed RD 40, including small portions of the Old
26Irving Park Neighborhood west of Pulaski. This neighborhood was

 

 

HR0385- 114 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1originally settled by European immigrants in the early 1900s,
2but is now predominantly Hispanic. The European history and
3development along Irving Park Road and Montrose Avenue,
4combined with the growing Hispanic community in this
5neighborhood, ensure this community of interest is maintained
6within proposed RD 40 in the same manner as current RD 40.
7    Proposed RD 40 preserves almost all the Avondale
8neighborhood within the borders of proposed RD 40 by extending
9the southern boundary of the district approximately four blocks
10to the south. This neighborhood community of interest is
11located between Addison Street and Diversey Avenue. Avondale
12was originally settled by blue-collar European immigrants of
13mostly Polish, German and Scandinavian descent, but has seen
14steady increases in its Hispanic population. The Avondale
15community of interest is almost entirely within proposed RD 40
16now that the southern border of the district has extended
17south.
18    Proposed RD 40 is more compact than current RD 40, because
19it includes fewer portions of the Portage Park neighborhood and
20no longer includes the North Center and Lincoln Park
21neighborhoods.
22    Proposed RD 40 contains a majority of the core from current
23RD 40. The partisan composition is nearly identical to the
24composition of current RD 40.
25    Proposed RD 40 has an African American voting-age
26population of 3.80%, a Hispanic voting-age population of

 

 

HR0385- 115 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

148.96%, and an Asian voting-age population of 9.04%.
 
2    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 41
3    Proposed RD 41 has a population of 108,734, the
4equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
5"one person, one vote" principle. To ensure the preservation of
6equal representation and to create compact, contiguous
7representative districts that reflect the interest of the
8populations, several districts are rearranged to accurately
9reflect the 2010 census data. Proposed RD 41 is a composite
10district made up of portions of current RDs 48, 85, 95, and 96.
11Proposed RD 41 contains a majority of current RD 96 and
12strengthens it by adding more of its core municipality.
13    Proposed RD 41 is very similar in shape to current RD 96.
14Proposed RD 41 loses population by receding completely from the
15city of Aurora but gains population to the north by adding more
16of Warrenville and to the west by adding more of Naperville. In
17doing so, proposed RD 41 becomes essentially a Naperville-based
18district, encompassing almost the entire municipality and
19portions of Warrenville. The core of proposed RD 41 is
20Naperville, which is similar to current RD 96, but including
21more of Naperville allows proposed RD 41 to be more
22Naperville-centric and focus more on the issues and concerns of
23the municipality and Warrenville.
24    Proposed RD 41 includes almost the same Will County portion
25of the municipality of Naperville, with boundaries essentially

 

 

HR0385- 116 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the same. Proposed RD 41 adds portions of two additional
2townships (Lisle Township in DuPage County and DuPage Township
3in Will County), but does so as part of proposed RD 41's
4expansion into the municipality of Naperville. Therefore,
5proposed RD 41 includes portions of five townships instead of
6three under current RD 96.
7    The communities in proposed RD 41 are socioeconomically
8similar. Most of proposed RD 41 has a median income bracket of
9between $99,000 and $148,000. Slightly lower income areas exist
10around the northern end of Warrenville in the northern edge of
11the district and in a section of Naperville.
12    Proposed RD 41 is located in the heart of the Illinois
13Research & Development Corridor formed by Interstate 88, which
14runs through proposed RD 41. Many business and corporations
15like Alcatel-Lucent, Edward Hospital, Nicor, and Tellabs
16contribute to the population of proposed RD 41 by housing their
17headquarters within the district. The BP Amoco Research Center
18is also partially in proposed RD 41, straddling the
19Naperville/Lisle township line. The Corridor helps to provide a
20community of interest of professionals within proposed RD 41.
21    The DuPage River flows through the middle of proposed RD 41
22and the main population center of Naperville, linking the
23district from top to bottom. The city of Naperville provides a
24River Trail for pedestrians and cyclists year-round. Along with
25the Springbrook Prairie Forest Preserve, the river helps
26provide Naperville and proposed RD 41 with recreational

 

 

HR0385- 117 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1opportunities and an awareness of environmental concerns, such
2as pollution, flooding, and water usage.
3    A majority of the population within proposed RD 41 resides
4within current RD 96, the incumbent's current district.
5Proposed RD 41 keeps the incumbent with the core of the
6district, and is similar to the current partisan composition of
7current RD 41 as well as current RD 96.
8    Proposed RD 41 contains an African American voting-age
9population of 4.01%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 5.72%,
10and an Asian voting-age population of 11.31%.
 
11    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 42
12    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 42 has a
13population of 106,361. Proposed RD 42 has a population of
14108,735, the equal-population target, and is therefore
15compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
16    To ensure the preservation of equal representation and to
17create compact, contiguous representative districts that
18reflect the interests of the populations, several
19representative districts are rearranged to accurately reflect
20the 2010 census data. Current RDs 42, 45, 48, and 95 need to
21gain additional population to meet the equal-population
22target; whereas neighboring current RDs 55, 84, 85, and 96 all
23dramatically gained population over the last 10 years. Thus,
24proposed RD 42 is significantly different from current RD 42
25due in part to the need to add population to the district,

 

 

HR0385- 118 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1account for population shifts in neighboring districts, and
2ensure all districts have equal population.
3    Proposed RD 42 is located wholly in DuPage County, and its
4population includes 44.79% of current RD 95, as well as
5portions of current RDs 48, 45, 55, and RD 42. It contains
6portions of the townships of Winfield, Wayne, Bloomingdale,
7Milton, and Lisle, and municipalities of Winfield, Wheaton,
8Carol Stream, Lisle, Naperville, West Chicago, and
9Warrenville. The boundaries of proposed RD 42 follow along
10township lines, well-known roads in DuPage County, waterways
11and, a rail line bordering the Fermi National Accelerator
12Laboratory on the west side of the district.
13    Proposed RD 42 is a strong professional community with
14socioeconomic similarities. A majority of proposed RD 42 has a
15median income range of between $99,000 and $148,000. Proposed
16RD 42 includes Illinois Benedictine University and open space
17recreational land, including Timber Ridge County Forest
18Preserve, Kline Creek Farm of DuPage County Forest Preserve,
19Blackwell County Forest Preserve, Danada Forest Preserve, and
20Morton Arboretum. Proposed RD 42 is united by its proximity to
21open space recreational land.
22    The current political composition of proposed RD 42
23slightly increases the partisan advantage for the incumbent.
24    Proposed RD 42 has an African American voting-age
25population of 3.54%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 8.53%,
26and an Asian voting-age population of 7.80%.
 

 

 

HR0385- 119 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 43
2    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 43 has a
3population of 108,419. Proposed RD 43 has a population of
4108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
5compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. The very
6minor differences in shape between proposed and current RD 43
7are due to population shifts and the need to increase the total
8population of the district.
9    Of the population in proposed RD 43, 95.87% reside in
10current RD 43. The northern border (McHenry-Kane County line)
11and the eastern border on the north half (Cook-Kane County
12line) of current RD 43 remain the same in proposed RD 43. The
13southern half of the eastern border of proposed RD 43 is very
14similar to current RD 43 with three small census tract
15additions. The southern border of proposed RD 43 also remains
16the same as current RD 43. The biggest changes in proposed RD
1743 occur on the western border. In the southern part of
18proposed RD 43, the district is extended west to include more
19of the City of Elgin so that the center of the population of
20the city is preserved and to add a growing Hispanic
21neighborhood, thereby keeping the community of interest more
22intact. The most significant change from current RD 43 is the
23removal of three precincts along the Fox River in the northern
24part of the district, one in downtown Carpentersville and two
25in East Dundee to reach the target population.

 

 

HR0385- 120 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 43 is split between Cook and Kane Counties with
2most of the district remaining in Kane County, just as it is in
3current RD 43. The same areas of Cook County in current RD 43
4are included in proposed RD 43. As it is in current RD 43,
5proposed RD 43 is split between three townships, Dundee and
6Elgin Townships in Kane County and Hanover Township in Cook
7County. Like current RD 43, the City of Elgin makes up the core
8of proposed RD 43, including the section of the city that is in
9Cook County and all of proposed RD 43 south of I-90 except for
10a small section of South Elgin at the very southernmost tip of
11proposed RD 43, which is also in current RD 43. Proposed RD 43
12north of I-90 includes parts of East Dundee, Carpentersville
13and Barrington Hills. The Barrington Hills split in proposed RD
1443 remains the same as it is in current RD 43. The sections of
15Carpentersville and East Dundee are removed in proposed RD 43
16to reach the target population.
17    Similar to current RD 43, proposed RD 43 splits several
18Kane and Cook County Board Districts. The splits in both
19counties occur to preserve the shape of current RD 43 as much
20as possible. Proposed RD 43 splits Community Unit School
21District 300, Barrington School District 200 and School
22District U-46, and the same splits occur in current RD 43. Just
23as it is in current RD 43, most of proposed RD 43 remains in the
24Elgin Community College District, but the northern most tip of
25proposed RD 43 remains in the Harper College District.
26    Proposed RD 43 is drawn to preserve the downtown area of

 

 

HR0385- 121 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Elgin and contains Elgin City Hall, The Centre of Elgin, the
2Gail Borden Library, the historical districts of Elgin, and
3Elgin Community College. Most of proposed RD 43 has a median
4income in the $44,000 to $70,000 with some areas in East Dundee
5and on the edges of Elgin in the $70,000 to $90,000 range.
6    The Fox River, which runs north to south through the center
7of proposed RD 43, just as it does in current RD 43, is a major
8landmark and attracts residential population as well as
9commercial developments and tourism. Like current RD 43,
10proposed RD 43 contains mostly densely populated urban areas,
11but there are some forest and open land areas along the Fox
12River.
13    Proposed RD 43 contains almost the entire core of current
14RD 43. There is a slight increase in the partisan advantage for
15the incumbent compared to current RD 43.
16    Proposed RD 43 has an African American voting-age
17population of 7.10%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
1848.31%, and an Asian voting-age population of 3.89%.
 
19    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 44
20    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 44 has a
21population of 113,164. Proposed RD 44 has a population of
22108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
23compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
24RD 44 is different in shape from current RD 44 due, in part, to
25population shifts and the need to decrease the total population

 

 

HR0385- 122 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1of the district by 4,430.
2    Of the population in proposed RD 44, 98.70% reside in
3current RD 44. Like current RD 44, proposed RD 44 is entirely
4within Cook County and Hanover and Schaumburg townships.
5Proposed RD 44 loses portions of the southeastern corner of
6current RD 44 due in part to population issues and an attempt
7to keep communities of interest intact within proposed RD 56.
8This keeps the southwestern areas of Schaumburg within one
9representative district (currently represented by 2
10districts). The result is that the portions of Schaumburg CCSD
1154 within current RD 44 are included in proposed RD 56, rather
12than proposed RD 44. With this change, proposed RD 44 is mainly
13within School District U-46. This also places a currently split
14precinct (Schaumburg 16) entirely within proposed RD 56 and
15straightens the border between proposed RD 44 and proposed RD
1656.
17    The remainder of proposed RD 44's eastern border is
18unchanged from current RD 44, with the exception of a single
19precinct in Schaumburg that is added for equal population
20purposes. Adding this precinct in northwestern Schaumburg to
21proposed RD 44 makes sense since a sizable portion of this area
22of Schaumburg is within current RD 44 and proposed RD 44.
23    Under proposed RD 44, the northern border of current RD 44
24remains unchanged, heading west to Barrington Road. At this
25point, the northern boundary of proposed RD 44 heads south then
26west again down Shoe Factory Road which runs through an

 

 

HR0385- 123 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1unpopulated forest preserve. At Beverly Road, the border heads
2north again to Interstate 90 and continues west as with current
3RD 44. The only change, in terms of population, along the
4northern border from current RD 44 and proposed RD 44 is
5immediately east of Beverly Road where a pocket of population
6is removed from current RD 44 due to the need to achieve equal
7population.
8    The western border of proposed RD 44 is mainly unchanged
9under proposed RD 44 with the exception of a handful of
10adjustments to achieve equal population. The southern border of
11current RD 44 is also unchanged except for two minor
12adjustments. The first adjustment made under proposed RD 44
13incorporates the only pocket north of Lake Street not in
14current RD 44. Adding this area not only straightens out the
15border but adds pockets of Hispanic population to the Hispanic
16population that lives in the nearby Village of Streamwood. The
17other adjustment along the southern border adds a small
18population to help proposed RD 44 achieve equal population.
19    Proposed RD 44 maintains a substantial core of current RD
2044 and preserves incumbent-constituent relationships developed
21over the past 2 election cycles. The current partisan
22composition is very similar to the current composition under
23current RD 44.
24    Proposed RD 44 has an Asian voting-age population of
2518.35%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 23.04%, and an
26African American voting-age population of 4.57%.
 

 

 

HR0385- 124 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 45
2    Proposed RD 45 contains 108,734, the equal-population
3target, and is therefore compliant with the "one person, one
4vote" principle. Several districts shifted due to population
5issues, and thus proposed RD 45 contains portions of three
6current representative districts. Proposed RD 45 is located in
7Cook and DuPage counties and its population contains 48.78% of
8current RD 55 and portions of current RDs 45, 46, and 56.
9    Proposed RD 45 is a new district in the northwest suburbs
10of Chicago located largely in DuPage County with a small
11portion in Cook County. It contains, from east to west,
12portions of current RDs 46, 45, 56, and 55.
13    Proposed RD 45 includes territory west of O'Hare
14International Airport and shares its eastern border with
15proposed RD 77. Proposed RD 45 runs just south of the Cook
16County border from the area surrounding Chicago O'Hare
17International Airport in Wood Dale west to Bartlett, with
18adjustments in the communities of Hanover Park and Roselle so
19that neighboring districts can achieve equal population.
20    Proposed RD 45 contains all or the majority of a number of
21municipalities. Itasca is entirely within proposed RD 45. The
22majority of Wood Dale, Bloomingdale and Bartlett are within the
23district, as are portions of Addison, Roselle, Hanover Park,
24West Chicago, Wayne, Elk Grove Village, and Carol Stream. The
25only segment of proposed RD 45 in Cook County is a portion of

 

 

HR0385- 125 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the municipality of Bartlett, which crosses county lines into
2DuPage County. This area is bordered on the north by the
3arterial road of W. Lake Street and west by Illinois Route 59.
4    Lake Street and the Elgin O'Hare Expressway run through
5proposed RD 45. These roadways make O'Hare Airport and the
6businesses and jobs that surround it easily accessible to local
7residents. Interstates 290 and 355 and the arterial roads of
8Schick Road, Sutton Road, Roselle Road, Bloomingdale Road and
9Kingery Highway are all within or in close proximity to
10proposed RD 45. Residents who want to live in economically
11fairly diverse communities but have a desire to work, shop and
12seek entertainment elsewhere can do so in proposed RD 45
13because of this extensive network of roads.
14    The communities within proposed RD 45 are very similar
15socioeconomically because they have median incomes between
16$45,000 and $150,000, making proposed RD 45 predominately
17middle to upper middle-income. To the south of the proposed RD
1845, the median income is generally between $45,000 and $75,000.
19    Stratford Square Mall is in the center of proposed RD 45.
20Stratford Square Mall is currently within the southernmost
21portion of current RD 56, a district that is comprised of the
22majority of Schaumburg, which has Woodfield Mall and
23surrounding shopping centers that bring revenue into the
24district. Residents in proposed RD 45 have a strong financial
25interest in the Mall as the commercial center of proposed RD
2645. Stratford Square Mall and surrounding developments bring

 

 

HR0385- 126 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1people into proposed RD 45 and this benefits the residents of
2the district.
3    The current partisan composition of proposed RD 45
4increases to favor the incumbent party of current RD 45.
5    Proposed RD 45 has an Asian voting-age population of
611.07%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 8.27%, and an
7African American voting-age population of 2.12%.
 
8    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 46
9    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 46 has a current
10population of 107,630. Proposed RD 46 has a population of
11108,735, the equal population target, and is therefore
12compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
13RD 46 is different in shape from current RD 46 due in part to
14population shifts and to need to increase the total population
15of the district.
16    Proposed RD 46 moves to the west, largely due to population
17needs of districts to the north, south, and east of current RD
1846. Proposed RD 46 includes portions of RDs 41, 42, 45, 46, and
1955. The border extends south to include more of York Township
20and west to incorporate larger portions of Milton and
21Bloomingdale Townships. The south and westward expansions of
22proposed RD 46, as best as possible, follow the boundaries of
23Villa Park and Glendale Heights while also maintaining strong
24business districts, the DuPage County Forest Preserve, and
25access to Interstate 355. The southwestern border of the

 

 

HR0385- 127 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1district protrudes south to preserve the majority of Villa Park
2and to add a similar portion of Oakbrook Terrace. The southern
3border of the district follows the Churchill Prairie Nature
4Preserve's boundaries before heading west along Geneva Road.
5The southern border allows proposed RD 46 to keep the entirety
6of the Village of Glendale Heights in one representative
7district, as opposed to current RD 46 which divides the
8densely-populated Glendale Heights between two districts.
9Proposed RD 46 continues west to encompass a large portion of
10the Village of Carol Stream.
11    The median income of proposed RD 46 remains fairly
12consistent. Glendale Heights, the portion of Addison found in
13proposed RD 46, major portions of Carol Stream, and the portion
14of the Village of Glen Ellyn found in proposed RD 46 all have
15median incomes of $45,000 to $75,000. This level of parity in
16median income creates a district of similar socioeconomic
17characteristics binding the interests of the residents. It is
18clear from the median income data that proposed RD 46 is a
19community of interest as median income increases quickly once
20outside the boundary of proposed RD 46. This area is a more
21affordable option for those families looking for a suburban
22lifestyle, but who need to commute to the city for work.
23    Proposed RD 46 contains a majority of the core from current
24RD 45 and portions of several other current districts. The
25partisan advantage of proposed RD 46 increases in favor of
26Democrats when compared to the average partisan advantages of

 

 

HR0385- 128 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1the current districts which form proposed RD 46.
2    Proposed RD 46 has an African American voting-age
3population of 5.59%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
418.91%, and an Asian voting-age population of 14.51%.
 
5    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 47
6    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 47 has a
7population of 102,695. Proposed RD 47 has a population of
8108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
9compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
10    To ensure the preservation of equal representation and to
11create compact, contiguous representative districts that
12reflect the interests of the populations, several
13representative districts are rearranged to accurately reflect
14the 2010 census data. Thus, proposed RD 47 is significantly
15different from current RD 47 due in part to the need to add
16population to the district, account for population shifts in
17neighboring districts, and ensure all districts have equal
18population.
19    In comparison with current RD 47, proposed RD 47 expands to
20the north and south, and contracts from the east and west,
21reorienting to a north-south direction rather than an east-west
22layout. Proposed RD 47 contains substantial portions of three
23current representative districts (47, 41, 46) and smaller
24portions of two current representative districts (82 and 42).
25Proposed RD 47 is located almost entirely within DuPage County,

 

 

HR0385- 129 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1with the exception of a small sliver of Lyons Township that is
2socioeconomically similar to the other portions of proposed RD
347. Generally, proposed RD 47 is more ethnically and
4economically cohesive and centered around upper-middle class
5quality of life concerns.
6    Overall, proposed RD 47 is located within a larger
7quadrilateral frame of interstates, I-290 to the north, I-55 to
8the south, I-294 to the east, and I-355 to the west. Much of
9proposed RD 47's eastern border runs along the Cook/DuPage
10County line, but it extends further north than current RD 47.
11In many instances the lines follow municipal borders or
12slightly deviate for population purposes.
13    Proposed RD 47 contains portions of the townships of
14Downers Grove, York, Addison, and Lyons. Proposed RD 47
15contains the following municipalities: Downers Grove, Darien,
16Westmont, Willowbrook, Clarendon Hills, Hinsdale, Western
17Springs, Oak Brook, Oakbrook Terrace, Villa Park, and Elmhurst.
18In most cases, except for Willowbrook, Downers Grove, Darien,
19Villa Park and Western Springs, the majority of these
20municipalities are included in proposed RD 47, and the lines
21follow municipal borders in many locations, including
22Elmhurst, Oak Brook, and Hinsdale.
23    Proposed RD 47 generally has an upper median income, with a
24small number of census blocks having a median income of
25$45,000-75,000. These blocks are located in the
26Westmont/Willowbrook/Clarendon Hills area, as well as a small

 

 

HR0385- 130 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1portion of an unincorporated area north of Butterfield Road
2between Lombard and Oakbrook Terrace. The remainder of proposed
3RD 47 falls into the range of $75,000 - $260,000 median income.
4    Proposed RD 47 contains the corporate headquarters of
5Sunshine Biscuits, Keebler (owned by Kellogg Company),
6McMaster-Carr, McDonald's Corporation, Ace Hardware, Blistex,
7Dominick's, Federal Signal Corporation, Paper Mate, Crowe
8Horwath, Inland Real Estate Corporation and one of the largest
9shopping centers, Oakbrook Center. With most of proposed RD 47
10made up of solidly upper-middle class residents, the residents
11share a common economic situation and similar concerns about
12issues including income and property taxes, quality of public
13schools, saving for their children's college and their
14retirement, and the health of the economy. Additionally, these
15communities take an interest in seeing policies enacted that
16will improve the state's business climate and economic
17competitiveness.
18    The partisan composition of proposed RD 47 favors current
19RD 47's incumbent party.
20    Proposed RD 47 has an African American voting-age
21population of 2.17%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 5%,
22and an Asian voting-age population of 8.95%. The Asian
23population is mostly concentrated in Oak Brook, Oakbrook
24Terrace, Westmont and Elmhurst.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 48

 

 

HR0385- 131 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 48 contains 108,734, the equal-population
2target, and is therefore compliant with the "one person, one
3vote" principle. Several districts shifted due to population
4issues, and thus proposed RD 48 contains portions of 6 current
5representative districts. Proposed RD 48 is located in DuPage
6County and contains a significant portion (69.40%) of current
7RD 42 and lesser portions of current RDs 41, 45, 46, 48, and
895.
9    Proposed RD 48 maintains much of the core of current RD 42
10with slight changes to increase population and make the
11district more compact. To maintain equal population, proposed
12RD 48 removes portions of Downers Grove, Oak Brook Terrace and
13Lisle and small sections of Glen Ellyn, Lombard and Glendale
14Heights while adding residential areas in portions of Wheaton
15and Lombard and a smaller section of Lisle. Proposed RD 48
16remains only in DuPage County and its boundaries generally
17follow logical boundaries like Interstates 355 and 80, Ogden
18Avenue, Butterfield Road and Geneva Road.
19    The expansions in proposed RD 48 do not add new
20municipalities to the district. To gain population in the
21northeast corner of the district, proposed RD 48 gains most of
22the municipality of Lombard. Lombard is made up of upper-middle
23income residents earning between $68,654 and $98,750. Adding
24more of Lombard increases the community of interest of middle
25income families more similar to the other residents of Lombard
26and moderate income earners in the same range in Lisle on the

 

 

HR0385- 132 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1south end of proposed RD 48.
2    In the northwest corner of proposed RD 48, a larger portion
3of the municipality of Wheaton is added. Wheaton is the county
4seat of DuPage County and an important landmark and destination
5within proposed RD 48. To achieve equal population, a section
6of Downers Grove is removed from proposed RD 48 so most of the
7population base of the municipality remains in a neighboring
8district.
9    Proposed RD 48 is anchored by Interstate 355, Interstate
1088, the College of DuPage, Wheaton College, Hidden Lake Forest
11Preserve and the Morton Arboretum. The district consists of
12middle class neighborhoods with retail and commercial areas,
13and is served by the Union Pacific West Line Metra. Even though
14the municipalities of proposed RD 48 are split in the district,
15the residents in this cluster of western suburbs are similar,
16with a number of recreational opportunities like golf courses,
17country clubs, green spaces, single-family housing stock and
18middle class residents.
19    A population of Asian households stretch from south section
20of Lombard to the portion of Downers Grove located in proposed
21RD 48, and across the middle of the district, in both current
22RD 42 and proposed RD 48, from east to west. There are two
23Hindu Temples located in proposed RD 48. These places of
24worship tie the Asian communities of interest together in the
25central section of both proposed RD 48.
26    Proposed RD 48 maintains a majority of the core of current

 

 

HR0385- 133 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1RD 42. The representative in current RD 42 becomes the
2incumbent in proposed RD 48, and proposed RD 48 preserves the
3incumbent-constituent relationship developed over the past 4
4election cycles. The partisan advantage is very similar to the
5current composition of current RD 42.
6    Proposed RD 48 contains a 3.79% African American voting-age
7population, a 5.71% Latino voting-age population, and a 7.87%
8Asian voting-age population.
 
9    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 49
10    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 49 has a
11population of 154,080. Proposed RD 49 has a population of
12108,735, the equal-population target, and is therefore
13compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
14RD 49 is different in shape from current RD 49 due, in part, to
15population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
16of the district.
17    To ensure the preservation of equal representation and to
18create compact, contiguous representative districts that
19reflects the interests of the populations, several districts
20are rearranged to accurately reflect the 2010 census data.
21Proposed RD 49 includes portions of current RDs 49, 50, 55, 95,
22and 96. Proposed RD 49 shifts to the south and to the east to
23reflect the significant population growth in the far western
24suburbs of Chicago, including the areas in current RD 49 and
25the districts surrounding it. Because of this dramatic increase

 

 

HR0385- 134 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1in population, the overall size of proposed RD 49 is
2extensively reduced, with its Kane County territory shrinking
3and shifting to southeast. Proposed RD 49 also expands into
4DuPage County in order to absorb excess population from
5existing districts. These population shifts result in a
6proposed RD 49 that is an improvement over current RD 49
7because it is more compact. Proposed RD 49 also allows for the
8DuPage County Airport to be put into one representative
9district instead of being split in two, as it is currently.
10    The Fox River remains a major, regional economic resource
11and is a contributing factor to the region's rapid population
12growth. Other contributing factors include the major area
13transportation routes, such as I-88, accessible public
14transportation through Metra, and relatively lower cost of
15living and safer neighborhoods when compared to Chicago.
16    The median income of proposed RD 49 remains fairly
17consistent. West Chicago, portions of Wayne, St. Charles,
18Aurora, North Aurora, and Batavia all have median incomes of
19$99,000 to $148,000. Portions of the southern end of proposed
20RD 49 in Geneva, Aurora, and Naperville contain contiguous
21areas with median incomes of $68,000 to $99,000.
22    Proposed RD 49 includes a substantial population from
23current RD 95, the incumbent's current district. The boundaries
24of proposed RD 49 create a partisan composition that is similar
25to the percentages of current RD 95.
26    The African American voting-age population is 2.98%, the

 

 

HR0385- 135 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Hispanic voting-age population is 15.48%, and the Asian
2voting-age population is 7.63% in proposed RD 49.
 
3    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 50
4    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 50 has a
5population of 178,899. Proposed RD 50 has a population of
6108,734, the equal population target, and is therefore
7compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
8    Proposed RD 50 is different in shape from current RD 50 due
9to the population shifts and the need to reduce total
10population in the district. The proposed district retains its
11core and is almost exclusively contained within the current RD
1250. Of the population in proposed RD 50, 94.66% reside in
13current RD 50. Proposed RD 50 is more compact, containing only
14small portions of Kane and Kendall counties and reducing the
15number of entirely included intact townships from 17 to 3.
16    The communities within proposed RD 50 are expanding at a
17rapid pace and will likely continue to do so over the next 10
18years. These towns and cities form a community of interest of
19fast-growth communities that are dealing with urban planning
20issues related to a rapid expansion in population. By centering
21proposed RD 50 on these communities and removing many of the
22slower-growing, more agricultural areas, the elected
23representative of this proposed district will be better able to
24focus on issues important to this specific community of
25interest. Those moving into this district are in search of

 

 

HR0385- 136 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1larger yards and better schools for their children.
2    At the House Redistricting hearing held in Aurora on April
318, 2011, Ms. Marilyn Michelini, Montgomery Village President,
4testified that Montgomery's population has grown dramatically
5in the last decade with the majority of Montgomery residents
6living in Kendall County. She stated that it would be ideal
7that Montgomery should not be joined with communities that have
8different interests than Montgomery. Proposed RD 50 fulfills
9that request.
10    Proposed RD 50 has relatively homogeneous income levels.
11The district is overwhelmingly upper middle class, with median
12income levels in most of the district ranging from $75,000 to
13$150,000. Only a few areas have a lower median income level of
14$45,000 to $75,000, still keeping the district upper middle
15class overall.
16    Proposed RD 50 includes a substantial population from
17current RD 50. The current partisan composition of proposed RD
1850 is nearly identical to the current composition of current RD
1950.
20    Proposed RD 50 has an African American voting-age
21population of 3.83%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 10.23%
22and an Asian voting-age population of 2.88%.
 
23    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 51
24    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 51 has a
25population of 117,696. Proposed RD 51 has a population of

 

 

HR0385- 137 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
2compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
3    The minimal differences in boundaries between current and
4proposed RD 51 are due, in part, to population shifts, the need
5to reduce the total population of the district, and to locate
6the district entirely within Lake County. Of the population in
7proposed RD 51, 81.66% reside in current RD 51. Proposed RD 51
8removes portions of Round Lake, Round Lake Park, and Grayslake
9in the northwest, Mundelein in the center, and the section of
10current RD 51 located in Cook County. The section removed in
11Round Lake, Round Lake Park, and Grayslake contains Campbell
12Airport and a small residential area surrounding the airport,
13which is now included in proposed RD 62 to the north. The
14removed section of Mundelein has a lower income level than
15proposed RD 51 and is moved to proposed RD 59, which is more
16demographically and socioeconomically similar.
17    Proposed RD 51 adds sections of Waukegan, Green Oaks,
18Mettawa, Vernon Hills, Libertyville and Long Grove on the east
19side of proposed RD 51, much of Barrington, North Barrington,
20and Tower Lakes, and portions of Lake Barrington. Proposed RD
2151 now includes all of Libertyville, instead of splitting the
22village in two districts. Adding more of Green Oaks allows the
23residential area of the municipality to be in one district.
24Proposed RD 51 is bordered by Interstate 94, keeping Lamb's
25Farm and a small commercial area in Green Oaks on the east side
26of Interstate 94 in a neighboring district. Proposed RD 51's

 

 

HR0385- 138 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1addition of more of Long Grove follows the municipality border,
2keeping the municipality intact whereas it is split in current
3RD 51.
4    Proposed RD 51 mainly consists of upper-middle income and
5high income neighborhoods and high-end retail and commercial
6areas. Proposed RD 51 is socioeconomically very similar, with
7the median income of between $100,000 and $260,000 covering an
8overwhelming majority of proposed RD 51. The residents of this
9area generally move to this area to get away from more
10congested suburbs, find good schools for their children and
11find additional recreational opportunities for their families.
12    Like current RD 51, proposed RD 51 remains in one library
13system and one diocese, but proposed RD 51 is in one Regional
14Office of Public Health; whereas, current RD 51 is in two. Like
15current RD 51, proposed RD 51 is anchored by Interstate 94 and
16US Route 12 and includes IL Route 83, Milwaukee Avenue, and
17Illinois Route 22.
18    Proposed RD 51 includes a significant number of people from
19current RD 51, which preserves the incumbent-constituent
20relationship that has developed over the last four election
21cycles. The partisan composition of proposed RD 51 is nearly
22identical to the composition of current RD 51.
23    Proposed RD 51 contains an African American voting-age
24population of 1.14%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 4.48%,
25and an Asian voting-age population of 8.40%.
 

 

 

HR0385- 139 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 52
2    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 52 has a
3population of 130,902. Proposed RD 52 has a population of
4108,735, the equal-population target, and is therefore
5compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
6    Proposed RD 52 is different in shape from current RD 52 due
7in part to population shifts and the need to reduce the total
8population of the district by 22,168. Additionally, the shape
9of proposed RD 52 differs based on the need for neighboring
10districts to dramatically reduce population in order to achieve
11equal population, the desire to create a more compact district,
12and an effort to decrease the number of split townships, all
13while maintaining the socioeconomic characteristics of the
14district. Proposed RD 52 contains large populations of current
15RDs 52 and 64, and portions of current RDs 43, 44, 49, 51, and
1654.
17    Like current RD 52, proposed RD 52 contains portions of
18Cook, Kane, McHenry, and Lake counties. Proposed RD 52 reduces
19the number of townships in the district from nine to seven,
20and, as a result, proposed RD 52 contains portions of the
21townships of Barrington, Algonquin, Cuba, Dundee, Hanover,
22Nunda, and Wauconda.
23    To reduce the population of the district, proposed RD 52
24loses territory from the north and northwestern portions of
25current RD 52. Proposed RD 52 shifts south to create a more
26compact district due to significant population shifts to the

 

 

HR0385- 140 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1north and west of current RD 52. To ensure compactness and
2maintain communities of interest, proposed RD 52 extends south
3to take in more of Cook County and to incorporate larger
4portions of McHenry and Kane counties. A westbound divergence
5of the boundary in Barrington Township is made to keep Baker
6Lake and its surrounding population intact in a neighboring
7district. Proposed RD 52 extends south into Cook County with
8the southern expansion of proposed RD 52 following the borders
9of Barrington Township, as best as possible, to keep it almost
10intact. Current RD 52 splits Barrington Township into two
11parts, separating Barrington Hills from South Barrington.
12    Along the southwestern border of proposed RD 52, district
13boundaries move south into Kane County and Dundee Township to
14capture densely populated areas with socioeconomic
15characteristics similar to most of proposed RD 52. The western
16border of proposed RD 52 maintains a cohesive block of similar
17median incomes found in Carpentersville, Algonquin, Lake in the
18Hills, and Crystal Lake. The split areas in Algonquin and
19Crystal Lake are used to maintain a core socioeconomic
20community in proposed RD 52. The socioeconomic border in
21Algonquin separates the high median income of western Algonquin
22from the average $75,000 to $100,000 found in the eastern
23portion of Algonquin. Similarly, to maintain a compact and
24similar socioeconomic core, Crystal Lake is separated into two
25distinct areas. The western portion is similar to the rest of
26proposed RD 52 with a median income of $75,000 to $100,000,

 

 

HR0385- 141 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1with the eastern portion outside of proposed RD 52 having a
2median income of $45,000 to $75,000.
3    The northernmost portion of proposed RD 52 moves east by
4following Neville Road and County Highway 44 and then south
5following well-trafficked US-12 before entering the community
6surrounding the Bangs Lake. A westward pitch in proposed RD 52
7in Wauconda Township allows the Bangs Lake community to remain
8full and intact. In Cuba Township, proposed RD 52's boundaries
9shift, losing all of Tower Lakes, most of North Barrington and
10Barrington, and a portion of Lake Barrington to proposed RD 51.
11These losses are made up by adding all of Oakwood Hills and
12Port Barrington, most of Island Lake, and a portion of Prairie
13Grove.
14    The partisan composition of proposed RD 52 is substantially
15similar to the partisan composition of current RD 52.
16    Under proposed RD 52, the voting age percentages for
17Caucasians, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians will
18remain very similar to current RD 52. Proposed RD 52 has an
19African American voting-age population of 1.01%, a Hispanic
20voting-age population of 8.23%, and an Asian voting-age
21population of 5.36%.
 
22    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 53
23    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 53 has a
24population of 101,209. Proposed RD 53 has a population of
25108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore

 

 

HR0385- 142 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
2RD 53 is different in shape from current RD 53 due, in part, to
3population shifts and the need to increase the total population
4of the district.
5    To create a district with equal population that strengthens
6communities of interest, proposed RD 53 shifts south to include
7a majority of Arlington Heights, Prospect Heights, and Mount
8Prospect, with small portions of Des Plaines and Wheeling.
9    Proposed RD 53 contains major portions of current RDs 53
10and 66, and portions of current RDs 57 and 65. Proposed RD 53
11is entirely within Cook County. Proposed RD 53 contains
12portions of Elk Grove, Maine, and Wheeling Townships and
13removes current RD 53's portions of Palatine and Vernon
14Townships. Proposed RD 53 contains almost all of Arlington
15Heights, with small populations of residents north of Hintz
16Road, west of Ridge Avenue and south of Golf Road in adjacent
17districts. Proposed RD 53 also contains the majority of Mount
18Prospect, with small portions south of Dempster Street, east of
19the North Central Metra Line, and between Euclid Avenue and
20Rand Road remaining in adjacent districts. Proposed RD 53
21includes more of Arlington Heights and Mount Prospect than any
22current House district. A majority of Prospect Heights is also
23retained in proposed RD 53. Proposed RD 53 removes Buffalo
24Grove, allowing the community to remain more intact in other
25districts that are centered in Lake County. Proposed RD 53's
26new borders allows the district to take in more of Arlington

 

 

HR0385- 143 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Heights, Mount Prospect and Prospect Heights, while allowing
2surrounding districts to achieve equal population.
3    The communities within proposed RD 53 are connected by the
4Unions Pacific Northwest Metra Line, U.S. Highway 12, U.S.
5Highway 14, and Illinois Route 83. Along the perimeters of the
6district are Interstate 90, Illinois Route 53, Algonquin Road,
7Golf Road, and the North Central Metra Line. As many of
8proposed RD 53's residents commute to work within the suburbs
9or to the city of Chicago, public transportation options and
10the quality of local roadways matter a great deal. These
11commuters form a community of interest.
12    The residents moving to and living in this area are upper
13middle class. The median family income throughout the district
14is generally between $68,654 and $147,955, with large pockets
15of the district ranging from $98,750 to $147,955. This creates
16a homogeneous community of interest in their shared economic
17position.
18    There are several pockets of Asian communities within
19proposed RD 53, forming a community of interest. Proposed RD 53
20has three Asian worship centers within the district to serve
21this community of interest: the Korean Central United Methodist
22Church; the Agape Presbyterian Church; and Rissho Kosei-Kai of
23Chicago.
24    Almost half of the population of proposed RD 53 comes from
25current RD 66. Proposed RD 53 maintains a partisan composition
26that reflects the relative average of the current districts

 

 

HR0385- 144 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1within the new boundaries.
2    Proposed RD 53 has a 1.34% African American voting-age
3population, a 7.16% Hispanic voting-age population, and an
48.72% Asian-American voting-age population.
 
5    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 54
6    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 54 has a
7population of 106,744. Proposed RD 54 has a population of
8108,735, the equal-population target, and is therefore
9compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
10RD 54 is different in shape from current RD 54 due in part to
11population shifts and the need to increase the total population
12of the district.
13    Of the population in proposed RD 54, 76.11% reside in
14current RD 54. Proposed RD 54 is entirely within Cook County.
15Current and proposed RD 54 are anchored by Arlington Park Race
16Track in the southeast, Northwest Highway that cuts through the
17district, Illinois Route 53 that leads to major Interstate
18Highways, the UP-NW Metra Route, and suburban neighborhoods
19with higher-end commercial areas.
20    Sections of Palatine and Arlington Heights in the northeast
21corner of current RD 54, that contains the entrance onto
22Illinois Route 53, Palatine High School, and a large commercial
23retail area, including a Whole Foods Market, Staples, Target,
24and several restaurants, are removed from proposed RD 54.
25    There is a pocket of Hispanic population clustered in the

 

 

HR0385- 145 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1area that is removed from proposed RD 54, mainly to keep that
2community of interest intact in a neighboring district. The
3removed section has a lower income level than the rest of
4proposed RD 54, and this change makes proposed RD 54 more
5similar economically. Socioeconomically, the district is
6fairly affluent with income levels mostly in the $68,000 to
7$148,000 range.
8    To achieve equal population, three new areas are added to
9proposed RD 54. In the northwestern corner of the district,
10more of Barrington is added to keep Baker's Lake and the
11Barrington Forest Preserve intact instead of splitting it as in
12current RD 54. Proposed RD 54 also includes all of Deer Grove
13Forest Preserve and Paul Douglas Forest Preserve. Uniting these
14forest preserves in one district allows residents in the
15surrounding areas to ensure the natural resources in their
16communities are well represented. It also joins together
17communities of suburban residents who want to live near urban
18areas but also have proximity to more open space. The community
19around Baker's Lake also includes several large car dealerships
20and other employers, its own post office, elementary school,
21and fire department.
22    Proposed RD 54 adds Harper College and the neighborhood
23immediately to the east of the college. This area is similar in
24income level to the rest of proposed RD 54.
25    Current RD 54 has an Asian population scattered throughout
26the district. Proposed RD 54 contains the following three Asian

 

 

HR0385- 146 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1worship centers throughout to better serve the Asian community
2of interest: Sikh Religious Society; New Life Community Church;
3and Chicago Northwest Suburbs Chinese Christian Church.
4    Three-fifths of the population in proposed RD 54 resides in
5current RD 54. The partisan composition of proposed RD 54 is
6almost identical to the current composition under current RD
754.
8    Proposed RD 54 contains a 1.61% African American voting-age
9population, 8.82% Hispanic voting-age population, and 9.33%
10Asian voting-age population.
 
11    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 55
12    Due to the shifting of other districts, current RD 65 is
13essentially renumbered as proposed RD 55. According to the 2010
14Census, current RD 65 has a population of 105,147. Proposed RD
1555 has a population of 108,735, the equal-population target,
16and is therefore compliant with the "one person, one vote"
17principle. Proposed RD 55 is different in shape from current RD
1865 due, in part, to population shifts and the need to increase
19the total population of the district.
20    The population of proposed RD 55 includes 59.59% of current
21RD 65. Proposed RD 55 also contains portions of current RDs 20,
2257, and 66. Like current RD 65, proposed RD 55 is entirely
23within Cook County. Current RD 65 contains portions of the
24municipalities of Chicago, Des Plaines, Rosemont, Niles,
25Norridge, Mount Prospect, and Elk Grove Village, and most of

 

 

HR0385- 147 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Park Ridge. Portions of Chicago, Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Mount
2Prospect, and Elk Grove Village remain in proposed RD 55.
3Rosemont, Niles and Norridge, along the eastern portion of
4current RD 65 are not in proposed RD 55 due to shifting
5proposed RD 55 north and west. The western portion of proposed
6RD 55 adds portions of Arlington Heights and Rolling Meadows
7along with large segments of Elk Grove Village. These areas
8have similar median incomes to those areas both in current RD
965 and the newly added areas of proposed RD 55 in Mt. Prospect
10and Des Plaines. Park Ridge, which is largely in current RD 65,
11is only partially in proposed RD 55. This split occurs along
12Busse Highway/Northwest Highway. Park Ridge in proposed RD 55
13is split along the line of the Metra train tracks and Busse
14Highway, running northwest to the southeast. Immediately north
15of Busse Highway and the train tracks is Northwest Highway, and
16all three together create a distinct division between the
17residential areas of Park Ridge. Park Ridge south of this
18division is in proposed RD 55. These changes are due in part to
19a need to achieve equal population.
20    Proposed RD 55 links areas with median incomes between
21$44,000 to $99,000 in current RD 65 with similar areas to the
22north in current RD 57 and to the west in current RD 66. Areas
23farther north in both current RD 57 and current RD 66 that are
24not included in proposed RD 55 have median incomes as high as
25$148,000. Median income areas under $99,000 that are added to
26proposed RD 55 from current RD 57 are predominately in Des

 

 

HR0385- 148 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Plaines. These areas are joined to similar areas in Des Plaines
2that are within current RD 65 and proposed RD 55. Elk Grove
3Village east of Interstate 290 also has a median income that is
4also below $99,000. Portions of current RD 66 that are included
5in proposed RD 55 are more similar socioeconomically to areas
6east of Interstate 290 than other nearby areas. The areas that
7would be considered less similar socioeconomically to proposed
8RD 55 - west of I-290 in current RD 56 and to the south in
9DuPage County in current RD 46 - are not included in proposed
10RD 55.
11    Communities in proposed RD 55 are linked by Interstate 90,
12running east to west. The eastern portion of the district is
13also served by Interstate 294 which runs north from Interstate
1490. These two interstates, and in particular Interstate 90, and
15the arterial roads that feed them allow residents of proposed
16RD 55 to easily travel to nearby areas where many jobs are
17concentrated such as Woodfield Mall immediately west of the
18district, the business and retail districts around O'Hare
19Airport to the south of proposed RD 55, and downtown Chicago.
20Two Metra lines, North Central Service and Union Pacific NW,
21run through proposed RD 55 providing residents with easy access
22to downtown Chicago for work or recreation.
23    A majority of the population within proposed RD 55 resides
24within current RD 65, the incumbent's current district.
25Proposed RD 55 keeps the incumbent with the core of the
26district, thus preserving incumbent-constituent relationships

 

 

HR0385- 149 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1developed over the past 18 years. However, the partisan
2composition of the incumbent party is slightly lower than the
3composition in the incumbent's current district.
4    Proposed RD 55 includes a 2.15% African American voting-age
5population, a 14.04% Hispanic voting-age population, and a
69.07% Asian voting-age population.
 
7    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 56
8    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 56 has a
9population of 102,327. In its proposed form, RD 56 has a
10population of 108,734 and is therefore compliant with the "one
11person, one vote" principle. Proposed RD 56 is different in
12shape from current RD 56 due in part to population shifts and
13the need to increase the total population by 6,407.
14    The population of proposed RD 56 includes 86.16% of
15residents of current RD 56. Overall, the borders are
16substantially similar to current RD 56, with portions of
17current RDs 44, 45, 55, and 66 added to increase the population
18and enhance the compactness of proposed RD 56.
19    The core of proposed RD 56 is Schaumburg and Schaumburg
20Township, similar to current RD 56. In proposed RD 56, the
21eastern border of current RD 56 is extended eastward to the
22border between Schaumburg and Elk Grove Townships so that those
23portions of eastern Schaumburg and Schaumburg Township that are
24in current RD 66 are joined with the majority of Schaumburg and
25Schaumburg Township. The eastern border along Schaumburg and

 

 

HR0385- 150 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Elk Grove Township closely follows Interstate 290. The border
2of proposed RD 56 is expanded to continue following Interstate
3290, which brings in parts of Elk Grove Township. The southern
4boundary extends west along the Cook County-DuPage County
5border, as it does in current RD 56, to include portions of
6Roselle. Proposed RD 56 deviates from current RD 56 by heading
7west along Lake Street and the southern border of Roselle.
8Proposed RD 56 removes Bloomingdale altogether so that it may
9be included in another proposed district, but continues to
10include portions of Roselle and Hanover Park in Bloomingdale
11Township.
12    Proposed RD 56 also includes part of Hanover Park in Wayne
13Township. Hanover Park Mayor Rod Craig testified at the Elgin
14House Redistricting Hearing on April 18, 2011 that he feels it
15is healthy that Hanover Park is and should continue to be
16represented by multiple representatives. He felt the diversity
17of views benefited his community. Under proposed RD 56, Hanover
18Park continues to have multiple representatives.
19    Proposed RD 56 extends the border west into Wayne Township
20to encompass additional parts of Hanover Park and to add Asian
21population to the existing Asian community of interest. At the
22Elgin House Redistricting hearing on April 18, 2011, Roger
23Bianco, a private citizen and a member of the Schaumburg
24Township Democrats, indicated that there has been a significant
25demographic shift in the township resulting in an increase in
26the Asian population. He indicated he would like to see

 

 

HR0385- 151 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1communities of interest, like the Asians, taken into
2consideration during the redistricting process. Proposed RD 66
3not only keeps much of the Asian community in Schaumburg
4Township together but also adds to it in Schaumburg Township
5and DuPage County.
6    At the southwest corner of proposed RD 56, the boundary
7heads north along the border of Hanover Park to the border of
8Cook and DuPage Counties, then east to Schaumburg. The border
9then extends north, including a small portion of the Schaumburg
10that is in current RD 44. Small portions of Schaumburg
11previously within other districts are joined in proposed RD 56.
12The northern border is almost identical to current RD 56,
13except for a small portion of Rolling Meadows, which is almost
14entirely removed.
15    Proposed RD 56 maintains a significant majority of the
16population within current RD 56. Because much of the current
17district remains unchanged, the partisan composition of
18proposed RD 56 is substantially similar to the partisan
19composition of current RD 56.
20    Proposed RD 56 has an African American voting-age
21population of 3.53%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
2216.09%, and an Asian voting-age population of 9.24%.
 
23    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 57
24    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 57 has a
25population of 104,842. Proposed RD 57 has a population of

 

 

HR0385- 152 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
2compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
3RD 57 is different in shape from current RD 57 due, in part, to
4population shifts and the need to increase the total population
5of the district by 3,892.
6    The shape of the district differs based on the need to gain
7more population to the west. This change is due to significant
8changes to the south and east of current RD 57, where other
9districts also need to gain population. The result is that
10portions of the eastern and central current RD 57 in Northfield
11and Wheeling townships remain in proposed RD 57 and proposed RD
1257 extends west to take in more of Wheeling and parts of
13Palatine and Vernon townships. The westward expansion in the
14center of proposed RD 57 where it narrows follows as close as
15possible to the Wheeling city border.
16    The northwestern border of the district is drawn to ensure
17that the city of Buffalo Grove is split into only two
18districts. The far west border extends to take in a portion of
19Palatine township, which is necessary to gain population. The
20western edge reaches out to bring in the more densely populated
21areas of Palatine that border Wheeling Township, but not the
22less dense open space or forest areas further west. The
23southeastern border maintains portions of current RD 57 and
24traces along the previous district border line in the far
25southwest corner. The narrow southwestern portion is drawn to
26keep the majority of the cities of Prospect Heights and

 

 

HR0385- 153 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Arlington Heights in a neighboring district.
2    As with current RD 57, both Northfield and Wheeling
3Townships are in proposed RD 57. Proposed RD 57 includes part
4of Vernon Township in Lake County and Palatine Township. Cities
5in proposed RD 57 include Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Des
6Plaines, Glenview, Northbrook, Palatine, Prospect Heights and
7Wheeling. The main difference from current RD 57 is the
8exclusion of Niles and the addition of Buffalo Grove. The
9majority of proposed RD 57 is in Cook County with a portion in
10southern Lake County. The purpose of including the Lake County
11portion in proposed RD 57 is to include enough of the city of
12Buffalo Grove to ensure the city is only split between two
13districts. Proposed RD 57 also allows more of the Lake County
14portion of Buffalo Grove to remain with the rest of the Lake
15County section of the city.
16    The median income of proposed RD 57 remains fairly
17consistent. Northbrook, the northern portion of Buffalo Grove,
18and part of Palatine all have slightly higher median incomes of
19$99,000 to $148,000 a year with the majority of the remainder
20of the district between $44,000 and $99,000 a year. This level
21of parity in median income creates a district of similar
22socioeconomic characteristics that help bind the interests of
23the residents. The only area where the median income drops
24below $44,000 is the section of northeast Palatine Township on
25the far western edge of the district. However, that section is
26more similar to the urban areas of proposed RD 57 than the more

 

 

HR0385- 154 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1rural areas of the areas of Palatine to the west of proposed RD
257 making this western portion a more natural fit in proposed
3RD 57 than in any neighboring districts.
4    The partisan composition of proposed RD 57 is nearly
5identical to the partisan composition of current RD 57.
6    The Hispanic voting-age population is 17.89%, with the
7densest portion in the western section of Palatine Township. As
8previously noted, this portion of Palatine township is included
9in proposed RD 57 to gain population. It also creates a
10community of interest whereby the more urban and densely
11populated Hispanic voters in northwest Palatine are placed in a
12similarly dense urban dense area rather than in a district to
13their north or west where there are no notable Hispanic
14populations.
15    The Asian voting-age population is 12.42%. This is a
16decrease from current RD 57 due to the changes in the eastern
17districts that resulted in a movement away from Niles,
18Glenview, and Park Ridge which have Indian and Pakistani
19communities. The Asian population in proposed RD 57 is
20scattered throughout the district, with the most densely
21populated section in the Northfield / Wheeling township area
22that is also in current RD 57.
23    Proposed RD 57 has 2.02% African American voting-age
24population.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 58

 

 

HR0385- 155 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 58 has a
2population of 101,562. Proposed RD 58 has a population of
3108,725, the equal-population target, and is therefore
4compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
5RD 58 is different in shape from current RD 58 due, in part, to
6population shifts and the need to increase the total population
7of the district.
8    Proposed RD 58 maintains the general outline of current RD
958 and 76.31% of the population resides in current RD 58.
10Compared to current RD 58, proposed RD 58 reduces the portion
11of the district within Cook County and increases the portion
12within Lake County.. The majority of current RD 58 lies within
13Lake County, with a small portion in Cook County along the
14southern border. Further, proposed RD 58 adds a portion of
15current RD 59's western border. All but a small portion of the
16City of Lake Forest is included within proposed RD 58. Proposed
17RD 58 contains all of Bannockburn, Highland Park, and Lake
18Bluff and portions of Deerfield, Glencoe, Knollwood, Lake
19Bluff, Lake Forest, Lincolnshire, Northbrook, North Chicago
20and Riverwoods. Lincolnshire and North Chicago are included in
21proposed RD 58. These changes are made to achieve equal
22population, to make the district more of a Lake County
23district, and to ensure the district is more compact.
24    Current RD 58 contains, in its entirety, Lake County Board
25Districts 17 and 23. It also contains portions of Lake County
26Board Districts 11 and 16 and portions of Cook County Board

 

 

HR0385- 156 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Districts 13 and 14. Proposed RD 58 adds portions of Lake
2County Board Districts 11, 12, and 16, while reducing areas
3within the two Cook County Board Districts. These changes add
4population in Lake County and portions of Lake Forest that are
5in current RD 59.
6    Proposed RD 58 contains all of Moraine Township in Lake
7County (as it is in current RD 58) and adds all of West
8Deerfield Township (only a portion is in current RD 58).
9Proposed RD 58 contains a greater portion of Shields Township,
10reduces the portions of New Trier and Northfield Townships in
11Cook County, and adds the Lake County townships of Vernon and
12Libertyville. The addition of these new townships places the
13overwhelming majority of the City of Lake Forest within
14proposed RD 58. Lake Forest is currently divided between
15current RD 58 and 59.
16    Three-fifths of the population within proposed RD 58
17resides in current RD 58, which preserves
18incumbent-constituent relationships that have developed over
19the last decade. The current partisan composition of the
20incumbent party is higher than the composition of the
21incumbent's current district.
22    Proposed RD 58 has a 4.34% African American voting-age
23population, a 7.63% Hispanic voting-age population, and a 4.97%
24Asian voting-age population.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 59

 

 

HR0385- 157 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 59 has a
2population of 112,327. Proposed RD 59 has a population of
3108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
4compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
5    Proposed RD 59 is similar in shape to current RD 59 and
6shares many of the same boundaries, but differs slightly due in
7part to population shifts and the need to reduce the total
8population of proposed RD 59. Of the population in proposed RD
959, 80.21% reside in current RD 59. Like current RD 59,
10proposed RD 59 is within Cook and Lake Counties, with most of
11its population in Lake County. While proposed RD 59 adds
12population in Fremont Township, it is more compact than current
13RD 59 as it recedes entirely from Northfield, Shields and West
14Deerfield townships. Current RD 59 contains residents of 22
15municipalities and unincorporated communities while proposed
16RD 59 removes all of its population in Great Lakes, Green Oaks,
17Lake Bluff, Libertyville and Long Grove, and most of Lake
18Forest, Gurnee, Knollwood, and North Chicago, while expanding
19in Buffalo Grove, Mundelein, Waukegan and adding
20unincorporated community of Horatio Gardens in Lake County.
21    The boundary of proposed RD 59 follows the existing
22district lines in most areas. Where the district recedes from
23villages or adds population, proposed RD 59 follows natural
24geographic boundaries, roads and local government divisions.
25The western border and much of the southern border of proposed
26RD 59 in Cook County are the same as current RD 59, then follow

 

 

HR0385- 158 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1township lines to remove Northfield Township. In northeastern
2Vernon Township, the district excludes Lake Forest and portions
3of unincorporated Lake Forest and Lincolnshire, both more
4similar to Lake Forest with larger properties that are farther
5away from each other. Here the district follows Illinois Route
622 West, then heads north along Riverwoods Road and east along
7Everett Road to Interstate 94. Proposed RD 59 still contains a
8small, non-residential portion of Lake Forest surrounding the
9tollway oasis and Chicago Bears practice facilities, which are
10major landmarks in the area. Proposed RD 59 then again follows
11township boundaries north.
12    The north border of proposed RD 59 ends at Washington
13Street, which allows proposed RD 59 to lose Gurnee without
14losing population from Park City. Proposed RD 59 then follows
15precinct lines to take in a portion of Waukegan with mostly
16newer developments that are more similar to the portions of
17Waukegan in current RD 59. Proposed RD 59 then follows
18Interstate 94 and local roads and removes the residential
19portion of Green Oaks, retaining only small commercial portions
20of this village.
21    Proposed RD 59 uses local roads and railroads as boundaries
22to remove portions of Mettawa. The removed areas are mostly
23open spaces and more similar to other areas to the north along
24the Des Plaines River and near the Old School Forest Preserve
25in portions of Libertyville, Green Oaks and other
26unincorporated areas not included in proposed RD 59. In Vernon

 

 

HR0385- 159 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Hills, proposed RD 59 follows roadways as boundaries to remove
2population and keep residents of Vernon Hills living in new
3developments that were not inhabited during the 2000 Census
4process in the same district with similar communities and
5developments along the Milwaukee Avenue corridor to the north
6in Libertyville. West of these developments, proposed RD 59
7follows the EJ & E Railroad tracks and continues straight
8through White Deer Run Golf Course then follows Gregg's Parkway
9to Butterfield Road.
10    In Mundelein, proposed RD 59's boundary moves slightly
11north to take in the commercial businesses on the north side of
12Allanson Road, then travels north along the high voltage power
13lines to St. Mary's Lake, taking in Carmel Catholic High School
14and St. Mary's of the Lake Seminary. Proposed RD 59 then
15follows local roadways and open space south of Loch Lomond and
16adds Mundelein High School, Church of the Nazarene, Sure
17Foundation Church, Calvary Baptist Church and Kirk of the Lakes
18Presbyterian Church until the boundary rejoins the high voltage
19lines on the south side of Mundelein.
20    Proposed RD 59 again uses the high voltage power lines as a
21natural border and follows the eastern border of Long Grove
22until rejoining current RD 59 border at Checker Road in Buffalo
23Grove. The southern border of proposed RD 59 shifts south to
24strengthen a community of interest and take on increased
25population to ensure that Buffalo Grove is represented by only
26two representatives instead of three as it is under current RD

 

 

HR0385- 160 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

159.
2    Vernon Township in southern Lake County has several
3significant communities that are unincorporated from the
4surrounding village of Buffalo Grove, and these regions are
5strengthened as a community of interest in proposed RD 59.
6Current RD 59 has two major unincorporated communities
7bordering Buffalo Grove: unincorporated Prairie View and
8unincorporated Deerfield. Proposed RD 59 expands the southern
9border along Deerfield Parkway in Buffalo Grove to include the
10unincorporated community of Horatio Gardens. These
11unincorporated areas pay lower property taxes and share common
12services through the county and nearby municipalities.
13    Many residents live in the communities in proposed RD 59
14because of the high quality public schools. Proposed RD 59
15expands the community of interest of high-performing public
16schools as it expands to include five additional high schools.
17These groups of residents are kept together in an educational
18community of interest in proposed RD 59. This community of
19interest provides a high quality of life and outstanding
20education within the Aptakisic-Tripp Consolidated School
21District and Stevenson High School District 125, but at a lower
22cost of living due to the lower property taxes paid.
23Incorporating Horatio Gardens into proposed RD 59 strengthens
24this community of interest.
25    There are several senior retirement communities within
26proposed RD 59, including a senior residential community in the

 

 

HR0385- 161 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1portion of Northbrook kept in proposed RD 59. These senior
2residential facilities create a community of interest. In
3addition to this community, apartment-style independent living
4facilities through proposed RD 59 include Sedgebrook in
5Lincolnshire, The Park at Vernon Hills and Hawthorne Lakes in
6Vernon Hills. Senior citizens residing in these communities are
7strengthened as a community of interest.
8    The area included in proposed RD 59 continues growing with
9new development and housing. While the area is experiencing
10growth, new residents move here because they appreciate the
11open space compared to other more congested areas of the
12suburbs. The median income for the area shows that those
13families moving in are becoming more upper middle class as
14opposed to the area in the south where incomes are more
15moderate.
16    The boundaries of proposed RD 59 contain most of the core
17of current RD 59. The partisan composition favoring the
18incumbent increases slightly under proposed RD 59.
19    There are pockets of Hispanics in various regions of the
20district, including Mundelein, Park City, Prairie View and
21Wheeling, which are kept together as a community of interest
22under proposed RD 59. Proposed RD 59 has an African American
23voting-age population of 2.37%, a Hispanic voting-age
24population of 18.89%, and an Asian voting-age population of
2512.95%.
 

 

 

HR0385- 162 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 60
2    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 60 has a
3population of 101,630. Proposed RD 60 has a population of
4108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
5compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
6RD 60 is different in shape from current RD 60 due in part to
7population shifts and the need to increase the total population
8of the district.
9    In its proposed form, RD 60 contains 81.78% of current RD
1060. Proposed RD 60 has few changes from RD 60, including the
11minority composition. In order to achieve equal population,
12proposed RD 60 has expanded to the north and northwest, adding
13more of Waukegan, eastern Gurnee, the southern portion of Beach
14Park and a sliver of Park City. In addition, proposed RD 60
15loses a portion of North Chicago.
16    Proposed RD 60 is contained entirely within Lake County and
17includes all of Waukegan Township, whereas current RD 60 only
18contains a portion of Waukegan Township. Proposed RD 60 splits
19two townships, Shields Township on the southern portion of the
20district, which is also split in current RD 60, and Warren
21Township in the northwest portion of the district. In Shields
22Township, the proposed border follows the current border
23through the City of Waukegan along Highway 137/Buckley Road
24until it heads north and east along railroad tracks and streets
25for a short distance before reaching the shores of Lake
26Michigan.

 

 

HR0385- 163 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 60 extends north along Lake Michigan and then
2west along the northern Waukegan and Warren township lines
3until reaching the Soo Rail Line. Forming proposed RD 60's
4western border, the district follows the Soo Rail Line south
5into the community of Gurnee, turning east generally along
6Washington Street until it reaches the Waukegan Township line
7in the community of Park City. Finally, the western border is
8complete as the boundary moves south along the western Waukegan
9and Shield townships lines, eventually meeting proposed
10district's southern border.
11    Proposed RD 60 is primarily middle-class with a majority
12median family income range between $44,205 and $68,654 that
13remains consistent with current RD 60. The portions of current
14RD 59 that are added to RD 60 are more economically similar to
15proposed RD 60 than proposed RD 59.
16    The district's reliance on Lake Michigan as an economic
17engine and recreational attraction provides for a community of
18interest. Proposed RD 60 contains the southernmost portion of
19the Illinois Beach State Park South. This community of interest
20is especially important as the lakefront communities continue
21to deal with issues of hazardous pollution and efforts to
22revitalize the area.
23    Proposed RD 60 has several areas of Waukegan and North
24Chicago with high crime rates and the efforts of local
25residents who are working to protect their neighborhoods form a
26community of interest. Another community of interest exists

 

 

HR0385- 164 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1through the district as many residents rely on public transit
2and commute to Chicago via the Union Pacific-North Line.
3    Proposed RD 60 removes almost all of the Great Lakes Naval
4Training Center to maintain that community of interest in
5proposed RD 58. Waukegan and the surrounding communities of
6Park City and North Chicago experience similar challenges and
7proposed RD 60 keeps large portions of these communities
8together. Stella Jones testified on behalf of Democrats United
9for Fairness at the House redistricting hearing in Waukegan on
10April 19, 2011, and stated that the communities of North
11Chicago, Park City, and Waukegan face similar challenges
12including the lack of fair housing, low graduation rates, and
13higher crime rates. Ms. Jones requested that these communities
14continue to be in the same district so the residents who share
15similar concerns can continue to benefit from the services
16provided to these communities.
17    Proposed RD 60 contains a vast majority of current RD 60.
18However, the partisan advantage favoring the incumbent
19decreases compared to current RD 60.
20    Proposed RD 60 has an African American voting-age
21population of 21.61%, Hispanic voting-age population of
2246.64%, and an Asian voting-age population of 3.2%. The
23expansion of current district's boundaries north and northwest
24adds areas of larger predominately Hispanic population.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 61

 

 

HR0385- 165 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 61 has a
2population of 120,629. Proposed RD 61 has a population of
3108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
4compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
5RD 61 is different in shape from current RD 61 due in part to
6population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
7of the district by almost 12,000 people.
8    Proposed RD 61, located entirely within Lake County,
9reduces its size on the west and southeast while gaining more
10land in the south central part of the district to make the area
11more compact and contiguous. Proposed RD 61 is more compact and
12includes 59.37% of current RD 61, 33.58% of current RD 62, and
13small portions of 52.
14    Like current RD 61, proposed RD 61 maintains its northern
15border as the Illinois-Wisconsin state line and its eastern
16border as Lake Michigan. However, in order to achieve equal
17population, yet maintain the district's interests, the south
18central border is adjusted to take in portions of Venetian
19Village and Long Lake.
20    The proposed RD 61 also recedes completely out of Channel
21Lake, Lake Catherine, Fox Lake, Fox Lake Hills, while including
22the communities of Antioch, Gurnee, Lake Villa, Old Mill Creek,
23Lindenhurst, Wadsworth, Beach Park, Waukegan, Winthrop Harbor,
24and Zion, which are currently located in RD 61. Proposed RD 61
25also includes Third Lake, Gages Park, and Grandwood Park.
26    In addition to the needed balance of population, the shift

 

 

HR0385- 166 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1of the district into the Lindenhurst area was necessary to
2bring the local Hispanic populations together in the same
3representative district. In a redistricting hearing that was
4held in nearby Waukegan, several Hispanic organizations spoke
5about the need for a more unified representative district that
6took into account the growing number of Hispanics in the
7northern Lake County Region. Proposed RD 61 accomplishes this
8by moving into the Lindenhurst area and portions of Gurnee to
9include them in the same district with the Hispanic families
10that make up the Old Mill Creek, Beach Park and Zion
11communities.
12    Socioeconomically, the district contains middle and
13upper-middle income residents, with median incomes between
14$75,000 and $150,000; however, there are segments of residents
15with higher incomes. Lower-middle income residents are located
16in the eastern end of proposed RD 61.
17    Proposed RD 61 also recognizes a community of interest in
18that it contains a number of communities that border the state
19of Wisconsin. As Illinois competes for jobs and federal
20resources with neighboring states, the communities of this
21border district are major stakeholders and a community of
22interest. The district continues to be more of an east-west
23district rather than a north-south district to keep this
24community of interest intact.
25    Proposed RD 61 retains the core of current RD 61 and
26subsequently has a substantially similar partisan composition

 

 

HR0385- 167 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1compared to current RD 61.
2    Proposed RD 61 would contain an African American voting-age
3population of 10.57%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
412.06% and an Asian voting-age population of 6.39%.
 
5    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 62
6    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 62 has a
7population of 117,334. Proposed RD 62 has a population of
8108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
9compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
10RD 62 is different in shape from current RD 62 due, in part, to
11population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
12of the district.
13    Proposed RD 62 retains 69.22% of population of current RD
1462. In order to achieve equal population, proposed RD 62, which
15is located entirely within Lake County, shifts to the west and
16extends southwest while receding out of Gurnee, Grandwest Park,
17Lindenhurst, Old Mill Creek, Venetian Village, Long Lake, Round
18Lake Park, and Round Lake Heights. Proposed RD 62 adds more of
19Round Lake Park and Round Lake to keep the municipalities
20intact and extends into portions of Wauconda to achieve equal
21population. Proposed RD 62 also expands its territory in
22Grayslake, which is now almost completely in proposed RD 62.
23    The central portion of proposed RD 62 includes a community
24of interest made up of homeowners who live along the district's
25many lakes, wetlands, and forest preserves. These individuals

 

 

HR0385- 168 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1live in similar housing and live where they do because it
2provides local access to quality schools, natural areas, and
3retail shopping, all within a commute to major employers in
4Chicago. The additional population added in Long Lake on
5proposed RD 62's western edge also fits into this community of
6interest.
7    Proposed RD 62 acknowledges a tourism and recreational
8community of interest consisting of the population impacted by
9the attractions of the Gurnee Mills Mall and Six Flags Great
10America. These businesses and surrounding attractions bring in
11visitors from around the region and provide a vital source of
12revenue for local communities, create jobs, and keep many
13tourism businesses running.
14    As the population of Lake County continues to grow,
15commuter traffic and city planning have become major issues as
16residents and businesses contend with extreme traffic
17congestion. A controversial plan to expand Belvidere Road is of
18major interest to all residents of proposed RD 62. More of this
19roadway is added to proposed RD 62 allowing commuters and
20landowners to have a representative who will be responsive on
21the issue.
22    At a redistricting hearing in Waukegan, several Hispanic
23organizations testified about the need to take into account the
24growing number of Hispanics in the northern Lake County region.
25A Round Lake resident urged that all of Round Lake be included
26in one Legislative District. Proposed RD 62 keeps virtually all

 

 

HR0385- 169 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1of the Round Lake community intact and in one Representative
2District.
3    Proposed RD 62 maintains most of the core of current RD 62
4and preserves the incumbent-constituent relationship that has
5developed over the last two election cycles. The partisan
6advantage in favor of the incumbent decreases slightly compared
7to the current partisan composition under current RD 62.
8    Proposed RD 62 contains an African American voting-age
9population of 3.83%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 8.97%,
10and an Asian voting-age population of 8.88%.
 
11    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 63
12    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 63 has a
13population of 122,290. Proposed RD 63 has a population of
14108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
15compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
16RD 63 is different in shape from current RD 63 due, in part, to
17population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
18of the district.
19    All of the residents within proposed RD 63 live in current
20RD 63. Proposed RD 63 reduces population by removing areas in
21the communities of Crystal Lake, Lakewood, McHenry, Johnsburg,
22Spring Grove, and Fox Lake. All but a small section of
23Woodstock remains in proposed RD 63. Proposed RD 63 is entirely
24within current RD 63, but removes these areas to reduce the
25necessary population.

 

 

HR0385- 170 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 63 maintains a similar shape as current RD 63
2while accounting for population change and preserving
3communities. The northern boundary is the state line; the
4western boundary is along the McHenry County line; the southern
5boundary keeps all of Riley and Coral Townships within the
6district; and the eastern boundary runs along the township
7divide between Coral and Grafton on the south, splitting Dorr,
8McHenry and Richmond Townships. The split townships differ from
9those split in current RD 63 in order to reduce population.
10    Interstate 90 crosses the southwestern section of the
11district, connecting the district to Chicago and Wisconsin. The
12Union Pacific Northwest Metra line runs from the east central
13border of proposed RD 63 in Woodstock to Harvard; and the
14eastern arm of the Metra runs from outside of the district in
15Crystal Lake to McHenry. The Fox River connects communities
16along the eastern boundary of proposed RD 63. Wonder Lake and
17McCullom Lake are included in their entirety within proposed RD
1863. Most of proposed RD 63 is agricultural land and grasslands,
19with medium to low-density urban land, urban open space and
20minimal high-density urban land in the cities of McHenry,
21Harvard, Woodstock and Marengo. There has been recent growth in
22the area and the residents here have common interests. The
23residents in proposed RD 63 prefer a suburban feel to their
24surroundings with convenient commercial areas.
25    The key differences between proposed RD 63 and current RD
2663 are due to population reduction along the central eastern

 

 

HR0385- 171 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1edge in Dorr Township. Proposed RD 63 removes population from
2McHenry Township to keep the city of McHenry more intact in a
3bordering district. The proposed district loses all of Burton
4Township and most of the city of Spring Grove. The section of
5Spring Grove that is within proposed RD 63 is lightly populated
6and the split occurs so that the majority of the population of
7Spring Grove remains together, outside of the district. The
8core of Woodstock is kept intact in the proposed RD 63 to
9maintain equal population.
10    McHenry County remains split, as it is in the current RD
1163. Proposed RD 63 includes the following townships in their
12entirety: Alden, Chemung, Coral, Dunham, Greenwood, Hartland,
13Hebron, Marengo, Riley and Seneca. Proposed RD 63 splits the
14townships of: Dorr, McHenry, and Richmond. Dorr Township is
15split in such a way as to keep more of the city of Woodstock
16together in proposed RD 63. Most of Woodstock is in proposed RD
1763, with precinct Dorr 11 in proposed RD 64 to keep that
18precinct intact. The city of Woodstock is also split along its
19eastern border to keep several cul de sacs together in one
20district. The part of Crystal Lake included in RD 63 is
21precinct Dorr 10, and the majority of the rest of the city is
22in proposed RD 64. McHenry Township is split to keep the
23community of Pistakee Highlands together in RD 63 and to keep
24the city of Lakemoor together outside of the district. Richmond
25Township is split to keep more of the village of Richmond
26together in the proposed RD 63 and keep more of the city of

 

 

HR0385- 172 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Spring Grove together outside of proposed RD 63. The cities of
2Marengo, Union, Chemung, Harvard, Hebron, McCullom Lake,
3Richmond, Ringwood, Pistakee Highlands and Greenwood are
4entirely within the proposed RD 63. The parts of Bull Valley
5located in Greenwood Township are in proposed RD 63 and the
6parts of Bull Valley located in McHenry Township are in
7proposed RD 64. Bull Valley is split in the same manner under
8current RD 63. The southeastern part of the city of Wonder Lake
9is not in RD 63 and is instead in RD 64 to keep the precinct of
10McHenry 10 intact in one district.
11    McHenry County has experienced a surge in population in the
12last two decades, with the southwest portion of the county
13seeing the most growth. Communities in the slower growth areas
14share more common characteristics with each other than with the
15communities in the southwest corner, and those slower growth
16areas remain together in proposed RD 63. The majority of rural
17and agricultural portions of McHenry County are within proposed
18RD 63, helping to reflect the wishes of Mary Donner,
19Vice-Chairperson for the Planning and Development committee of
20McHenry County, at the House Redistricting hearing in Marengo,
21IL on April 16, 2011.
22    The boundaries of proposed RD 63 maintain almost the entire
23core of current RD 63. This allows the incumbent-constituent
24relationship that has existed over the past decade to be
25preserved. Because the core has been held substantially intact,
26the partisan composition of proposed RD 63 is similar to the

 

 

HR0385- 173 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1partisan composition of current RD 63.
2    In proposed RD 63, the voting-age population of Hispanic
3residents is 12.78% , the voting-age population for African
4American residents is 0.90%, and the voting-age population for
5Asian residents is 1.18%. Smaller Hispanic populations are
6spread out across the district. Most of the district is
7comprised of middle-class incomes ranging from $68,654 to
8$98,750.
 
9    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 64
10    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 64 has a
11population of 132,417. Proposed RD 64 has a population of
12108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
13compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
14RD 64, located in McHenry and Lake counties, consists of
15portions of current RDs 52, 61, 62, 63, and 64.
16    Using the Wisconsin-Illinois state line as its northern
17border, proposed RD 64 follows the McHenry-Lake County line
18south and then expands east to west to include the communities
19of Spring Grove, Fox Lake, Channel Lake, Lake Catharine,
20Antioch, Fox Lake Hills, Johnsburg, Lakemoor, Holiday Hills,
21McHenry, Bull Valley, Woodstock, Lakewood, Prairie Grove,
22Wauconda, Volo, Venetian Village, Lindenhurst, Round Lake
23Heights, and Lake Villa, as well as small portions of Island
24Lake and Crystal Lake. Many of these communities are spread out
25and more rural in nature, a feature desired by local residents.

 

 

HR0385- 174 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 64 contains all or portions of the townships of
2Richmond, Burton, Antioch, Grant, McHenry, Nunda, Dorr,
3Grafton, Algonquin, Wauconda, and Lake Villa.
4    The splits that occur in many of these communities are
5based upon the need to achieve equal population and uses easily
6recognizable features such as roads, lakes, and governmental
7boundaries. The split in Crystal Lake allows an additional lake
8to be included in proposed RD 64 and then follows the McHenry
9Township line, while the splits in Dorr and McHenry townships
10allow most of the communities of Woodstock and McHenry to
11remain in proposed RD 63. Proposed RD 64 also takes in the more
12outlying areas in the communities of Johnsburg and Antioch.
13These residents live in more rural areas and the area's many
14residential areas around several local lakes.
15    One central feature of proposed RD 64 is the area's many
16lakes, state parks, wetlands, and forested areas. These natural
17resources are appealing to local residents who choose to live
18in a relaxed and natural setting that provides easy access to
19more populated locales for employment and recreation. As there
20is more population growth in McHenry and Lake counties, efforts
21to preserve and protect proposed RD 64's natural resources
22while balancing the need for enhanced transportation options
23will become paramount.
24    U.S. Highway 12, Illinois Route 31, and Illinois Route 59
25provide residents with access to Wisconsin, the suburbs and the
26city of Chicago. As residents contend with suburban sprawl,

 

 

HR0385- 175 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1proposed RD 64's residents who utilize or live on these
2roadways will contend with urban planning and traffic issues,
3creating a community of interest.
4    Proposed RD 64's median family income is predominately
5middle class with several census blocks reporting upper middle
6class median family incomes of $98,740 to $147,955. There are
7no census blocks listing a median family income of under
8$68,654.
9    Proposed RD 64 is comprised of sections from several
10current districts. The partisan composition of proposed RD 64
11remains relatively similar to the average partisan
12compositions of the current districts that now make up proposed
13RD 64.
14    Proposed RD 64 contains an African American voting-age
15population of 1.13%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 6.81%,
16and an Asian voting-age population of 2.36%.
 
17    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 65
18    Proposed RD 65 has a population of 108,735, the
19equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
20"one person, one vote" principle.
21    To ensure the preservation of equal representation and to
22create compact, contiguous representative districts that
23reflect the interests of the populations, several districts are
24rearranged to accurately reflect the 2010 census data. Proposed
25RD 65 includes much of the population of current RD 49 (88.62%)

 

 

HR0385- 176 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1and small portions of current RDs 43, 50, 55, and 64. Proposed
2RD 65 is different in shape from current RD 49 due in part to
3population shifts and the need to decrease the total population
4of the district by 45,346.
5    To achieve equal population and due to major population
6shifts in the northwest suburbs, proposed RD 65 recedes
7completely out of the communities of Algonquin, Burlington,
8Sleepy Hollow, West Dundee and Carpentersville, and maintains
9only a small portion of Gilberts. Proposed RD 65 adds territory
10in the southern end of current RD 49 to gain population in
11South Elgin and Wayne.
12    Proposed RD 65 is located entirely within Kane County. The
13boundaries, to a large degree, follow the boundary lines of
14current RD 49, and also follow the natural dividing lines of
15towns and major landmarks in the area.
16    Proposed RD 65 reflects the natural growth of communities
17that are expanding outward and to the west. The corridors along
18Illinois Route 47 and Interstate 90 are extremely important to
19the residents and businesses of proposed RD 65, as these
20roadways provide key transportation routes through the
21district and into the suburbs and city of Chicago. As the
22population continues to grow in the northwest suburbs and in
23proposed RD 65, the people who utilize and live on these
24roadways form a community of interest concerned with traffic
25congestion, highway maintenance and construction, and
26sprawling suburban growth.

 

 

HR0385- 177 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 65 is a mixture of middle to upper-middle
2income wage earners, with a portion of Huntley having a
3slightly lower median income. Outside proposed RD 65's border
4near Elgin, the income level drops significantly, a good reason
5for these areas to remain in an adjoining district.
6    The boundaries of proposed RD 65 also reflect the need to
7preserve the minority influence in the area and surrounding
8districts. Proposed RD 65 loses more of the city of Elgin to a
9neighboring district to ensure that the African American and
10Hispanic populations are adequately represented.
11    The boundaries of proposed RD 65 contain no portion of
12current RD 65; however, proposed RD 65 retains the vast
13majority of current RD 49. This preserves the
14incumbent-constituent relationship that has existed for over a
15decade. Additionally, proposed RD 65 retains a nearly identical
16partisan composition compared to the composition under current
17RD 49.
18    Proposed RD 65 has an African American voting-age
19population of 1.93%, a Hispanic voting-age population 9.09%,
20and an Asian voting-age population of 4.98%.
 
21    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 66
22    Proposed RD 66 contains 108,734, the equal-population
23target, and is therefore compliant with the "one person, one
24vote" principle. Several districts shifted due to population
25issues, and thus proposed RD 66 contains portions of 3 current

 

 

HR0385- 178 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1representative districts. Proposed RD 66 is located in McHenry
2and Kane counties. Most of its population include current RD 64
3(67.52%) current RD 49 (30.18%), and a small portion of current
4RD 43.
5    Proposed RD 66 includes all of the communities of Gilberts,
6Sleepy Hollow, and West Dundee, and portions of the communities
7of Lakewood, Crystal Lake, Huntley, Lake of the Hills,
8Algonquin, Carpentersville, Elgin and East Dundee. Local
9residents are largely middle to upper middle class and live in
10similar housing stock throughout the district. As the
11population grows, interests of these communities overlap.
12    The McHenry and Kane County communities of proposed RD 66
13share many of the same characteristics and use many of the same
14resources. Randall Road links these communities together. This
15road is a major north and south thoroughfare in the district
16and gives residents access to many local businesses, shopping
17centers, restaurants, hospitals, and churches. Proposed RD 66
18residents have an interest in this vital roadway.
19    In addition to being connected to local resources, Randall
20Road also allows residents to access I-90, which provides
21residents the ability to go east to Chicago or west to DeKalb,
22home of Northern Illinois University, which has a large
23population of commuter students. Both Randall Road and I-90
24provide the residents with easy access to the Big Timber
25Shopping Center and Elgin Metra Lines, which allow residents to
26reach employment and entertainment opportunities in downtown

 

 

HR0385- 179 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Chicago.
2    Socioeconomically, proposed RD 66 is very homogeneous.
3Proposed RD 66 consists of middle to upper middle income
4families who live in single family homes and have a median
5income level of $44,000 to $148,000, with an average income of
6$68,654 per year. Many residents of proposed RD 66 work in
7nearby suburban communities and rely less on public
8transportation than the communities further south and east.
9    As with many suburban communities, the communities in
10proposed RD 66 form a community of interest built around the
11issues of dealing with population growth and increased traffic
12congestion. As more people relocate within RD 66, serious
13consideration will be given to preparing for future growth and
14such considerations will have an enormous impact on the
15residents who live along the district's main roadways or rely
16on them for quick travel.
17    Proposed RD 66 is comprised of multiple existing districts;
18however, it maintains the core of current RD 64 and preserves
19the incumbent-constituent relationship that has existed for
20six years. The partisan composition of proposed RD 66 is
21similar to the composition as it exists under current RD 64.
22    Proposed RD 66 contains an African American voting-age
23population of 1.93%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 9.19%,
24and an Asian voting-age population of 6.93%.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 67

 

 

HR0385- 180 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 67 has a
2population of 103,737. Proposed RD 67 has a population of
3108,735, the equal-population target, and is therefore
4compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
5RD 67 is different in shape from current RD 67 due, in part, to
6population shifts and the need to increase the total population
7of the district.
8    Proposed RD 67 has 79.85% of its population from current RD
967. The difference in shape is due in part to population shifts
10and a desire to keep communities of interest together. To
11achieve greater compactness, proposed RD 67 is entirely within
12Winnebago County, comprised mainly of Rockford Township with
13small sections of Owen and Cherry Valley Townships.
14    The northern border of current RD 67 is moved north to
15include most of the city of Rockford, while small populations
16from other less populated cities and precincts to the south and
17west that are largely agricultural with low populations are
18removed. Current RD 67 splits three cities (Rockford, Cherry
19Valley, and New Milford), whereas proposed RD 67 contains only
20Rockford and several unincorporated areas. Proposed RD 67
21removes Cherry Valley and New Milford which are less urban and
22more affluent. City government centers, residential services,
23major roads and transportation hubs will all remain in one
24district.
25    Proposed RD 67 contains a major section of the region's
26transportation corridor. US 20 runs along the western border

 

 

HR0385- 181 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1and cuts through the south central area of the district. This
2is a bypass roadway, used to connect to Interstate 39/US 51 and
3I-90. The interchange from US 20 to Interstate 39/US 51 is
4included in the district. Alpine Road, Route 251, and Route 2
5are also used to connect major commercial and residential areas
6in Rockford. The interchange of Route 20 and Route 2 is also in
7RD 67, with Route 2 being the most direct route into downtown
8Rockford and extends to government centers, the old railroad
9station, sports facilities, and to the Rockford Airport.
10Interstate 39/US 51 is along the furthest east border and
11contains an interchange between US 20 and Highway 39, which is
12the gateway to southern areas of the state, and also connects
13to I-90, which runs north into Wisconsin. US Business 20 is
14also known as State Street, and it is the major gateway through
15Rockford running east to west. It connects the residential
16areas on the west side of the river to the government centers
17in the center of the district and the commercial areas on the
18east side of the district. Route 2, or Main Street, is
19considered a gateway to the city running north to south through
20the district. It connects southern industrial areas to northern
21residential areas. State Route 251 runs through the center of
22the district and connects Rockford to municipalities in the
23north.
24    Proposed RD 67 is entirely within the Rock Watershed. Rock
25River runs vertically through the center of proposed RD 67 and
26then connects to the top eastern border of the district. Keith

 

 

HR0385- 182 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Creek runs horizontally through the center of proposed RD 67
2from the Rock River to the east edge of the district.
3    Proposed RD 67 contains mostly high and medium density
4urban areas and preserves many neighborhoods. Proposed RD 67
5contains urban open space and general industrial areas in the
6southern and western parts of the district. There are
7commercial areas in the east center of proposed RD 67. Proposed
8RD 67 is mostly incorporated and has few agricultural areas.
9Proposed RD 67 keeps the city of Rockford together and removes
10unincorporated, agricultural areas on the outer edge of current
11RD 67. Along the western and southwestern edge of proposed RD
1267, some forest, wetlands and fields remain.
13    Proposed RD 67 contains the following landmarks, services,
14and cultural centers: Rockford Airport, Rockford City Hall,
15Rockford Police Headquarters, Rockford Mass Transit District
16main bus station, Winnebago County Court House, Winnebago
17County Jail, State of Illinois Building, Swedish American
18Hospital, Rockford Memorial Hospital, Rockford Main Post
19Office, Rockford Park District Headquarters, Rockford Sanitary
20District Headquarters, Rockford Board of Education
21Headquarters, Burpee Museum and Discovery Center, Rockford Art
22Museum and MetroCentre stadium/arena. These are all important
23landmarks, government offices and destinations within the city
24of Rockford and therefore, are maintained in one district.
25    Proposed RD 67 preserves 18 of the 20 neighborhood groups
26within Rockford: Ellis Heights Weed and Seed, Northwest

 

 

HR0385- 183 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Community Center, Cunningham St. Block Club, Riverview
2Neighborhood Association, Concord Commons, Orchid 3rd College
3and Union, South Sixth Street Neighborhood Organization, 7th
4Ward Now, Jassy Neighborhood Watch, Forest Avenue Neighborhood
5Group, River District Association, Churchill Grove
6Neighborhood Association, Signal Hill Neighborhood
7Association, North End Square Neighborhood Association,
8Rolling Green Neighborhood Association, Hilltop Neighborhood
9Watch, Oaks Neighborhood Association, and Midtown District.
10Two neighborhood groups are split: Sinnissippi Park and
11Edgewater Neighborhood Association. In an article published in
12the February 13, 2011 Rockford Register Star entitled "Chuck
13Sweeney: Neighborhood Groups a Valuable Tool for Residents,"
14Sweeney states:
15    The 10th Ward has seven neighborhood groups. I don't know
16how many similar associations are active throughout the city,
17but the more groups like Alpine Ridge we have, the better for
18the democratic process. Homeowners, residents and business
19owners need to know in advance what the city intends to do to
20them, so we can have government by the people, not on the
21people.
22    Neighborhood groups are important to the fabric of the city
23of Rockford and it is important in drawing a new map to
24preserve as many of these groups within a district as possible
25to enable better representation.
26    Proposed RD 67 generally has a median household income of

 

 

HR0385- 184 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1$45,000. Although the central Rockford urban area has several
2areas where the figure falls below $20,000 and other sections
3reach above $60,000, this average is well below the median
4income of surrounding, more affluent districts that include
5towns outside of Rockford. Proposed RD 67 preserves those with
6a moderate median income as a community of interest.
7    The boundaries of proposed RD 67 maintain the core of
8current RD 67 and allow the incumbent-constituent relationship
9that has developed over the last decade to be preserved. The
10partisan composition in favor of the incumbent party increases
11slightly when compared to the composition of current RD 67.
12    Proposed RD 67 keeps the African American population in
13Rockford together as a community of interest. Under proposed RD
1467, the African American voting-age population is 24.25%, the
15Hispanic voting-age population is 15.27%, and the Asian
16voting-age population is 2.35%.
17    The three key differences between proposed RD 67 and
18current RD 67 are: proposed RD 67 extends further north to take
19in more of the city of Rockford, removes agricultural areas on
20the southwest and southeast borders of the district, and
21removes the towns of New Milford and Cherry Valley. These
22changes establish the target population, preserve the downtown
23Rockford area its cultural centers, and existing neighborhood
24organizations, and keep most of proposed RD 67 within the city
25of Rockford.
 

 

 

HR0385- 185 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 68
2    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 68 has a
3population of 117,743. Proposed RD 68 has a population of
4108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
5compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
6RD 68 is different in shape from current RD 68 due, in part, to
7population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
8of the district.
9    Proposed RD 68 includes 63.60% of the core of current RD
1068. Proposed RD 68 makes the district more compact, while
11respecting the urban and rural communities of interest in and
12around the proposed district. There are four key differences
13between proposed RD 68 and current RD 68. Proposed RD 68: (1)
14removes the majority of the low populated, agricultural land
15and forest/marsh area in the north and northwest; (2) removes
16Shirland, Rockton and Roscoe Townships in the north; (3) adds
17more of the city of Rockford in the southern area; and (4)
18removes an area from Owen Township down to Auburn Street in
19Rockford Township, which was incorporated into proposed RD 67.
20Proposed RD 68 maintains equal population, attempts to follow
21township lines, connects neighborhoods with similar economic
22interest, keeps the more suburban areas surrounding Rockford
23together, and maintains Machesney Park and the majority of
24Loves Park.
25    Proposed RD 68 is now entirely within Winnebago County,
26reduces the more rural areas of the north and northwest, and

 

 

HR0385- 186 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1keeps more of the Rockford metro area together. Proposed RD 68
2is mostly incorporated, and drawn to take in the more suburban
3and rural areas of Rockford, which include small towns to the
4north of Rockford. To accomplish this, two primarily
5agricultural townships on the north are removed and a section
6of metropolitan Rockford is added. Proposed RD 68 keeps
7communities that lie between the Rock River and I-90 together
8and reduces the number of townships in the district. Proposed
9RD 68 follows township lines along the north and west
10boundaries of the district.
11    Proposed RD 68 includes several significant roadways used
12for local and regional travel and commerce. Highway 2 runs
13vertically through Owen Township, which connects the district
14to the city of Rockford downtown area and the Rockford Airport.
15Highway 251 and I-90 run vertically through Harlem Township and
16I-90 forms portions of the eastern border of proposed RD 68. US
17Business 20 runs horizontally through the southern part of
18proposed RD 68 and connects the district to commercial areas.
19Highway 70 leads from the west into the City of Rockford.
20Proposed RD 68 maintains a long section of commercial areas
21along US Business 20 including the interchange where US
22Business 20 and I-90 meet. There is a commercial area also near
23Cherryvale Mall, in the southeast area of the district, which
24is preserved.
25    Proposed RD 68 keeps the following districts and landmarks
26together: Rockford College, Rock Valley Community College,

 

 

HR0385- 187 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Rockford School of Medicine, Cherryvale Mall, Rock Cut State
2Park, Atwood Forest Preserve, Rockford Speedway, Magic Waters,
3Forest Hills Country Club and the Rockford Country Club.
4Proposed RD 68 also includes the 7th Street Commercial District
5and keeps the following neighborhoods together: North Highland
6Square, Calvin Park Boulevard, Palmwood Neighborhood, Alpine
7Ridge, Parkland Homeowners Association and the Rock Cut Area
8Homeowners Association.
9    Proposed RD 68 has a median income level between $45,000
10and $80,000. Although the income levels vary throughout
11proposed RD 68, they are generally higher levels than the other
12urban areas of Rockford included in proposed RD 67. The area of
13Rockford that was in current RD 67 but is now in proposed RD 68
14is more similar in income to the communities within current RD
1568, which is why they are included in proposed RD 68.
16    The partisan composition of proposed RD 68 is nearly
17identical to the current partisan composition under current RD
1868.
19    Within Proposed RD 68, the Hispanic voting-age population
20is 5.76%, the African American voting-age population is 4.71%,
21and the Asian voting-age population is 2.69%.
 
22    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 69
23    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 69 has a
24population of 123,633. Proposed RD 69 has a population of
25108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore

 

 

HR0385- 188 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
2    Proposed RD 69 includes a population of 68.37% of current
3RD 69 and portions of current RDs 67, 68, and 89. Proposed RD
469 is different in shape from current RD 69 due, in part, to
5population shifts, the need to reduce the total population of
6the district by 14,899, and an effort to keep municipalities
7and communities of interest intact. Proposed RD 69 includes
8portions of Boone and Winebago counties, and removes current RD
969's portion of DeKalb County, while keeping communities of
10interest together in the northwest by extending the district
11border to the boundary of current RD 68.
12    Proposed RD 69 removes a large portion of suburban Rockford
13that stretches from the Rock River to Perryville and the towns
14of Kirkland, Kingston and Genoa in DeKalb County. Proposed RD
1569's borders south of Rockford extend west to the Rockford
16Township line to take in the community of New Milford. A
17section of current RD 68 is added to the northwest portion of
18proposed RD 69 to keep a larger segment of the municipalities
19of Roscoe and South Beloit intact. Proposed RD 69 includes
20Rockton, which is socioeconomically and demographically
21similar to Roscoe and South Beloit. The northwestern boundary
22of proposed RD 69 is identical to the boundary of current 68 -
23this boundary follows the Shirland Township line and the Sugar
24River, and is the boundary for Winnebago County Board District
252.
26    Most of proposed RD 69 is in the $44,000 to $99,000 median

 

 

HR0385- 189 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1annual income range, with some variations in the south central
2part of the district and near South Beloit. The median annual
3income is fairly consistent throughout proposed RD 69.
4    Proposed RD 69 contains a partisan composition that is
5substantially similar to the current partisan composition
6under current RD 69.
7    Proposed RD 69 contains a 2.20% African American voting-age
8population, 9.03% Hispanic voting-age population, and 1.93%
9Asian voting-age population.
 
10    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 70
11    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 70 has a
12population of 121,976. Proposed RD 70 has a population of
13108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
14compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
15RD 70 is different in shape from current RD 70 due in part to
16population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
17of the district.
18    Residents of proposed RD 70 include 65.29% of current RD 70
19and portions of current RDs 49, 50, and 69. In order to adjust
20for a population gain in current RD 70, proposed RD 70 is
21smaller in overall size and shifts east to accommodate
22neighboring districts to the west that need population.
23Proposed RD 70 lies within the counties of Boone, DeKalb, and
24Kane. The borders for proposed RD 70 generally follow major
25roadways or county and township boundaries. Proposed RD 70

 

 

HR0385- 190 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1follows the western DeKalb County border from Malta Township to
2the Boone/DeKalb County boundary. The northern border of
3proposed RD 70 follows Flora Township line before following
4township lines to take in Bonus and Spring Townships in Boone
5County.
6    The eastern border of proposed RD 70 follows the Genoa
7Township border in DeKalb County then heads east into Hampshire
8Township along major roadways then follows the border of
9Burlington Township in Kane County, cutting out a small corner
10of the township so the outskirts of the town of North Plato can
11be included in the same adjacent proposed district as the rest
12of the town. The border for proposed RD 70 continues along the
13outside of Campton Township until reaching Plato Road. At this
14point, the border turns east and to the south to the Elgin
15Township border along a railroad line. The border then turns
16west through Campton Hills along Illinois Route 64 back to the
17Virgil Township border, with some variations to account for the
18population needs of the district.
19    The border for the southern end of proposed RD 70 follows
20the outside boundaries of Kaneville, Big Rock, Squaw Grove and
21Pierce Townships. These townships are all completely intact
22with the exception of Squaw Grove, which does not include the
23King Nursery tree farm and some of the outskirts of the village
24of Franks. Proposed RD 70's border then follows major roadways
25through DeKalb, including Illinois Routes 23 and 38. The border
26then follows Illinois Route 38 west to the Dekalb County

 

 

HR0385- 191 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1border. This provides for Northern Illinois University's
2campus to be wholly within proposed RD 70.
3    Almost all municipalities within proposed RD 70 are kept
4intact. The communities of DeKalb and Campton Hills are split
5along major roads to achieve equal population. Sugar Grove and
6Big Rock in southern Kane County straddle the boundary of Big
7Rock Township and are split along the township borderline to
8keep the township intact.
9    Current RD 70 is split between four different watersheds,
10while proposed RD 70 is only within two watersheds, Kishwaukee
11and Fox. Rivers and other waterways are an important
12characteristic of proposed RD 70. Proposed RD 70 expands north
13to take in significantly more of the South Branch Kishwaukee
14River and expands east into central Kane County to include
15Ferson Creek and into the southwestern corner of Kane County to
16take in large parts of Welch, Big Rock and Little Rock creeks.
17The areas with higher concentrations of population are all near
18waterways in proposed RD 70. Current RD 70 contains fewer
19waterways and more open farmland. The small-to-medium sized
20towns along the rivers and creeks in proposed RD 70 make up a
21community of interest because of the major issues these towns
22share over water pollution and resource management. Proposed RD
2370 keeps this community of interest intact and allows it to
24elect representatives that will focus on these issues and
25concerns.
26    Proposed RD 70 is also an overwhelmingly agricultural

 

 

HR0385- 192 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1district. It is essentially one developed area, a college town,
2surrounded by farmland and farm towns. The main economic
3drivers for the area are education, health care, distribution,
4retail, some small-level manufacturing, and agriculture.
5Northern Illinois University has a student population of over
623,000 and is a huge part of the area's economy. Keeping the
7Northern Illinois University campus intact and part of one
8district, as well as including Kishwaukee College in proposed
9RD 70, preserves the campus town community of interest, where
10issues like higher education funding are a top priority.
11    Proposed RD 70 contains most of the same major roads as
12current RD 70. These roads, including Routes 64, 23, 38, 72 and
1330, connect the towns in proposed RD 70. Interstate 88 is an
14important economic resource for proposed RD 70, and the retail
15establishments along the interstate provide tax revenues for
16DeKalb County. The easy drive to the Chicago metro area along
17Interstate 88 has made DeKalb a distribution center for major
18national companies like Target and 3M.
19    Current RD 70 is relatively homogeneous in terms of median
20income levels and becomes even more so under proposed RD 70.
21Current RD 70 is made up of lower middle income to middle
22income households, with a lower-middle income area existing
23within the city of DeKalb. Proposed RD 70 retains the lower
24income area within DeKalb but consolidates more of the middle
25income households by losing much of the lower-middle income
26areas in rural DeKalb County and all of Ogle County and gaining

 

 

HR0385- 193 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1more middle income households in portions of Kane County.
2    The boundaries of proposed RD 70 retain the core of current
3RD 70 preserving the incumbent-constituent relationship that
4has existed over the last nine years. Proposed RD 70 has a
5partisan composition that is very similar to the current
6partisan composition of current RD 70.
7    Proposed RD 70 has a 5.76% African American voting-age
8population, a 8.22% Hispanic voting-age population, and a 2.72%
9Asian voting-age population.
 
10    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 71
11    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 71 has a
12population of 104,867. Proposed RD 71 has a population of
13108,735, the equal-population target, and is therefore
14compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
15RD 71 is different in shape from current RD 71 due, in part, to
16population shifts and the need to increase the total population
17of the district.
18    Proposed RD 71 includes 55.58% of current RD 71. The
19changes are the addition of population in Whiteside County, and
20the removal of portions of Henry and Carroll Counties and urban
21Rock Island County from current RD 71.
22    As with current RD 71, proposed RD 71 splits four counties:
23Carroll, Henry, Rock Island and Whiteside. The splits occur
24along boundaries to keep townships or precincts intact. The
25Carroll County border is along the Washington Township and

 

 

HR0385- 194 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Savanna Township lines to the east, as well as York Township to
2the east and south. The Henry County border is based upon the
3Colona Township boundary and Hanna Township Precinct 1. The
4Rock Island County border is based upon the Rural Township
5boundary to the west, the Rock River, and several major
6roadways, namely Interstate 74 and the Avenue of the Cities.
7The boundaries in Rock Island County include natural borders
8such as the Rock River, easily recognizable roadways, ethnic
9and socioeconomic trends, and municipal/government districts,
10such as city lines. The Whiteside County border is based on
11township borders. The northern three townships of Whiteside
12County are not contained in proposed RD 71 in order to achieve
13proportional representation.
14    Proposed RD 71 is comprised of the entire communities of
15Albany, Carbon Cliff, Cleveland, Coal Valley, Colona, Cordova,
16Deer Grove, Erie, Fulton, Hampton, Hillsdale, Lyndon,
17Morrison, Port Byron, Prophetstown, Rapids City, Rock Falls,
18Savanna, Sterling, Tampico, and Thomson. While these
19communities are individually small in population, collectively
20they represent a large piece of proposed RD 71. Small
21communities like these, located along the Mississippi River and
22amongst vast tracts of farmland, are common in Northwestern
23Illinois, forming a community of interest and common identity
24which have been made more pronounced with the loss of urban
25areas in proposed RD 71.
26    The communities of Moline, East Moline and Silvis are

 

 

HR0385- 195 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1split. Moline and East Moline are split at the Avenue of the
2Cities (north border), a major thoroughfare, and Interstate 74
3and 158th Street (west border).
4    Proposed RD 71 contains portions of the following
5townships: Blackhawk, South Moline, Hampton, Hanna, and York.
6The largely rural southeastern portion of Blackhawk Township is
7in proposed RD 71, while the more populated portion of the
8township is in proposed RD 72, boundaries that reflect the
9borders of the cities of Milan and Rock Island. The north
10border of the Blackhawk Township portion is the Rock River. The
11proposed RD 72 portion of Coal Valley Township contains four
12uninhabited census blocks to keep the Rock River as a natural
13border between proposed RD 71 and proposed RD 72.
14    Proposed RD 71 contains all but the southwestern portion of
15Hampton Township, which keeps more of the city of East Moline
16in proposed RD 72 while keeping the non-East Moline portion of
17the township in proposed RD 71, as was done in current RD 71.
18    Proposed RD 71 takes one of the two precincts in Hanna
19Township in Henry County which keeps a precinct intact and the
20municipality of Cleveland intact. Colona makes the most sense
21of the Henry County communities to be in a district with the
22communities of Rock Island County nearer the Quad Cities.
23Colona residents are within the block of municipalities in the
24area and are more likely to share common interests with Rock
25Island County.
26    The southern and western portions of York Township,

 

 

HR0385- 196 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1following from north to south along the logical boundary of
2Fairhaven Road, from west to east along the logical boundary of
3Scenic Bluff Road, and then southwest to the Carroll/Whiteside
4county line along the natural border of the Otter Creek River,
5are included to take in the community of Thomson, keeping the
6community intact and within proposed RD 71, as the city is in
7current RD 71.
8    Interstate 88 runs through the center of proposed RD 71,
9connecting Sterling and Rock Falls with the southern part of
10the district in Rock Island County. Route 84 runs north/south
11through much of the district along the Mississippi River,
12connecting the communities of Savanna, Thomson, Fulton,
13Albany, Cordova, Port Byron, Rapids City, Hampton and Silvis.
14Highway 30 links Rock Falls with Fulton on the Mississippi
15River and Interstate 74 provides a boundary in the Rock Island
16County portion of proposed RD 71. Through this road system,
17Quad Cities is a regional center for employment, medical care,
18shopping, and recreation.
19    Moline's split occurs at Interstate 74, which serves as the
20western border within the community while the Avenue of the
21Cities is the northern border. Proposed RD 71's northern border
22in East Moline is also formed by the Avenue of the Cities, but
23the western border is created by 158th Street. North of the
24Avenue of the Cities are the major urban areas of Moline and
25East Moline. In this regard, this split is logical just as it
26was for the split that exists in South Moline Township.

 

 

HR0385- 197 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    The Mississippi River forms the western boundary for a
2majority of proposed RD 71 and is a driving force for the local
3economy. Proposed RD 71's boundaries in the Quad Cities area
4are more nuanced but based on the idea of preserving the
5urban-centered community of interest that exists in proposed RD
672 and the more rural/suburban community of interest in RD 71.
7    Proposed RD 71 also maintains a strong urban/agricultural
8mix that exists under current RD 71, although it is slightly
9modified to protect agricultural communities of interest.
10Decreasing the total number of residents in urban areas in
11proposed RD 71 provides for greater representation for the
12agricultural communities of interest that exist in the many
13rural parts of proposed RD 71.
14    As proposed RD 71 is primarily agricultural, the district's
15residents in general share a common interest as it pertains to
16an economic engine, creating a community of interest. A number
17of testifiers at the House Redistricting Committee's hearings
18throughout the state spoke about the need to recognize an
19agricultural community of interest.
20    The following school districts are in proposed RD 71:
21Riverdale CUSD 100, Riverbend CUSD 2, Sterling CUSD 5,
22Prophetstown-Lydon-Tampico CUSD 3, West Carroll CUSD 314,
23Morrison CUSD 6, Geneseo CUSD 228, Orion CUSD 223, Moline Unit
24School District 40, Rock Island School District 41, Sherrard
25CUSD 200. The following elementary school districts are in
26proposed RD 71: Hampton School District 29, Colona School

 

 

HR0385- 198 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1District 190, Carbon Cliff-Barstow School District 36, Rock
2Falls Elementary School District 13, East Coloma School
3District 12, Riverdale School District 14, Montgomery CCSD,
4East Moline School District 7 and Silvis School District 34. By
5having several school districts in proposed RD 71, the district
6and communities are connected to one another. This sense of
7community identity is desirable in proposed RD 71 because it is
8comprised of smaller, more rural areas.
9    Urban areas exist in proposed RD 71, although to a lesser
10degree than under current RD 71. Compared to current RD 71,
11proposed RD 71 is significantly more rural, providing the
12agricultural community in proposed RD 71 greater strength in
13advocating for agriculture issues.
14    By taking in the additional portions of Whiteside County,
15proposed RD 71 unites the lower-middle income residents of
16Sterling and Rock Falls with similar wage earners in Savanna
17and Silvis. The combination of areas of lower-middle income
18residents on the east side and north side of proposed RD 71
19allows proposed RD 71 to reflect similar income patterns as
20current RD 71.
21    Proposed RD 71 maintains the majority of the core of
22current RD 71. The partisan composition is roughly the same to
23the current composition under current RD 71.
24    Proposed RD 71 has a 2.23% African American voting-age
25population, a 6.89% Hispanic voting-age population, and a 1.14%
26Asian voting-age population.
 

 

 

HR0385- 199 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 72
2    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 72 has a
3population of 101,862. Proposed RD 72 has a population of
4108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
5compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
6    Proposed RD 72 includes 73.24% of current RD 72. Proposed
7RD 72 locates the district entirely within Rock Island County
8to strengthen communities of interest and it utilizes existing
9commonly recognized boundaries in order to achieve equal
10population. The key differences between proposed RD 72 and
11current RD 72 include: proposed RD 72 will now be located
12entirely within Rock Island County; Hispanic and
13African-American communities of interest are represented by
14one representative; and the most rural portions of current RD
1572 are now part of generally more rural districts.
16    The "Quad Cities" region of Illinois has an established
17collective identity as a blue-collar community. This region is
18comprised of the municipalities of Rock Island, Moline and East
19Moline. To a large degree, what happens in one community is
20viewed as something occurring in the other towns of the Quad
21Cities. In that spirit, proposed RD 72 incorporates additional
22portions of the Quad Cities while removing rural areas whose
23interests are not as similar. The further one gets from the
24Quad Cities, the less connected they become to the Quad Cities.
25    Within the Quad Cities region there are also other unique

 

 

HR0385- 200 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1identities that connect communities together, including shared
2professions and socioeconomic status, as well as the common
3interest shared by individuals residing in an urban area that
4is closely tied with the Mississippi River. Proposed RD 72 is
5comprised of the cities of Andalusia, Coyne Center, East
6Moline, Milan, Moline, Oak Grove, Rock Island, and Silvis. It
7contains a mixture of urban and agricultural areas. In the Quad
8Cities area, the municipalities of Rock Island, Moline, East
9Moline, Silvis and Milan are more densely populated, while
10outlying areas are more rural in nature. Proposed RD 72 removes
11some of the rural areas, which were in the southern end of
12current RD 72 in favor of additional urban areas in Moline,
13East Moline and Silvis. These changes make proposed RD 72 more
14uniform.
15    Proposed RD 72 uses township divisions and natural
16boundaries. Proposed RD 72 contains the following townships in
17their entirety: Andalusia, Bowling, Buffalo Prairie, Drury,
18Edgington, Moline, Rock Island and South Rock Island. Drury,
19Buffalo Prairie, Andalusia, Moline, South Rock Island and Rock
20Island townships all share a common characteristic of bordering
21the Mississippi River, the major economic engine for the entire
22region.
23    Four townships are split under proposed RD 72: Blackhawk,
24Coal Valley, South Moline, and Hampton. The western portion of
25Blackhawk Township is in proposed RD 72 and a small portion of
26the eastern portion is in proposed RD 71. This division occurs

 

 

HR0385- 201 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1along 10th Avenue E/Knoxville Road, a well-travelled
2thoroughfare, along the Rock River and the municipal boundaries
3of the community of Milan. This split puts the more rural areas
4of Blackhawk Township in proposed RD 71 and keeps the
5municipality of Milan in proposed RD 72, as it is in current RD
672. Proposed RD 72 in Coal Valley Township, which is split by a
7river, contains four uninhabited census blocks to keep the Rock
8River as a natural border between proposed RD 72 and proposed
9RD 71. Proposed RD 72 contains the area of Moline Township
10north of the Avenue of the Cities, a major local thoroughfare
11and logical divider, and west of I-74, using major roadways as
12a division within the township. South Moline Township north of
13the Avenue of the Cities is in proposed RD 72; South Moline
14Township south of the Avenue of the Cities is in proposed RD
1571. Proposed RD 72 contains the southwestern portion of Hampton
16Township in order to keep more of the city of East Moline in
17one district. Parts of the city of Silvis west of Samuelson
18Drive and north of 5th Avenue account for the other portion of
19Hampton Township in proposed RD 72 to achieve equal population.
20    Moline's split occurs at I-74, which serves as the eastern
21border within the community and the Avenue of the Cities as the
22southern border. Proposed RD 72's southern border in East
23Moline is formed by the Avenue of the Cities and the eastern
24border is created by 158th Street. North of the Avenue of the
25Cities is the major urban area of Moline and East Moline. Since
26Moline and East Moline are more urban and Hispanic, they are

 

 

HR0385- 202 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1included in proposed RD 72 with other urban and Hispanic areas.
2    Parts of Silvis west of Samuelson Drive and north of 5th
3Avenue are contained within proposed RD 72. This division
4exists to keep the Hispanic population as a community of
5interest in the same district with other Hispanics, mainly in
6East Moline and Moline. By moving RD 72's boundaries east
7within the Quad Cities, the proposed district keeps together a
8community of interest of low income residents that exist in the
9mainly urban areas of Rock Island, East Moline, Moline and
10Silvis, which is split along a major roadway and census blocks
11to achieve equal population. This community of interest, which
12includes dense populations of African Americans and Hispanic
13residents, shares a socioeconomic status and housing stock.
14They also have commonalities related to recreational
15activities, shopping and travel activities and in the fact that
16they inhabit an urban area of the Mississippi River.
17    An example of the different connections between Quad Cities
18residents can be seen in Silvis. The western portion of the
19community has a larger Hispanic population than the eastern
20portion. For this reason, proposed RD 72 was drawn to include
21the western precincts of Silvis in proposed RD 72, where many
22other Hispanics will be represented. While the community of
23Silvis is split, the dividing line is drawn to keep the western
24portion of the town that has a greater Hispanic population
25within proposed RD 72, providing a stronger community of
26interest. Proposed RD 72 also preserves the Hispanic community

 

 

HR0385- 203 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1of interest that exists in Rock Island, Moline and East Moline.
2    Proposed RD 72 keeps together Rock Island's African
3American populations and joins together much of the region's
4Hispanic population into one district, rather than two as under
5current RD 72. The boundaries of proposed RD 72 keep African
6Americans together as a community of interest, specifically in
7western Rock Island, western Moline, and southern Hampton
8Township.
9    Proposed RD 72 has some major transportation avenues.
10Interstates 280 and 74 run through the northern part of
11proposed RD 72, and I-74 serves as a natural border with
12proposed RD 71 at a small portion on the east within the city
13of Moline. The close proximity of these thoroughfares, along
14with the addition of the Burlington Northern Railroad running
15though the district's northern end, connecting Rock Island,
16Moline and East Moline, create a major economic center and
17engine for the region.
18    The communities in proposed RD 72 share a lot of the same
19services and values and interact with each other on a daily
20basis, which is demonstrated by the street system's layout. For
21example, 12th Avenue in Rock Island runs through Moline and
22East Moline and into Silvis, eventually becoming 30th Avenue.
23It is this street grid that has allowed a lot of movement of
24people from one community to the next as they go to work, shop
25or visit family and friends. Many people also have to pass
26through another community to reach one of the bridges that

 

 

HR0385- 204 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1leads to Iowa, another common destination for work and
2recreation.
3    Proposed RD 72 lies within the Peoria Catholic Diocese, the
4309 area code, and the Davenport-Rock Island-Moline media
5market-all distinctions carried over from current RD 72. In
6addition, proposed RD 72 is entirely served by IDOT District 2,
7whereas current RD 72 is split between two IDOT districts. The
8communities of Rock Island, Milan, Moline and East Moline are
9served by the MetroLink bus service. Proposed RD 72 contains
10one regional airport authority in Moline, is represented by the
11Tri-City Building Trades, operates on the Bi-State Regional
12Commission and is covered by the Moline office of the
13Department of Employment Security. All of these
14characteristics are carried over from current RD 72. Proposed
15RD 72 will be entirely in the Regional Office of Education Area
16II. Current RD 72 is divided between two ROE areas.
17    The areas of the Quad Cities region with the lowest median
18income (below $44,205) are almost exclusively located within
19proposed RD 72, and the entire proposed RD 72 can be described
20as predominately middle-income.
21    Proposed RD 72 maintains a substantial majority of the
22population in current RD 72 to maintain incumbent-constituent
23relationships that have developed over four election cycles.
24The partisan composition is similar to the current composition
25under current RD 72.
26    Proposed RD 72 includes an African American voting-age

 

 

HR0385- 205 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population of 9.63%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
210.65%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.48%.
 
3    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 73
4    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 73 has a
5population of 117,527. Proposed RD 73 has a population of
6108,734, the equal population target, and is therefore
7compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle.
8    Of the population in proposed RD 73, 86.35% live in current
9RD 73. Proposed RD 73 includes portions of Bureau, LaSalle,
10Woodford and Peoria counties and all of Stark and Marshall
11counties. Many of current and proposed RD 73's borders are
12based on county and township boundaries. Proposed RD 73's
13western border begins on the Peoria-Knox County border in
14Elmwood Township and heads north, ultimately following the
15Stark-Knox County border. The border then extends east in
16southern Bureau County along the Mineral Township line. The
17district turns north on Illinois Route 40, intersecting the
18small community of Buda along the highway. The border then
19moves east along U.S. Highway 6/34, veering slightly to keep
20the entirety of the community of Wyanet in proposed RD 73. As
21the border moves east, it veers south of Princeton to keep the
22town entirely within neighboring proposed RD 74. The border
23then turns south along the Princeton Township line until
24reaching the Putnam-Bureau County line. Proposed RD 73 moves
25east along the Putnam-Marshall County line, then turns north,

 

 

HR0385- 206 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1east and south along township lines in LaSalle County. Heading
2south along the LaSalle County line, the border turns west
3along the Woodford County line before moving south along the
4Cazenovia and Metamora townships lines. Proposed RD 73 then
5heads east into the community of Roanoke to add population
6before heading back to the Illinois River along the Woodford
7County line.
8    Proposed RD 73's district line around Peoria loosely
9follows Northmoor Road west and then moves south generally
10along the Peoria city limits, before heading west along the
11Kickapoo Township line. Proposed RD 73 comes to a close along
12the Kickapoo, Rosefield, and Elmwood township lines in Peoria
13County.
14    Proposed RD 73 also recedes completely out of three
15townships in southern Peoria County: Trivoli, Logan and
16Limestone. Importantly, proposed RD 73 also recedes out of the
17Peoria County community of Bartonville, which has two
18representatives under proposed map, as opposed to three
19representatives as currently exists.
20    Proposed RD 73 adds all of Stark County. The small
21adjustment in Bureau County is to achieve equal population
22while keeping the large community of Princeton whole in a
23neighboring district. The additional townships in LaSalle
24County are added to achieve equal population and are largely
25rural, like much of the district. Proposed RD 73 recedes out of
26the community of Minonk, which is split in current RD 73.

 

 

HR0385- 207 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Finally, in Woodford County, the district recedes out of the
2community of Eureka completely, which is spilt in current RD
373.
4    Current and proposed RD 73 preserves many townships in
5their entirety, something that is important in rural areas of
6Illinois where a number of citizens rely on township services.
7These rural residents form a community of interest recognized
8in current and proposed RD 73.
9    Agriculture, another community of interest, plays a large
10role in current and proposed RD 73 and is a major economic
11engine that impacts many residents in proposed RD 73.
12    Proposed RD 73 also has a community of interest based on
13income that is manifested around the city of Peoria. These
14residents are largely white-collar professionals earning
15upper-middle incomes who have relocated to the northern portion
16of Peoria or into communities such as Chillicothe and Dunlap
17because of shared interests, such as desire for a quiet
18lifestyle, safe neighborhoods, and access to quality
19education.
20    The Illinois River is a vital part of current and proposed
21RD 73 and is essential to the livelihood of local residents and
22businesses. The river is used to transport agricultural and
23industrial products and draws in tourists and outdoor
24recreationists who contribute to the local economy.
25    Proposed RD 73 maintains a substantial majority of the core
26of current RD 73 and preserves the incumbent-constituent

 

 

HR0385- 208 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1relationship that has existed over decades of the same
2representation. The partisan composition is roughly the same to
3the current composition under current RD 73.
4    Proposed RD 73 has an African American voting-age
5population of 2.14%, a Hispanic voting-age population of 1.60%,
6and an Asian voting-age population of 3.77%.
 
7    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 74
8    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 74 has a
9population of 100,949. Proposed RD 74 has a population of
10108,735, the equal population target, and is therefore
11compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
12RD 74 is different in shape from current RD 74 due, in part, to
13population shifts and the need to increase the total population
14of the district.
15    Of the population in proposed RD 74, 63.64% reside in
16current RD 74. Proposed RD 74 follows township and county
17borders as much as possible while also maintaining communities
18of interest and socioeconomic and cultural commonalities found
19in current RD 74. Proposed RD 74 also reflects an effort to
20keep Mercer County intact and together with Henry County to the
21extent possible.
22    Proposed RD 74 contains all of Mercer County, most of
23Henry, Knox, and Bureau Counties, and the southwestern quadrant
24of Lee County. Mercer County, which is currently split between
25two representative districts, is kept together in proposed RD

 

 

HR0385- 209 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

174, and Henry County, currently split between three
2representative districts, is kept mostly intact in proposed RD
346. As close as practicably possible, proposed RD 74 follows
4township borders and major causeways to maintain
5commonalities, create reasonably homogeneous socioeconomic
6characteristics, and maintain agricultural communities of
7interest found in current RD 74.
8    The southern border of proposed RD 74 follows township
9lines to Chestnut Township, where it diverts north to Knox
10Township. A township split occurs between Knox and Galesburg
11townships following Highway 74, maintaining the northern half
12of the city of Galesburg in proposed RD 74 by proceeding down
13primary thoroughfare of Main Street in Galesburg to the western
14end of Galesburg Township. Galesburg is split along
15socioeconomic lines, with the north side middle-income earners
16($44,000 to $68,000) and the south side lower-income earners
17($2,499 to $44,000).
18    Proposed RD 74 then moves north to North Henderson Township
19where it shifts west following Mercer County and township
20borders to the Mississippi River. Proposed RD 74 incorporates
21Mercer County by following the Mississippi River north and
22moving east at Eliza Township to Richland Grove Township where
23Henry County begins. Proposed RD 74 splits a small portion of
24Henry County between the river communities in Colona and Hamm
25townships and the primarily agricultural communities of Henry
26County in proposed RD 74.

 

 

HR0385- 210 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    Proposed RD 74 then follows the northern border of Henry
2County east from Phenix Township until Greenville Township,
3where it moves north along the Lee County line to incorporate
4socioeconomic and agricultural communities similar to those
5found in Mercer and Knox counties. Proposed RD 74 continues to
6follow township borders before splitting Amboy and Sublette
7Townships to follow Highway 52. Proposed RD 74 continues to
8follow the Bureau County and township borders before heading
9west to increase population by keeping Princeton mainly whole
10and following major transportation path U.S. Route 34 through
11Wyanet and Concord townships. Proposed RD 74's boundary resumes
12following township boundary lines as it moves west and south
13back to Salem Township. Stark County, which is a part of
14current RD 74, is shifted in its entirety into the adjoining
15proposed RD 73.
16    Proposed RD 74 preserves agricultural and small town
17communities of interest by keeping as many townships and
18municipalities as possible intact. Many of the municipalities
19in current and proposed RD 74 are rural, non-densely populated
20areas found in between the urban, more-densely populated river
21cities of Rock Island to the northwest and Peoria to the
22southeast. The relatively homogeneous socioeconomic and
23population density characteristics of proposed RD 74 are
24consistent with current RD 74.
25    Proposed RD 74 maintains the majority of the core of
26current RD 74 and preserves the incumbent-constituent

 

 

HR0385- 211 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1relationship that has existed for 18 years. The partisan
2composition is similar to the current composition under current
3RD 74.
4    Proposed RD 74 contains a 1.33% African American voting-age
5population, a 2.46% Hispanic voting-age population, and a 0.50%
6Asian American voting-age population.
 
7    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 75
8    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 75 has a
9population of 125,585. Proposed RD 75 has a population of
10108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
11compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
12RD 75 is different in shape from current RD 75 due, in part, to
13population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
14of the district.
15    Proposed RD 75 includes 60.55% of the residents current RD
1675. Proposed RD 75 removes portions of current RD 75 in LaSalle
17County and all of Kankakee, Iroquois, and Livingston counties
18in the current RD 75 and adds population in Kendall County that
19is in current RD 50. In doing so, proposed RD 75 becomes a more
20compact district while preserving communities of interest and
21achieving equal population.
22    The boundaries of proposed RD 75 mostly conform to township
23boundaries. The Kendall County portion of proposed RD 75
24follows township boundaries, except in Kendall Township where
25most of the municipality of Yorkville is kept intact in a

 

 

HR0385- 212 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1neighboring representative district. The northern border of
2proposed RD 75 follows the Little Rock Township line east and
3south until Plano, where it follows Highway 34 and Needham
4Road, Hale Road, and Schaefer Road.
5    The northeastern border of proposed RD 75 begins at the
6northeast corner of Na-Au-Say Township in Kendall County and
7runs south to Channahon Township, where the district extends
8east and then travels south along a waterway off the Des
9Plaines River and Route 6 before running along the Aux Sable
10Township border, the Wilmington Township border in Will County,
11Goodwin Road, through the southeast corner of Florence
12Township, and south down the eastern border of Wesley Township.
13    The southern border of proposed RD 75 follows exclusively
14along township boundaries. Along the western border, proposed
15RD 75 splits Otter Creek Township in LaSalle County, keeping
16the municipality of Streator within proposed RD 76, as it is in
17current RD 76. Manlius Township is split along E. 27th Road
18until the road hits Highway 6, at which point the border
19extends westward, with the western portion of Manlius Township
20in proposed RD 76. This allows proposed RD 76 to contain the
21developed parts of the city of Marseilles.
22    The Illinois River, a major tributary of the Mississippi
23River, begins in proposed RD 75 in eastern Grundy County, at
24the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee rivers. Proposed
25RD 75 also includes the Kankakee River.
26    Proposed RD 75 moves out of more rural areas and becomes a

 

 

HR0385- 213 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1representative district that will become more suburban over the
2next 10 years. The area has experienced dramatic growth over
3the past several years and this growth will likely continue.
4The communities in proposed RD 75 face similar issues with new
5planned developments, sewer and water issues, and road
6construction, just to name a few. The Channahon/Minooka area of
7current RD 75 is currently experiencing this rapid growth.
8Keeping many of these communities together in proposed RD 75 as
9they continue dealing with these issues over the next decade
10will benefit the region. Proposed RD 75 is a solidly middle
11class district with a median income ranging from $44,000 -
12$99,000.
13    Proposed RD 75 maintains a majority of the core from
14current RD 75. The partisan composition is roughly the same as
15the current composition under current RD 75.
16    Proposed RD 75 includes a 3.19% African-American
17voting-age population, 27.63% Hispanic voting-age population,
18and a 1.12% Asian voting-age population.
 
19    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 76
20    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 76 has a
21population of 105,699. Proposed RD 76 has a population of
22108,735, the equal-population target, and is therefore
23compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
24RD 76 is different in shape from current RD 76 due, in part, to
25population shifts and the need to increase the total population

 

 

HR0385- 214 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1of the district.
2    Of the population in proposed RD 76, 90.81% reside in
3current RD 76. Proposed RD 76 has few changes from current RD
476, keeping intact the communities of interest and
5commonalities of the current district. Proposed RD 76 keeps
6townships as intact as possible and keeps the same number of
7counties as current RD 76. The core of proposed RD 76 remains
8in western LaSalle County, as it is in current RD 76. Proposed
9RD 76 expands slightly at its northwest corner, gaining two
10full townships and the western portion of a third township, and
11it loses territory in its northern portion and southeast
12portion.
13    Proposed RD 76 contains all of Putnam County and portions
14of Bureau, LaSalle and Livingston counties. The same counties
15within current RD 76 are in proposed RD 76. Proposed RD 76
16contains all the townships of Berlin, Brace, Deer Park, Dayton,
17Dimmick, Eagle, Eden, Fall River, Farm Ridge, Grand Rapids,
18Granville, Hall, Hennepin, LaSalle, Leepertown, Magnolia,
19Ophir, Ottawa, Peru, Rutland, Senachwine, Serena, South
20Ottawa, Troy Grove, Utica, Vermillion, Wallace, Waltham, and
21Westfield. Portions of the townships of Mendota, Reading, Otter
22Creek, and Manlius are in proposed RD 76.
23    The township splits occur along geographic boundaries.
24Mendota Township is split along Highway 34, with the southern
25portion in proposed RD 76. Manlius Township is split along E.
2627th Road until the road hits Highway 6, at which point the

 

 

HR0385- 215 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1border turn westward, with the western portion of Manlius
2Township in proposed RD 76. This allows proposed RD 76 to
3contain the developed parts of the city of Marseilles. Otter
4Creek Township is split, keeping the municipality of Streator
5within proposed RD 76, as in current RD 76. Reading Township is
6split, keeping Streator intact with the northern half of the
7township in proposed RD 76. The portion where the southern
8border of proposed RD 76 deviates from a straight east/west
9line is in order to ensure equal population.
10    Proposed RD 76 contains all the municipalities of
11Arlington, Bureau Junction, Cedar Point, Cherry, Dalzell,
12Dayton, Grand Ridge, Granville, Hennepin, Hollowayville,
13Kangley, Ladd, LaSalle, Magnolia, Malden, Mark, McNabb, North
14Utica, Oglesby, Ottawa, Peru, Seatonville, Spring Valley,
15Standard, Streator, Tonica, and Troy Grove. The municipalities
16of Dover, Marseilles, and Mendota are split in proposed RD 76.
17Proposed RD 76 was drawn to keep Ottawa intact and within one
18district. Proposed RD 76 also keeps the municipality of Dayton
19intact, though in current RD 76 it is split. In municipalities
20that did not remain intact in proposed RD 76, the split occurs
21along a natural boundary (Illinois River), a logical boundary
22(IL 34), or keeps a split that is present in current RD 76.
23Marseilles is split along the Illinois River, with the northern
24portion in proposed RD 76. The more developed part of the city
25is kept together in proposed RD 76 so the bulk of the populace
26remains in one district. Mendota is split along U.S. Highway

 

 

HR0385- 216 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

134, with the southern portion in proposed RD 76. As under
2current RD 76, Dover is split along a township boundary in
3proposed RD 76.
4    Proposed RD 76 preserves the agricultural communities of
5interest by keeping as many towns and townships as possible
6intact. Many of the municipalities in current and proposed RD
776 are river communities, placed at various points along the
8Illinois, Fox and Vermillion Rivers and thus sharing similar
9geographic and economic characteristics. These communities are
10also connected by the crossroads of the region, the point at
11which Interstates 80 and 39 meet near LaSalle, which creates an
12economic center that remains intact in proposed RD 76.
13    Proposed RD 76 is a major water district, as is current RD
1476. It includes the Illinois, Fox, and Vermillion Rivers, the
15Illinois and Michigan (I & M) Canal, and Senachwine Lake. These
16waterways create natural boundaries and commonalities among
17communities in proposed RD 76. Communities in proposed RD 76
18rely upon these waterways for tourism dollars and commerce. The
19Illinois River runs east/west through the center of proposed RD
2076, just south of I-80, from Marseilles to Putnam County as it
21flows towards the Mississippi River. It serves as a natural
22boundary of the proposed RD 76 at Marseilles in Manlius
23Township, which is why proposed RD 76 was drawn as it was. The
24Fox River serves as a district and township border in Serena
25Township. In addition to a number of water recreation
26opportunities, the region includes other points of recreation

 

 

HR0385- 217 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1on which to rely for tourism dollars. The tourist attractions
2of Starved Rock State Park, Matthiessen State Park, and the
3national historic site of Washington Park in Ottawa are
4included in proposed RD 76.
5    Proposed RD 76 has homogeneous socioeconomic
6characteristics. While portions of LaSalle County and Putnam
7County have higher median household incomes, the median
8household income in proposed RD 76 still ranges from around
9$44,000 to about $99,000. Overall, proposed RD 76 is
10overwhelmingly middle class. These socioeconomic
11characteristics are consistent with current RD 76.
12    Proposed RD 76 maintains similar housing patterns as
13current RD 76, with greater levels of vacant housing in western
14Putnam County and southern Bureau County and in the
15municipalities of Ottawa, Streator, and LaSalle.
16    Proposed RD 76 maintains the vast majority of the core of
17current RD 76 and preserves the incumbent-constituent
18relationship that has existed over two decades. The partisan
19composition is similar to the current composition while
20increasing slightly under current RD 76.
21    The African American voting-age population in proposed RD
2276 is 1.06%, the Hispanic voting-age population is 7.26%, and
23the Asian voting-age population is 0.82%.
 
24    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 77
25    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 77 has a

 

 

HR0385- 218 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population of 100,987. Proposed RD 77 has a population of
2108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
3compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
4RD 77 is different in shape from current RD 77 due, in part, to
5population shifts and the need to increase the total population
6of the district.
7    Proposed RD 77 contains portions of current RDs 7, 46, 65,
866, 77, and 78. Proposed RD 77 continues to keep O'Hare
9Airport, which occupies a considerable geographic footprint
10and impacts the daily lives of local residents in the district
11and many of the surrounding areas contained in current RD 77.
12Proposed RD 77 shifts west as districts to the east needed to
13pick up population; it also shifts south so that the majority
14of the municipalities of Melrose Park and Northlake, and all of
15Stone Park, are each within one district. Many of those
16communities that are in current RD 77 are also maintained
17within one district, whether that is proposed RD 77 or a
18proposed neighboring district. Proposed RD 77 also increases
19the Hispanic voting-age population to 50.64% from current RD 77
20Hispanic voting-age population of 30.24%.
21    The communities within proposed RD 77 are tied economically
22to O'Hare Airport and the extensive network of freight train
23lines and roadways that run through the area, such as
24Interstate Highways 90, 290 and 294. Businesses that have
25developed around O'Hare rely on these different methods of
26transportation to move their goods, creating a commercial

 

 

HR0385- 219 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1community of interest that is preserved by proposed RD 77.
2    The border of proposed RD 77 moved west to the eastern
3border of O'Hare Airport due in part to the need for proposed
4districts to the east to increase population. The Village of
5Schiller Park, which is in current RD 77, is not in proposed RD
677; instead it is entirely within proposed RD 20. Similarly,
7the majority of the Village of Rosemont is removed, allowing it
8to be nearly all within proposed RD 20. A small part of
9Rosemont, at the northeast corner of O'Hare that is in current
10RD 65, is added instead to proposed RD 77 because it is tied
11closely to O'Hare and has a sizable Hispanic population.
12    South of the River Road border is the eastern section of
13current RD 77. Due to the need of proposed districts coming
14from the east to gain population, the eastern most portion of
15current RD 77 could not be included in proposed RD 77. Instead,
16Elmwood Park and River Forest are almost completely within the
17borders of proposed RD 78. Effort was taken to maintain the
18residential areas of each of these communities wholly within
19one representative district, as they are in current RD 77.
20    The southern border of proposed RD 77 deviates from current
21RD 77 and encompasses a pocket of Hispanic residents in Maywood
22as well as the vast majority of Melrose Park. Under proposed RD
2377, the entire residential area of Melrose Park is within the
24district, with only a small section excluded. The Village of
25Stone Park is entirely within proposed RD 77. Both Melrose Park
26and Stone Park have sizeable Hispanic populations that form a

 

 

HR0385- 220 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1community of interest with those in the area of Maywood
2incorporated into proposed RD 77.
3    Currently, the City of Northlake is divided between three
4representative districts, including current RD 77. All of the
5residential areas of Northlake are included in proposed RD 77.
6The pressure from districts to the east to add residents to
7achieve equal population required the Village of Franklin Park
8to be divided between proposed RDs 77, 78 and, to a lesser
9extent, 20.
10    Proposed RD 77 allows Elmhurst to be almost entirely within
11proposed RD 47. Proposed RD 77 contains a majority of the
12Village of Addison, which has a significant concentration of
13Hispanic residents. Proposed RD 7 includes the entirety of
14Bensenville and a section of Wood Dale that include the
15intersection of Route 83 and Irving Park Road and a Hispanic
16concentration.
17    From a socioeconomic perspective, the district is fairly
18homogeneous, with the median annual income in most of the
19district between $44,000 and $68,000. Smaller pockets in the
20north of the district have an income range of $68,000 to
21$98,000 and those in the southeast report median incomes less
22than $44,000. Proposed RD 77 preserves a "working class"
23community of interest.
24    At the House redistricting hearing held in Springfield on
25April 25, 2011, Yesenia Sanchez of PASO: West Suburban Action
26Project, testified that the western suburbs need a House

 

 

HR0385- 221 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1district to represent the substantial Hispanic community of
2interest found across Addison, Franklin Park, Maywood, Melrose
3Park, Northlake, and Stone Park, that is interested in
4addressing issues of language barriers, immigration, and
5access to government services. Similarly, at the same hearing
6Martin Torres of the Latino Policy Forum explained that
7Franklin Park could be the nucleus around which a west suburban
8majority Hispanic district could be built. Such a district
9would also connect Latinos living in municipalities within
10proposed RD 77 with those living in unincorporated areas who
11find themselves less represented by local government.
12    The partisan advantage in proposed RD 77 favors Democrats.
13    Proposed RD 77 contains a 3.68% African American voting-age
14population, 50.62% Hispanic voting-age population, and 3.80%
15Asian voting-age population.
 
16    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 78
17    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 78 has a
18population of 100,580. Proposed RD 78 has a population of
19108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore
20compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
21RD 78 is different in shape from current RD 78 due, in part, to
22population shifts and the need to increase the total population
23of the district.
24    Of population in the proposed RD 78, 54.87% reside in
25current RD 78. Proposed RD 78 shifts northwest to add

 

 

HR0385- 222 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1population, while maintaining the cores of multiple cities that
2are similar.
3    Like current RD 78, proposed RD 78 contains the western
4portion of the Austin neighborhood in Chicago and the majority
5of Oak Park in suburban Cook County, with a border in this area
6still following the Milwaukee railroad on the north, and
7borders of North Central Avenue to the east, and Harlem Avenue
8to the west. West of Harlem Avenue, proposed RD 78 shifts north
9and northwest to encompass the majority of three suburban
10communities, gain population, and preserve communities of
11interest within a single district. Current RD 78 contains
12portions of six different municipalities west of Harlem Avenue.
13In contrast, proposed RD 78 includes the majority of only three
14municipalities to the west of Harlem Avenue, splitting fewer
15towns than current RD 78.
16    Proposed RD 78 contains the majority of four suburban
17municipalities, including Elmwood Park, Franklin Park, Oak
18Park, and River Grove in Cook County, and portions of City of
19Chicago Wards 29, 36, and 37. Current RD 78 includes portions
20of those wards and the 28th Ward, which is removed for
21population purposes and to preserve a community of interest.
22Proposed RD 78 contains a small commercial portion of Melrose
23Park, but there are no residents in this area. Like current RD
2478, proposed RD 78 contains portions of Leyden and Oak Park
25townships; however, unlike current RD 78, proposed RD 78
26contains no portion of River Forest Township and only the

 

 

HR0385- 223 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1commercial portion of Melrose Park in Proviso Township. Thus,
2proposed RD 78 splits fewer townships than current RD 78.
3    The suburban communities of Elmwood Park, Franklin Park,
4and River Grove are contiguous and more similar demographically
5to each other than to the western suburbs in current RD 78.
6Proposed RD 78 has almost all of Elmwood Park and River Grove,
7but divides Franklin Park along socioeconomic lines. A
8significant portion of the wealthiest parts of Franklin Park,
9with a median income between $65,000 and $75,000, is kept in
10proposed RD 78, as this area is more economically similar to
11parts of Oak Park and north Austin in Chicago. Portions of
12Franklin Park not in proposed RD 78 have higher populations of
13Hispanic residents than areas in proposed RD 78, keeping
14proposed RD 78 more similar throughout and keeping larger
15Hispanic populations together in adjacent districts. Under
16proposed RD 78, Oak Park is split with proposed RD 8. In the
17current map, Oak Park is split among three representative
18districts.
19    In its southeastern corner, proposed RD 78 recedes from
20Chicago, removing portions of the Austin neighborhood that have
21lower median incomes than most of the rest of the district.
22Proposed RD 78 removes portions of Chicago with median incomes
23below $40,000, keeping a majority of the Austin neighborhood
24with a median income of $40,000 to $65,000. The western part of
25proposed RD 78 has a similar median income, with small portions
26exceeding $65,000. Oak Park and parts of Elmwood Park are

 

 

HR0385- 224 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1wealthier communities with a median income exceeding $75,000 in
2many areas.
3    Proposed RD 78 has several major regional transportation
4corridors. North-south roadways within proposed RD 78 include
51st Avenue, Austin Avenue, Harlem Avenue/Route 43, and Oak Park
6Avenue. East-west roadways include Belmont Avenue, Chicago
7Avenue, Grand Avenue, Fullerton Avenue, Lake Street and North
8Avenue/Route 64. Metra commuter rail serves proposed RD 78 on
9the following lines: Milwaukee District West Line, stopping at
10Galewood, Mars, Mont Clare, Elmwood Park, River Grove and
11Franklin Park; North Central Line, stopping at River Grove; and
12the Union Pacific West Line, stopping at Oak Park.
13Additionally, the CTA Green Line operates through the southern
14portion of proposed RD 78, with stops between Austin Avenue and
15the end of the line at Harlem Avenue. These transportation
16routes are major landmarks in proposed RD 78 and major commuter
17routes.
18    Half of the population within proposed RD 78 resides within
19current RD 78. The partisan composition of the incumbent party
20slightly decreases compared to the composition under current RD
2178.
22    Proposed RD 78 contains an African American voting-age
23population of 29.02%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
2413.20%, and an Asian voting-age population of 3.29%.
 
25    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 79

 

 

HR0385- 225 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1    According to the 2010 Census, current RD 79 has a
2population of 115,123. Proposed RD 79 has a population of
3108,734, the equal population target, and is therefore
4compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
5RD 79 is different in shape from current RD 79 due in part to
6population shifts and the need to reduce the total population
7of the district.
8    Current RD 79 encompasses a diverse range of communities,
9from the communities of Monee and University Park in the north
10to Bradley and Kankakee further south, as well as the
11agricultural areas of Iroquois County. Proposed RD 79 includes
1262.56% of current RD 79. Proposed RD 79 loses much of the areas
13tied to Chicago and its suburbs, and instead centers around and
14takes in nearly all of the adjoined municipalities of Kankakee,
15Bradley, and Bourbonnais, as well as many nearby small towns
16that are tied to those three municipalities economically,
17commercially, and through retail and health services.
18    Proposed RD 79 is also mostly within Kankakee County. The
19majority of the boundaries of proposed RD 79 follow township
20lines, but where townships have been divided, the boundary
21lines follow local roads or a natural waterway. It contains 14
22of the 17 townships in Kankakee County (12 in their entirety).
23Current RD 79 contains only 10 full townships and 2 partial
24townships within Kankakee County. Proposed RD 79 also contains
25sections of two Will County townships in and around Peotone on
26the border of Will and Kankakee counties; in contrast to

 

 

HR0385- 226 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1current RD 79, which has full or partial sections of seven Will
2County townships and four full Iroquois County townships. With
3these changes, proposed RD 79 is more rural and centered on
4Kankakee County in terms of population, jobs, and services than
5the current RD 79.
6    Much of the northern portion of current RD 79 is lost to
7the overall push southward of proposed representative
8districts on Chicago's south side and the south suburbs and
9their need to gain residents to achieve equal population. The
10northern areas of proposed RD 79 that were lost to this
11southward expansion from Chicago and south suburbs are more
12tied economically and socially to the suburban communities to
13the north than they are to the city of Kankakee.
14    The three municipalities of Kankakee, Bradley, and
15Bourbonnais, are intertwined with each other in most aspects,
16but are divided between current RD 79 and current RD 75. These
17three cities share common borders and essentially run together,
18which is a rarity in downstate Illinois. Except for a few
19streets in northern Burbonnais, proposed RD 79 keeps these
20municipalities within one representative district, as the
21three municipalities clustered together are the economic and
22social engine for much of Kankakee County.
23    The Grundy County municipalities of South Wilmington,
24Gardner, Coal City and Braceville that are within proposed RD
2579 are similar socioeconomically to the smaller Kankakee County
26communities of Essex, Herscher, Bonfield, Chebanse, and St.

 

 

HR0385- 227 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Anne in proposed RD 79. All the areas within proposed RD 79,
2with the exception of the African American communities, are
3predominately Caucasian with a median income of $44,000 to
4$99,000.
5    The African American population of proposed RD 79 is
6clustered in eastern Kankakee and Hopkins Park, which is to the
7east of Kankakee in Pembroke Township. Hopkins Park and other
8African American areas of Kankakee are tied together
9culturally, spiritually, and socioeconomically. The median
10income is no more than $44,000 in these areas; therefore, the
11communities are also linked by their predominant median income
12which falls below that of surrounding areas within the
13district.
14    A majority of the population in proposed RD 79 is from
15current RD 79. This preserves the incumbent-constituent
16relationship that has existed over 4 election cycles. The
17partisan composition slightly decreases as compared to the
18current composition under current RD 79.
19    Proposed RD 79 contains an African American voting-age
20population of 14.30%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
216.94%, and an Asian voting-age population of 0.99%.
 
22    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 80
23    According to the 2010 census, current RD 80 has a
24population of 105,281. Proposed RD 80 has a population of
25108,734, the equal-population target, and is therefore

 

 

HR0385- 228 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1compliant with the "one person, one vote" principle. Proposed
2RD 80 is different in shape from current RD 80 due in part to
3population shifts and the need to increase the total population
4of the district.
5    Proposed RD 80 includes portions of Cook and Will counties
6and the communities of Glenwood, Chicago Heights, and South
7Chicago Heights. Proposed RD 80 includes 39.58% of current RD
880 and gains necessary population to the south and west. This
9is possible, and necessary, because of the considerable
10population growth in Will County that requires the reduction in
11size of several current representative districts.
12    In the Cook County portion of proposed RD 80, both Rich and
13Bloom townships are divided. The portion of Rich Township
14included in proposed RD 80 is still heavily African American
15and is very similar to the portion of Bloom Township included
16in proposed RD 80. The cities in the Rich Township portion of
17proposed RD 80 include most of Flossmoor, nearly all of Park
18Forest, and a significant portion of Olympia Fields. The
19portion of Bloom Township included in proposed RD 80 not only
20contains a large African American population, it also contains
21the areas with the most concentrated Hispanic population within
22proposed RD 80. This portion of Bloom Township is also included
23in current RD 80. Proposed RD 80 includes most of Chicago
24Heights and South Chicago Heights.
25    In the Will County portion of proposed RD 80, proposed RD
2680 contains the entirety of Manhattan and Green Garden

 

 

HR0385- 229 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1Townships, following the Manhattan Township boundary for part
2of the western border. Nearly all of Florence Township is
3included in proposed RD 80, with only the portion south of
4Kahler Road excluded from the district. The southern border
5following Kahler Road rejoins the Florence Township boundary at
6South Martin Long Road, and extends to the Rockville Township
7line. Proposed RD 80's southern border then follows local roads
8through Wilton and Peotone townships until the intersection of
9Peotone and Monee townships in Will County for purposes of
10equal population. The border of proposed RD 80 then heads north
11along Harlem Avenue, which serves as the eastern boundary of
12Peotone and Green Garden Townships. Monee and Crete townships
13are also partially within proposed RD 80. Monee Township is
14divided by West Monee Manhattan Road to keep the Monee
15Reservoir intact outside of the district. The border then
16follows South Governor's Highway northeast through the city of
17University Park to preserve some of the more industrial
18portions of the township in proposed RD 80. The district border
19then moves further east so that the entirety of Governor State
20University can be included in proposed RD 80, as well as a
21large portion of the residential areas of University Park.
22Proposed RD 80 then heads north and west around the outside of
23Laurel Park in Crete Township until it reaches Kings Grove
24Forest Preserve in Cook County. The other partial townships
25within Will County are New Lenox and Frankfort Townships.
26Proposed RD 80 reaches into New Lenox Township. The border then

 

 

HR0385- 230 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1follows Laraway Road until moving north to Route 74 for the
2entire length of Frankfort Township.
3    The majority of proposed RD 80 is middle class with a
4median income of $44,000 to $99,000, similar to current RD 80.
5Proposed RD 80 does gain some higher income areas in both Will
6and Cook Counties, while losing some lower income areas in Cook
7County. Thus, the overall median income is higher than in
8current RD 80.
9    Many of the residents of proposed RD 80 commute to their
10jobs either in Chicago, other south suburban communities, or
11the Joliet area. Transportation is a major issue as the area is
12currently underserved in mass transit, especially buses.
13Residents have few options, outside of driving, if they need to
14get to work in Chicago. The northeastern portion of proposed RD
1580 is served by the Metra Electric Line, which does not run 24
16hours a day.
17    Proposed RD 80 and current RD 80 have an almost identical
18partisan composition.
19    Proposed RD 80 reflects a shift in the African American
20population measured in the 2010 Census. Many African Americans
21have moved out of Chicago and further into the southern and
22western suburbs. The new portions of Will County included in
23proposed RD 80 have increased both their African American and
24Hispanic populations. Proposed RD 80 contains a unique
25community of interest of African American and Hispanic families
26who have generally chosen to leave the city for better housing

 

 

HR0385- 231 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1and educational opportunities in the suburbs. In addition to
2keeping a minority community of interest together, the area is
3increasing in population quickly. These towns and cities form a
4community of interest of fast-growth communities that are
5dealing with urban planning, transportation, and government
6services issues related to a rapid expansion in population.
7    Proposed RD 80 contains an African American voting-age
8population of 34.72%, a Hispanic voting-age population of
912.04%, and an Asian voting-age population of 1.14%.
 
10    REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 81
11    Proposed RD 81 contains a population of 108,735, the
12equal-population target, and is therefore compliant with the
13"one person, one vote" principle. Several districts shifted due
14to population issues, and thus proposed RD 81 contains portions
15of 4 current representative districts. Proposed RD 81 contains
16large portions of current RDs 47 and 48, as well as small
17portions of RDs 42 and 82.
18    Proposed RD 81 is in Will and DuPage counties and contains
19a substantial portion of Downers Grove as well as portions of
20Lisle, Milton, and Downers Grove townships in DuPage County and
21DuPage Township in Will County. Proposed RD 81 includes the
22municipalities of Bolingbrook, Downers Grove, Darien, Lisle,
23Naperville, Westmont, and Woodridge. These additions are
24necessary to attain the equal population target.
25    Proposed RD 81 is a district of heavy residential

 

 

HR0385- 232 -LRB097 12175 RCE 56393 r

1development but works to cater to a recreational community of
2interest with the Greene Valley Forest Preserve, Four Lakes
3Village (for snowboarding and skiing), and the Lisle Park
4District Golf Course.
5    The entire proposed RD 81 has similar socioeconomic
6characteristics and has a median income of $99,000 to $148,000.
7These upper middle income households comprise the majority of
8the areas on both side of Interstate 355, which runs through
9the center of proposed RD 81.
10    The partisan composition is roughly similar to the current
11composition of the portions of the districts that create
12proposed RD 81.
13    A section of the southern boundary is extended to include
14an Asian neighborhood with similar economic and cultural
15interests. Proposed RD 81 contains an African American
16voting-age population of 4.18%, an Asian voting-age population
17of 9.75%, and a Hispanic voting-age population of 5.69%.
 
18    <