Quinn v. State of Illinois

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ action under section 2 of Voting Rights Act (Act), alleging that procedure set forth in City of Chicago that allows its Mayor to appoint (as opposed to citizens being allowed to vote for) members of City’s School Board deprives black and Latino citizens of their right to vote. Section 2 of said Act does not guarantee that any given public office be filled by election rather than by appointment, civil service system, or some other means, and no court has understood section 2 of said Act to require that any office be filled by election. As such, instant appointive positions are outside scope of Section 2 of said Act. Moreover, plaintiffs could not establish Equal Protection Clause claim, where: (1) Ct. in Sailors, 387 U.S. 105 found that appointing school board members was constitutionally permissible; and (2) all citizens of Chicago have equal influence by voting for Mayor, who, in turn, appoints school board members. Ct. also noted that instant dispute was not whether black and Latino voters’ influence was diluted by casting ballots in size of jurisdiction of Chicago.