Illinois 2025-2026 Regular Session

Illinois Senate Bill SB1660

Introduced
2/5/25  
Refer
2/5/25  
Refer
2/18/25  

Caption

ELEC CD-VOTERS PER PRECINCT

Summary

SB1660 amends the Illinois Election Code to change how election precincts are drawn and maintained. For most counties outside Cook County, county boards would still divide precincts at their June or July meeting, but the target size would be based on 1,200 registered voters who actually cast an in-person ballot in the most recent general election, rather than 1,200 registered voters generally. For election authorities covered by Article 6, the bill also updates the precinct-sizing rules after each decennial census and redistricting, setting the general target at 1,800 registered voters and making conforming changes throughout the precinct provisions. The bill keeps existing requirements that precincts be compact, contiguous, and aligned with congressional, legislative, county board, and ward boundaries where practicable. It also retains the current rules for post-election precinct revision, annexation-related changes, special polling-place procedures, and limited reassignment of voters in very small precincts for local or school elections. In practical terms, the measure would shift precinct planning toward turnout-based sizing in some counties and preserve the larger 1,800-voter benchmark for other election authorities. The likely policy effect is administrative rather than substantive voting-rights reform: local election officials would need to use recent in-person turnout data when redrawing precincts in certain counties, which could alter precinct counts, polling-place assignments, and election administration workloads. The bill would affect county boards, boards of election commissioners, county clerks, and voters whose precinct boundaries or polling places are set under Sections 11-2 and 11-3 of the Election Code. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative debate or partisan split can be identified from the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears technical and administrative, with an emphasis on aligning precinct sizes more closely with actual voter participation and post-redistricting realities. Any contention would likely center on whether turnout-based precinct sizing improves efficiency or instead complicates redistricting and precinct management for local election authorities.

Impact

SB1660 would amend Sections 11-2 and 11-3 of the Election Code, changing the statutory basis for precinct sizing in certain counties from registered voters alone to registered voters who cast an in-person ballot in the most recent general election, while preserving the 1,800-voter standard for election authorities covered by Article 6 after decennial redistricting. It would require county boards and boards of election commissioners to adjust precinct boundaries accordingly, with conforming changes to related provisions governing precinct organization, polling places, annexation, and small-precinct reassignment.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or roll-call votes were provided, so there is no documented public sentiment in the record supplied. From the bill text, the measure appears to be a technical election-administration proposal rather than a controversial policy overhaul, suggesting a generally procedural and operational framing rather than overt ideological conflict.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the shift from counting registered voters to counting registered voters who voted in person in the most recent general election for precinct sizing in non-3,000,000-population counties. Supporters may view this as a more realistic way to size precincts based on actual turnout, while opponents could argue it makes precinct boundaries more volatile or harder to administer. A secondary issue is the continued distinction between counties with populations above and below 3,000,000, which preserves different precinct-sizing rules for Chicago/Cook County-related election administration versus the rest of the state.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.