This article is the latest in a series of case studies of SPN award finalists. You can also read case studies of wins in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, and Ohio.
In a healthy election system, voters should have real choices on the ballot. That’s especially important in states where one party dominates and many races risk becoming uncontested.
To make this more likely, Illinois has maintained a long-standing rule known as “slating” as a practical backstop, allowing parties to field a general-election candidate even when no one ran in the primary.
When Illinois lawmakers moved quickly in 2024 to eliminate this key post-primary nomination option, the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) was ready.
The Liberty Justice Center challenged the law on behalf of 14 Republican legislative candidates, arguing the state can’t change election rules midstream in a way that burdens voters’ rights and narrows their choices. A state court agreed.
The result: Candidates were kept on the ballot, voters retained meaningful choices, and state officials were put on notice that changing election rules mid-cycle has constitutional limits.
For the strength of that state-based litigation, Liberty Justice Center was a finalist for the 2025 SPN Bob Williams Award for Best State-Based Litigation.
Stacking the Political Deck
The Democratic Party reigns supreme in Illinois. Democrats have held supermajorities in the state legislature for decades and controlled the governor’s mansion almost unilaterally since the early 2000s.
Yet, despite the party’s solid control of nearly every level of government, when a handful of Republican candidates looked to challenge incumbent Democratic state legislators in 2024, Illinois Democrats moved to stop any potential challenge in its tracks.
Illinois elections, like most states, have a primary election followed by a general. The primary determines the nominee for each party, and then voters elect candidates to office in the general election.
But Illinois also has a process called slating. Slating fills a gap the primary can leave behind. In districts where a party fails to nominate anyone in the primary, party leaders can later designate a nominee for the general election. It’s not a perfect process but it can prevent elections from becoming foregone conclusions by ensuring voters still see a contested race in November.
Even if a slated candidate doesn’t impact the final election results, more competition improves our government. As SPN affiliate Illinois Policy Institute explains:
“On average, voter participation has been 7 percentage points lower in Illinois House districts with only one candidate on the ballot. Illinois races are often uncontested. On average, under Illinois’ previous legislative map, roughly half of all Illinois House races were uncontested.
“More uncontested races mean voters have no way to check incumbents who have no fear of losing their jobs. This drowns out the voice of the people and gives them less representation in Springfield.”
The law to get rid of slating was introduced, passed, and signed by Gov. Pritzker in less than 48 hours, incredibly fast for any state government. It also happened in the middle of an election cycle.
LJC saw the law change for what it was: an unconstitutional violation of voters’ right to choose their leaders. Given the circumstances, the mid-election ban certainly appeared more of a political move and less of an “ethics” move as Gov. Pritzker tried to claim, the LJC pointed out in their case.
Quickly after Gov. Pritzker signed the law into effect, LJC filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 Republican candidates who had been slated by the Illinois GOP to run in previously uncontested legislative races.
LJC made numerous arguments, in their District Court and State Supreme Court cases, but their main message was clear: A state cannot pass a law for the sole benefit of one political party over another.
Ultimately, LJC’s arguments and common sense won out. The court ruled to restore LJC’s clients to the ballot. And more importantly, a precedent was set to limit state officials from manipulating elections in the future. And because of their impressive win, LJC was a finalist for the 2025 SPN Bob Williams Award for Best State-Based Litigation.
Embracing Choice and Fairness
Study after study and datapoint after datapoint show us the necessity for diverging ideas, ideologies, and sensibilities. Regardless of the party in power, one-party states often have lower voter participation rates, fewer checks and balances, and policies that only benefit small, well-connected, and powerful groups.
Debate, deliberation, power checks, and voter choices are the necessary—if sometimes frustrating—aspects of an effective government.
That’s what the State Policy Network exists to strengthen, through Durable Freedom Infrastructure in the states—think tanks, litigation centers, and investigative outlets that protect fair processes and limit government overreach. Liberty Justice Center’s work in Illinois is one example of how that infrastructure keeps elections honest and voters empowered.
