SALT LAKE CITY — On February 20, 2026, the Utah Supreme Court dismissed an eleventh-hour challenge by the Utah Legislature, which sought to block Utah’s law requiring fair maps and revive a gerrymandered map for the fall congressional election. 

Campaign Legal Center, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWVUT), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and individual Utah voters, initially challenged the Utah Legislature’s repeal of Proposition 4 — a ballot initiative passed by Utah voters in 2018 that prohibits partisan gerrymandering by establishing the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and creating fair, neutral criteria and procedures for adopting district maps. The gerrymandered map passed by the Legislature in 2021 was challenged as well.

In November 2025, the court ordered Utah to use the map that plaintiffs, represented by Campaign Legal Center, submitted for consideration after the Legislature passed yet another illegally gerrymandered map. In January 2026, the Legislature filed an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court and asked the Court to block the lower court’s order that reimposed Proposition 4 and invalidated the 2021 map.

The court ruled that the Legislature had missed its deadlines to appeal and must instead wait until the case reaches final judgment as a result. Today’s decision follows a series of rulings by Utah state courts that have repeatedly affirmed the right of Utahns to meaningfully influence their government.

“Utah voters deserve fair representation and clarity heading into our elections,” said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah. “We are encouraged that the court dismissed this improper appeal and allowed the process to move forward without disruption to voters or election administrators. The League of Women Voters of Utah will continue in our fight for fair maps for Utahns. Enough is enough."

“MWEG celebrates this decision. The people voted against gerrymandering when they passed Prop 4. The courts have provided an important check on the Legislature, affirming the people’s constitutional right to alter and reform their government,” said Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. “We remain committed to defending that right.”

“Today’s decision confirms that the Utah Legislature, like everyone else, has to follow the rules that govern court proceedings,” said Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “The Legislature had every opportunity to pass a fair and legal map last fall, and it chose not to. Now, for the first time in decades, Utah voters will vote under a fair congressional map that respects local communities and treats all Utahns equally.”

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

WASHINGTON — Today, Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that former U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema used her campaign committee, Sinema for Arizona, to illegally spend over $700,000 in campaign funds on personal expenses. This is the latest occurrence in a troubling pattern of former lawmakers abusing campaign funds for personal use and is a violation of federal campaign finance law.  

“Federal campaign finance laws are clear that politicians who leave office do not have the green light to use leftover campaign funds however they want,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Former Senator Sinema appears to have spent an exorbitant amount of campaign money on a personal spending spree during the 12 months after she left office. The FEC must investigate her use of campaign money and hold her accountable for any violations of campaign finance law.”  

The Federal Campaign Election Act (or FECA) prohibits the use of campaign funds — which were originally donated to support official activities by candidates or officeholders — to be used for personal expenses. A former officeholder’s leftover campaign funds have a narrow list of permissible uses, such as winding down an office, contributing to other candidates, or making charitable donations.

Sinema for Arizona had $4.2 million in cash on hand when Sinema left office in January 2025. While $3 million of that was used to start the Spark Center for Innovation Earning at Arizona State University, most of the remaining money appears to have been used to pay for Sinema’s personal expenses. The former senator used her campaign committee to pay for travel, lodging, meals and salaries of former staffers — some of whom were paid by the campaign even after taking private sector jobs. None of these payments, which totaled over $700,000, appear to be connected to her role as a former officeholder or efforts to wind down the committee. 

Since 2018, Campaign Legal Center has been tracking politicians’ use of campaign contributions, oftentimes through leadership PACs, as a slush fund to pay for a wide range of personal indulgences. Campaign Legal Center is now urging the FEC to investigate former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema for potential personal use violations. Elected officials and candidates cannot be allowed to ignore the law and exploit their campaigns for their own personal gain. 

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

WASHINGTON — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that billionaire Julio Herrera Velutini unlawfully funneled millions of dollars to a super PAC through his daughter, Isabela Herrera, in an illegal “straw donor” scheme. Between December 2024 and July 2025, Herrera purportedly contributed $3.5 million to the MAGA Inc. super PAC, months before Herrera Velutini received a pardon from President Trump in January 2026. CLC is urging the FEC to investigate the true source of these funds and to hold accountable all who took part in this straw donor scheme.  

Foreign nationals like Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan national, are prohibited from spending in U.S. federal, state and local elections — including making donations to super PACs. “Straw donor” schemes are prohibited because they are used to hide the true source of contributions to entities like super PACs, which have become vehicles for wealthy special interests to spend an unlimited amount of money in U.S. politics. These schemes have also been used by those, including foreign nationals, seeking to circumvent legal prohibitions to spend money on elections.

Public records show that Isabela Herrera is a self-employed financial consultant in her mid-twenties whose only prior political donation was $20 given to Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. Despite her apparently modest financial means and lack of prior federal contributions, she was reported to have made a $2.5 million contribution to MAGA Inc. back in December 2024, followed by another $1 million contribution in July 2025. In contrast, Herrera’s father, Julio Herrera Velutini, had ample financial means and a much clearer motivation to contribute to Trump’s super PAC: he faced criminal bribery charges. After MAGA Inc. reported receiving millions of dollars contributed in Herrera’s name, her father received an extraordinarily lenient plea deal from federal prosecutors and then was later pardoned by President Trump in January 2026.  

“The timing and circumstances surrounding these contributions strongly suggest that Herrera Velutini flouted the law to corruptly seek presidential clemency, funneling foreign money to MAGA Inc. through his daughter,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center. “This straw donor scheme, which undermined the transparency and integrity of our elections, follows the well-documented pattern of wealthy individuals financially supporting President Trump’s favored causes and projects — often in secret — in exchange for benefits, including pardons. Voters have a right to know the true sources behind all political contributions, and straw donor schemes of this kind make our elections less fair, transparent and representative of voters’ will. The FEC must investigate whether foreign money was secretly funneled into our nation’s political process.”

Foreign actors seeking to influence U.S. elections have often gone undetected in recent years due to a combination of inadequate electoral transparency laws and inaction by the FEC, which is responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance laws. Campaign Legal Center is urging the FEC to fulfill its duty to investigate and enforce the law in this case in order to protect our elections.

### 

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Today, the League of Women Voters of Ohio (LWVO) and CAIR-Northern Ohio filed a federal lawsuit challenging Ohio’s Senate Bill (SB) 293 for violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. This new law puts eligible voters — particularly naturalized citizens — at risk of being purged from the voter rolls, without meaningful prior notice, even right up to Election Day.

The plaintiffs are represented by Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Ohio. The advocacy organizations filed this lawsuit after Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose declined to correct violations of the NVRA that were outlined in a letter they sent to him on January 22, 2026.
SB 293 directs Ohio’s secretary of state to systematically check and compare state voter registration data with the citizenship records of the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) and the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system. Individuals flagged under these citizenship-check requirements will have their voter registrations cancelled without prior notice or any opportunity to respond. These purges will take place at least once a month, continuing right up through elections.

This is problematic for three reasons:

• The citizenship data in these databases is outdated: The law directs the secretary of state to use databases that do not contain up-to-date citizenship information, which will lead to eligible voters, especially naturalized citizens, being wrongfully purged from the voter rolls.
• The law permits these removals on the eve of an election: This violates the NVRA’s prohibition on systemic reviews of voter data during the 90-day quiet period before an election.
• The law does not provide enough protection to ensure wrongly removed voters will be able to fix their registration in time to vote: SB 293 doesn’t require that the voter receive notice in time to clarify their citizenship status before being cancelled. This means that voters may not be able to correct this error in time to vote. This deprivation of the right to vote violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“Instead of welcoming new voters who have gone to great lengths to participate in our democracy, SB 293 creates an unnecessary, discriminatory hurdle for naturalized citizens to cast their ballots,” said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio. “Most Ohioans believe that democracy works best when we can all participate freely and fairly. That's why we’re headed to court — to ensure that all eligible Ohioans can trust that their registrations won’t be cancelled.”

“Eligible voters should be encouraged — not burdened — when exercising their fundamental right to vote,” said Caren Short, director of legal and research of the League of Women Voters. “The League is fighting discriminatory laws across the country that target naturalized citizens and other historically disenfranchised communities. These laws only serve to weaken our democracy and erode confidence in our elections. We’re proud to fight back against SB 293 in court.”

“SB 293 is a direct threat to the fundamental right to vote and will disproportionately harm naturalized citizens across Ohio,” said Faten Husni Odeh, executive director of CAIR-Northern Ohio. “Naturalized citizens have fulfilled every legal requirement and sworn an oath to this country; singling them out with new barriers is discriminatory and unacceptable. Under the guise of election integrity, this law undermines our democracy, and CAIR-Northern Ohio is proud to stand alongside the ACLU and the League of Women Voters to challenge this voter suppression and defend equal access to the ballot for every eligible Ohioan.”

“Ohio’s new law continues a troubling trend of undermining the freedom to vote through unnecessary, error-prone and unlawful voter purges,” said Anna Baldwin, director of voting rights litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “This law will unjustly target naturalized citizens in the state through the reliance on faulty data that disproportionately impacts these new citizens and violates the National Voter Registration Act. We already have strict laws in place that ensure only U.S. citizens can register and vote in federal elections. We’re asking the court to prevent Ohio from enforcing this law in a way that violates the NVRA and respects Americans’ due process rights, so that all Americans can make their voices heard in the upcoming election.”

“Ohio’s SB 293 is an unlawful purge program masquerading as election integrity,” said Davin Rosborough, deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “By relying on outdated and inaccurate citizenship databases, the state is setting up eligible voters—especially naturalized citizens—to be wrongly stripped from the rolls. Eligible Ohioans should not have to discover on Election Day that they can no longer participate.”

"Senate Bill 293's requirement that there be systematic voter purges is discriminatory and unlawful and it threatens to disenfranchise perfectly eligible voters," said Freda Levenson, chief legal officer of the ACLU of Ohio. "Using manifestly unreliable data to cull our voter rolls doesn’t protect the integrity of our elections - it harms it. Secretary LaRose's refusal to correct SB 293's NVRA violations outlined in our letter was extremely disappointing. To uphold the law and protect democracy in our state, we are left with no other option than litigation."

Read more about the case here. Follow the latest updates on this case here.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.