Defending Ohioans from Discriminatory Voter Purges (League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ohio-based organizations challenging a new law that could deprive many naturalized citizens of their freedom to vote. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

CLC and our co-counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ohio and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-Northern Ohio, challenging parts of Ohio Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), which was signed into law on December 19, 2025.

SB 293 requires, among other things, the secretary of state to perform monthly “citizenship checks” of the state’s voter registration list against databases at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The law also instructs local election officials to purge registered voters from the rolls if either database produces a “noncitizen” indication without meaningfully notifying the previously registered voter first and giving them a chance to correct the mistake.  

These requirements are deeply problematic because the state and federal databases at issue are widely known to have unreliable indicators of citizenship status for naturalized citizens.

These databases often incorrectly classify eligible voters because they do not reliably update when people become naturalized (and therefore are eligible to vote). In Ohio, the BMV database only updates when individuals renew their license (which can occur as infrequently as every 8 years),  

As such, tens of thousands of Ohioans are at risk of being illegally purged from the voter rolls under this new law. Approximately 4% of Ohio’s registered voters are naturalized citizens, and over 60,000 Ohioans naturalized between 2016 and 2020.    

Citizenship inquiries often produce outdated results, especially for naturalized citizens. Other states have tried using their BMV data or the DHS federal database in voter roll list maintenance, and those programs have often purged hundreds of eligible Americans from the rolls.  

There are already strict laws in place that ensure only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. The safeguards we already have in place, including strict criminal punishment, financial penalties and even possible deportation, ensure that only eligible citizens can register and vote. In addition, every Ohio voter already signs an attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury when they register to vote.  

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) prohibits discrimination in maintaining voter registration lists, including discrimination against naturalized citizens. Likewise, the NVRA prohibits systematic voter removals from the rolls within 90 days of federal elections to ensure that eligible voters aren’t disenfranchised without an opportunity to fix the State’s error.

Campaign Legal Center’s lawsuit alleges that Ohio’s SB 293 violates both of these NVRA provisions. CLC’s lawsuit also alleges that removing registered voters from the rolls before notifying them violates their due process rights.

This is not the first time CLC has fought back against the use of notoriously unreliable database matching systems. We successfully sued to halt an illegal purge program that swept up thousands of eligible voters in Alabama, and we’ve submitted an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the consolidation and distribution of flawed federal citizenship data to states and other federal agencies.

Our democracy works best when every eligible voter can make their voice heard, but Ohio’s unfair, illegal voter purge program puts far too many Ohioans’ freedom to vote this November in jeopardy. This case is part of a continued and urgent effort to ensure that all citizens, regardless of whether they are US-born or naturalized, have access to the ballot. 

CLC’s Trevor Potter Urges Senate to Safeguard FEC Independence in Response to New Trump Nominations

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — On February 11, President Donald Trump announced that he sent nominations to the Senate to fill two vacant seats on the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, issued the following statement regarding the nominations and urging the Senate to ensure the FEC maintains its independence:

“President Trump has nominated Ashley Stow and Andrew Woodson to fill two of the four vacant seats on the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the federal agency dedicated solely to enforcing election laws. The FEC's critical role in protecting voters and maintaining a level playing field for political campaigns is as important as ever with midterm elections fast approaching.

“One year ago, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) in which he claimed to take control of all independent agencies, including the FEC. His EO purported to demand that the FEC conform its legal actions to President Trump's own interpretations of the law. For an agency whose role is to enforce the law against political candidates, parties, members of Congress and the president himself, this rejection of the agency's traditional and essential independence is unacceptable.

“It is therefore crucial that the Senate exercise its constitutional role to ensure that these and any future nominees to the FEC will fulfill their statutory obligation to ensure the agency's continued independence, even in the face of pressure from the very administration putting forth their nominations. The Senate should refuse to confirm any nominees who are unwilling to make this commitment to protect and preserve the FEC’s independence, even if that means the FEC remains inactive ahead of the midterms. The danger to our democracy in the absence of such a commitment is too great to risk.”

###

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. 

Issues
Campaign Finance
The Rule of Law

Bruce Spiva on the SAVE Act

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — Congress is set to vote on the SAVE America Act, a new bill that is similar to the 2025 SAVE Act and would dramatically reshape how Americans register and vote. Campaign Legal Center has consistently opposed legislation of this kind because it attempts to restrict the freedom to vote, strain election systems, and upend long-standing democratic practices.

In advance of a vote in Congress on the SAVE Act, Bruce V. Spiva, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement:

“I urge lawmakers to reject the SAVE America Act. The debate in Congress over this dangerous bill comes as the FBI is seizing ballots from the 2020 election, President Trump is calling for our elections to be ‘nationalized,’ and the U.S. Department of Justice is suing more than 20 states to get access to voters’ private data. This is not a coincidence. The forces that are driving the Trump administration’s anti-voter agenda are also pressuring Congress to pass legislation that would silence millions of Americans by making it harder to participate in our elections. The SAVE America Act must be defeated.”

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending Fair Maps for Utahns (Powers Gardner v. Henderson)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWVUT), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG), and individual voters in a lawsuit to defend our clients’ success in establishing a fair congressional map in Utah.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In 2018, a coalition of Utah voters from across the political spectrum passed a citizen initiative called Proposition 4, which established neutral redistricting requirements and criteria and prohibited partisan gerrymandering.

In 2020, the Utah Legislature overruled the will of the voters and repealed Proposition 4. It subsequently enacted an extreme partisan gerrymander, which would have locked in one-party control of Utah’s congressional delegation while silencing voters with minority political viewpoints.

In 2022, Campaign Legal Center filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the repeal of Proposition 4 and the gerrymandered 2021 map. Following a series of court rulings and multiple victories for CLC and our clients, on August 25, 2025, the Utah’s Third District Court ruled that the Legislature violated the Utah Constitution when it repealed Proposition 4.  

As a result, Proposition 4 once again became controlling law in Utah, and the court struck down the 2021 map as illegal. In order to have a new, legal map for the 2026 election, the court set out a remedial schedule that gave the Legislature the first opportunity to enact a new congressional map.  

In response to the court’s ruling, the Utah Legislature instead passed a new gerrymandered map that did not comply with Proposition 4’s neutral redistricting requirements. To ensure a legal map was in place in time for the 2026 election according to the deadlines set by the Lieutenant Governor, on November 10, 2025, the court thus ordered in place “Map 1,” a fair and legal map proposed by the state court plaintiffs that complies with Proposition 4 and federal law.

The Federal Case

In response to the state court litigation, two members of Congress, county commissioners, mayors and sheriffs have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the state court judge’s decision to impose a fair map, where no legal map drawn by the Legislature existed, in line with the requirements of Proposition 4.

Campaign Legal Center, along with co-counsel and on behalf of our clients LWVUT, MWEG and individual voters, has sought to intervene in this lawsuit and protect the principles of fair representation that Utahns voted for when they approved Proposition 4.  

The plaintiffs in this case are advancing a version of the dangerous “Independent State Legislature Theory.” This extreme legal theory would give the Utah Legislature nearly unchecked power to set rules for federal elections, handing politicians in the Legislature a license to gerrymander in defiance of state law and the lawful orders of Utah’s state courts when drawing congressional districts.

In this case, Campaign Legal Center argues that the federal courts lack the authority to override the considered judgment of Utah’s voters in enacting Proposition 4 and Utah’s state courts in enforcing the initiative’s promise. CLC is asking the federal court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ lawsuit and let the process continue to play out in state court, where the Utah Supreme Court is currently considering similar issues. 

League of Women Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government Move to Intervene in Lawsuit Challenging Utah’s Fair Congressional Map

Date
Body

SALT LAKE CITY — On February 7, 2026, the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWVUT), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and individual Utah voters filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit seeking to challenge a state court ruling that requires Utah to use a fair congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections. The proposed intervenors are represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Parr Brown Gee & Loveless and Zimmerman Booher. They plan to file a motion to dismiss on Wednesday, February 11, 2026.

In August 2025, after years of litigation filed by LWVUT, MWEG and CLC, Utah’s Third District Court ruled that the state must use a congressional map that complies with the requirements in Proposition 4, a citizen-led initiative that prohibits partisan gerrymandering. In response, the Legislature ignored Proposition 4 and enacted another illegal map (Map C) that was drawn for partisan advantage and split Utah communities. The state court was obligated by law to ensure a legally compliant map was in place for the 2026 election and thus adopted the fair map submitted by LWVUT, MWEG, and CLC, which fully complied with Proposition 4.

Now, U.S. Representatives Owens and Maloy and several local elected officials have filed a lawsuit claiming that the new, fair map violates the federal Elections Clause because state courts have no role in reviewing lawmakers’ voting maps — a legal theory that the U.S. Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected. While they are advocating for the return to a 2021 map, that map was replaced by the Legislature when it enacted Map C, and the state court previously ruled that the 2021 map violated the Utah Constitution and Proposition 4.

LWVUT, MWEG and the individual voters have moved to intervene in the federal case to protect their state court victory and right to a fair and lawful map. They plan to move to dismiss the case on various grounds, including that a state court has the power to impose a new map if necessary, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held.

“This federal lawsuit has no merit and is the latest attempt to silence the voices of Utahns,” said Mark Gaber, senior director for Redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “Instead of accepting the will of Utah voters and the judgment of Utah courts to allow a fair voting map to take effect, partisan actors are going to extraordinary lengths to put a gerrymandered map back in place. Elections should be determined by voters, and not by politicians who draw maps to skew outcomes. Campaign Legal Center will continue to vigorously defend Utahns' right to vote under legal, fair maps."

“We’re saddened by the lengths these desperate elected officials are going to overturn the will of Utah voters,” said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah. “They have a fundamental misunderstanding of the state constitution and the rights it protects. We are eager to continue to fight for Proposition 4 and the rights of Utahns to fair maps and to have their votes respected.” 

“Utah’s voters and courts have made it clear: the people want fair maps,” said Caren Short, director of Legal and Research of the League of Women Voters. “Instead of respecting the will of the people, the legislature is now seeking to push a rejected legal theory in federal court. The League is proud to fight back to protect voters and fair maps.”

“MWEG has supported Utahn’s rights to fair maps for nearly a decade," said Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. “This latest lawsuit is yet another unjustified attempt to lock in a partisan gerrymandered voting map. We are intervening in order to continue our advocacy on behalf of Utah voters."

###

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.

Issues
Redistricting

Campaign Legal Center and OpenSecrets Applaud Federal District Court Ruling on Transparency of Political Party Megadonors

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — On January 30, 2026, Campaign Legal Center and OpenSecrets won their lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over the FEC’s failure to provide transparency of the largest donations to political parties. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the FEC has illegally failed to act on a formal petition to set rules for reporting money in the parties’ “special purpose” accounts. This decision is a major step forward for protecting transparency and accountability in election spending.

In 2014, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to allow wealthy donors to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to certain political party accounts. Collectively, that means an individual can now contribute upwards of $1.8 million to a single party over a two-year election cycle.

OpenSecrets and Campaign Legal Center formally petitioned the FEC to set rules for how political parties must publicly report these transactions. But more than a decade after Congress changed the law, the FEC has still failed to issue rules — in response to the rulemaking petition submitted by OpenSecrets and Campaign Legal Center or otherwise. The FEC’s inaction deprives voters of meaningful transparency regarding how national party committees are using these supercharged accounts.

The court found that the FEC has violated the law by failing to act on OpenSecrets and Campaign Legal Center’s petition. The court started the process of setting a deadline for FEC action and is retaining jurisdiction to monitor the agency’s progress going forward.

“Voters have a right to know who is giving huge amounts of money to political parties, and where that money is going. For more than a decade, the FEC has done nothing to provide this transparency, and so has failed its public mission,” said Adav Noti, executive director for Campaign Legal Center. “The federal District Court ruling is a step in the right direction, and we will make sure the FEC complies with the court’s order by providing full transparency of the billions of dollars raised and spent by our nation’s political parties.”

“For more than a decade, over a billion dollars has moved through the national parties’ special accounts with minimal oversight, effectively creating a shadow campaign finance system,” said Hilary Braseth, executive director of OpenSecrets. “You cannot hold power accountable if you cannot follow the money. This ruling makes clear that the FEC cannot sidestep its responsibility to the electorate, and we look forward to a reporting framework that finally allows the public to see the full picture.”

Follow the latest updates via Campaign Legal Center’s case page.  

Issues
Campaign Finance

Holding Massachusetts Accountable by Ensuring Jail Voting Protections Are Implemented (Hobbs v. Galvin)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing six jail voting advocates in Massachusetts to compel the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth to publish statewide jail voting data, as required by state law. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

In 2022, Massachusetts passed the VOTES Act, a wide-ranging bill improving protections and ballot access for voters across the state, including some of the nation’s strongest protections for voters in jail. Among its provisions, the VOTES Act requires the secretary of the commonwealth to publish reports after each statewide election detailing jail voting data, including how many people requested to vote and whether they were able to vote.

Many people in jails across the country remain eligible to vote while in local jails. In Massachusetts, the right to vote is only taken away while someone is serving time for a felony conviction. As such, individuals who are pre-trial or serving misdemeanors in county jails may be eligible, so long as they meet the other eligibility criteria.

However, the secretary has failed to publish the required reports even though two statewide elections have occurred since the law went into effect.

Campaign Legal Center, alongside Lawyers for Civil Rights and with pro bono support from Anderson & Kreiger and the Law Office of John Reinstein, represent six jail voting advocates in this mandamus-style action to enforce this provision.  

These mandated reports allow for critical monitoring of VOTES ACT implementation and ensure officials provide the required ballot access for those in jail. The public has a right to this information, and the law requires the secretary to provide the reports on a strict timetable.

Without this information, petitioners are impeded in their efforts to conduct oversight and advocate for necessary changes to ensure all eligible voters in jails can vote. Campaign Legal Center, our partners and our clients are asking the secretary to speedily compile a report to the Legislature with the required information about jail-based voting in the commonwealth.  

Our democracy works best when every voter can participate. Voters in jail are too often overlooked, ignored or cast aside simply because they are incarcerated. The secretary must comply with this mandate to increase transparency and ensure effective implementation of the VOTES Act so that every eligible voter in Massachusetts’ jails can have their voices heard at the ballot box. 

Voting Rights Advocates Sue Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth for Failing to Disclose Information on Jail-Based Voting

Date
Body

BOSTON — Today, voting rights and prisoners’ rights advocates filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts’ highest court seeking an order compelling Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin to release reports on jail-based voting, as required by a landmark state law enacted to expand voting rights protections. Since the enactment of the VOTES Act in 2022, Secretary Galvin has failed to file any reports on jail-based voting, shielding this data from disclosure and impeding public awareness. Without jail-based voting data, Massachusetts residents, community organizations, and the state legislature cannot hold public officials accountable for implementing the VOTES Act.

The complaint was filed against Secretary Galvin by Lawyers for Civil Rights and Campaign Legal Center, with pro bono support from Anderson & Kreiger and the Law Office of John Reinstein, on behalf of Franklin Hobbs, eleni kalfus, DeAnza Cook, Alan Tanner, Kadeem Foreman, and Justin “Rico” Rodriguez, highlighting that at any given time, up to 9,000 incarcerated citizens in Massachusetts are eligible to vote. These include people serving misdemeanor sentences, individuals awaiting trial, and those who are civilly committed. These individuals have the right to vote and should not be disenfranchised.

“This is an urgent moment to hold people in our democracy accountable,” petitioner Pastor Franklin Hobbs stated. “The jail voting provisions of the VOTES Act were written by and advocated for by incarcerated people, who are too often left out of the democratic process. This report is imperative to tell us where we are in the implementation process, so that we can improve it moving forward and take seriously voting access for this population.” Hobbs is the founder of Healing Our Land, Inc., which facilitates and supports voter registration initiatives in the Suffolk County House of Corrections and Nashua Street Jail.

Petitioner eleni kalfus, who works with the coalition Empowering Descendant Communities to Unlock Democracy, regularly visits the two Boston jails to assist eligible incarcerated individuals to register to vote and apply for absentee ballots so they can participate in local, state, and federal elections. “When I go to the jails to talk to incarcerated voters, they tell me about the issues they’ve had when trying to vote,” said kalfus. “I want them to know we’re fighting for them and doing what we can to hold the state accountable.”

To ensure these voters are not excluded from the democratic process, the VOTES Act requires Secretary Galvin to submit public reports within six months of each statewide election detailing the number of eligible incarcerated voters and whether they were able to vote by mail or absentee ballot. Two statewide elections have occurred since the VOTES Act took effect — one seventeen months ago — yet no reports have been released by Secretary Galvin.

“These reports are crucial for transparency and accountability,” said Brooke Simone, an attorney with Lawyers for Civil Rights. “The VOTES Act was designed to make sure that eligible voters in jail are not shut out of our democracy. When Secretary Galvin fails to release this data, it doesn’t just violate state law—it allows constitutional rights to be denied behind closed doors, with no public scrutiny or oversight.”

Petitioner Dr. DeAnza Cook, who teaches civic education classes to incarcerated individuals, shared that “incarcerated voters are part of our communities, our neighborhoods, and our democracy. When the state withholds basic information about their voting access, it sends a message about who is seen as belonging. We’re here to insist that they do belong.”

Petitioner Alan Tanner stated that “people’s voices need to be heard, and that can’t happen if information is being withheld. In order to empower people, we have to make sure there is transparency from our elected officials.”

The lawsuit was also brought by two individuals who were incarcerated at MCI-Norfolk, a state correctional facility, until late last month. Drawing on his firsthand experience in a correctional setting, Kadeem Foreman shared, “people inside are trying to stay connected to their communities. Voting is one of the few ways they can do that. If the state won’t even report whether those votes are possible, it tells you how little their connection is valued.”

Justin “Rico” Rodriguez shared, “my community has a long history of fighting for redress of the harms we’ve experienced when elected officials have failed us. This report is part of that fight, and I’m glad to be fighting for the people that I come from and the people that I love, including those still in prison who don't often get heard.”

The lawsuit asks the court to order Secretary Galvin to immediately issue the required reports and fulfill his statutory duty to ensure transparency and accountability in jail-based voting.

“We should be working to make our elections more inclusive and accessible, and that includes ensuring that reports on jail voting are filed as required by the VOTES Act,” stated Kate Uyeda, legal counsel for Campaign Legal Center. “These reports help ensure that fully eligible voters are not left out of the democratic process simply because they are detained during an election. We are asking the court to hold Secretary Galvin accountable and order him to issue the required reports.”

You can follow along with this case as it progresses with our case page 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.

Issues
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to