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.

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.  

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.

WASHINGTON — On January 30, 2026, another key part of the president’s anti-voter executive order attempting to require burdensome registration requirements for military and overseas voters was permanently halted. 

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) — represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) — sought to prevent the secretary of defense from taking any action to implement Section 3(d) of the president's March 25, 2025, executive order. In its opinion, the court further determined that Section 3(d) violated the constitutional separation of powers and cannot be enforced. 

Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and the rule of law at Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement:

“Our democracy works best when all Americans can participate, including members of our military and their families living overseas. Today’s ruling removes a very real threat to the freedom to vote for overseas military families and upholds the separation of powers. It is yet another legal victory affirming what we already know: The president does not have the authority to dictate who can vote or how our elections are run.” 

Read more about how Campaign Legal Center is holding the current administration accountable at this link.