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• The citizenship data in these databases is outdated: The law directs the secretary of state to use databases that do not contain up-to-date citizenship information, which will lead to eligible voters, especially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. 

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. 

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.”

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.