VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger Seeks to Protect Georgia Voters’ Freedom to Vote

Atlanta, GA. -- Today, a coalition of civic participation groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to block the state from restricting the distribution of vote-by-mail applications to voters in the state. Recent changes to Georgia law approved by the Georgia legislature will create deliberate barriers to voting, primarily in communities of color, denying voters the freedom to vote. 

In March 2021, the Georgia General Assembly passed S.B. 202, an omnibus bill that makes numerous changes to Georgia’s election system that, among other things, denies those who need assistance their freedom to vote. These changes to Georgia’s election code prohibit the Secretary of State, county election officials and other government officials from sending vote-by-mail applications directly to any voter unless the voter specifically requests one. The law also prohibits anyone from aiding a voter by prefilling a voter’s information in a vote-by-mail application—a critical tool for many online voter assistance platforms.

“Georgia’s recent election experience demonstrated the overwhelming support for election laws that allow voters to cast their ballot safely and freely, whether they live in a small town or big city, so that every voice is heard and elections in the state reflect the will of the voters,” said Paul Smith, vice president for litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “S.B. 202, will no doubt, put up barriers to silence Georgia voters by limiting core political speech protected by the First Amendment.”   

Many Georgia voters rely on third party groups to provide them with prefilled and preprinted absentee ballot applications that they can easily review and submit to their county elections official without need for a broadband internet connection or access to a printer or scanner at home. This was particularly true during the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020/2021 election cycle, but remains the case for voters in rural areas, young voters and voters of color who often disproportionately lack the means or opportunity to obtain and prepare absentee ballot applications on their own.

“In the 2020 general election and 2021 runoff elections, millions of Georgians requested, received and cast their votes by mail and even Secretary of State Raffensperger declared that both elections were conducted safely and securely,” said VoteAmerica founder and CEO Debra Cleaver. “It is painfully clear that the actual goal of S.B. 202 is to suppress minority votes. It disregards the voice and the will of Georgia voters who turned out in unprecedented numbers in 2020 and 2021. It ignores the objections of national voter protection, pro-democracy and civil rights groups. S.B. 202 is egregious, it perpetuates disinformation and it blatantly targets communities of color.”

S.B. 202 makes it nearly impossible for third party organizations to distribute vote-by-mail applications to voters. Furthermore, the law now imposes a $100 fine for every application sent by an organization to a person who has already requested, received or voted using an absentee ballot—a major financial disincentive for nonprofit groups trying to aid with absentee ballot applications to registered voters.

“It’s clear: S.B. 202 makes it more difficult for Georgians to vote, especially the New American Majority – people of color, young people and unmarried women,” said Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Voter Participation Center (VPC) and Center for Voter Information (CVI). “This law makes it virtually impossible to run vote-by-mail application programs that help Georgians cast their ballots. That’s why we’re fighting back today against this assault on democracy and will keep working to ensure every American can make their voice heard.” 

On April 7, 2021, CLC filed suit on behalf of VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information, challenging S.B. 202 as violating those organizations’ First Amendment right to distribute vote-by-mail applications as core political speech. 

* Co-counsel in the case also include Rogers & Hardin LLP.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Washington, D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed two complaints against Sen. Ted Cruz and his campaign committee for illegally using campaign funds to promote his book. Cruz receives royalties on book sales, so using campaign funds to promote the book violates the ban on using campaign money for personal gain. The first complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Ted Cruz for Senate, and the second complaint was filed with the Senate Ethics Committee against Cruz.

In late 2020, Ted Cruz for Senate spent up to $18,000 on Facebook advertisements exclusively promoting Cruz’s book that urged viewers to “order your copy today,” with a link to purchase the book from online booksellers like Amazon. According to Cruz’s financial disclosure report, he receives 15% royalties on every hardcover copy sold and received a $400,000 advance from the publisher.

“Because Cruz receives royalties from book sales, his campaign crossed a legal line by spending donor funds on Facebook ads promoting sales of that book,” said Brendan Fischer, CLC director of federal reform. “We don’t know how extensive these violations might be because any similar ads that Cruz may have run on platforms other than Facebook or Google are not publicly available.”

“Senate rules are also crystal clear about all members, both current and former, being prohibited from converting federal campaign funds to personal use,” said Delaney Marsco, CLC senior legal counsel for ethics. “Voters must be able to trust that when they are donating to political campaigns, they are doing so to help their favored candidate win or retain their office, not financing their personal endeavors.”

In limited circumstances, the FEC has allowed campaigns to purchase the candidate’s books directly from the publisher to offer as gifts to supporters, provided that the publisher withholds royalties on those purchases. But Cruz instead used campaign funds for online ads that exclusively promoted his book and directed supporters to purchase it from third-party booksellers. 

The FEC, which is the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of our political campaigns, and the Senate Ethics Committee must investigate and hold the Ted Cruz for Senate campaign committee and Sen. Cruz accountable for their blatant disregard for campaign finance laws.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

WASHINGTON D.C. – Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause and League of Women Voters of California (LWV) submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra.     

The brief urges the Court to uphold California’s law that requires charitable groups active in the state to file nonpublic tax reports – Schedule Bs – with the state Attorney General (AG) listing their largest donors.

The state has asserted that the law requiring nonpublic reports is necessary to effectively enforce its tax and nonprofit laws and prevent charitable fraud. In California, the Schedule B form is kept confidential and used only for governmental oversight purposes.

But the petitioners Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) and the Thomas More Law Center refused to submit their Schedule B donor reports to the AG’s office and brought this lawsuit against the California AG, claiming that the confidential submission of the Schedule B will violate their First Amendment rights by exposing the handful of major donors that appear on each group’s Schedule B form—many of whom contribute above a million dollars annually—to harassment and threats.

To support their claims, AFPF and the Law Center likened themselves and the potential harassment faced by their major donors to that of NAACP members during the civil rights movement in Alabama. The petitioners are making this bold claim to urge the Court to either strike down California’s law as unconstitutional on its face or grant both groups an exemption from the reporting requirement—even though the state requirement is functionally identical to their nonpublic reporting obligations under federal tax laws, which the petitioners are not challenging.

In positioning their case at the Supreme Court, the petitioners explicitly disavow any intent to challenge public and electoral transparency laws. Instead, they are asking the Court to ratchet up the standard of review applied in disclosure cases only when they involve nonpublic financial disclosures to government regulators—but a broad ruling accepting that theory could make it harder to defend all disclosure laws in court.

Petitioners are also claiming the unique exemption from disclosure laws that the Supreme Court created in Buckley v. Valeo to protect historically marginalized groups facing severe persecution and harassment. Unlike the disclosure law in Buckley, however, California’s law requires confidential reporting, so there is no reasonable chance that the petitioners’ major donors will be exposed to any public hostility; by conflating their circumstances with those of marginalized groups, the petitioners threaten to expand the disclosure exemption, potentially putting other transparency measures at risk in the future, including disclosure of money spent on elections.

“This case has nothing to do with elections or any claimed interests in public transparency,” stated Paul Smith, vice president at CLC. “A case about the constitutionality of California’s confidential tax reporting law should not be permitted to dilute the Court’s well-established precedents endorsing voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence our elections and our government. This case should not be used as a vehicle to expand exemptions from transparency in election spending to any deep-pocketed, politically active group that attracts public criticism for messages to evade disclosure.”

“Shielding the rich donors who give enormous sums to organizations like Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas Moore Law Center removes any semblance of accountability,” said Stuart McPhail, senior litigation counsel at CREW. “When it comes to understanding how organizations like these operate, especially those groups with tremendous public influence, it's imperative their financial records are accessible and transparent. The First Amendment not only permits such transparency but is advanced when transparency leads to speech used to hold the powerful to account.” 

“This suit is truly a solution in search of a problem that does not in fact exist,” said Beth A. Rotman, money in politics & ethics program director at Common Cause. “The disclosure requirement being challenged is disclosure solely to the state of California, and their filings are exempted from FOIA requests, so the public will never see their lists of donors.”

“The League joined this case to stand against the spreading influence of dark money in politics,” said Stephanie Doute, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California. “Financial disclosure rules are essential to ensure accountability for political influence, and this case could have dangerous implications for campaign finance transparency. The wealthiest political donors should not be able to influence our politics in secret. This case is just another example of wealthy special interests trying to chip away at transparency in politics.” 

Read the full brief

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.