Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 311-114 to expel Representative George Santos of New York after a House Ethics Committee investigation found substantial evidence that he committed serious legal and ethics violations. Rep. Santos also faces a 23-count federal indictment that includes campaign finance crimes. Adav Noti, Senior Vice President & Legal Director at Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement in response to today’s vote:  

“No one is above the law. The expulsion of Rep. George Santos after a House Ethics Committee investigation revealed substantial evidence that he engaged in criminal and unethical activity vindicates the voters’ right to financial transparency from their representatives and demonstrates that oversight bodies in Congress are critical to accountability.

The House Ethics Committee’s monthslong investigation into the Santos campaign was triggered by a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics – the only independent ethics investigatory body in Congress. Findings by the Committee released in mid-November detailed substantial evidence that Santos violated a slew of federal election laws, including conspiracy to commit perjury in filings with the Federal Election Commission. The Committee also noted Santos’s refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation.  

Santos’s expulsion shows the power and potential of ethics enforcement. While it should not take violations as egregious as those committed by Santos for this system to work effectively, it is also further proof that an independent investigatory body for the Senate is long overdue.  

All Americans have the right to financial honesty from members of Congress, and to effective enforcement against any elected official who deprives the voters of that right.”  

---  

On January 9, 2023, Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Rep. George Santos, his 2022 campaign committee and treasurer Nancy Marks violated federal campaign finance laws. The following day, CLC referred the complaint to the Department of Justice.   

CLC’s complaint alleged, among other things, that Santos’s campaign falsely reported $705,000 in “personal loans” from Santos, and the information underlying Marks’s guilty plea appears to support that allegation: Prosecutors in Marks’s case have reportedly indicated that Marks and Santos conspired to fabricate $500,000 in loans made to the campaign in order to meet fundraising benchmarks. The superseding indictment against Rep. Santos includes new charges related to the loans.   

Today, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan signed major pro-democracy bills into law that will help ensure the state is ready for the 2024 election. This includes four bills that CLC testified in support of and provided feedback for throughout the legislative process. Senate Bill 529 updates the state’s election laws to conform with the new Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA). Senate Bills 590 and 591 establish critical legal processes for when a political candidate could challenge the results of an election. House Bill 4129 protects election workers by establishing penalties for intimidating or preventing them from doing their job.   

Catherine Hinckley Kelley, senior director for policy and strategic partnerships at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“Taken together, the commonsense, pro-democracy bills signed into law today will not only protect the everyday Michiganders who run the state’s elections, but they will also prevent bad actors from undermining Michigan elections for their own personal gain.  

“CLC commends Michigan lawmakers for doing the hard work to update the state’s election laws in a way that truly safeguards future presidential elections. As we saw following the 2020 general election, the lack of clarity in Michigan’s previous election laws caused uncertainty and confusion among voters and within the courts. By enshrining these new bills into law, Michigan ensures legitimacy, fairness and transparency in its election processes. This is a good thing for our democracy, and for the state of Michigan and its voters. 

“Campaign Legal Center hopes other states will follow Michigan’s example and make necessary legislative updates in advance of the 2024 election.” 

More about the bills: 

SB 529 helps to conform Michigan law to meet the new federal Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) deadlines. It requires the governor to certify the results of the election within the specified timeline outlined by the ECRA and puts in place important security features on the certification to ensure that Michigan’s slate of electors can be verified as authentic. It provides important clarity around judicial procedures for recounts and other parts of the post-election process to ensure that the certification process isn’t jeopardized and clarifies the duties of county and state boards of canvassers as non-discretionary.  

SB 590 and SB 591 together establish a clear procedure for ensuring legitimacy, fairness and transparency in the state’s election contests. This bill provides important guidance for filing and decision deadlines, but also protects the post-election timeline against frivolous contests by requiring the aggrieved candidate to file a challenge only if they would have won had it not been for the error that occurred.  

HB 4129 creates a criminal penalty for threats and harassment against election officials in the state of Michigan — a vast improvement from the lack of protections afforded to administrators in past elections. This bill penalizes an individual for intimidating an election official with the intent of interfering with their official duties.  

For more than 40 years, private individuals and groups have brought claims under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) to challenge discriminatory districts and ensure that voters of color have an equal opportunity to have their voices heard in our democracy.  

Just this past term, in Allen v. Milligan, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a case brought by individual voters challenging racially discriminatory maps passed by the Alabama legislature. However, today a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit of Appeals upheld a lower court decision over voting maps in Arkansas, ruling that private individuals and groups cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2.  

The 8th Circuit’s ruling contradicts more than 40 years of court decisions awarding relief to private litigants under the VRA and conflicts with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Allen v. Milligan. Moreover, the ruling is out of step with other circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, which just this month affirmed the right of private plaintiffs to bring claims under Section 2. 

In response, Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“Eliminating individual people's right to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act runs contrary to settled law, common sense and any basic concept of fairness: when the government discriminates against people, they should have a right to fight back in court. 

If today’s erroneous ruling were to be upheld, it would have a significant impact on the rights of voters of color to challenge discriminatory redistricting maps. Private suits under the VRA are critical to ensuring that voters of color are able to secure fair maps and make their voices heard. 

The fight is far from over.  CLC will continue working alongside our partners to fight back against today’s clearly incorrect decision and make sure that voters of color can continue to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to secure fair maps and make their voices heard in our democracy.” 

CLC submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case decided today, Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas, on behalf of former U.S. Department of Justice officials arguing that private lawsuits are critical to enforcing the VRA. Historically, the majority of Section 2 cases have been brought by private litigants — with thousands of litigants bringing such cases over the past few decades. 

The Eighth Circuit's ruling — which applies to Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — provides that only the Attorney General of the United States can bring lawsuits to challenge discriminatory maps under the VRA, though it leaves open the possibility that private groups can seek relief under other federal statutes.

Fargo, ND – Today, a federal judge ruled that North Dakota’s legislative maps discriminate against Native voters by denying them an equal voice in our democracy. The ruling comes after the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and individual Native voters challenged the maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for illegally diluting the Native vote. 

“Working together, tribes can accomplish anything. This decision shows the impact tribal nations can make when they unite to stop the cycle of exclusion and underrepresentation that has for generations prevented too many Native people from voting and from having a say in state-level decision-making,” said Turtle Mountain Chippewa Chair Jamie Azure. 

Spirit Lake Tribal Chair Lonna J. Street agreed. “Native people have the right to vote in North Dakota and the Spirit Lake Tribe will defend that right each election if we must, however, this case could have been avoided if the people elected to positions of power abided by the laws that protect voters,” said Chair Street. 

The 2020 Census showed the number of Native voters in North Dakota grew to 5.9% of the state’s voting age population, yet the state legislature adopted a legislative district map that reduced the number of candidates Native voters could elect in northeast North Dakota. The court ruled that the plan diluted Native voting strength by drawing map boundaries that cracked apart communities near the Spirit Lake Reservation and packed voters near the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation into a separate subdistrict. 

In the first election using the map that the court has today invalidated, Native voters could only elect two of the 141 state legislators. For the first time since 1991, no Native American serves in the North Dakota State Senate as a result of map passed by the legislature. 

The case, Turtle Mountain Chippewa et al v. Michael Howe, was the first racial vote dilution case tried after the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Section 2 of the VRA in Allen v. Milligan in June. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and The Law Office of Bryan L. Sells represent the plaintiffs in their suit. Tim Purdon of Robins Kaplan LLP represents the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe.

“We applaud the Court’s ruling, which helps ensure North Dakota’s Native voters can make their voices heard and elect leaders who will best serve their communities,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “North Dakota’s Native voters, who deserve an equal voice in our democracy, will no longer have their voices drowned out by unfair maps.” 

“Native people in North Dakota have had to fight for generations for the state to honor their right to vote, and with this decision, Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain voters now gain what they have always asked for — the fair opportunity for equal representation that the Voting Rights Act requires,” said NARF Staff Attorney Michael Carter. 

The judge found that the 2021 North Dakota legislative map deprives "Native American voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, in violation of Section 2 of the VRA." The findings of fact issued by the court noted "...under the 2021 redistricting plan, Native Americans hold zero seats in the Senate and two House seats. Either of the [Tribes'] proposed plans would yield one Senate seat and three House seats. While certainly not dispositive, this obvious disparity as to proportionality is further evidence of vote dilution under the totality of circumstances."

The court ordered the North Dakota Legislative Assembly to abandon the map and replace it with a VRA-compliant map before the November 2024 election. By December 22, 2023, the state must provide a map that does not violate Section 2 of the VRA. The Turtle Mountain Chippewa and Spirit Lake Tribes may provide expert analysis and propose any changes by January 5, 2024.

More information about the case can be found here.