CLC v. FEC (Delay Suit--45Committee)

At a Glance

CLC sued the Federal Election Commission for its failure to enforce transparency laws, allowing large, anonymous donors to funnel millions of dollars into political activity through 45Committee, a dark money group. The FEC’s failure to act threatens transparency and public trust in our elections.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In August 2018, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) demonstrating that a dark money group called 45Committee, Inc. violated federal campaign finance law by failing to register as a political committee and disclose its donors. After waiting more than 575 days for the FEC to act, CLC filed suit against the agency in late March 2020 for failing to enforce federal transparency laws.

45Committee spent over $22 million political ads during the 2016 and 2018 elections, the vast majority of which sought to support of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Press reports reveal that 45Committee was formed precisely to provide certain large donors the means to anonymously support then-candidate Trump without having to face public scrutiny. By failing to register as a PAC, 45Committee was able to avoid disclosing its donors, along with other information required by federal law. 45Committee has successfully kept the American public in the dark. It is the FEC’s job to prevent such attempts to circumvent public accountability.

The Commission’s failure to act on CLC’s complaint against 45Committee is part of a long pattern of dysfunction and delay. The FEC lacked a quorum for six months during the past year, and currently has a backlog of over 300 pending cases. The FEC’s inaction allows dark money groups like 45Committee to violate campaign finance law without facing repercussion.

What's at Stake?

 

Transparency around who is spending money to support or to oppose candidates for federal office is a cornerstone of our democracy. Under federal law, organizations that exist predominantly to engage in political activity—including spending money on political advertising to support their preferred candidate—are required to register as political committees (PACs) with the FEC and report their donors, along with other information about their financial resources.

In the administrative complaint filed with the FEC in 2018, CLC demonstrated that 45Committee’s major purpose—as evidenced by its name, political spending in 2016, fundraising appeals, and public statements—was plainly to support the election of its preferred candidates—namely Donald Trump. Nonetheless, 45Committee never registered as a political committee and never filed the required reports disclosing its contributors, expenditures, or debts and obligations.

By allowing organizations like 45Committee to evade federal law and leave the public in the dark about who is spending money to influence elections without repercussion, the FEC undermines public trust in our elections. The lack of enforcement and lack of any consequence for illegal behavior encourages 45Committee and others who seek to emulate 45Committee’s activities to continue to violate campaign finance law.

In order to ensure transparency and accountability in federal elections, violations like those uncovered by CLC here must be investigated and acted upon to ensure the public knows which interests are supporting or opposing candidates in the 2020 election. 

Plaintiffs

Campaign Legal Center

Defendant

Federal Election Commission, 45Committee

Parties Reach Agreement in New Jersey Lawsuit Establishing Fair Ballot Signature Match Process for July 7 Primary Election

Date
Body

Agreement Filed With District Court for Approval

NEWARK, NJ — Late Tuesday, parties in LWV New Jersey v. Way reached an agreement establishing a notice and cure process for mail-in and provisional ballots in New Jersey for the July 7 primary election. If the U.S. District Court of New Jersey accepts the agreement, voters who cast mail-in and provisional ballots in the state’s July 7 primary election will be notified of ballot issues and given the opportunity to fix them in time for their votes to be counted. As this agreement only applies to the July 7 primary, the case will continue until a permanent resolution is reached.

“This is a win for New Jersey voters who spoke out and said that they should not have to pass a handwriting test to exercise their constitutional rights,” said Ravi Doshi, senior legal counsel at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “Reliable mail voting is essential during the ongoing pandemic, so we’re glad the State worked with us to make this timely and important improvement to its mail voting system. But this is just a first step. It is now incumbent on the State to continue improving its mail voting system, and to make permanent the notice and cure provisions that this settlement secures for the July election."

“This agreement is a significant win for New Jersey voters, and we are glad that Secretary of State Way understood that it was critical to provide a fix to New Jersey’s egregious ballot signature match process ahead of the primary election,” said Jesse Burns, executive director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. “We are hopeful the judge will accept our agreement so that all voters, especially disabled, elderly, and language minority voters, will be able to cast their mail-in ballots safely and with confidence, knowing that their votes won’t be rejected for signature issues without remedy or recourse.” 

As New Jersey continues to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Phil Murphy announced last month that for the July 7 primary, mail-in ballots will automatically be sent to the state’s active Republican and Democratic voters, with applications for mail-in ballots sent to unaffiliated and inactive registered voters. In addition, limited polling places will be set up for in-person voting, which will largely occur by provisional ballot. This means that almost every vote cast in the primary election will be subject to signature match. The expected surge in mail-in and provisional ballots underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards to assure voters that they can cast their mail-in ballots with confidence. 

“It is unacceptable to deprive people of their franchise to vote, particularly using the unproven method of signature matching,” said Richard T. Smith, President of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference. “The rejection of ballots without an opportunity to cure has occurred at the highest rates in New Jersey's most diverse counties. Once this settlement is approved by the court, we will have fixed the problem for the July 7 primary election, a huge step forward. We will now continue our challenge to make these changes permanent."

The lawsuit challenges New Jersey’s signature match system, in which mail-in and provisional ballots are only counted if election officials – who are not properly trained in signature matching – determine that a voter’s signature on their ballot “matches” the signature on their ballot application or voter registration form. Under this system, thousands of ballots are rejected each election because of issues related to signature or penmanship issues. Currently, New Jersey voters whose ballots are marked as a mismatch are not given a pre-rejection notice or opportunity to cure any errors. If accepted by the court, this agreement would establish a notice and cure process, potentially saving thousands of ballots from improperly going uncounted. 

The League of Women Voters of New Jersey is joined in this case by the NAACP New Jersey State Conference and three individual plaintiffs, including William M. Riggs, a 78-year-old Middlesex County resident whose hand tremors brought on by Parkinson’s disease make it virtually impossible for him to sign his name consistently. Plaintiffs are represented by Campaign Legal Center, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, and Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP.

"The current crisis has exposed deep cracks in our foundation, which are causing earthquakes in Black and Brown communities,” said Ryan P. Haygood, President & CEO of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. “Our lawsuit was filed to protect our democracy from those earthquakes, as substantially more voters are expected to cast their ballots by mail and provisionally during this pandemic. Once approved by the court, today's settlement will be particularly important for Black and Brown voters whose ballots are disproportionately rejected. As part of the settlement, we will continue our challenge until these reforms are made permanent and everyone’s vote in New Jersey counts going forward. This case couldn’t be more important than it is right now, as we confront one of the most consequential elections in a generation.”

“We're gratified that Secretary Way has agreed to implement fair, common-sense procedures to make sure arbitrary signature-matching doesn't unfairly disenfranchise New Jersey voters in the upcoming primary,” said David Lebowitz, partner at Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP. We look forward to pressing the case forward toward a final, permanent fix so that New Jerseyans who vote by mail-in or provisional ballot in November and beyond can have confidence that their ballot will be counted.”

Issues
Voting and Elections

CLC, LWV Secure Safe Absentee Voting for Minnesota Primary Amid Pandemic

Date
Body

SAINT PAUL, MN – Today, Minnesota has agreed to allow voters to cast absentee ballots in the state’s August 11 primary without a witness present, making it easier for them to participate in the primary while protecting themselves from COVID-19.  

Under an agreement submitted for court approval today, Minnesota’s Secretary of State will ensure absentee ballots will count in the August primary regardless of whether they include a witness signature. The Secretary also agreed to educate the public, including by updating the absentee voting materials, about this temporary change.

U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud has set a hearing for Thursday on the joint request to enter the agreement as an enforceable court order.

This agreement, if approved, will partially resolve a federal lawsuit in which Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Lathrop GPM are representing the League of Women Voters of Minnesota Education Fund and an individual voter, Vivian Latimer Tanniehill.

The case, LWVMN v. Simon, was filed on May 19, seeking to suspend Minnesota’s witness requirement for absentee voting during the COVID-19 pandemic and permanently loosen restrictions on who can serve as a ballot witness. Minnesota law ordinarily requires absentee voters to obtain the signature of a witness, who must be a registered Minnesota voter, a notary, or another official authorized to give oaths.

“This is a win for Minnesota voters, particularly seniors and people with underlying health conditions who are at higher risk for getting seriously sick from COVID-19,” said Paul Smith, vice president at CLC. “The fact that both parties came to an agreement is an example of how it’s possible for states to protect the right to vote, promote public health, and maintain the integrity of elections at the same time. Constitutional rights cannot be conditioned on an individual’s willingness to subject themselves and their families to a heightened risk of contracting a potentially deadly virus.”

“We are thrilled the state saw the urgent need to suspend the witness requirement during the ongoing global pandemic,” said Michelle Witte, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota. “Today’s agreement is a victory for voters across the state, especially senior voters and voters with underlying health conditions that make them more susceptible to complications from COVID-19. Those living out of state temporarily, like college students, are also protected with today’s settlement.” 

“I am very excited about this agreement and believe it is a win-win for everyone,” said Vivian Latimer Tanniehill, a Minnesota voter and plaintiff in the case. “I am thrilled we were able to remove a barrier for seniors and people with underlying health conditions. We no longer must choose between our health and exercising our right to vote.”

Read Ms. Latimer Tanniehill’s story.

Minnesota’s witness requirement puts the state in rare company. Only a small minority of states – 12 in total – require a witness or notary as part of the ordinary process for casting an absentee ballot. Two of the other 11 – Virginia and Rhode Island – have voluntarily waived or modified their witness requirements for 2020 given the extraordinary circumstances around COVID-19.

While today’s agreement will suspend the witness requirement for Minnesota’s August primary, the federal litigation is not over. CLC continues to fight for a court order blocking enforcement of the witness requirement for the November 2020 election and striking down Minnesota’s restrictive rules about who can serve as a ballot witness in future elections.

Issues
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to