Assisting Voters in Jail

At a Glance

About 750,000 people are incarcerated in jails across the United States every day, most of whom retain their right to vote. Casting a ballot, though, can be impossible for these eligible voters simply because they are incarcerated. CLC has launched a program to fight jail-based disenfranchisement using advocacy and litigation to ensure eligible voters in jails have the ballot access they need to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

Although most people who are incarcerated in jails across the county retain their right to vote, few actually cast ballots. This is not because they lack the urge to vote; it is because they often can’t.

Casting a ballot from jail is enormously difficult. Election infrastructure is not built to serve incarcerated voters. In some states, this lack of access is obvious, for example if states do not consider incarceration a valid excuse to use absentee or emergency voting mechanisms to cast ballots from jail. Even if jailed voters are permitted to use these systems on paper, as a practical matter, it is often not possible for them to do so. Jailed voters are isolated and cannot independently access the information they need not only to understand how absentee or emergency voting works, but also to determine whether they are eligible, when elections are being held, and what will be on the ballot. Also, because voters in jails often must rely on vote by mail systems or assistance from third parties to cast their ballots, they are at risk of being disenfranchised by delays in the jail mail system, visitation restrictions, and the difficulties of navigating complicated jail bureaucracies. 

This problem is particularly urgent because of who it impacts. Jails disproportionately incarcerate voters of color, low income voters, homeless voters, and voters with disabilities, so jail-based disenfranchisement disproportionately deprives those who have been historically marginalized of their political voices.

Although the Supreme Court affirmed that eligible voters in jails could not be deprived of their right to vote almost 50 years ago, eligible incarcerated voters continue to confront barriers to ballot access that make voting difficult or impossible. CLC, though, is working to change that by combating the causes of jail-based disenfranchisement and putting ballots into the hands of eligible, incarcerated voters across the county.

 

CLC’s Role

CLC seeks to challenge jail-based disenfranchisement using a comprehensive strategy of litigation and policy advocacy. CLC works with partners on the ground to provide legal support and guidance on projects to fight jail-based disenfranchisement. CLC has also consulted directly with states and localities to provide technical assistance in crafting and implementing measures to expand ballot access in jails. Finally, when advocacy fails, CLC litigates claims to vindicate the rights of jailed voters who are disenfranchised and challenge unconstitutional state laws that prevent these eligible voters from casting their ballots.  

Associated Cases & Actions

Tommy Ray Mays II, et al. v. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose

CLC Calls for Investigation of Trump Super PAC America First Action for Illegally Coordinating Spending Up to $6.6 Million with Three Federal Candidates

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and End Citizens United (ECU) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that during the 2018 election, President Trump’s “approved” super PAC, America First Action (AFA), made up to $6.6 million in illegally coordinated expenditures supporting Rep. Pete Sessions in Texas, and U.S. Senate candidates Josh Hawley in Missouri and Matt Rosendale in Montana.

AFA placed its ads supporting these candidates using the same cluster of consulting firms – and in some cases, the same person – as used by the three campaigns to place their own ads. This coordinated ad placement strategy allowed the supposedly independent AFA to illegally synchronize its ad buys with those campaigns, and is strikingly similar to the common vendor coordination scheme used by the NRA in recent election cycles.

“President Trump’s super PAC has replicated the coordination scheme first pioneered by the NRA,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “AFA may only raise and spend unlimited amounts in elections if it is completely independent of the candidates it supports, and AFA is not independent if the same person placing ads for those candidates is also placing ads on behalf of AFA. The super PAC might claim that its media buyer established a firewall, but that argument doesn't fly when the same person is buying the ads for both – a person cannot create a firewall in their own brain.”

“No one is above the law, including President Trump and his super PAC,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United. “This is an illegal move that brazenly breaches a required barrier between candidates and super PACs designed to keep corruption out of elections. The FEC should hold America First Action accountable.”

The FEC regulates the use of common vendors for media placement because the targeting of political ads is a critical element of a campaign effort. If a super PAC knows when the campaigns it is supporting are running ads, it can strategically time and target its ads to complement the campaigns’ own efforts. That makes the super PAC's ads anything but “independent.”

In each of the races in which CLC is alleging improper coordination, Federal Communications Commission records show repeated instances of the same high-ranking National Media employee placing ads on behalf of both AFA and the candidates that the super PAC was supporting, and on the same TV stations. In some cases, the same National Media employee placed ads on behalf of both AFA and the campaigns on the same station and at the same time.

AFA’s illegal coordination in support of Rep. Pete Sessions’ campaign is notable in light of the growing Ukraine scandal. CLC has documented how Sessions met personally in May of 2018 with two Rudy Giuliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, during the same period they were illegally routing $325,000 to AFA. After that meeting, Sessions sent a letter urging the removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. AFA would go on to spend millions in Sessions’ 2018 race, some of it illegally coordinated.

Parnas and Fruman have been indicted for that illegal AFA contribution, and the steps leading up to the ambassador’s removal have become a focus of the impeachment inquiry in the U.S. House.

Issues
Campaign Finance

CLC Urges Court to Broaden Relief to All Florida Voters with Financial Hardship Before Presidential Primary Election

Date
Body

Court can ensure a uniform process for all Floridians with financial hardship by granting the Raysor Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Judge Robert Hinkle for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued an opinion on October 18 granting relief to the 17 plaintiffs represented in the consolidated Jones v. DeSantis cases, and prohibiting the state from denying those individuals the right to vote solely because they are unable to pay outstanding legal financial obligations. Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a brief in federal court requesting that the court extend this relief to all Floridians who are otherwise eligible but are denied the right to vote solely because of their inability to pay. In the decision, the court affirmed that wealth based discrimination in voting is unconstitutional, and that the state must put in place a process by which otherwise eligible citizens who are genuinely unable to pay outstanding financial obligations may register and vote. Class certification will ensure that these citizens are able to obtain meaningful relief from the state. 

"This court has already recognized that Florida can’t deny our clients the right to vote based on lack of wealth. The court should apply that principle to the hundreds of thousands of others in the same position by granting our class action request,” said Paul Smith, vice president at CLC. “To avoid further confusion among voters, it is critical that the state act with urgency to provide a uniform and straightforward process that gives all affected Floridians a chance to exercise their constitutional right to vote. With Florida’s presidential primary registration deadline fast approaching on February 18, there is no time to delay.”

Issues
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to