Daunt v. Benson

At a Glance

Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment to create an independent redistricting commission to redraw the state’s voting districts. Two groups of plaintiffs sued to block its implementation. CLC serves as co-counsel for the Defendant Voters Not Politicians, a nonpartisan, citizen-led organization that worked to pass the constitutional amendment, and is defending its constitutionality.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

Fed up with partisan gerrymandering in Michigan’s state legislative and congressional districts, Voters Not Politicians (VNP) proposed a ballot initiative in Michigan that would create an independent redistricting commission (IRC), passing it overwhelmingly in November 2018. After volunteers collected over 425,000 signatures from Michigan voters in every one of the state’s counties, submitted the initiative to be put on the general election ballot in November, and survived several legal challenges, Proposal 2 was put on the ballot in the midterm election. On November 6, 2018, 61% (over 2.5 million) of Michigan voters passed Proposal 2, amending the Michigan Constitution to establish an IRC. Michigan voters of both major political parties supported the amendment, including voters in 67 of Michigan’s 83 counties.

IRCs take the power of redistricting out of the hands of partisan legislators, who have proven that they will use the process to gain power when given the opportunity to do so. IRCs instead give the power to the citizens to choose their representatives and create a more fair and transparent process for redrawing districts. Michigan’s IRC as approved by the voters will first be in place in the 2020 redistricting cycle. The commission will consist of 13 registered voters, four of whom are Republicans, four of whom are Democrats, and five who self-identify as unaffiliated with either of the two major political parties. The process will allow for public input, public hearings, and public access to all the data, documents, and software used by the commission. The constitutional amendment also established redistricting criteria for the commissioners to follow to ensure fairer maps, including:

  • complying with the federal Voting Rights Act
  • not disproportionately favoring any political party or incumbent
  • respecting communities of interest
  • respecting county, city, and township lines
  • geographic compactness
  • contiguity
  • equal population

Finally, the amendment established certain eligibility requirements for citizens applying for the role of a commissioner, in order to prevent conflicts of interest. These include prohibiting partisan officeholders and candidates, their paid employees, certain relatives, officers or leaders of a political party and lobbyists from serving as commissioners. Any citizen who cannot participate as a commissioner can still participate in the redistricting process, whether by participating at public hearings or submitting proposed maps.

On July 30, 2019, a group of 15 plaintiffs that identify as Republicans sued Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, alleging that the commission’s eligibility requirements are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also argue that the allegedly unconstitutional eligibility requirements are not severable from the rest of the amendment, meaning the whole amendment must be struck down. The plaintiffs requested a temporary delay to prevent Secretary Benson from implementing or preparing to select commissioners to serve on the commission.

On August 22, 2019, the Michigan Republican Party and several affiliated individuals also sued Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, alleging that the commission’s eligibility requirements are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs requested an injunction and declaratory order to prevent Secretary Benson from implementing or preparing to select commissioners to serve on the commission.

CLC represents VNP as a Proposed Intervenor-Defendant in both cases. VNP moved to intervene in the lawsuit shortly after it was filed, in order to offer its expertise and insights as the drafter and sponsor of the constitutional amendment at issue and defend the constitutionality of the eligibility requirements for commissioners and the amendment.

On September 11, 2019, Michigan Republican Party v. Benson was consolidated with Daunt v. Benson. The consolidated cases will proceed under the name of the Lead Case, Daunt v. Benson. 

Associated Cases & Actions

Movement to Establish Citizen-Led Redistricting Commissions in the States

De Blasio Campaign Created Shell Game to Deceive Voters: CLC Calls for Investigation

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that Bill de Blasio’s campaign and two PACs associated with de Blasio violated federal law by arranging for a small number of wealthy donors to exceed the $2,800 legal contribution limit, and failing to report those contributions. At least 25 donors who gave the legal maximum to de Blasio’s campaign had also given $5,000 to a federal committee, Fairness PAC, and a state committee, NY Fairness PAC, which spent the money laying the groundwork for de Blasio’s presidential run.

“The de Blasio campaign appears to have concocted a shell game to arrange for a small number of wealthy donors to illegally support de Blasio’s presidential run above and beyond legal contribution limits,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “Contribution limits are designed to prevent corruption. Presidential candidates cannot lay the groundwork for their campaign by accepting contributions nearly 300% in excess of federal limits.”

Fairness PAC and NY Fairness PAC paid for hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff, polling, and travel to early primary states in the months before de Blasio formally announced his candidacy. By law, de Blasio 2020 was then required to report those testing-the-waters expenditures on its first report, as well as the contributors who had paid for them. However, de Blasio 2020’s first report, filed last month, reported some of the testing-the-waters expenditures paid for by the two PACs, but failed to report any of the contributors. CLC’s analysis of the de Blasio 2020, Fairness PAC, and NY Fairness PAC campaign finance reports showed that at least 25 donors had exceeded legal limits by nearly 300%.  

Issues
Campaign Finance

Court Must Require FEC to Enforce the Law or Risk Rampant Abuse by Super PACs in 2020

Date
Body

Republican FEC commissioners let Clinton campaign off the hook for coordinating millions in spending with super PAC

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over the agency’s failure to enforce the law limiting coordination between candidates and billionaire-funded outside groups and requiring full disclosure of such coordination. The super PAC “Correct the Record” (CTR) was a $9 million operation working by the admission of founder and chair David Brock “under the thumb” of the Hillary Clinton campaign for president in 2016. Despite the FEC career staff attorneys’ conclusion that CTR’s scheme likely violated the law and recommendation that the agency pursue the matter, the two Republican commissioners recently voted to let the Clinton campaign and super PAC off the hook.

“Unless the court intervenes, the FEC’s inaction has paved the way for 2020 presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle to break the law,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and a former Republican Chairman of the FEC. “The Republican commissioners today are opposed to the campaign finance and disclosure laws they are supposed to enforce, and as a result, the FEC rarely pursues violators, allowing political operatives to ignore the rules without consequence.”

An outside organization can only legally raise unlimited donations to support a candidate’s campaign if it is completely independent of that campaign. But CTR disregarded these rules, declaring that it would coordinate a wide range of expensive activities, including polling, video production and opposition research, with the Clinton campaign. CLC filed a complaint asking the FEC to investigate in October 2016, which the agency dismissed earlier this year. The law gives complainants the right to sue the FEC if the dismissal was contrary to law.

“Allowing candidates to outsource millions in campaign operations to billionaire-funded super PACs further entrenches the power of wealthy donors over our democracy,” said Tara Malloy, senior director, appellate litigation and strategy at CLC. “Campaign finance laws are supposed to limit the influence of money on our politics and ensure public disclosure of campaign spending, and we need the FEC to do its job and enforce those laws.”
 

--


*Tara Malloy, Megan McAllen, Maggie Christ and Urja Mittal also worked on this legal action for CLC.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Suing the FEC for Failing to Enforce Laws Violated by Correct The Record and the Clinton Campaign — CLC v. FEC (Clinton Campaign coordination)

At a Glance

CLC sued the FEC after it deadlocked and dismissed CLC’s complaint alleging illegal coordination between Clinton’s campaign and the super PAC Correct the Record (CTR). CLC is suing the FEC to force it to hold CTR and the Campaign accountable for violating the laws designed to limit money’s influence on politics.

Status
Active
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In the 2016 elections, the super PAC Correct The Record — notorious for its plans to “push back against” Hillary Clinton’s critics online — declared that it would coordinate its activities with the Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Hillary For America . CTR’s founder and chair, David Brock, even publicly stated that CTR was “basically under the thumb” of the campaign.

Under federal campaign finance law an individual could only contribute $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016. However, as an “independent” super PAC, CTR could accept unlimited amounts from individual donors or corporations — as long as the super PAC did not coordinate with the Clinton campaign. 

If CTR’s spending was coordinated, the law would treat that spending as a contribution, since it would no longer be independent and would have had substantial value to the Clinton campaign.

Despite spending over $9 million on opposition research, campaign spokesperson training and booking, video production, press outreach, and other activities — many of which, by CTR’s own admission, were conducted in coordination with the Clinton campaign — yet the Clinton campaign never reported receiving in-kind contributions from CTR, and CTR never reported the activities as contributions.

In October of 2016, CLC filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that CTR had made, and the Clinton campaign had received, millions of dollars in illegal, unreported, and excessive in-kind contributions in the form of coordinated expenditures.

Following CLC’s complaint, the FEC’s career staff attorneys concluded that CTR’s $9 million scheme likely violated the law and recommended that the agency pursue the matter. The two Democratic Commissioners agreed — but the two Republican Commissioners voted against the recommendation causing a deadlock. Without four votes to pursue the matter, the case is dismissed.

The law gives complainants the right to sue the FEC if the dismissal was contrary to law. In this case, CTR officials openly admitted that the super PAC’s spending was coordinated with the Clinton campaign, but the campaign never reported any in-kind contributions from CTR, nor did it disclose the nature of all the coordinated expenditures.

The lawsuit calls for the court to find that the FEC’s dismissal of the complaints was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to the law,” and seeks a judicial order demanding the FEC enforce the law within 30 days.

The FEC’s failure to enforce the law only helps to further amplify the influence of big donors over democracy.

Plaintiffs

Campaign Legal Center

Defendant

Federal Election Commission

Subscribe to