New House plan would gut constitutional requirements for fairness, transparency and independence in redistricting

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – National experts on nonpartisan redistricting policy joined Missouri citizens in condemning the gerrymandering proposal moving in the Missouri House that would roll back redistricting reforms passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2018.

“Missouri politicians should listen to their voters, who supported fair maps by an almost 2-to-1 margin in November,” said Chris Lamar, legal counsel, redistricting, at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “This stealth gerrymandering plan proposed by self-interested politicians would overturn the will of the people, making it harder to achieve the independent redistricting process voters sought when they passed Amendment 1.”

"HJR 48 is a big step backwards from the fair map reforms overwhelmingly passed by Missouri voters last November," said Michael Li,  Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "In place of the strong community-focused rules approved by voters, it would require splitting apart towns and cities and make partisan fairness subordinate to artificial and abstract notions of compactness. This is the exact opposite of good reform."

New language for House Joint Resolution 48 was introduced and passed last week in committee without a thorough vetting or review. It would:

• Overturn the will of 1.4 million Missourians who supported the Clean Missouri Amendment,

• Allow lobbyists and partisan political appointees to gerrymander maps to advance their own interests,

• Allow communities to be split up by political appointees in the name of 'compact' districts,

• Eliminate the requirement that data used for map drafting be made open to the public, and

• Remove the nonpartisan independence added to the state's map-drawing process.

In November 2018, Missourians overwhelmingly supported a new, fair redistricting process that took away the influence of lobbyists and insiders when crafting new legislative maps. In its place, 1,469,093 voters enacted a new system with checks and balances to create districts where candidates will have to work hard to earn their votes, where lobbyists and political insiders can no longer rig the system, and to ensure that no political party gets an unfair advantage in any new maps.

Amendment 1 endorsements in 2018 included:

• Campaign Legal Center

• Organization for Black Struggle

• Missouri Jobs With Justice

• A. Philip Randolph Institute – St. Louis Chapter

• Coalition of Black Trade Unionists

• Common Cause

• Communities Creating Opportunity

• DEMOS

• Metropolitan Congregations United

• Missouri AFL-CIO

• Missouri Faith Voices

• Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys

• MORE2

• NAACP Missouri State Conference

• Service Employees International Union

• The League of Women Voters

--

Amendment 1 was also endorsed by Rev. Starsky Wilson, Rev. Dr. Rodney E. Williams, Rev. Dr. Cassandra Gould, Pastor Michael Brooks, Rev. Tex Sample, St. Louis Treasurer Tishaura Jones, the St. Louis American, Kansas City Call, Kansas City Star, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Missourian, and Columbia Daily Tribune.

Addressing foreign interference should be treated as a national priority because it is an urgent national security threat

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Attorney General William Barr released a redacted version of the “Report on the Investigation of Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation found three main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct a disinformation campaign and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, with the aim of interfering with the election. The Special Counsel brought criminal charges against 12 Russian citizens and three Russian entities for conspiracy to defraud the United States. The second element involved the Russian government's successful computer hacking operations that obtained and disseminated emails through intermediaries to influence the election. The third is the large number of contacts between Russians and senior officials of the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner.

Trevor Potter, President of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, released the following statement:

“The Mueller report’s findings highlight the need to treat foreign interference as a national priority because it is an urgent national security threat. Details uncovered in the investigation lay bare the extent to which Russia conducted an organized campaign of information warfare against America with the goal of spreading chaos and distrust in our elections. The facts are disturbing: millions of Americans went to the ballot box in 2016 without knowing that a foreign adversary had taken extraordinary steps to pose as American political activists online, purchase political ads, and hack a major party nominee and campaign committee. While the Special Counsel found that the activity of the Trump campaign did not meet the high standards for a criminal felony indictment, the report is replete with evidence of contacts and meetings with foreign actors seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election. 

Russia spent a large sum of money on ads that explicitly supported or opposed a presidential candidate. These ads were not subject to reporting – and Congress must work to change this law for digital ads. It is time to focus on how we can strengthen our election system to prevent foreign interference through illicit online activity, and to clarify our campaign laws so that the opportunity no longer exists for foreign actors to influence elections. We should work to find consensus among our leaders in Washington on transparency measures that would shine a light on foreign money pouring into American elections. We cannot lose sight of the message Mueller delivered with this investigation: a foreign adversary tried to subvert American democracy and they – or other countries that do not wish the U.S. or our democracy well – will do it again if given the chance. Our country’s longstanding concerns about foreign interference are rooted in democratic self-governance and national sovereignty. American people of all political stripes – regardless of who they voted for in 2016 – should look beyond one election outcome and call on Congress to protect our country from any foreign entity that may use the Russian model to intervene in 2020 and beyond.”

Proposed new rules are confusing and vague and would deter groups from helping others register to vote through harsh criminal and civil penalties

WASHINGTON – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and a collective of national civil and voting rights organizations sent a letter to the Tennessee General Assembly asking them to reject bill SB971/HB1079 that would create burdensome requirements, threatening civil and criminal penalties for individuals and groups conducting voter registration drives. The bill, scheduled for a vote in the House Monday, will intimidate groups from conducting community-based drives to avoid the risk of being subject to the bill’s severe penalties.

In a state that struggles with voter registration and turnout, leaders should look for ways to encourage activities like voter registration drives, but these new restrictions will have the exact opposite effect.

The letter outlines several issues that make this bill a threat to efforts to make democracy more accessible to all Americans. The language used in the bill is vague and makes it unclear who must follow the requirements - for example, it heavily penalizes voter registration drives for handing in registration forms “deemed deficient” without explaining clearly who is subject to the rule and what would considered a “deficient” form, and it adds poorly-defined criminal penalties for honest mistakes. Tennessee’s criminal laws already protect voters and prohibit voter registration fraud, making these vague, onerous new restrictions unnecessary.

The bill also requires state-sponsored training without ensuring groups can actually participate, another provision with the threat of criminal prosecution. As written, this bill has no requirement that training be made available on any schedule or timeframe, or that it be made available on-demand online or otherwise.

In the letter, the organizations encouraged policymakers to “instead focus on modernizing Tennessee’s registration and election administration to promote participation and bring more eligible citizens into our democracy.”

WASHINGTON – Today, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of the Interior confirmed by letter that it has opened an investigation into ethical misconduct by then-Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt, following CLC’s complaint filed on February 28. Bernhardt was confirmed as Interior Secretary by the U.S. Senate on April 11.

“The story of David Bernhardt is a classic story of the problem with lobbyists passing through Washington’s revolving door. Today’s news confirms that Bernhardt’s conduct raises serious ethical questions, including  whether he has exploited his power to advance the interests of the lobbying groups that used to pay his salary, potentially at the expense of the public,” said Delaney Marsco, ethics counsel at CLC. “We are pleased to hear the Inspector General is investigating Bernhardt’s potential conflicts of interest. We hope the IG recommends that Bernhardt separate himself from Interior matters that may benefit his former lobbying clients for the entirety of his government service. To avoid a tenure marred by ethics scandals similar to cabinet officials like Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt, Bernhardt should ensure that his actions avoid even the appearance of favoritism.”

According to CLC’s complaint, before joining Interior, Bernhardt lobbied on specific provisions of a law that aimed to minimize endangered species protections and maximize water supplies for his client. Bernhardt then joined Interior and used his official authority to institutionalize the same provisions that he had lobbied on, in violation of his ethics pledge and his ethical obligations.