An incumbent Congressman filed a federal lawsuit after losing a race in the November 2018 midterm elections and speaking out against the system of ranked choice voting publicly. However, neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Voting Rights Act precludes ranked choice voting. Instead of burdening the right to vote, ranked choice voting expands the right to vote by permitting voters to express preferences for more than a single candidate and to ensure their opportunity to have their voice considered in determining the ultimate winner. Additionally, if voters choose not to rank candidates, they can choose one candidate, and their ballot will still count.

On November 28, 2018, CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in support of Maine’s system of ranked choice voting. The case will be heard on December 5, 2018.

Why Ranked Choice Voting?

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically empowered states to determine the procedures for electing members of Congress.

Voters in Maine strongly support ranked choice voting because it creates a more fair and democratic voting method, requiring candidates to cross the 50 percent voting threshold. More than 60 percent of those surveyed in an exit poll indicating they wanted to keep or even expanded its use to include state races. An even larger majority, just over 62 percent, named majority rule as an important or “very important” priority for election outcomes.

This affirmation underscores the growing support for ranked choice voting, which Maine voters first approved in a 2016 ballot measure and then again in the 2018 primary by an even higher margin.

The system used in most elections, a “traditional plurality voting system” incentivizes candidates to boost their support among their base, while failing to ensure they represent a majority of the voters in their district. Candidates have clear incentives to disregard independent and third-party candidates (and their supporters) who will not garner enough votes to pose a threat. Voters often feel they cannot vote for alternatives to the major party candidates, lest they play the role of “spoiler.”

Ranked choice voting presents an appealing alternative, and Maine is leading the way in enacting it. Ranked choice voting fosters more choice, more competition, and a greater need for cooperation because each candidate must seek the support of a wider range of the electorate. Because candidates must win majority support, ranked choice voting requires candidates to reach out to a broad coalition of voters – causing them to be more likely to engage with voters directly. This kind of system is ultimately more democratic and more majoritarian than traditional plurality voting.

Secretary Ross’s vague, incomplete, and inconsistent public financial disclosures buttress the public’s concern about whether the financial interests of a particularly wealthy cabinet secretary influenced administration policies affecting American companies.

In August 2018, CLC’s ethics team reviewed Ross’s public financial records and determined that there was enough evidence for the Inspector General to investigate Ross for failing to recuse from matters affecting his financial interests and making false statements. This led to a 115-page report that CLC submitted to the Inspector General.

Details in the report CLC compiled show that in 2017, Ross led an investigation to determine whether the United States should impose a tariff on steel imports while holding Invesco stock worth millions. At the time, Invesco had a significant interest in Chinese steel through a subsidiary that Ross ran until he joined the government. While leading the steel investigation, Ross also held stock in a steel-dependent railcar manufacturer named Greenbrier. One day after Greenbrier CEO Mark Furman sent a letter to the Commerce Department expressing concern about the investigation’s effect on his company, Ross sold up to a half million dollars’ worth of Greenbrier stock. Ross, who sold Greenbrier stock three times in 2017, claims that these sales occurred after he had unexpectedly discovered he still held shares of the company’s stock. However, Ross does not appear to have recused from the steel investigation after each discovery pending divestiture of the shares.

Additionally, according to reporting by Forbes, Ross hosted Chevron’s then-CEO John Watson, along with two company lobbyists, in his conference room on March 22, 2017 to discuss oil and gas developments, tax reform and trade issues. Ross’s wife owned a stake in the company worth more than $250,000. This caused CLC to file a supplemental complaint on November 1, 2018 because federal law prohibits officials from taking actions that have a predictable and direct effect on financial interests held by them or their spouses.

As CLC ethics counsel Delaney Marsco has said, the American people have entrusted Ross with power and authority so he can ensure the welfare of the American economy. We should not have to wonder if he's making decisions for the benefit of the public or for his own pocketbook.

Virginia Beach’s At-Large Election System

The 11-member City Council is the governing body for the City of Virginia Beach. The Mayor and the other 10 councilmembers are elected at-large to four-year staggered terms.  Seven of the 11 councilmembers are required to be residents of the seven districts in Virginia Beach (Bayside, Beach, Centerville, Kempsville, Lynnhaven, Princess Anne, and Rose Hall), but are nonetheless elected at-large. The other four seats, including the Mayor, are elected at-large with no residency requirements

Background

The City of Virginia Beach is the largest city in Virginia. The City has used an at-large voting system to elect members to the City Council since 1966.

The demographics of Virginia Beach have changed tremendously since 1966. The percentage of minorities in the City has more than doubled since the 1970 census, yet only six minority candidates have ever been elected to the City Council and no Black candidate has ever been re-elected to serve a second term.

Impact on Minority Voters

According to the 2010 Census, minorities constitute 31.6% of the total population in Virginia Beach and Non-Hispanic Blacks constitute 19.0% of the total population. According to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey, the Non-Hispanic White citizen voting age population (“CVAP”) was 69.3%, the Non-Hispanic Black CVAP was 18.3%, the Non-Hispanic Asian CVAP was 5.2%, and the Hispanic CVAP was 4.8%.

Yet, Minority Voters in Virginia Beach have been prevented from participating fully in City Council elections because of the way that councilmembers are elected. That election method, in which all councilmembers are elected at-large in citywide elections, unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of Minority Voters and prevents them from electing their candidates of choice to the City Council.

The City Council has eleven members. Because voting is racially polarized—white voters as a group and Minority Voters as a group usually prefer different candidates—the at-large method of election has regularly functioned to deprive almost one-third of the city’s voting age population from electing candidates of their choice to any of the eleven seats on the City Council.

The consistent defeat of minority preferred candidates would not occur if the City Council were elected using ten single-member voting districts and one at-large mayoral race. The minority citizen voting age population is sufficiently large and geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in at least two single-member districts that would be likely able to elect their candidates of choice to the City Council.

The denial of the right of Virginia Beach minority residents to have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice to the City Council has resulted in a City Council that is not responsive to the particular needs of the minority residents.

Virginia Beach’s Single-Member District Election System Violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

In Virginia Beach, the at-large method of election for the City Council submerges Minority Voters so that they are rendered ineffective electoral minorities in most elections; denies Virginia Beach’s Minority Voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect councilmembers of their choice; and dilutes the vote of all Virginia Beach Minority Voters.

Background

In prior elections, some Arizona county recorders had indicated they stop notifying voters whose absentee ballot signatures are deemed “mismatched” as of 7 P.M. on Election Day—so voters who turn their ballots in on time, just closer to the deadline, were given no opportunity to prove their signatures were genuine.  CLC and the ACLU sent a letter to the Arizona Secretary of State and the county recorders prior to the 2018 election warning that this practice violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.

Maricopa and Pima County then publicly confirmed they would continue providing notice and an opportunity to cure following Election Day. Two days after the election, several county Republican Parties sued to enjoin that practice because several rural counties were not permitting voters the same notice and cure opportunity.

CLC Involvement

CLC, along with the ACLU and local counsel Scharff PLC filed a brief late in the evening on October 8, 2018 in the emergency matter in Arizona state court on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters, and Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation to defend the due process rights of all Arizona voters, calling on the court to order that all Arizona counties give voters the opportunity to confirm their signatures through Wednesday, November 14 – the deadline to fix conditional provisional ballots.  A hearing was held on November 9 and all Arizona counties agreed to the November 14 deadline.