WASHINGTON, D.C. – Plaintiffs in Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina filed their final brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today, just more than three weeks before the Court is slated to hear oral arguments in the partisan gerrymandering cases out of North Carolina and Maryland on March 26. Lower court victories for the plaintiffs in North Carolina mark the first time an entire state’s congressional plan has been struck down for being an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), and University of Chicago Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos represent the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and 12 individual North Carolina plaintiffs in the case, Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina. The Supreme Court will simultaneously hear a companion case, Rucho v. Common Cause.

“Citizens in all 50 states deserve to be able to choose their representatives – and not the other way around. This is why we need a national solution, and why we look forward to bringing the fight for fair maps to the U.S. Supreme Court this month,” said Paul Smith, vice president of CLC. “It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to act. They have a golden opportunity to enforce the Constitution in a manner that will rein in partisan gerrymandering – done by both parties – and create ground rules that safeguard the fundamental right of all Americans to have their vote count.

“This case cries out for intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court to rein in out-of-control partisan manipulation of the redistricting process,” said Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for SCSJ. “You’d be hard-pressed to find a more blatant example of voters being denied their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law and to free speech than the North Carolina’s 2016 congressional redistricting plan. When legislators brag about their attempts to entrench themselves in political power, and enact maps designed to guarantee election winners before a single vote is cast, courts are the only hope for a remedy. These legislative actions are inconsistent with the basic principles of representative democracy that we hold so dear.”  

"The League of Women Voters of NC is proud to be a plaintiff in this case that so clearly lays out the need for redistricting reform,” said Janet Hoy, co-president of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina. "We look forward to the time when NC will have constitutional districts and North Carolinians' votes will count in every election."

Bernhardt’s behavior fits pattern of disregard for ethical norms across government agency tasked with managing the country’s natural resources

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Inspector General alleging that Acting Secretary David Bernhardt ran afoul of his ethical obligations by participating in the same efforts to weaken environmental protections that he lobbied for prior to joining government.

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.

“For years, Bernhardt lobbied to undermine protections for endangered species on behalf of his lobbying clients, and he continued working on the same exact issues after entering government,” said Paul Smith, vice president of CLC. “Bernhardt should be subject to the same high ethical standards as any other Interior employee, and the Inspector General should investigate this fully.”

“It is hard to tell where Bernhardt’s private sector lobbying activities end and where his public service begins,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “These violations have major consequences: this isn’t about technical violations of ethics rules, and it isn’t about a three-inch fish. This is about whether increasingly scarce natural resources remain protected for the public, or whether the wealthy and well-connected get privileged access. Public officials are supposed to work on behalf of the public, not the powerful interests that used to fund their paycheck.”

In the years before entering government, Bernhardt lobbied on specific provisions of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (“WIIN”) Act, which directed Interior to maximize water resources for his lobbying client – Westlands Water District – by placing constraints on the application of certain Endangered Species Act protections. Shortly after joining Interior, Bernhardt violated his ethics pledge by participating in the same particular matters that he had lobbied on, by directing agency actions that would effectively codify those same provisions.

Bernhardt’s advocacy on behalf of Westlands, and against endangered species protections for specific fish, was not limited to lobbying. He was on the board of a nonprofit group closely tied to Westlands that worked on matters that paralleled Bernhardt’s lobbying efforts. When Westlands sued to challenge the endangered species protections at issue in his lobbying efforts, he personally argued an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Even after deregistering as a lobbyist, and while serving on Trump’s Interior transition team, he edited a draft executive order on behalf of Westlands that would incorporate the same provisions of the WIIN Act that he previously lobbied on. These facts further mandated recusal, since a reasonable person would question whether Bernhardt was acting on behalf of the public or on behalf of his former lobbying client when he worked on the same matters at Interior.

Bernhardt’s disregard for ethical norms reflects a larger pattern at Interior. On Feb. 20, 2019, CLC filed a complaint about six political employees who also appear to have also violated their ethics pledges.

*Delaney Marsco and Urja Mittal also worked on this complaint for CLC.

Court condemns Texas' ‘threatening correspondence’ and orders them to discontinue voter purge program

SAN ANTONIO, TX – In a decision filed today by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, federal judge Fred Biery ordered the Texas Secretary of State to tell all counties to pause their planned voter purge. In the opinion, the court orders Texas “not to send any notice of examination letters nor remove voters from registration without prior approval of the Court.”

“This is a major victory for Texas voters,” said Danielle Lang, co-director, voting rights and redistricting at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “The court rightly agreed with our argument that Texas threatened voter purge struck fear and anxiety into the hearts of voters. Texas unnecessarily targeted tens of thousands of people who were properly registered citizens, intimidating naturalized citizens from exercising their rights. Let this be a message to the rest of the country that states will face consequences when they threaten their citizens’ right to vote.”

CLC represented the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) in the case. Visit our case page to learn more.

SAN ANTONIO, TX – A federal judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas said Monday that Texas counties involved in ongoing litigation may not purge registered voters or send letters demanding proof of citizenship until further order from the court. This conclusion was reached by Judge Fred Biery after a three-day evidentiary hearing in which the court heard from League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and Texas plaintiff Julie Hilberg, a citizen of Atascosa County, Texas who told the court the story of how she was wrongly placed on Secretary of State David Whitley’s list, despite being naturalized in 2015 after moving to Texas. CLC represents LULAC and Ms. Hilberg.

Read Julie’s story.

“All Texas counties should refrain from further action until a broad ruling is made on our lawsuit,” said Danielle Lang, co-director, voting rights and redistricting, at CLC. “Texas designed this unlawful ‘search and purge’ mission to intimidate legitimately registered voters, and Secretary of State Whitley has failed to defend his program of voter suppression, ignoring warnings from state employees about the inaccuracy of the data he relied on. The court should step in and protect the rights of all Texas citizens.”

The parties will submit additional briefing next Thursday.

Learn more about the litigation.