The Supreme Court could hear case in the 2018-19 term in time for new maps in 2020

WASHINGTON – Today, a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina reaffirmed its decision from January striking down the state’s congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.  The decision in League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho was issued after the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court to consider whether or not the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case.  In today’s decision, the lower court confirmed that in the consolidated cases, plaintiffs have standing to challenge each of the 13 congressional districts.  It is expected that today’s decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could hear the case in the upcoming term that begins in October. 

Today’s opinion can be found here.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and University of Chicago Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos represent the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and 12 individual North Carolina plaintiffs.

Should the case be heard this term, as expected, North Carolina voters could have fair and legal maps drawn in time to be used in the 2020 elections. The case has the potential to reshape future redistricting nationwide by limiting politicians’ ability to discriminate against voters who favor a minority party as those politicians control the process of drawing electoral districts.

“North Carolina has had one of the most severely gerrymandered maps in modern American history for almost a full decade, and it can no longer stand,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “This fall, North Carolina voters are about to endure their fourth election cycle with a blatantly gerrymandered congressional map. Given the timing, we expect the Supreme Court to hear this case in the upcoming 2018-2019 term. Our clients in North Carolina are ready for a ruling from the Supreme Court that finally declares that voters, not lawmakers, come first.”

“Once again, a bipartisan panel of judges agree that the legislature went too far in its efforts to gerrymander election districts in a way that discriminates against voters based on their political beliefs and predetermines the outcome of elections before a single vote is cast,” said Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “Elections should have consequences.  Unfortunately, every congressional election in North Carolina so far this decade has deprived the voters of the ability to hold elected officials accountable through the democratic process.  The court recognized that such actions are unconstitutional.  The people of North Carolina deserve better.”

A companion case, brought by lead plaintiff Common Cause and others, also moves forward with today’s decision.  The earlier findings by the district court as to the violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were also reiterated today.

Read more about the case: Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina. 

The Supreme Court could hear case in the 2018-19 term in time for new maps in 2020

WASHINGTON – Today, a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina reaffirmed its decision from January striking down the state’s congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.  The decision in League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho was issued after the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court to consider whether or not the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case.  In today’s decision, the lower court confirmed that in the consolidated cases, plaintiffs have standing to challenge each of the 13 congressional districts.  It is expected that today’s decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could hear the case in the upcoming term that begins in October. 

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and University of Chicago Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos represent the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and 12 individual North Carolina plaintiffs.

“Once again, a bipartisan panel of judges agree that the legislature went too far in its efforts to gerrymander election districts in a way that discriminates against voters based on their political beliefs and predetermines the outcome of elections before a single vote is cast,”said Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “Elections should have consequences.  Unfortunately, every congressional election in North Carolina so far this decade has deprived the voters of the ability to hold elected officials accountable through the democratic process.  The court recognized that such actions are unconstitutional.  The people of North Carolina deserve better.”

Should the case be heard this term, as expected, North Carolina voters could have fair and legal maps drawn in time to be used in the 2020 elections. The case has the potential to reshape future redistricting nationwide by limiting politicians’ ability to discriminate against voters who favor a minority party as those politicians control the process of drawing electoral districts.

“North Carolina has had one of the most severely gerrymandered maps in modern American history for almost a full decade, and it can no longer stand,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “This fall, North Carolina voters are about to endure their fourth election cycle with a blatantly gerrymandered congressional map. Given the timing, we expect the Supreme Court to hear this case in the upcoming 2018-2019 term. Our clients in North Carolina are ready for a ruling from the Supreme Court that finally declares that voters, not lawmakers, come first.”

A companion case, brought by lead plaintiff Common Cause and others, also moves forward with today’s decision.  The earlier findings by the district court as to the violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were also reiterated today.

Read more about the case: Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina. 

###

At the news of Senator John McCain's passing, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) President Trevor Potter, who served as John McCain’s general counsel during both of his campaigns for president, in 2000 and 2008, released the following statement in honor of Senator McCain’s legacy: 

“The lessons we can draw from John McCain’s personality are his grit, determination and an unwillingness to ever give up in pursuit of the greater public interest. 

“Without a champion like McCain, comprehensive campaign finance reform never would have passed. For him, campaign finance reform was not just a one-time legislative milestone, but a mission. It was a major pillar of his 2000 Presidential political platform, and he was committed to ensuring that the solution he worked to achieve was constitutional and would endure. Unfortunately, even he could not foresee the results of changes in the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the resulting overturning of precedent, after his initial court victories. 

“People forget that John McCain was the first target of dark money spending, a phenomenon that has become all too common in today’s elections. At the time, it was shocking because political money was usually easier to trace. It happened in 2000, when there was a sneak attack on him by a group that called themselves ‘Republicans for Clean Air,’ which ran millions in television ads on Super Tuesday saying he was in favor of pollution. The press discovered that these ads were paid by a 527 group that did not have to disclose their donors, so they wondered whether it was an agent of the George W. Bush campaign making the expenditure. In fact, it turned out that was indeed two wealthy Bush supporters from Texas.

“This seemed completely contrary to longstanding principles of transparency in election spending, and it lead to Congress amending the tax law in 2001. They broadly agreed that nonprofit groups should not be able to spend money in elections without disclosing donors. There was such a clear, bipartisan consensus about this at the time that even Senator Mitch McConnell spoke out about the need for disclosure.

“Over time, Senator McCain earned a reputation as a truth-teller who would speak his mind, which often meant speaking truth to power. To pass the overhaul of the campaign finance system, the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act, known more popularly as McCain-Feingold (2002), Senator McCain had to overcome the resistance of the entire Republican leadership and establishment, which included President Bush, the Speaker of the House and the party campaign committees. He was so committed to passing the bill that he took the highly unusual step of campaigning for the bill on the House side of Capitol Hill, despite being a senator. 

“After McCain-Feingold, Senator McCain stood up again and again in public life for his principles and beliefs. The country and our political life will be sorely diminished by this loss.

“CLC was initially created to defend in court and help implement Senator McCain’s watershed campaign finance reform law. And CLC worked on the front lines to help preserve the law and achieve a major victory in the first major challenge to the law in McConnell v. FEC. CLC continues that work today.”
 

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that 45 Committee – a dark money group that reported spending over $22 million supporting Donald Trump in the final weeks of the 2016 election – failed to register as a political committee and disclose its donors, as required by law.

Under federal law, an organization must register as a political committee – and file regular reports disclosing its contributors and spending – if it has the major purpose of electing a candidate. Over half of 45 Committee’s spending in 2016 went towards election-related expenditures. This and other facts described in the complaint establish that its major purpose was electing Trump under FEC guidance and judicial precedent.  

News reports from 2016 indicated that 45 Committee made “a particular effort to win over donors who want to help Trump but are leery of having their names publicly associated with the polarizing Republican nominee.” One fundraiser told Politico that “[t]here are more donors who are willing to support Donald anonymously than with their names on it.”

 “The public shouldn’t be left in the dark about who is funding a multi-million dollar effort to elect the president,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “45 Committee pitched itself as a vehicle for donors to secretly support Trump, and most of its spending in 2016 supported Trump’s election – so the law requires that it register as a political committee and publicly disclose its donors. If the FEC doesn’t step up their game and enforce the law, megadonors will continue to secretly buy influence.”

Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) President Trevor Potter, a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) released the following statement in response to news that Trump attorney Michael Cohen plead guilty on two counts of illegal campaign contributions related to the 2016 election:

“Michael Cohen admitted today that he made or facilitated hush money payments to women in coordination with the Trump campaign to keep them silent about affairs they had with Trump. Cohen admitted to making a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels for the benefit of and in coordination with the Trump campaign, and appears to have done so at the behest of Trump himself, which constitutes an excessive and unreported in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. It also appears that the Trump campaign itself violated the law by accepting this contribution in excess of legal limits and failing to report it.”

“If Trump himself knowingly and willfully violated the law, or engaged in or directed a conspiracy to do so, he too could be facing criminal penalties. Even if his violation is not knowing and willful however, the campaign could be subject to civil penalties, such as fines.”

“In a separate charge, Cohen pled guilty to causing American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, to make an illegal coordinated $150,000 payment by the publisher of the National Enquirer to silence former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Cohen admitted that the payment was part of an agreement entered into by AMI to influence the 2016 Presidential election by using corporate resources to prevent rumors about Trump’s affairs from becoming public by paying off women who were threatening to go public.”

Trevor Potter appeared on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper in March to talk about this issue and the importance of the FEC enforcing campaign finance law.

WASHINGTON – Today, a Michigan company that contracts with the federal government agreed to refund a $10,000 contribution it made to a super PAC supporting John James, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, following a complaint filed by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Detroit News reported today that the company, which highlights its government contract work on its website, was unaware of the ban and wanted to abide by the law.

“Taxpayers in Michigan should be heartened to know that the ban on pay-to-play in government contracting is still intact,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “Watchdog groups and the media have an important role to play to ensure that campaign finance laws are being followed by political operatives and donors, who have proven willing to push the legal envelope. But meanwhile, government contractors like private prison company GEO Group continue to illegally buy influence by bankrolling super PACs.”

While the FEC is mired in partisan infighting and dysfunction, it does have a history of punishing government contractors for making donations to political committees. Following a complaint by the Campaign Legal Center, the FEC fined Boston-based Suffolk Construction Co., a federal contractor, for giving $200,000 to Priorities USA, a super PAC that supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. Notably, that fine was imposed even though Priorities USA had refunded the contribution.

CLC has long pointed to the problem of government contractors giving to political campaigns.

The FEC is still sitting on a complaint against GEO Group, one of the world’s largest private prison companies and a major federal contractor, for giving $225,000 to a super PAC supporting Trump in 2016. That same company became the first beneficiary of a new private prison contract in the Trump Administration, receiving a $110 million federal contract to build a 1,000-bed immigrant detention center in Texas.

More recently, CLC filed two complaints after federal contractor Ashbritt Inc. gave $500,000 to the pro-Trump super PAC America First Action, and a contractor called Ring Power gave $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Florida U.S. Senate candidate Rick Scott.