Holloway, et al. v. City of Virginia Beach

At a Glance

The city of Virginia Beach has used an at-large voting system to elect members to the City Council since 1966. The lawsuit asks the court to change the City’s election system to one that would allow minorities to elect their candidates of choice to the City Council.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
About This Case/Action

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.

Plaintiffs

Latasha Holloway and Georgia Allen

Defendant

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, LOUIS JONES, JAMES WOOD, JESSICA ABBOTT, BEN DAVENPORT, ROBERT DYER, BARBARA HENLEY, SHANNON KANE, JOHN MOSS, JOHN UHRIN, and ROSEMARY WILSON, in their official capacity as members of the Virginia Beach City Council, DAVID L. HANSEN, in his official capacity as City Manager, and DONNA PATTERSON, in her official capacity as Director of Elections/ General Registrar for the City of Virginia Beach,

MCRP v. Reagan

At a Glance

CLC challenged Arizona’s system of rejecting mail-in ballots because election officials were not “satisfied” that the signature on the ballot matches voter registration signatures. The state was ordered to give voters a chance to fix it.

Status
Closed
Updated
About This Case/Action

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.   

Plaintiffs

Maricopa County Republican Party, Apache County Republican Party, Navajo County Republican Party, and Yuma County Republican Party

Defendant

Michele Reagan

CLC, Issue One and Former Lawmakers Urge FEC to Stop Politicians’ Abuse of Leadership PACs

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Issue One and five former lawmakers from both parties submitted comments urging the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to proceed with a rulemaking clarifying that the ban on personal use of campaign funds should apply to leadership PACs, in order to stop politicians from using the PACs as their personal slush funds. The organizations and former lawmakers filed the rulemaking petition in July.

Leadership PACs are supposed to be used so that officeholders can support other candidates’ campaigns to gain support for leadership positions. However, in the absence of clear rules from the FEC, only a minority of leadership PAC spending has gone toward contributions to other candidates and political committees, and instead, leadership PACs are commonly used as slush funds to subsidize politicians’ lifestyles.

“The FEC has the authority to issue rules cracking down on the misuse of leadership PAC funds, and the examples we’ve uncovered provide compelling arguments for it to do so,” said Brendan Fischer, director federal reform, CLC. “Officeholders using their leadership PAC accounts as personal slush funds gives big money even more influence over our democracy.”

According to CLC’s analysis of reports filed with the FEC since the rulemaking petition was filed, between April 1 and September 30, 2018 alone, leadership PACs spent at least $124,162 at the luxury Greenbrier resort in West Virginia, $160,809 at St. Regis resorts, $53,165 at Ritz Carlton hotels, $46,121 at Charlie Palmer Steak restaurant in D.C., and $19,760 at Disney properties.

Georgia Rep. Johnny Isakson used his leadership PAC to spend $59,145 at the Bandon Dunes golf club in Bandon, Oregon. Texas Rep. Pete Sessions used leadership PAC funds to spend $36,337 at a St. Regis resort in Deer Valley, Utah, and to spend $27,000 on an event at Dallas Cowboys stadium. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul used leadership PAC funds to spend more than $4,000 on meals, transportation, and sightseeing in London. And after Rep. Joe Crowley lost his primary in June 2018, he used his leadership PAC to spend $17,768 at the New York Racing Association horse racing track.

In July, CLC and Issue One released the report, “All Expenses Paid: How Leadership PACs Became Politicians’ Ticket to Luxury Living,” highlighting countless other stories of bipartisan abuses of leadership PACs. After the release of the report, the two organizations and a bipartisan group of former lawmakers filed a petition for rulemaking with the FEC asking the agency to clarify that the prohibition on the personal use of campaign funds also applies to a politician’s leadership PAC.

"While the FEC is burdened by partisan gridlock, prohibiting personal use of leadership PAC funds is a solution on which both parties agree. There's no reason for them to delay in initiating rulemaking to close this loophole," said Meredith McGehee, executive director, Issue One.

CLC Files Complaint Against Pop-Up Super PAC For Coordination with Renacci Campaign

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint against the super PAC MeToo Ohio for unlawfully coordinating with an Ohio U.S. Senate candidate’s campaign through the use of a common vendor and for using an evasive scheme to keep voters in the dark about its sources of funding.

On October 11, Jim Renacci’s campaign launched only its second ad of the entire general election — its first ad since June — and on the same day, a newly-formed super PAC called MeToo Ohio launched a new ad that was strikingly consistent in theme, tone, and style, including references to the same excerpted court documents and similar visuals.

Campaign finance law limits coordination between candidates and outside groups like MeToo Ohio. In order to preserve their independence, FEC rules limit how a vendor may work for both a candidate and an outside group supporting that candidate, yet both the super PAC and the Renacci campaign were paying the same vendor, a Florida-based company called Majority Strategies.

“It cannot be a coincidence that both the Renacci campaign and MeToo Ohio launched ads on the same day, hitting the same themes, using similar visuals, and with both the campaign and super PAC using the same political consulting firm,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform program at CLC. “There is more than enough evidence here to prompt an FEC investigation into unlawful coordination.”

Additionally, MeToo Ohio’s financial backers remain largely undisclosed. The super PAC has reported raising far less than it has spent, and is claiming that Majority Strategies extended six figures in credit to produce and disseminate the pro-Renacci ads. (Moreover, its only reported contributor is a dark money entity that keeps its donors secret.)

The model for the evasive maneuver to keep voters in the dark that MeToo employed was pioneered by a Democratic super PAC in 2017. This scheme spurred a CLC complaint that is still pending before the FEC. Similarly, another super PAC backing Renacci, Ohio First PAC, adopted a similar scheme, which also prompted a CLC complaint.

Arizona Court Orders Counties to Give Voters Due Process on Signature Mismatch Issue

Date
Body

PHOENIX - The Maricopa County Superior Court, upon agreement of the 15 county recorders, ordered all county recorders statewide to permit voters to “cure” their signature mismatch issue by Wednesday, November 14. The parties agreed that the “cure” period requires county recorders to provide notice to voters with supposed signature mismatches and allow them to confirm their signature.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC), ACLU, ACLU of Arizona, and Scharff PLC worked to reach this agreement on behalf of a coalition of Arizona groups: League of United Latin American Citizens-Arizona, Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, League of Women Voters-Arizona, and All Voting is Local-Arizona.

The coalition released the following statement:

“Voters should not be disenfranchised by penmanship. We are pleased to announce that all Arizona voters are now guaranteed notice and an opportunity to confirm their signature before their ballot is rejected. Democracy works best when all citizen voices are heard. We look forward to ensuring this process continues past this election.”

Voters statewide can correct signature mismatch errors by contacting their recorder by Wednesday at 5pm. Voters who have cast early ballots should track the status of their early ballot online at this website.