CLC continues federal partisan gerrymandering litigation while arming legislators, good government advocates and activists with the knowledge they need to fight partisan gerrymandering in the states

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released two reports that outline a vision for the future of the fight to end partisan gerrymandering. Together, they represent a legal and policy roadmap for state leaders to advocate for fair redistricting inside and outside of the courtroom, after the Supreme Court of the United States declined to rule on partisan gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin, Maryland and North Carolina in June 2018. These cases are all still ongoing.

Regardless of whether the Court steps in to enforce national limits on partisan gerrymandering, laws in several states may provide standards that can constrain map-drawers and limit the use of extreme partisanship when they redraw electoral lines. There are many legal avenues available for litigating partisan gerrymandering claims under state constitutions, as evidenced by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to strike down the state’s maps in February as a violation of the ‘free and equal clause.’

Additionally, Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRC)’s are a solution for citizens seeking a more independent and fair process where voters can directly voice their opinions without having to go through state legislatures. While there is no one-size-fits-all model that will work in every state, IRC’s are a solution that removes partisan and special interest influence from the map drawing process. Several states are already using them successfully. These commissions improve competitiveness in elections within districts and raise the rate at which seats flip in response to changing voter sentiments.

“There are many ways we can hold politicians’ feet to the fire through a dual-track strategy that includes continuing our work in the courtroom and engaging in citizen-lead efforts to demand fair maps in all 50 states,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “Citizens have the opportunity to approve several ballot initiatives slated for voter approval this fall – an important reminder that states can pursue redistricting reform even while we wait for the Supreme Court to set a clear standard on partisan gerrymandering. Between now and November, we must continue the effort in the states to ensure that legislators, good government advocates and activists have the knowledge they need to fight partisan gerrymandering. By the 2020 elections and the next redistricting process, legislators nationwide must be aware of the consequences for intentionally diluting the power of their voters for their own partisan gain.”

• Read Report: Litigating Partisan Gerrymandering Claims Under State Constitutions
• Read Report: Designing Independent Redistricting Commissions

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the National Rifle Association (NRA) violated federal law by using a common vendor to coordinate illegally with four U.S. Senate campaigns.

Campaign finance law prohibits coordination between candidates and outside groups like the NRA. 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. Politico Magazine reported, however, that a consulting firm set up a shell corporation for the apparent purpose of helping the NRA evade these rules.

As a result, the NRA may have made millions in illegal and excessive in-kind contributions.

“There is substantial evidence that the NRA funneled millions through a shell corporation to unlawfully coordinate with candidates it was backing,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “The NRA using inside information about a candidate’s strategy to create ‘independent’ ads supporting him creates an unfair advantage, and it violates the law. According to the Supreme Court, groups like the NRA can only make unlimited expenditures if they are independent of the candidates they support, and it falls to the FEC to enforce the laws that preserve that independence and prevent corruption.”

Politico uncovered that the directors at OnMessage – a powerhouse GOP consulting firm – created a shell corporation called Starboard, located at the same address, and which appears indistinguishable from its parent company. The NRA’s lobbying arm and PAC contracted with Starboard to create ads supporting U.S. Senate candidates Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner, and Thom Tillis in 2014, and Ron Johnson in 2016; those candidates, in turn, hired OnMessage. The NRA, which is effectively Starboard’s only client, consistently listed Starboard’s address as that of OnMessage, and OnMessage has repeatedly taken credit for advertisements that the NRA paid Starboard to produce.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Seeking to guarantee the voting rights of Alabama residents with felony convictions who have paid their debts to society, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are launching the Alabama Voting Rights Project, a grassroots campaign to re-enfranchise thousands of Alabama voters.

The Alabama Voting Rights Project will take a simple message across the state: A felony conviction does not permanently take away a person’s right to vote. Many Alabama residents who have paid their debts to society are eligible to vote or to have their voting rights restored by obtaining a Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote.

“The Alabama Voting Rights Project is going to organize door to door, community by community in every region of Alabama to reach tens of thousands of Alabamians affected by recent changes in the law,” said Blair Bowie, Alabama Voting Rights Campaign Manager and Skadden Fellow at the Campaign Legal Center.

Workers in the campaign will organize and train local leaders in communities across the state, participate in community events and forums, and go door to door to work with formerly incarcerated people who may be eligible to vote under Alabama law. They will also make use of an online tool, www.alabamavotingrights.com, that will guide formerly incarcerated Alabamians through the process of registering or re-establishing their voting status.

For more than a century, the violations that disqualified a voter in Alabama were decided by individual county officials throughout the state, resulting in different standards for each county. This relic of the Jim Crow era effectively silenced the voices of over 280,000 Alabamians.

By passing the Definition of Moral Turpitude Act (HB 282) in 2017, Alabama finally clarified which felonies, state or federal, will not disqualify Alabamians from voting. It also started the process of restoring the right to vote for tens of thousands of people. Those Alabamians can now register to vote, even if they were previously told they could not. Tens of thousands of additional Alabamians may be eligible to restore their right to vote through a simple application for a state Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote.

Although Alabama passed the “moral turpitude” law that clarified which felonies would not block people from voting, Secretary of State John Merrill has said that his office would not take action to make sure the thousands of people affected by the law actually know about it.

Through their new voting rights project, the CLC and the SPLC will actively reach out to Alabama residents who are affected by the law, make sure they know about it, and help them access their right to vote under it. 

“So many people fought and died to ensure that all citizens have a voice in American society through the right to vote, yet many men and women – disproportionately African Americans and poor people – have been denied the right to vote even after completing their sentences,” said Lecia Brooks, outreach director for the SPLC. “The Alabama Voting Rights Project is dedicated to ensuring that every person who is eligible to vote in Alabama is registered, and that each one of them can access the franchise. A healthy democracy depends on full participation by all members of society.”

Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Donald Trump, his 2016 campaign committee, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation violated federal campaign finance law by soliciting and spending “soft money” funds in connection with his 2016 run for president. The complaint provides evidence and analysis in addition to the New York State Attorney General’s FEC referral on June 14.

Federal law prohibits candidates and their agents from soliciting and spending funds in connection with an election that don’t comply with federal contribution limits and reporting requirements. Yet Trump raised six- and-seven figure donations, some of them anonymous, and announced the fundraising haul at an Iowa campaign event just days before the Iowa nominating caucus, where the audience was told “it is imperative that you all get out and caucus for Donald J. Trump and vote for Donald J. Trump.” Trump and campaign officials then timed the distribution of funds to have the maximum impact on the Iowa election, handed out checks emblazoned with the Trump campaign slogan at official campaign events, and publicly mused about how the donations were helping Trump’s poll numbers.

“Trump and his campaign misused charitable resources to unlawfully influence his 2016 election,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “Candidates can raise money for charity, they just can’t do it in connection with an election. The FEC should enforce the soft money ban.”

WASHINGTON – Today, President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has authored several notable opinions that raise concerns about his views on democracy issues, particularly related to campaign finance law and executive privilege.

“Judge Kavanaugh’s view on election law ignores the current reality of our campaign finance system, which is awash in secret, unaccountable money. Kavanaugh’s skepticism of reasonable limits on money in politics threatens the ability of federal, state and local governments to maintain laws that regulate campaign contributions and spending and require disclosure of where all the money is coming from. He seems to equate money with speech, which is troubling for our campaign finance system. It is important that Senators press Kavanaugh on his views.” – Tara Malloy, senior director, appellate litigation and strategy, Campaign Legal Center (CLC).

Additionally, Kavanaugh appears to take an expansive view of presidential power as it relates to legal oversight over misconduct by the President or his associates. He wrote in a Minnesota Law Review article that Presidents should be free from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “ill serve the public interest.” He went on to say that Congress should consider a law exempting the President – while in office – from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. 

“Judge Kavanaugh’s views raise concerns about how he would analyze congressional efforts to insulate President Trump from cooperating with the Mueller probe. The President is not above the law, and Senators must ensure that Kavanaugh would not allow Trump to escape from his duty to cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigation into his 2016 presidential campaign.” Tara Malloy, senior director, appellate litigation and strategy, Campaign Legal Center (CLC).