CLC Asked to File Expedited Brief for NC Gerrymandering Case

Date
Body

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued an order asking for parties in League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho to submit briefs responding to questions raised by the Supreme Court last week in their decision on the partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford. CLC and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) are representing the League and individual plaintiffs in the case and will be filing a brief by the deadline set today: July 11.

Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting, released the following statement:

“We welcome the speedy process requested by the lower court and look forward to our return to the Supreme Court, so we can get a ruling on partisan gerrymandering that finally declares that voters, not lawmakers, come first. Our clients in North Carolina demand fair maps with no further delay. We will be back to the Supreme Court, possibly as early as next term.”

Issues
Redistricting

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear North Carolina’s Partisan Gerrymandering Case at the Present

Date
Body

Rucho v. League of Women Voters of NC sent back to District Court for reconsideration

WASHINGTON D.C. — Following its decision last week clarifying the standard for assessing whether challengers have standing to raise partisan gerrymandering claims, the U.S. Supreme Court sent North Carolina’s partisan gerrymandering challenge, Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, back to a federal district court today for further analysis in light of the Whitford decision. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice and the Campaign Legal Center represent the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and individual plaintiffs in the case which has been combined with a parallel partisan gerrymandering challenge, Rucho v. Common Cause.

The decision to remand the case comes a week after the Supreme Court remanded two other partisan gerrymandering cases.  It is not an unexpected outcome.  In January 2018, a federal three-judge panel found the state’s U.S. Congressional plan to be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander on multiple legal theories of injury.  Legislative defendants appealed that ruling, setting up today’s action from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center, who argued Gill v. Whitford before the Court, issued the following statements after today’s decision:

“Americans overwhelmingly support the Supreme Court stepping in to end partisan gerrymandering, and that door is still open. The justices have returned the partisan gerrymander challenges from North Carolina, Wisconsin and Maryland to the lower courts with a clear roadmap of what it expects to see presented, and we plan to follow their guidance.”

Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, issued the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court’s action:

“While it’s unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear this case right away, we are optimistic that the lower court will recognize, like they did in January, that North Carolina’s partisan gerrymandering is so egregious that it is unconstitutional and that our clients are the appropriate parties to be raising such claims.  The harm done to voters when they are packed and cracked into districts by that discriminate against them based on their political affiliations is clear and we will continue to pursue justice for our clients and all voters who deserve fair election districts. We hope to get this case back before the U.S. Supreme Court next term, in time for fair districts for 2020.”

Issues
Redistricting

Exposing Pay-to-Play Scheme Enacted by the GEO Group

At a Glance

CLC took action to address a pay-to-play scheme in which a government contractor, private prison company GEO, violated the ban on contributions by government contractors by making a six-figure donation to a super PAC supporting candidate Trump just one day after the Obama Administration announced it would phase out the use of private prisons.  

Status
Active
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

Government contractors are prohibited from donating to federal elections. But on August 19, 2016, GEO Corrections Holding, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the private prison company GEO Group, donated $100,000 to the pro-Donald Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now. At the time, Vice Presidential Candidate Mike Pence was touting donations to the PAC as “one of the best ways” to help put Trump in office. The donation came one day after then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates issued a memo directing the Bureau of Prisons to gradually end the use of private prisons, tanking GEO’s stock prices. The GEO subsidiary donated an additional $125,000 in the November before the election, for a total of $225,000 in illegal contributions to the Trump campaign. 

After President Trump’s election, GEO’s stock prices soared. And shortly after Trump assumed office, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the new administration would continue the use of private prisons. A few months later, the Trump administration awarded GEO a $110 million, 10-year federal contract.

CLC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the contributions — made through a wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Corrections Holdings, Inc. — violated the ban on federal contractors giving money in federal elections. We then sued the FEC after waiting more than a year for the agency to resolve the complaint. And we’ve filed FOIA requests to uncover the facts and shed light on the Trump administration’s decisions favoring private prisons after this illegal campaign contribution — and sued when the government doesn’t turn over the documents. 

The reason that federal contractors have been barred from making contributions for the past 75 years is to prevent pay-to-play in the contracting process. Public officials are supposed to make contracting decisions based on what is best for the public, not based on who spent the most money getting them elected. GEO Group’s illegal donations have the appearance of a pay-to-play: since Trump was elected with GEO’s backing, the company has reaped enormous political and financial benefits. 

The FEC is critical to the enforcement of the contractor contribution ban and in preventing pay-to-play politics. It is incumbent upon the FEC to enforce the longstanding federal contribution ban and take action against GEO Group to deter future violations. Without the contractor ban, the government contracting process becomes an obvious way for officials to reward friends and political donors.

Associated Cases & Actions

Challenging the FEC’s Delay in Enforcing the Law Against the GEO Group — CLC v. FEC (GEO Group Contractor Contribution)

Closing Loopholes in Disclosure Rules for Digital Political Spending

At a Glance

Gaps in federal law and FEC inaction make it easy for online political ads buyers to hide their identity. CLC supports closing digital ad loopholes.

Status
Active
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In a healthy democracy, voters need information about who pays for political ads in order to make informed decisions, and online ads are no different from any other. The transparency provided through disclosure ensures that voters are able to fully access the argument by being informed about who is attempting to influence their vote. Gaps in federal law and inaction on the part of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have made it easy for online political ads buyers to hide their identity from voters.

CLC supports federal legislation that would close digital ad loopholes, such as the bipartisan Honest Ads Act. CLC is engaging the FEC to close digital ad disclaimer loopholes, including with an advisory opinion request, comments on regulatory proceedings, and monitoring compliance with existing law. CLC is also working with state and local governments to help craft digital ad legislation.   

Promoting a Fair Census for All, Regardless of Citizenship Status

At a Glance

CLC urges the President to give the Census Bureau the time it needs to complete a fair and accurate count, and the use of total population rather than citizen population for reapportionment and redistricting. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

As mandated by the U.S. Constitution, every ten years the United States conducts a Census, counting the country’s entire population. Among its many other uses, the Census influences how governments and agencies should allocate resources among communities, determines how to apportion the number of seats each state gets in the U.S. House, and dictates the redrawing district lines to reflect shifts in populations and ensure fair political representation of all communities.

Since December 2017 the Executive branch has attempted to influence the Census Bureau’s running of a fair and accurate census. First the Department of Justice made an unprecedented request to add an unnecessary question about citizenship status. This was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2019. Then the President asked the Census Bureau to tabulate the citizen voting age population at the census block level, which is likely to be inaccurate if used for redistricting. In 2020 the President has made three highly political appointments to the Census Bureau and asked that they cut short their data gathering efforts, risking a huge undercount, that will disproportionately affect communities of color.

CLC has filed multiple public records requests (FOIA requests) with the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce to try to unravel the political machinations that could cause the redistricting maps that are drawn in 2021, and will be used for ten years, to unfairly disenfranchise communities of color. 

Plaintiffs

Campaign Legal Center

Defendant

Department of Justice

Associated Cases & Actions

CLC v. DOJ (Census FOIA)
Subscribe to