Coalition of Civil Rights Groups Ask for Emergency Relief for Newly Naturalized Voters Suspended by Georgia’s Exact Match Process

Date
Body

ATLANTA, GA – Today, a coalition of civil rights organizations filed an emergency motion in Georgia federal district court to make sure that persons inaccurately flagged as non-citizens under Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s flawed “exact match" system can vote. Kemp’s “exact match” voter registration process relies on outdated citizenship data which identifies naturalized citizens as non-citizens, forcing them to track down a deputy registrar before they can vote, even if they already produced proof of citizenship when they registered to vote originally. 

However, there is not a guaranteed deputy registrar at every polling location. Therefore, naturalized citizens may be required to travel to the county seat to resolve an error in their registration that they did not cause. Moreover, recently naturalized citizens have been told that they cannot fax or mail their proof of citizenship, they must present it in-person. For voters temporarily out of the state, this is an absolute bar to voting.

The emergency motion asks only that these voters be treated the same as everyone else on the pending list and be permitted to show their proof of citizenship to their poll worker in-person or mail or fax their proof of citizenship with their absentee ballot application.

Of the 51,111 voter registrations that were “pending as a result of a no-match, 80.15 percent were submitted by minority registrants. Over 3,000 of those individuals have been flagged as potential non-citizens based on outdated and unreliable data. They should have a fair and reasonable opportunity to prove their citizenship and vote.

“Georgia voters can’t afford to wait,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “Their fundamental right to vote on November 6 is imperiled by no fault of their own, but rather by Kemp’s continued use of the state’s flawed exact match process. The voters impacted by this process are often newly naturalized citizens voting for the first time. We should be welcoming them to our political community, not interrogating them.”

“Secretary Kemp’s much-maligned ‘exact match’ system is a travesty,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “It burdens voters with correcting mistakes caused by the State and its faulty databases, and places those burdens disproportionately on minority voters. This is played out starkly in the unreasonable burdens imposed specifically on new Americans, many of whom will not be able to vote unless relief is granted now.”

"As an organization, our core mission is to empower our Asian-American communities to be fully active in civic life,” said Phi Nguyễn, litigation director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta. “This includes helping immigrants navigate the naturalization process so that they can exercise one of the hallmarks of citizenship: the right to vote. It's particularly heartbreaking to witness new American voters being immediately disenfranchised because of unnecessary barriers created by the state of Georgia."  

CLC, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta are serving as counsel in the case representing a coalition of civil rights groups: Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, Asian-Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, New Georgia Project, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, and ProGeorgia State Table. The suit alleges that Georgia’s protocol violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The original lawsuit was filed on October 11. Today an amended complaint was filed, adding Common Cause and the Joseph & Evelyn Lowery Institute as additional plaintiffs.

Visit our case page to read the declarations of our plaintiffs: Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda v. Kemp.

Heritage Action Violates New FEC Disclosure Requirements

Date
Body

Enforcement of donor transparency requirements would give voters in November knowledge about who is funding election ads

WASHINGTON  - Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Heritage Action for America, the advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, violated the law by failing to disclose the contributors who funded hundreds of thousands in independent expenditures.

Following a recent D.C. District Court opinion striking down an FEC rule that had undermined legal disclosure requirements, the FEC issued new guidance clarifying that dark money groups reporting such spending must disclose all donors who gave for “political purposes” and for the purpose of furthering any of the group’s independent expenditures. The new guidance first applied to the quarterly reports due October 15, for contributions received after August 4. 

Heritage Action issued a press release on August 8 announcing its plans to “to spend $2.5 million and back 12 candidates this November,” and its executive director told McClatchy, “What we’re telling donors is, every dollar we raise over our budget we can effectively pour more into these races.” But even though Heritage Action was raising contributions for independent expenditures, it failed to report the identity of any donors.

“Heritage Action officials stated publicly on August 8 that the group would ‘raise’ money ‘to back 12 candidates,’ and then spent six figures supporting those same candidates. Under the D.C. District Court’s decision and the FEC’s guidance, Heritage Action should have disclosed at least some donors on its October quarterly report, but failed to do so,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “The question now is whether the FEC will enforce the law.”

Libertarian National Committee v. FEC

At a Glance

Federal campaign laws limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to national political party committees within a certain year. The LNC challenged the limits on contributions to political parties. CLC's friend-of-the-court brief supports the constitutionality of the overall federal contribution limit system. 

Status
Closed
Updated
About This Case/Action

Federal election laws limit the amount of money that an individual may give to a national party committee each year. The aim is to prevent the corruption and appearance that has been found to arise from parties’ unchecked solicitations of wealthy donors and their receipt of large contributions. These contribution limits have long been upheld because they do not prevent donors from spending money on political activity directly, rather only marginally restricts their association with the party and their expression “through” the proxy of a political party.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) applies these limits to bequests from individual estates, but requires parties to put bequests that exceed the limits in an escrow account, and to make annual withdrawals in amounts that comply with the yearly limits.

In the last hours before the December 2014 deadline, Congress passed an enormous federal spending bill, the “Cromnibus,” to avoid a government shutdown. Tucked into the spending package was an amendment to the federal contribution limits, which allows individuals to make an additional contribution to a political party of up to three times the pre-existing limits, so long as those contributions are made to “segregated accounts.” These segregated accounts can then be used by the parties to pay for expenses related to presidential nominating conventions, legal activity, and party headquarters buildings, but not for other purposes. 

The LNC brings two separate but interrelated challenges to limits on contributions to political parties. First, the LNC argues that they should be able to accept the full amount of a particular bequest immediately because no quid pro quoarrangement between the party and a decedent can arise, and the nature of the bequest does not give rise the appearance of such an arrangement. Second, the LNC argues that by increasing the contribution limits only for certain designated expenses, Congress has created an unconstitutional “content based” restriction on how parties may accept and spend contributions.  

WHAT IS AT STAKE

This case is yet another attempt to undermine or eliminate contribution limits to political parties. It advances the dangerous proposition that contribution limits may only apply to a specific contribution if the government can show that it has caused corruption or is likely to do so in the future. The LNC’s characterizes its request to exempt a bequest from the annual limits as a one-time carve-out for a gift where the donor has no any interest in political favors. In reality, however, the logic underlying this argument would require the FEC and the courts to “prove” the corruptive effects of every individual political contribution. Not only would this be impossible to administer, it would undermine the prophylactic nature of the entire system of federal contribution limits. 

The case also seeks to sweep away decades of precedent which has upheld contribution limits precisely because they limit only the amount an individual can donate to a particular political party or candidate, and not the total amount of political activity in which either the donor or the recipient may engage. Finally, it attempts to create a one-way ratchet on contribution limits, and ignores the long-standing deference courts have given to Congress to determine what monetary limit serves the dual aims of preventing corruption and ensuring parties have the resources necessary to engage in political advocacy. 

The Campaign Legal Center disagrees with many of the assumptions which underlie both the FEC’s decision to allow excess contributions made in the form of a bequest, and Congress’s decision to increase the contribution limits for segregated accounts. Those disagreements are rooted in policy disputes, however, not constitutional infirmities. Our friend-of-the-court brief, filed with Democracy 21, supports the constitutionality of the overall federal contribution limit system, and points out the dangerous implications for campaign finance jurisprudence should the Court rule in favor of the LNC. 

Plaintiffs

Libertarian National Committee

Defendant

Federal Election Commission

Coalition of Civil Rights Groups File Suit to Stop Georgia’s Unlawful Suspension and Cancellation of Voter Registration Applications

Date
Body

Of the 51,111 voter registrations that were “pending” as a result of a no-match, 80.15 percent were submitted by minority registrants

ATLANTA, GA – Today, a coalition of civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Georgia against Secretary of State Brian Kemp – the state’s top election official – to block the state from enforcing their “exact match” protocol that places tens of thousands of voter registration applications in suspense for errors as small as a misplaced hyphen, dash, or space. The result of the state’s protocol is the flagging for potential removal of thousands of registrations for innocuous mistakes such as misread handwriting or the incorrect transposition of driver’s license digits. These errors are often not the registrants’ fault and are unrelated to their eligibility.

Based on data produced by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, of the 51,111 voter registrations that were “pending” on July 4 as a result of a no-match, 80.15 percent were submitted by Black, Latino, and Asian-American registrants, partly due to the higher likelihood of misspelling or the omission of a letter or character. Earlier this week, the AP reported that 53,000 registrations are now in “pending” and that nearly 70 percent of those are Black registrants.

The system also relies on outdated citizenship data from the Department of Driver Services, which erroneously flags naturalized citizens as non-citizens – even when registrants present proof of citizenship upon initial registration. It appears that Secretary Kemp has no protocol for ensuring that even voters who provide proof of citizenship with their registration are not still flagged and asked to provide the same information again. This leads to confusion and suppresses voting.

Nearly every other state treats failure to match a database differently than Georgia. In the case of a mismatch, the voter is still fully registered. First-time voters are required to show a form of identification at the polls when they vote for the first time. This process provides the same amount of election security and imposes less barriers to voters.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law are serving as counsel in the case representing a coalition of civil rights groups: Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, Asian-Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, New Georgia Project, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, and ProGeorgia State Table. The suit alleges that Georgia’s protocol violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

“Georgia’s ‘exact match’ protocol has resulted in the cancellation or rejection of tens of thousands of voter registration applications in the past. The reintroduction of this practice, which is known to be discriminatory and error-ridden, is appalling,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “This policy adds nothing to the security of Georgia elections but causes unnecessary confusion and additional burdens for eligible citizens who wish to exercise their fundamental right to vote.”

"In 2016, we helped stop Georgia's ‘exact match’ protocol that kicked thousands of voters off the voter rolls—some of them simply because they have uncommon Asian or Latino names that others commonly misspell,” said Phi Nguyễn, litigation director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta. “It is unacceptable that only two years later, we are once again asking a court to step in to end an almost identical ‘exact match’ protocol that threatens to disenfranchise thousands more from our communities."

In 2017, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed House Bill 268 into law, which codified a voter registration database “exact match” protocol. HB 268 was introduced shortly after the settlement of a lawsuit filed in 2016 by CLC and others, which challenged a similar voter registration database “exact match” requirement that had been implemented by Kemp. A 2009 audit from the Social Security Administration’s inspector general that said matching voter records with a Social Security database produced inaccurate matching.

Given recent news reports, it is important to clarify that voters on this “pending” list for “exact match” issues are entitled to vote a regular ballot in person at the polls if they show Georgia voter photo ID. It is possible, however, that they will not be able to vote by mail or may have their vote by mail ballots rejected because Georgia absentee ballots do not require photo ID.

*Co-counsel in the case also include Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and the Law Office of Bryan L. Sells, LLC.

Challenging Georgia’s Racially Discriminatory “Exact Match” Policy (Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda v. Raffensperger)

At a Glance

Civil rights groups are challenging Georgia’s restrictive voter registration law requiring voter data to “exactly match” data stored in the state drivers services’ database or the Social Security database. Georgia’s use of this “exact match” protocol disproportionately and negatively impacts the ability of Black, Latino, and Asian-American citizens to register to vote in violation of federal voting statutes and the U.S. Constitution. 

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

Background 

In 2017, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed House Bill 268 into law, which codified a voter registration database “exact match” protocol. HB 268 was introduced shortly after the settlement of a lawsuit filed in 2016 by CLC and others, which challenged a similar voter registration database “exact match” requirement that had been implemented by Georgia Secretary of State Kemp.   

The “exact match” protocol requires county registrars in Georgia to match information entered from the voter registration forms into a statewide database against records on file with the Georgia Department of Drivers Services (DDS) or Social Security Administration (SSA). If the information doesn’t match exactly with the DDS or SSA records, the voter’s registration is placed into a “pending” status limbo. If the registrant doesn’t “cure” the problem by showing other identification within 26 months, the registration is cancelled.  

The result is the flagging for potential removal of thousands of registrations for innocuous mistakes such as misread handwriting, incorrect transposition of driver’s license digits, or the omission or addition of a hyphen in a registrant’s name. These errors are often not the registrants’ fault or related to their eligibility. Nonetheless, they place the burden on registrants to avoid being disenfranchised. To make matters worse, after a mismatch is flagged, Secretary Kemp has not required county registrars to check whether information was accurately entered into the system or engage in any other quality review.  

Finally, the system also relies on outdated citizenship data from the DDS, which does not automatically update when an individual becomes a naturalized citizen. This routinely results in registrants being erroneously flagged as non-citizens—even when registrants present proof of citizenship with their initial registration forms. It appears that Secretary Kemp has no protocol for ensuring that voters who provide proof of citizenship with their registration are not still flagged and asked to provide the same information, again, leading to confusion and intimidation. 

Impact on Minority Voters 

Of the more than 34,000 voter registrations cancelled as a result of a similar “exact match” system from July 2013 to July 2015, approximately 76.3 percent of those registrations were submitted by minority registrants. Since the enactment of HB 268, the “exact match process” has continued to have a discriminatory impact on minority voter registrants and produce high and erroneous no-match rates. Based on data produced by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, of the approximately 51,111 voter registrations that were “pending” on July 4, 2018 as a result of a no-match, approximately 80.15 percent were submitted by Black, Latino, and Asian-American registrants.  

“Exact Match” Process Violates Voting Rights Protections 

If left in place, this policy has the potential to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters throughout Georgia and punish voters if they choose not to vote within 26 months of their registration. The policy adds nothing to the ordinary practice across the country of requiring first-time voters who do not “exactly match” to show some form of identification—e.g. a utility bill, lease, or photo ID—when they cast a ballot for the first time.  

The Campaign Legal Center has joined with counsel from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, the Law Office of Bryan L. Sells, LLC, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Atlanta to represent a coalition of civil rights groups that includes Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Atlanta, Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, New Georgia Project, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, and ProGeorgia State Table in the lawsuit challenging this disenfranchisement.  

In the lawsuit, Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda v. Kemp, plaintiffs allege that Georgia’s “exact match” protocol violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit calls on the federal district court in Georgia to block the state from enforcing the failed protocol and register applicants whose applications were placed in “pending” status as a result of a failure to meet the “exact match” standard.  

Plaintiffs

Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, Asian Advancing Justice - Atlanta, Inc., Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, New Georgia Project Inc., Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials Inc., ProGeorgia State Table, Inc., 

Defendant

Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp

FEC Rule Kept as Much as $769 Million in Political Spending in the Dark

Date
Body

Enforcement of donor transparency requirements would give voters in November knowledge about who is funding election ads

WASHINGTON  - Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released a new analysis of the impact of the FEC’s inadequate disclosure rule that was struck down in an August 3 DC District Court decision. The FEC’s now-vacated rule allowed as much as $769 million in dark money to flow into federal elections since the 2010 campaign cycle. The document also analyzes new FEC guidance issued October 4 about disclosure requirements in the wake of the court’s decision.

Laws passed by Congress require disclosure of donors who give to support a group’s “independent expenditures,” which are ads that expressly advocate for or against federal candidates. But an FEC rule narrowed the requirement and defeated the law’s transparency requirements. The D.C. District Court struck down this rule, and a result, groups that make independent expenditures must now report contributors over $200. Between September 19, the day after the court’s order took effect, and October 3, groups now subject to disclosure reported more than $15 million on independent expenditures.

“The explosion in dark money is often attributed to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, but these figures show that the FEC must also shoulder the blame,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC.

Under the FEC’s new guidance, contributions received on or after August 4, 2018 are subject to disclosure, for independent expenditures made on or after September 18. The next quarterly report is due October 15.