Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett has agreed to update his state’s website to correct inaccurate information about voter registration laws for citizens with past felony convictions. Tennessee has agreed to do three things: (1) post clear instructions about voting rights in election offices and Department of Motor Vehicles offices, (2) change the language on the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website, and (3) make a request to the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) to place additional instructions on the federal voter registration form to clarify the eligibility of its citizens. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing the Tennessee National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in the matter.

Read the instructions Tennessee is releasing.

Currently, the state’s registration form wrongly informs applicants that their felony convictions are disqualifying unless voting rights have been restored, when in fact many persons with convictions never lost their voting rights, depending upon the date and nature of the conviction.

“This is a welcome first step in ensuring that Tennessee citizens are accurately informed about their voting rights,” said Mark Gaber, senior legal counsel, litigation, at CLC. “With the state voter registration deadline for the November 2018 election fast approaching on October 9, this information will assist voters in understanding their rights.

“We look forward to Secretary’s Hargett’s continued cooperation in correcting the voter registration form itself following the November election,” said Gloria Sweet-Love, President of the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP.

The state registration forms incorrectly state that citizens must “not have been convicted of a felony, or if convicted, have had [their] full rights of citizenship restored (or have received a pardon)” in order to be eligible to vote in the state. Yet under Tennessee law, not all persons with prior convictions are ineligible, depending upon the date of their conviction or the nature of their conviction. The state form contains no space for registrants to indicate that they are eligible to vote, notwithstanding their prior conviction. The form’s inaccurate information and its design mean that many eligible voters may well forgo registering, wrongly believing they have no right to vote.

CLC first sent a letter to Secretary Hargett in March to inform his office about the inaccuracies in Tennessee’s forms.

Disclosure of online political ads enable voters to make informed choices in the political marketplace and protects the integrity of elections in Maryland and nationwide

BALTIMORE, MD – The Washington Post, Baltimore Sun and other local newspapers have sued the state of Maryland to avoid complying with the state’s disclosure law, a measure that allows Maryland citizens to easily obtain meaningful information about groups and individuals seeking to influence their vote through ads run on their publications’ online platforms. Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Common Cause Maryland filed a brief  in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland arguing that the state should be able to enforce its disclosure law, which ensures public access to information about the sources and financing of online political advertising and is a key tool to assisting law enforcement efforts to root out foreign interference in the 2018 elections and beyond.

The newspapers have asked the court for a preliminary order preventing enforcement of the disclosure requirements and the presiding judge has set a November 16 briefing date to consider the request. The case is called Washington Post v. McManus.

“Democracy dies in darkness. That is why the institutions that play a critical role in shining a light in our democracy should be leading the way with transparency in political advertising on their platforms,” said Erin Chlopak, senior legal counsel, campaign finance, at CLC, and former acting associate general counsel at the Federal Election Commission (FEC). “It is unfortunate that newspapers whose reporters are dedicated to informing and educating the public about who spends money in elections are now taking the state of Maryland to court to avoid disclosing who is purchasing digital ads disseminated on their websites. Maryland has every right to promote an informed electorate and protect its citizens from foreign actors seeking to influence their votes.”

“Voters have a right to know who’s spending money to influence their decisions on Election Day. Newspapers selling website space to political advertisers have a responsibility to collect and share with the public information about these ad buyers and shouldn’t be suing the state to keep voters in the dark,” said Common Cause President Karen Hobert Flynn.

CLC sent a letter to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan in April urging him to support Maryland’s Online Electioneering Transparency and Accountability Act (OETA). It became law in May of this year. OETA informs state voters by strengthening the state’s disclosure and recordkeeping requirements. The law applies to a variety of online platforms that disseminate paid political ads, and actively promotes First Amendment interests by providing public access to information about the sources, financing, and distribution of paid political advertising and enabling citizens to make informed choices in the political marketplace. By passing this, Maryland recognized the dramatic shift of political advertising to online media and sought to modernize its law by closing a loophole. This loophole previously allowed foreign actors in 2016 to engage in secret online advertising and misinformation campaigns prior to the 2016 elections.

Because the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Congress failed to act, Maryland is one of several states that have enacted or considered new laws or rules for online political ads this year.

The public’s right to timely and accurate election data will no longer be buried under a mountain of paper

WASHINGTON – Today, President Donald Trump signed legislation that will go into effect immediately that will require Senate candidates to electronically file campaign finance reports, ending the bureaucratic process of manual data entry and physical transportation of paper files. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has rigorously advocated for this change for many years, most recently joining a coalition sign-on letter in July urging Congress to keep this provision in the final bill.

“The Senate has finally joined the 21st century by moving to e-filing system, years after it was implemented in the House,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). “This will save taxpayers nearly $1 million every year, enhance transparency and help to increase accuracy. Citizens will finally be able to view and search the actual Senate reports online and watchdog organizations will be able to better monitor and analyze campaign activity. After years of advocating for this change, we are happy that the public’s right to timely and accurate election data will no longer be buried under a mountain of paper.”

Not only is paper filing more expensive, it is also less accurate. A Center for Public Integrity investigation found errors in more than 5,900 candidate disclosures representing over $70 million, all of them traceable to the U.S. government’s conversion of paper into electronic data.

Campaign Legal Center’s Tara Malloy issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court denying a request from Crossroads GPS to temporarily block a lower court ruling requiring independent spenders to disclose their donors:

“CLC has fought for disclosure of dark money donors for years, and we strongly support the district court’s decision ordering the Federal Election Commission to provide the disclosure required by the statute,”said Tara Malloy, senior director, appellate litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “The FEC’s poorly-crafted regulation had the effect of undermining the donor disclosure laws passed by Congress.”

“Citizens United is often blamed for the explosion in dark money – but the fault also lies with the FEC for failing to adequately interpret and enforce the disclosure laws on the books. Now that the regulation is no longer in effect, the disclosure statute can operate as Congress intended. We will be urging the FEC to act in accordance with the court’s order and to craft rules that ensure the public’s right to know. ”

Audio recording of Rosendale provides evidence he knew and assented to NRA’s planned spending

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association and Montana U.S. Senate candidate Matt Rosendale violated federal campaign finance law by illegally coordinating more than $400,000 in spending to influence the 2018 midterm elections. The complaint is co-signed by Giffords, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to advocate for policies to reduce gun violence.

According to an audio recording of a July 2018 event obtained by The Daily Beast, Rosendale responded to a question about “outside groups spending on your behalf” by saying the NRA-ILA’s political director, Chris Cox, had told him that the group would be spending money in his race; Rosendale then accurately described both the content of the NRA’s ads and their timing, even though the ads had not yet been aired and would not be run until weeks later. According to Federal Election Commission filings, the NRA’s lobbying arm spent over $400,000 on TV ads in early September expressly advocating against Rosendale’s opponent, Sen. Jon Tester because of his Supreme Court vote. Under federal law, an advertisement is coordinated if an outside groups privately informs a candidate about its planned spending and the candidate assents.

“The recording indicates that a top NRA official told Rosendale the NRA would be spending in the Montana race, described the content of the ads and the timing, and Rosendale assented to that suggestion. This constitutes coordination under federal law,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform program at CLC. “Although FEC inaction in recent years has helped open a number of loopholes allowing outside groups to work closely with candidates, the conduct here crosses a legal line. Perhaps Rosendale and the NRA felt comfortable pushing the legal envelope because they had little concern that the FEC would do anything about it – which is why it is crucial that the agency take action and uphold the law.”

“As the number of brazen violations of campaign finance law continues to grow, it's clear the NRA's main priority is advancing a radical agenda that a majority of Americans oppose,” said David Pucino, staff attorney at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “They will do anything to force that agenda on the American people, even if it means undermining our democracy. It has been a long time since the NRA has cared about law and order. The FEC must investigate these apparent violations and pursue all appropriate sanctions.”

Separately, the complaint alleges that both the NRA and Rosendale’s campaign unlawfully coordinated through the use of a common vendor. CLC and Giffords previously filed a complaint against the NRA for using an apparent shell company to coordinate its spending with four U.S. senate candidates in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

It’s time for the courts to stop hesitating and start protecting the fundamental right to vote from the harms of gerrymandering

MADISON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), along with co-counsel, filed an amended complaint challenging Wisconsin’s 2011 state assembly map as a partisan gerrymander in the U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. CLC and co-counsel, representing voters in 34 state legislative districts, have followed instructions provided by Chief Justice John Roberts in the Supreme Court’s opinion in June when it declined to address the merits of the lower court’s decision. CLC and co-counsel have added 28 new plaintiffs and evidence proving that the state’s redistricting plan inflicted district-specific harm on plaintiffs by diluting their votes, as well as infringing all 40 plaintiffs’ associational rights.

The amended complaint includes additional evidence about district-specific harm to make it clear that plaintiffs with 14th Amendment claims have standing to challenge their district boundaries as diluting their vote, and that plaintiffs with claims under the First Amendment have standing to challenge the whole map because their political association rights have been violated.

“It’s time for the courts to stop hesitating and start protecting the fundamental right to vote from the harms caused by the distortions of gerrymandering,” said Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at CLC, who argued Gill v. Whitford before the Supreme Court in October. “Partisan politicians met in secret in 2011 to manipulate state assembly district lines to ensure Republican control over Wisconsin for the next decade, regardless of how the votes were cast. We are asking for a trial date early in 2019, so we can fight to give voters fair maps for the 2020 election.”

“The voters of Wisconsin have had to vote under an unconstitutional map for far too long,” said University of Wisconsin-Madison law professor Bill Whitford, the named plaintiff in the case. “We followed the Supreme Court’s roadmap and entered additional evidence into the record that strengthened our case, showing real harms to voters caused by lawmakers who chose their own partisan self-interest over the good of the state. We hope to return to the Supreme Court as soon as possible.”

“Extreme partisan gerrymandering has thrown the balance off in this state and made it harder for us to have equal representation in our communities,” said immigrants’ rights organizer Jennifer Estrada of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, a newly added plaintiff in the case. “I’ve seen so many policies that the Wisconsin legislature has put forth – since their 2011 redistricting plan – that have been detrimental to working families. The only options to respond were to sit back and complain or get involved, so I joined the case because I wanted to help give people a voice in the political process by fighting back against the practice of partisan gerrymandering. It’s really sad that our own representatives put in place roadblocks like gerrymandering that prevent people from feeling like they have a voice and that their vote counts.”

• Learn more about the bipartisan effort to curb the practice of partisan gerrymandering nationwide
• View the results of the first-ever bipartisan survey on partisan gerrymandering and the Supreme Court
• Visit CLC’s case page to see all legal filings in the case, Gill v. Whitford

*Private counsel working with CLC in representing the plaintiffs includes Douglas M. Poland of Rathje & Woodward, Peter G. Earle of the Law Office of Peter G. Earle, LLC, Michele L. Odorizzi of Mayer Brown, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago Law School and Jessica R. Amunson of Jenner & Block.