Gill v. Whitford Sent Back to Wisconsin District Court, Plaintiffs Asked to Prove Specific Harm 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to strike down Wisconsin’s voting map in Gill v. Whitford, returning the case to District Court to give plaintiffs the opportunity to demonstrate specific and concrete harms as a result of partisan gerrymandering.    

“This case is very much still alive. We now have the opportunity to demonstrate the real and concrete harms that result from partisan gerrymandering in the lower court, the same court that struck down the Wisconsin mapping scheme to begin with,” said Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), who argued the case before the court on October 3, 2017.  “When legislators draw voting maps to favor one party over another and to stay in power, voters no longer have a voice in the political process. Extreme partisan gerrymandering is increasingly getting worse – damaging our democracy and eroding voters’ confidence in our system. We will continue advancing efforts, in this case and others as well as through the political process, to end this practice and safeguard every citizen’s fundamental right to vote and have it count.”   

The case was brought by CLC and co-counsel on behalf of 12 Democratic voters in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin voters challenged the constitutionality of the state’s extreme partisan gerrymandering scheme, devised in secrecy by Republican leaders in 2011. The plan all but guarantees one-party control of the Wisconsin Assembly for the entire decade, no matter how the voters cast their ballots.  

Named plaintiff Bill Whitford, a retired law professor from Madison, said, "We are confident we can prove the real harms to real citizens caused by lawmakers who choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their representatives. We are encouraged by Kagan's concurrence." 

In the first election under the plan, Republicans won a supermajority of 60 out of 99 seats despite losing the statewide vote for the Assembly. In 2014 and 2016, Republicans extended their advantage to 63 and 64 seats, respectively, even though the statewide vote remained nearly tied.  Subsequently, for the first time in 31 years, a lower court—after a four-day trial—struck down the plan as an unconstitutional gerrymander.   

“Partisan gerrymandering is a concern for all Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and a Republican former Commissioner and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “While the justices did not strike down the Wisconsin gerrymander in this case, they have clarified what we need to make our case to the lower court about how pervasive and damaging this practice has become for individual voters, as well as for the integrity of our democracy.” 

Appellees argued that Wisconsin's gerrymander violates both the Equal Protection Clause by diluting the electoral influence of a targeted group of voters, and the First Amendment, by penalizing these voters because of their political beliefs.  

Learn more about the redistricting process, how it works, and the everyday impacts of partisan gerrymandering on our democracy here.  

Private counsel working with CLC in representing the appellees includes Douglas M. Poland of Rathje & Woodward, Peter G. Earle of the Law Office of Peter 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. 

This week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that it revoked the dark money group Americans for Job Security’s tax exempt status. The announcement followed a complaint from  Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Issue One against the organization.
Americans for Job Security was a tax-exempt “business league” that spent tens of millions of dollars influencing elections while keeping its donors secret, but failed to file its tax returns for the past three years. CLC and Issue One’s complaint called on the agency to enforce penalties against Americans for Job Security for failing to file multiple years of mandatory returns.

“For years, Americans for Job Security abused its tax-exempt status to allow donors to secretly influence elections,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform program at CLC. “Although the IRS penalized Americans for Job Security for failing to file its tax returns, rather than for operating as a dark money political committee, it is gratifying to see that there are at least some consequences for groups that evade transparency requirements.”
 

Rounds is the right pick to lead OGE during time of ‘historic challenges’

Walter Shaub, senior director, ethics, at CLC, released the following statement:

“Emory Rounds is the right pick to lead the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). Through the confirmation process, Rounds has demonstrated an appreciation for the responsibility to preserve the government ethics program in this time of ethical crisis. He is also acutely aware of the significant limitations on the director’s authority, and I believe he will do his utmost within existing parameters to confront the historic challenges OGE faces. Now that he has cleared the committee, I hope the full Senate will confirm him. Rounds has shown that he values OGE’s independence from the White House. I was particularly impressed that he committed during his confirmation hearing to review OGE’s inappropriate blessing of the Patriot Legal Expense Fund Trust, LLC, an unethical legal defense fund constructed in a way that potentially gives the president’s allies power to influence witness testimony in the Russia investigation. The challenge of reviewing – and hopefully reversing – OGE’s previous action on that fund may be one of the greatest challenges he will face while in office if he is confirmed. I anticipate that the Senate would follow up to learn the outcome of his review.”

WASHINGTON – In a 5-4 ruling in Husted v. APRI, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld an Ohio voter purge practice that removes infrequent voters from the registration rolls. The decision creates a danger that other states will pursue extreme purging practices to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters across the country.

In APRI, Ohio asked the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court decision that found an Ohio practice of targeting registrants who have not voted in a two-year period for removal from the voter rolls — when there is no evidence that the voter has become ineligible — violates a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The Court assented to Ohio’s request, holding that the state’s process does not violate the NVRA’s prohibition on using non-voting as a basis for canceling registrations because, although the state indeed targets eligible voters who have not voted recently, the non-voting is not “the sole criterion” for removing a registrant.  

In 2015 alone, hundreds of thousands of infrequent voters were purged from Ohio’s voter rolls. Over 40,600 registrants in the state’s largest county, Cuyahoga, were removed under the process allowed by the Supreme Court today. The majority of these registrants lived in low-income communities and communities of color.

“The Supreme Court decision to allow Ohio to purge its citizens from the rolls is a setback for voting rights nationwide,” said Paul Smith, vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “Our democracy weakens when states are permitted to take actions that discourage voter participation. By constructing obstacles that make voting more difficult, Ohio is sending the wrong message to its citizens.”

Dēmos and the ACLU of Ohio first filed suit on behalf of Ohio APRI, NEOCH, and Ohio resident Larry Harmon in 2016, prevailing in the circuit court and securing relief that protected the right to vote for purged Ohio voters in November 2016 and every other election in the state to date.

CLC requests investigation by EPA Inspector General about new revelations that fit ‘pattern of misconduct distinguishing Administrator Pruitt’s time at head of EPA’

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a legal complaint with the Inspector General at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking for an ethics investigation into Administrator Scott Pruitt’s abuse of his official position. Emails obtained by The Washington Post indicate that Pruitt leveraged his authority as a cabinet-level official and used governmental resources to secure a Chick-fil-A business opportunity for his wife. His actions appear to violate the ban on the use of official authority for the private financial gain of a relative.

“Beyond the legal concerns raised by Pruitt’s actions, Pruitt seems to ignore basic ethical principles about public service. Executive branch employees should use their government position and authority for the benefit of the public, rather than to benefit close family members,” said Delaney Marsco, legal counsel, ethics, at CLC. “Pruitt’s actions fit into a pattern of misconduct distinguishing his time at the head of the EPA.”