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.   

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. 

Four Americans and the League of United Latin American Citizens of Richmond (“LULAC”) are suing the Public Interest Legal Foundation (“PILF”) and its president, J. Christian Adams, for engaging in a multiyear campaign of voter intimidation in the state of Virginia. They are trying to prove that PILF has violated both state and federal laws by falsely accusing voters of registering and voting illegally, and by publishing — in reports still available online — those individuals’ names, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and in some cases, social security numbers.

The complaint claims that, in 2016 and 2017 PILF published two reports claiming rampant voter fraud by non-citizens in Virginia. PILF made unfounded assertions that a number of individuals had been removed from state voting rolls for possibly being non-citizens. However, Virginia elections officials have repeatedly emphasized to PILF that even American citizens can be removed from the voting rolls for any number of reasons, including things as mundane as paperwork errors.

The plight of the four individual plaintiffs in this case is a prime example of how voter roll purges can harm even voters. These four American citizens were removed from Virginia’s voting rolls, despite being legally eligible to vote and have a constitutional right to do so. PILF not only claimed that these individuals, and scores more, have voted illegally, accusing them of voter fraud felonies, they also published these individuals’ personal information in reports that are still available online.

PILF’s harmful accusations and the publication of plaintiffs’ sensitive personal information constitute intimidation tactics designed to threaten, embarrass, harass and dissuade plaintiffs and others from voting. Plaintiffs allege that PILF and its president have violated Virginia state law and several federal laws, including the seminal Voting Rights Act (VRA). The VRA prohibits the intimidation or attempted intimidation of any person attempting to vote.

PILF has responded to LULAC’s complaint by filing a motion to have it dismissed, alleging that the plaintiffs have not applied or satisfied the appropriate legal standards to prove voter intimidation.

CLC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining that PILF’s interpretations of the law are patently incorrect, and that PILF’s publication of individuals’ personal information is a modern form of voter intimidation, strikingly similar to tactics used throughout our nation’s history to disenfranchise voters.

PILF’s conduct undercuts one of our most fundamental rights, the right to vote. The organization’s intentional intimidation of voters sends a clear message to plaintiffs and to the American people more broadly that political engagement may come at a steep price, and that exercising a constitutional right may lead to the publication of one’s most sensitive personal information on the Internet. PILF’s actions are designed to intimidate, to deter political participation and to undermine the functioning of American democratic processes. It is paramount that our political system safeguard the right of all to have their voice heard in the electoral process.