CLC, Wisconsinites Sue Over Gerrymandered Voting Map

Date
Body

Madison, WI – Today, several Wisconsin voters from across the state filed a lawsuit to block further use of Wisconsin’s extremely gerrymandered state legislative map.  

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC) partnered with Law Forward, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, and Arnold & Porter to file the lawsuit on behalf of individual voters who have had their voices silenced by the illegally gerrymandered map.  

13 years ago, Wisconsin Republicans took control of the state legislature and, behind closed doors and in defiance of the state constitution, drew new district lines that essentially guaranteed one-party control of the legislature. This was borne out in 2018 when, despite winning 53% of State Assembly votes cast statewide, Democrats only ended up with 36% of the seats.  

After the 2020 census, partisan politicians crafted a similarly extreme gerrymander that continues to silence the voices of voters – and now Wisconsinites are fighting back in court.  

“Gerrymandering is a stain on our democracy no matter which party does it. It’s common sense: Voters should pick their politicians, not the other way around,” Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “For far too long, Wisconsinites have had their voices illegally silenced by extreme gerrymandering. When districts are drawn fairly, all Wisconsin voters will have an equal chance to elect leaders who will best serve their communities. Wisconsin’s courts can help make sure every vote counts and every voice is heard.”  

The suit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission and other defendants was filed on behalf of 19 plaintiffs. It argues that the state legislative map is an extreme partisan gerrymander which violates the Wisconsin constitution and retaliates against voters for their political views and that the map has other constitutional flaws under the state constitution.  

Attorneys from CLC, Law Forward and the Harvard Election Law Clinic will hold a press call TODAY, August 2, at 11:30am CT/12:30pm ET via Zoom to discuss the lawsuit. RSVP here. 

More details about the lawsuit can be found here. 

Issues
Redistricting

Fighting Unconstitutional, Gerrymandered Maps in Wisconsin (Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) partnered with Law Forward, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, and Arnold & Porter to file a lawsuit on behalf of 19 Wisconsin voters challenging the extreme partisan gerrymandering of the state legislative map.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In 2010, Wisconsin politicians drew new district lines behind closed doors and, in defiance of the state constitution, crafted maps that essentially guaranteed one-party control of the legislature.   

This was borne out in 2018 when, despite winning 53% of state Assembly votes cast statewide, Democrats only ended up with 36% of the seats. After the 2020 census, partisan politicians in the Legislature—whose seats were virtually guaranteed by the gerrymandered voting maps from a decade earlier—crafted a similarly extreme gerrymander to further entrench themselves in power. That legislative map was vetoed by the Governor but was then imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and continues to silence the voices of voters.   

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) partnered with Law Forward, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, and Arnold & Porter to file a lawsuit on behalf of 19 Wisconsin voters from across the state challenging the constitutionality of the current illegally gerrymandered map. The suit names as respondents the Wisconsin Election Commission, members and staff of the Commission, and state senators from districts where special elections must be called to remedy the unconstitutional maps.   

The lawsuit argues that the current legislative map in Wisconsin constitutes an extreme partisan gerrymander that violates the Wisconsin constitution by denying voters their equal protection and free association rights, retaliating against voters based upon their expression of political beliefs, and failing to adhere to Wisconsin’s constitutional requirements of “justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue.”  

The existing legislative districts also violate the basic provision of the Wisconsin Constitution that legislative districts consist of “contiguous territory” because 55 of the existing assembly districts, and 21 of the current senate districts, are noncontiguous and include scattered fragments of detached territory. The suit also argues that the existing legislative districts violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s separation of powers principles because maps proposed by the Legislature and vetoed by the Governor were nevertheless imposed by the Court.  

The petitioners ask the court to order the creation of new maps before the 2024 elections for State Assembly and State Senate, and that these new maps be constitutional and free from partisan gerrymandering. The petitioners seek to ensure that no further Wisconsin elections will take place under illegal and unfairly drawn maps that silence the voices of Wisconsin voters. 

10 Years Since Shelby County

Submitted by ekrug on

Campaign Legal Center's virtual event "10 Years Since Shelby County: How Democracy Advocates Can Fight Back" was held on June 28, 2023 and featured a panelist discussion on the impact of the landmark Shelby County decision and the creative solutions at hand that can make our democracy more inclusive and accountable.

Campaign Legal Center Endorses Reintroduction of the Protecting our Democracy Act

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, Congressman Adam Schiff of California, joined by over 100 cosponsors, reintroduced the Protecting our Democracy Act (PODA), a comprehensive package of historically bipartisan reforms aimed at reducing corruption and implementing safeguards against abuses of power. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) endorses the legislation and Trevor Potter, Founder and President of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement of support:  

“Voters have every right to be concerned about the health of our democratic institutions. The Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) includes a number of commonsense reforms to address those concerns and more. If enacted, this important bill will enhance checks and balances between our branches of government, strengthen federal ethics law, and protect our elections from improper interference by bad actors.” 

PODA strengthens Congress’s ability to conduct oversight and curb potential misconduct. The legislation enhances government ethics by establishing new protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general and requiring every executive branch appointee to sign a comprehensive ethics pledge before serving in an official capacity. Finally, PODA safeguards our elections from foreign influence. It extends the ban on foreign political spending from candidate elections to state and local ballot initiatives and increases transparency around digital political advertisements to prevent the type of foreign interference that can seep into our elections when transparency is lacking.
 
Passing the Protecting Our Democracy Act is an essential component of any effort to foster a more responsive government and build a democracy that works for all Americans. Congress must take up this strong proposal without delay.”

Issues
Ethics
Voting and Elections

FEC Complaint from Campaign Legal Center Alleges Obscure LLC Was Used in “Straw Donor” Scheme Supporting Pro-Francis Suarez Super PAC

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against “PassionForest, LLC,” and any unknown person(s) that made a $500,000 contribution to SOS America PAC, a super PAC that has already spent over three million dollars backing Miami Mayor Francis Suarez’s presidential candidacy.   

The complaint alleges that PassionForest — an obscure company that appears to sell artificial flowers online — was not the true source of a $500,000 contribution made in its name to SOS America in October 2022. This scheme not only violates the “straw donor” ban in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) but may have also been used to conceal contributions from foreign nationals – which are illegal across all levels of government. Concealing the true source of money used to influence elections, as appears to have occurred here, deprives voters of information they need to make an informed choice at the ballot box.   

“Voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence their votes and our government,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center. “When someone uses an entity like PassionForest, LLC to make a major political contribution to a super PAC while hiding their identity from voters, it’s a serious violation of the laws meant to ensure transparency and prevent corruption in our elections.”   

Publicly available information suggests that PassionForest’s artificial flower business had largely shuttered within eleven months and that the LLC therefore could not have made a $500,000 contribution without money being provided to it for that purpose. Moreover, records suggest that the true donor, who provided the LLC with funds to make the contribution, may be a foreign national: while the LLC was registered in Delaware and disclosed an address in Florida to SOS America, an associated trademark application was filed on behalf of an applicant reportedly living in China, and PassionForest maintained an Amazon.com seller page linked to another address in China.   

Straw donor schemes involve serious violations of federal campaign finance law that have led to penalties and indictments in recent years. The FEC must not delay in looking into this matter and enforcing federal campaign finance law so that transparency in our elections will be protected.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Fighting Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering in Kentucky (Graham v. Adams)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center is urging the Kentucky Supreme Court to rule that extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the Kentucky Constitution.

Status
Active
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In 2022, a group of Kentucky voters filed a lawsuit arguing that the state House and congressional maps passed by the legislature are unlawful partisan gerrymanders in violation of multiple provisions of the Kentucky Constitution. The plaintiffs alleged that the state maps “crack” and “pack” voters based on partisanship to ensure control over elections for the decade. The trial court agreed, concluding that the evidence “clearly” demonstrated that the maps were extreme and durable partisan gerrymanders. But the trial court held that no provision of the Kentucky Constitution prevents such gerrymandering. The plaintiffs appealed.  

CLC’s Amicus Brief 

CLC submitted a friend-of-the-court amicus brief that explains why the Kentucky Supreme Court has the authority and the obligation to uphold Kentuckians’ constitutional rights and review the plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims.  

Among other provisions, the Kentucky Constitution contains a Free Elections Clause, which provides a manageable standard to evaluate whether a challenged redistricting map constitutes an impermissible partisan gerrymander. This constitutional guarantee that “[a]ll elections shall be free and equal” is undermined when the political process has continuously failed Kentucky’s voters and allowed legislators elected from gerrymandered districts to insulate themselves from the electorate. There is firm historical grounding for applying Kentucky’s Free Elections Clause to prohibit excessive partisanship in the redistricting process. 

The problem of extreme partisan gerrymandering is only getting worse. The combination of an increasingly polarized electorate and the sophisticated tools that propel today’s mapmaking enables gerrymanderers to dilute the voting strength of a disfavored group of voters with precision, entrench favored incumbents, and often secure preferred electoral outcomes for a decade. Courts are critical to correct this democratic dysfunction. The state judiciary is the only institution with both the constitutional authority to stop gerrymandering and the lack of political incentive to perpetuate it.  

The Kentucky Supreme Court can and should step in to block these extreme partisan gerrymanders and their distorting effects on democracy.

Subscribe to