In a letter sent today, reform groups urged members of Congress to oppose all “poison pill” riders, including all campaign finance riders, to the fiscal year 2017 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations bill.  

The groups included the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Represent.Us, Sunlight Foundation, The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress and U.S. PIRG.

Last year four “poison pill” campaign finance riders were added to the House and Senate FSGG bills. In addition, an effort was made in finalizing the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill to insert at the last minute another rider never considered by either congressional committee.

The letter stated:

These “poison pill” riders have no place in the appropriations process and certainly no place in the fiscal year 2017 FSGG Appropriations bill. Of the four damaging campaign finance riders added last year to the 2016 FSGG Appropriations Committee bills, two ended up in the final Omnibus bill, which applied only to FY16…

The first three of these campaign finance riders served to continue keeping the American people in the dark about hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions being laundered into federal elections. Secret campaign money prevents holding officeholders and influence-seeking donors accountable for corrupt practices. The fourth rider served to repeal longstanding limits on the amounts that parties can spend in coordination with their candidates.

The letter continued:

A fifth campaign finance rider attempted unsuccessfully to be inserted at the last minute into the FY16 Omnibus Appropriations bill would have repealed the presidential financing system. This system served the nation well for more than two decades before it became outdated. It needs to be repaired, not repealed.

The unprecedented role being played by big money in the 2016 presidential election is making an overwhelming case for the need to repair the presidential financing system and again provide candidates with an alternative means to finance their presidential campaigns. The Obama administration is on record as strongly opposing repeal of the presidential financing system, stating that “it is critical that the Nation’s Presidential election public financing system be fixed rather than dismantled.”

The letter concluded:

Poison pill riders have no part in any budget bill. Any effort to rewrite the Nation’s campaign finance laws and related measures should be done by regular order and through the legislative process. This should not be done by a back door misuse of the appropriations process.

We strongly urge you to oppose any campaign finance riders being included in the FSGG appropriations bills or in any final FY17 Omnibus Appropriations bill.

To read the letter: click here. 

Case Could Help Determine a Workable Legal Standard for All Future Partisan Gerrymander Cases

A group of Republican voters challenging the state’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander should have their day in court, the Campaign Legal Center today argued in a friend-of-the-court-brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Maryland.

“Legislators – across the political spectrum – are increasingly abusing  the redistricting process as a powerful weapon in modern political warfare to create rigged elections,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional and has kept its doors open to hearing these cases, though the Court has yet to announce a standard for deciding these claims. In allowing this case to go to trial, the parties could develop evidence and attempt to develop a workable standard for deciding future partisan gerrymandering challenges in courts across the country.”

The voters in this case, Shapiro v. McManus, argue that Maryland’s map violates their First Amendment rights because it purposefully diminished their voting power as Republican voters on the basis of their political affiliation and their voting histories. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision, reversed two lower court opinions dismissing the challenge. The case was remanded and is now once again before the district court.

 “Americans are increasingly frustrated at our broken democratic process that cheats them of their ability to elect representatives of their choice,” said Danielle Lang, legal fellow with the Campaign Legal Center. “Recent studies show a significant uptick in the extremity of partisan gerrymanders. Americans want and deserve fair elections. The need to develop a meaningful and manageable partisan gerrymandering standard is becoming increasingly dire to preserve the public confidence in our democracy.”

WASHINGTON – Beginning June 24, cable, satellite and radio providers will join television broadcasters in posting their public files on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) online database.  The database was initially established in 2012 for television broadcasters.  By putting these files online, the public and the media will be able to more easily access information about the political advertisements running on cable, radio and satellite as required by long-standing statute.  Included in the political file is information on the rates charged for political advertisements, the times when the ads ran and the sponsors of the ads.
 
The Commission had voted on January 28 to expand the online requirements beyond broadcast television.  The June 24 date was established after successful review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
 
The Commission’s action followed continuing efforts by the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation, pushing the Commission to extend the online file requirements.  The Institute for Public Representation of Georgetown Law Center represented the group in the FCC filings.
 
“Extending the disclosure requirements to cable, satellite and radio was the next logical step to ensure that the long-required public inspection files are easily accessible,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Our joint efforts to drag the FCC into the 21^st Century began more than five years ago.  Having these public files stuffed in backroom file cabinets at the headquarters of media providers in the age of the Internet makes no sense.”
 
McGehee continued:  “We commend the Commission for getting these rules in place as the 2016 elections are heating up.  In the last several election cycles, the number of political ads running on cable and satellite systems has grown as candidates, super PACs and dark-money groups are targeting specific groups of viewers and listeners.  The adoption of the new rules will help ensure that U.S. media providers are abiding by long-standing statutes requiring disclosure of key information about ads bought to influence American elections.  This extension was simply a matter of fairness to all media, and an appropriate use of existing technology. ”
 
“While extending the online requirements to cable, satellite and radio is a victory for the public, the Commission has yet to require these political files be in a standardized, machine-readable format.  Media providers are still uploading PDFs.  Without a standardized format, it remains difficult for both the FCC and the public to easily review the information that is being uploaded.  We continue to urge the FCC to expeditiously move away from PDFs and replace them with a database that is searchable, sortable, and downloadable,” said McGehee.

Read the notice. 
 

Brief filed in advance of full panel oral arguments on May 24 

WASHINGTON – Texas’ voter ID law, SB 14, is the strictest voter ID law in the country, discriminates against minority voters, and disenfranchises an estimated 600,000 registered Texas voters, the Campaign Legal Center argues in a brief filed Monday in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit’s full panel of judges will hear oral arguments in the case, Veasey v. Abbott, on May 24.

CLC attorneys represent plaintiffs Congressman Marc Veasey, LULAC and a group of Texas voters in the case. View this video to learn about the Texas voters harmed by Texas SB 14.

 “We have repeatedly proven – using hard facts – that the Texas legislators who passed this law intended to discriminate against racial and language minorities,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Seven of seven federal judges have found that Texas’ voter ID law discriminates against minority voters and would disenfranchise more than half a million registered voters.”

In 2012, the D.C. District Court held that Texas’ voter ID law would have a discriminatory effect on minorities and blocked the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. After the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, Texas began to enforce the law.

Following a two-week trial in 2014, a federal court again found Texas’ voter ID law to be discriminatory in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit agreed, ruling that the law discriminates against minority voters. Despite these rulings, the law is still in effect due to the 5th Circuit’s stay of the district court’s decision in 2014. In March, the 5th Circuit decided to rehear the case, to be ruled on by the full court.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently indicated that if the 5th Circuit fails to decide this case by July 20, the high court would consider taking action, on a request from Texas voters, to protect Texas voters in time for the 2016 presidential election.

“Texas’ voter ID bill is the harshest in the nation and undeniably harms Texas voters,” said Danielle Lang, legal fellow with the Campaign Legal Center. “The full 5th Circuit should uphold the detailed findings of fact that the trial court found so that Texas voters can get relief for this fall’s presidential election.” 

Voting Rights Institute Asks the Department of Justice to Investigate 

A Texas County sheriff appears to be intimidating Latino voters from exercising their federally protected right to vote, and today the Voting Rights Institute sent a letter calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate.

The Texas Observer recently reported that in 2014, Edwards County, Texas Sheriff Pamela Elliott attempted to lead an “angry mob” outside of a meeting of Latino voters, held at the home of a local community activist and former Rocksprings mayor Rachel Gallegos. The meeting was held on private property and was of a county Democratic Party Executive Committee. According to the report, the meeting was held by those who supported a candidate who was opposed by one of Elliott’s allies.

Elliott is up for election herself in Fall 2016, drawing into question whether she will abuse her power of office to get re-elected. In the last 15 years, Edwards County's Hispanic population has grown from 45 to 55 percent Hispanic, according to the report.  

“Federal law makes quite clear that it is illegal for anyone to intimidate or attempt to intimidate voters for the purpose of interfering with the right to vote,” said Gerry Hebert, an attorney with the Voting Rights Institute. “Voter intimidation or attempts to intimidate voters also carry criminal penalties, and we are calling on the Department of Justice to take swift action to investigate these serious allegations.”

The Voting Rights Institute is a collaborative of the Campaign Legal Center, the American Constitution Society and Georgetown Law School, and protects one of the most precious rights held by Americans — the right to vote. Established in response to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Voting Rights Institute is preparing the next generation of attorneys, experts and activists to preserve our democracy and protect the ability of all Americans to vote. 

WASHINGTON –  The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order indicating it would be willing to take action to protect voters in Texas in time for the 2016 presidential election, if the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fails to issue a ruling by July 20, 2016.

“We’re very encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the time constraints involved in this case,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “We believe the 5th Circuit has set up a schedule that may well foreclose the ability to obtain relief in time for the presidential election. This order gives us the opportunity to protect Texas voters if the 5th Circuit fails to rule in time.”

The Campaign Legal Center filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 25, calling for immediate action in the Texas voter ID case, Veasey v. Abbott. Seven federal judges have ruled that Texas’ voter ID law discriminates against minority voters, but the law is still in effect due to the 5th Circuit’s stay of the decision. 

Oral argument in the en banc 5th Circuit is scheduled for May 24, 2016.