Civil Rights Groups Support Lawsuit Challenging Alabama's Voter ID Law

Date
Body

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alabama, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Campaign Legal Center (CLC) today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the appeal of a federal lawsuit challenging Alabama’s voter ID law. David Newmann and Matthew Higgins, attorneys at Hogan Lovells, assisted with the brief.

That law requires voters to obtain photo identification in order to vote. The types of photo ID that are accepted is limited, which imposes a severe burden on the right to vote in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Statistics cited in the original complaint show that Black and Latino voters are almost twice as likely as white voters to lack an acceptable photo ID for voting. Moreover, the district court specifically found that “cases of proven in-person voter fraud in Alabama are extremely rare.”

In 2015, Greater Birmingham Ministries, Alabama NAACP, and individual plaintiffs sued the state, claiming that the voter ID law is unconstitutional because it intentionally discriminates against voters of color in Alabama. On January 10, 2018, a federal trial judge allowed the law to remain in effect. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.

“A law passed with a discriminatory purpose has no legitimacy under our Constitution,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, Voting Rights and Redistricting at CLC. “The challenge to Alabama’s voter photo ID law must proceed to trial. There is significant evidence that the law makes it harder for racial minorities to vote.”

Laws that suppress voter turnout disproportionately affect minorities, the elderly, students, people with disabilities, and low-income and homeless voters.

The brief also expresses concern over the District Court’s approach in weighing the evidence of discriminatory intent of the photo ID law and argue that the court applied the wrong legal analysis in rejecting plaintiffs’ claims.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama

At a Glance

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama is a legal challenge to Alabama’s restrictive voter photo ID law. In 2011, Alabama passed a law that required that citizens present one of a list of permissible photo IDs in order to vote. The undisputed evidence in this case was that black and Latino voters in Alabama are more likely to lack the required identification to vote. Thousands of voters have had their provisional ballots rejected due to the restrictive photo ID law. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

About the Case

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama is a legal challenge to Alabama’s restrictive voter photo ID law. In 2011, Alabama passed a law that required that citizens present one of a list of permissible photo IDs in order to vote. Although it was passed in 2011, the law was not put into effect by Alabama until after 2013 when the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder gutted the preclearance regime that barred voting changes that harmed minority voters’ opportunity to participate in the political process. The groups challenging the law have unearthed significant evidence that the 2011 law was passed with a discriminatory purpose. Indeed, framers of the photo ID law referred to black voters as “aborigines” and “illiterates” and suggested that Alabama’s prior lack of a photo ID law was “beneficial to the black power structure” and “‘benefit[ed] black elected leaders.” The undisputed evidence in this case was that black and Latino voters in Alabama are more likely to lack the required identification to vote. Thousands of voters have had their provisional ballots rejected due to the restrictive photo ID law. And black voters were nearly five times more likely to have their ballots rejected than white voters. Thousands more people likely did not appear at the polls to vote because they lacked the required photo ID.

In 2015, Greater Birmingham Ministries and other plaintiffs, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, brought suit asserting that the law violates the 14th and 15th Amendments, as well as the Voting Rights Act.

What’s at Stake?

Despite significant evidence that this law was motivated by an intent to discriminate, the district court dismissed GBM’s suit because it considered the law’s requirements as a mere inconvenience. Based on its own determination, without a trial, that the law’s burden on voters was “slight,” the district court refused to even consider the plaintiffs’ evidence that the law targeted minority communities.  

This district court’s decision is not consistent with decades of law on how courts must analyze claims of intentional discrimination. Laws that are passed with the aim of harming or favoring any racial group are unconstitutional, plain and simple. A court analyzing such a claim must evaluate all the evidence of intentional discrimination and determine whether discrimination motivated the law. If so, the court must strike down the law. Racially discriminatory laws have no legitimacy whatsoever.

CLC joined Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, and ACLU of Alabama to file a friend-of-the-court brief drawing the Eleventh Circuit’s attention to the critical missteps in the district court’s opinion. 

Plaintiffs

Greater Birmingham Ministries

Defendant

Alabama

President Trump is Out of Step with Supermajority of Americans on Partisan Gerrymandering

Date
Body

Yesterday, President Trump urged Pennsylvania Republicans to stand by their original extreme partisan gerrymandered map, which were struck down by their State Supreme Court, after the court said it clearly and plainly violated the state’s constitution.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement:

“Fighting partisan gerrymandering is not simply about outcomes in a single election. It is about finding a long-term fix that will ultimately benefit all voters, regardless of political affiliation. Gerrymandering is practiced by both parties. Democrats in states like Maryland and Illinois have carved up maps for their benefit with as much zeal as Republicans in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Our system would be better off if the U.S. Supreme Court creates ground rules that safeguard all Americans’ fundamental right to vote and have it count.”

According to the website Planscore, a tool developed by political science and election law experts to score district plans, the Pennsylvania U.S. House plan released yesterday has relatively low partisan asymmetry, is more compact and is more competitive than both the plans that were used in the last three elections and the one vetoed by Governor Tom Wolf last week.

In the first-ever bipartisan survey on partisan gerrymandering and the Supreme Court, an overwhelming majority (71 to 15 percent) of Americans want the Supreme Court to place limits on lawmakers’ ability to manipulate voting maps. This includes 80 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Independents and 65 percent of Republicans.    

The poll also shows that:

  • By a margin of 62 to 10 percent, voters are less likely to support a candidate who supports partisan gerrymandering.
  • ​By a margin of 73 to 14 percent, voters support removing partisan bias from redistricting, even if it means their preferred political party will win fewer seats.    
Issues
Redistricting

Remedial Redistricting Process in Pennsylvania Can Serve as Nationwide Model for Fair Maps

Date
Body

Multiple states can follow PA’s lead if U.S. Supreme Court adopts a standard for measuring unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering

WASHINGTON – Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order with a new congressional district map for the state’s 2018 elections after it ruled in January that the existing map’s district lines were an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. According to the website Planscore, a tool developed by political science and election law experts to score district plans, the Pennsylvania U.S. House plan released today has relatively low partisan asymmetry, is more compact and is more competitive than both the plans that were used in the last three elections and the one vetoed by Governor Tom Wolf last week. This process proved that the court was able to work with an expert consultant to produce a final plan that will treat voters of both parties fairly.

“The remedial process in Pennsylvania has shown that using public input, a manageable standard, and modern technology, it is possible to draw fair maps that are free from extreme partisan bias,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a lawyer on the legal team for the landmark partisan gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford. “We can expect this process to work in multiple states if the Supreme Court adopts a standard for measuring unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. Fortunately for voters in Pennsylvania, using extreme partisan bias to draw state voting maps is now measurable, and the public showed it was able to hold politicians accountable by demanding fair maps. After three elections with unconstitutional plans, the state has finally corrected this.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has a chance this term to use a standard to evaluate partisan gerrymandering and use that to evaluate the partisan implications of district plans. And now, the public has the ability to utilize Planscore’s upload page to analyze partisan bias in state plans.

CLC supports the right to equal representation regardless of partisan affiliation and opposes extreme partisan gerrymanders across the country. CLC submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Jan. 5, 2018 in support of the maps’ challengers, who were the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. CLC is representing the Wisconsin voters that challenged the state’s maps in the landmark partisan gerrymandering case, Gill V. Whitford. The Court will decide on the case this term.

Issues
Redistricting

Honest Ads Act Would Deter Foreign Interference in 2018 Through Online Ads

Date
Body

Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals for conspiracy to defraud the United States through interference in the 2016 elections:

“It shouldn’t require an extensive Special Counsel investigation to address foreign interference in our elections. Had effective online disclaimer and disclosure laws been in place in 2016, Russia’s wide-ranging influence campaign might have been detected sooner—or Russia might have been deterred from engaging in the effort in the first place.

Congress should be doing it all it can to protect our elections from foreign interference. This means holding a hearing and passing the Honest Ads Act to shore up the vulnerabilities that Russia exploited in 2016. We need strong disincentives to prevent foreign actors from targeting American voters with election-related messages. Our democracy depends on it.”

Learn more about the Honest Ads Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in October that would modernize the laws surrounding the ban on foreign election interference by ensuring that paid internet ads are subject to the same disclaimer and recordkeeping rules that currently apply to television ads and radio ads. If enacted, this bill would require major sellers of online advertising – like Google, Facebook and Twitter – to keep a publicly available database of significant political advertising, including the content of the ads and who paid for them. The bill has yet to receive a hearing.

CLC released a report detailing the vulnerabilities of American elections to foreign interference that were exposed in the 2016 presidential election. The report outlines solutions for addressing this most urgent issue, which would protect the integrity of our democracy for the upcoming 2018 elections and beyond.

Issues
Campaign Finance

$26 Million Payment Shows Importance of Presidential Inaugural Committees Disclosing Their Donors

Date
Body

Notoriously lax rules for inaugural spending allowed Trump committee to funnel money to firm close to family

WASHINGTON – Today, President Trump’s inaugural committee disclosed in tax filings that it had raised an astonishing $107 million for the inauguration, and paid an unprecedented $26 million to a newly-created firm led by an associate of the Trump family, and only donated $5 million to charity, raising questions about the lack of rules on the use of inaugural funds by a Presidential Inaugural Committee.

“This is about ensuring that the American people are treated with the transparency and accountability they deserve,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “The Trump inaugural committee’s tax filing raises more questions than it answers about how the money raised was actually spent. Because inaugural committees are not subject to the same reporting rules as campaign committees, the public has no way of knowing how the millions being awarded to firms with close ties to the president are actually being spent. It is uncertain why Trump’s inaugural committee paid nearly $26 million to a newly-created firm with close ties to the Trump family, and paid $25 million to the same event planning firm that did the job for $5 million in 2008. There is a real risk of corruption and self-dealing when corporations, government contractors, and other special interests can write massive checks that the inaugural committee can spend with minimal oversight or transparency.”

President Obama’s first inauguration raised $55 million and spent it on ten days of events; Trump’s inauguration raised $107 million for just three days of parties.

Legislation requiring that presidential inaugural committees disclose how they are spending the tens of millions raised is long overdue. CLC co-signed a letter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Judiciary Committee to support the Presidential Inaugural Committee Oversight Act, which would fill the current disclosure gap by requiring that inaugural expenditures as well as contributions be disclosed to the public.

CLC and Democracy 21 filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in May over Trump’s inaugural committee failing to report essential information about donors, including legally required information. Following that complaint, the inaugural committee amended its reports.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Citizens United v. Schneiderman

At a Glance

Citizens United v. Schneiderman is a challenge to a New York State law that requires registered charitable organizations to report their donors to the state attorney general. 

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

About the Case

Citizens United v. Schneiderman is a challenge to a New York State law that requires registered charitable organizations to report their donors to the state attorney general. Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) organization active in the state, has asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to either declare New York's donor reporting requirement unconstitutional, or to grant it an exemption from the requirement. However, this law – which asks only for non-public disclosure and applies to groups that receive state tax benefits – is less burdensome than the public political disclosure laws the Supreme Court has consistently upheld.

The attorney general defends the law by emphasizing the donor disclosure assists his office in administering tax laws and protecting taxpayers against fraud. And as CLC has long argued, the disclosure of money raised and spent in elections for other political purposes has been the bedrock of our political system for many years, usually supported by all political parties.

UPDATE: On Feb. 15, 2018, the Second Circuit issued an opinion rejecting Citizens United's claim, upholding the disclosure laws in the state.


What’s at Stake

Striking down New York’s disclosure law would imperil many non-profit registration and disclosure regulations across the country. It is important to note that the challenged disclosure requirement only requires non-public, confidential reporting from Citizens United, and thus the group is attempting to escape all state oversight over its activities, even while enjoying state tax exemption and other benefits.

Further, expanding the “harassment exemption” from political disclosure laws as Citizens United demands would create an exception that swallows the rule. Citizens United cannot credibly allege that the identity of its donors will be made public. But even if the challenged donor reporting requirement was public in nature, Citizens United makes no attempt to show a reasonable probability that its donors will face harassment or reprisals, but instead rests its request for exemption on the mere allegation that its donors would prefer to remain anonymous and avoid public criticism for their political stances. But exempting issue advocacy groups from disclosure simply because their donors dislike lawful criticism from the public would eviscerate political disclosure laws and undercut the free flow of information and robust debate the First Amendment is meant to protect.

CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Second Circuit on Apr. 14, 2017 in support of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. In its brief, CLC argues that the New York reporting law is constitutional as a general matter and that Citizens United cannot claim an exemption from the law.

Plaintiffs

Citizens United

Defendant

Eric T. Schneiderman

CLC v. DOJ (Pence-Kobach Commission)

At a Glance

CLC is suing to obtain the redacted names from the FOIA over the Pence-Kobach Commission.

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

In August 2017, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) received a series of documents in response to a FOIA request regarding the Pence-Kobach Commission.

This response contained one particular email chain, which ended up in the private inbox of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, where a Heritage Foundation employee pushed back on naming a single Democrat to the Pence-Kobach Commission. In fact, he asked that no Democrats, academics, or moderate Republicans be appointed to the commission. The name of the person sending the email, those receiving it (besides the Attorney General), and the names of several people referenced were all redacted.

The author of the email was later revealed to be Hans von Spakovsky. Subsequent to sending the email, von Spakovsky was appointed to the commission.

On April 3, in response to our lawsuit, the Department of Justice finally unredacted some of the names in this email chain. In particular, they unredacted Hans von Spakovsky’s name from the email and the name of the individual who received the email and forwarded it to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Ed Haden. Ed Haden previously served as a top staffer for Attorney General Sessions when he was a Senator. He is now a partner with Balch & Bingham LLP. CLC will continue the suit to ensure full transparency and uncover all of the names in this document so that its importance and relevance can be fully understood. 

The clear precedent is that these emailers had no interest of privacy retained in their names because they were dealing with the government in their business capacities and, in any event, the significant public interest in knowing who exerts this sort of influence over high level administration officials making important staffing decisions outweighs any privacy considerations.

However, the other redacted names were never revealed. That is why CLC has taken the action of suing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release this information to the public, who can be better prepared to defend against voter suppression if they know its source.

The public has a right to know who is influencing the operation of government commissions whose policy decisions could impact the access to their most sacred right, the right to vote. The Pence-Kobach Commission may no longer be holding meetings, but the mission of certain parties, including Mr. von Spakovsky, to attempt to suppress the vote continues.

DOJ should not be allowed to flout clear commands of the law. In this case, they selectively redacted names to protect the identities of certain parties who had influence over the process. On the other hand, they did not redact, in the same series of documents, a private citizen’s name who wrote to former Attorney General Lynch. DOJ cannot be allowed to flout the law in order to protect the identities of their political allies.

Plaintiffs

CLC

Defendant

Department of Justice

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

At a Glance

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is a challenge to a Minnesota law that restricts the wearing of political apparel inside the polling place on Election Day. The law has been in place since 1893, helping to prevent voter intimidation and ensure orderly and safe elections. CLC’s argues that the law’s legitimate applications serve important purposes that protect voting as the core of American democracy.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

About the Case

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is a challenge to a Minnesota law that restricts the wearing of political apparel inside the polling place on Election Day. The law has been in place since 1893, helping to prevent voter intimidation and ensure orderly and safe elections.

The plaintiffs are groups whose members wore political apparel, including Tea Party paraphernalia and “Please I.D. Me” buttons, to the polls. They wore these buttons in part to falsely convince others that they needed IDs to vote – even though Minnesota voters had previously rejected a ballot measure that would have required voter ID.

The suit initially challenged the law as it was applied to the specific items that plaintiffs’ members had tried to wear inside polling places. Two federal courts found that requiring Tea Party paraphernalia and “Please I.D. Me” buttons to be removed or covered while inside the polling place was a reasonable effort to avert voter intimidation and confusion.

Plaintiffs’ case at the Supreme Court now argues exclusively that the law as written is overbroad and should be struck down entirely.

What’s at stake

Many states and localities throughout the country have laws similar to Minnesota’s.

As the Supreme Court explained over 25 years ago in Burson v. Freeman, these types of laws are as old as the secret ballot itself and help prevent voter coercion and maintain decorum at the polls. Plaintiffs’ “Please I.D. Me” buttons are a perfect example of why these laws are so important to prevent Election Day chaos. Indeed, laws that prevent confusing and intimidating messages at the polls go to the heart of protecting American self-governance.

CLC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Minnesota. CLC’s brief argues that, in addition to the interests recognized in Burson and explained in Minnesota’s brief, these laws serve several other compelling interests. Both Republican and Democratic state attorneys general of Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah all agree with this position, as stated in the brief they filed with the Supreme Court.

First, they afford voters the opportunity to peacefully contemplate their electoral choices during the last few minutes before they vote. Citizens should be free from aggressive political messaging right before they cast their ballots so that they can weigh their decisions. Second, these laws help ensure that Election Day unites Americans by preventing polling places from becoming sites of partisan rancor and political tribalism. This is an important way to celebrate our democracy and remind voters that election results, even if disappointing, reflect the collective judgment of the fellow citizens with whom they waited in line. Finally, these types of laws help ensure that poll watchers and poll workers do not intentionally or subconsciously discriminate against voters based on the apparel the voters wear. These important principles far outweigh the minor burden of asking a voter to remove a button or cover up a t-shirt for a few minutes while they vote, especially since polling places are not traditional forums for debate.

CLC’s brief also argues that, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrine, Minnesota’s law is plainly valid on its face. Courts should strike down a law for being overbroad only if its problematic applications overshadow its legitimate applications. The plaintiffs and their supporters in this case have concocted a series of hypotheticals, none of which have actually occurred, and any of which could be cured by a more limited lawsuit. CLC’s brief argues that the law’s legitimate applications far outweigh these imagined scenarios and serve important purposes that protect voting as the core of American democracy.

Plaintiffs

Minnesota Voters Alliance

Defendant

Mansky

Report: A State Court Strategy to Protect Voting Rights and Increase Fair Redistricting

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week struck down the state’s congressional map as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court’s action is one example of how states across the country are seeking to protect voters’ voices in the political process.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and FairVote today released a joint report outlining a state court strategy to strengthen our elections by protecting voting rights and moving towards fair redistricting. State supreme courts decide about 2,000 constitutional law cases every year, and these cases have far-reaching consequences. As outlined in the report – which examines ‘right to vote provisions’ in all 50 states – impact litigation has increasingly moved to state courts.

“Protecting access to the ballot and advancing fair redistricting  in the states is vital to building a representative and responsive government,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. “Our democracy faces challenges today that can be remedied by state courts, from entrenched gerrymandering that dilutes and distorts voters’ influence in elections to barriers to voting participation that disproportionally impact historically disenfranchised minorities.”

“Working to improve democracy through the political process has traditionally started at the local level,” said Drew Penrose, law and policy director at FairVote. “It makes sense to think locally when it comes to impact litigation too. I’m proud that we were able to compile these resources to help litigators get started.”

The report explores recent state court decisions that demonstrate the success of this strategy, and discusses the strategic considerations that are necessary for implementing such a strategy.

This report was made possible with the support of the Arnold Foundation.

Read the report.

Issues
Redistricting
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to