Kasich, Dole, McCain, Schwarzenegger, Meadows among signers to “friend-of-the-court” briefs

WASHINGTON – Leading Republicans signed onto “friend-of-the-court” briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to set a limit on extreme partisan gerrymandering in the landmark partisan gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford argued by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and co-counsel. The case will be heard at the Supreme Court on October 3.

“This case is long overdue,” said former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Senate Republican Whip from 1985 to 1995. “Quite literally, gerrymandering is killing our system. Most Americans think politicians are corrupt, and when they’re rigging maps to pick their own constituents, they’re giving them reason to believe it. What’s more, there’s zero trust between the parties in Congress today so almost nothing gets done. When the only threat a politician faces is a partisan primary, it’s no surprise everyone on both sides is playing to the extremes. We can, and we must, do better.”  

Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymander – created in 2011 by legislative aides and hired consultants in a secret room in a private law office – employed the latest mapping technology and data analysis to create a district plan that is one of the most extremely gerrymandered state legislative plans in the last four decades. As a result, for the first time in 31 years, a lower court – after a four-day trial – struck down the plan as an unconstitutional gerrymander.

“I’m pleased – but not surprised – to see many of America’s most accomplished Republican leaders urging the Supreme Court to rein in excessive partisan gerrymandering,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “They know that the legitimacy of all elected officials comes from being freely chosen by voters, not by seizing power from voters to keep themselves in control. We are confident that when the justices see how pervasive and damaging this practice has become, the Supreme Court will adopt a clear legal standard that will ensure our democracy functions as it should.”

Appellees argue 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.

“The Framers intended the House of Representatives to be the ‘People’s House’ – an institution directly accountable to the electorate through frequent and competitive elections,” said Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), one of the current members of Congress who weighed in. “Extreme partisan redistricting undermines constituent-focused representation and forces lawmakers to ideological extremes, growing the divide of partisanship that grinds the gears of government to a halt. Basic limits on extreme gerrymandering will make Congress a more representative institution by giving the American People fewer politicians and more independent voices focused on serving.”

Two organizational partners, the Brennan Center for Justice and Common Cause, assisted in the  enlistment of signers and coordination of briefs. 

“It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to make clear, as a matter of law, what most Americans consider a core value of self-governance: that voters should choose their representatives instead of party bosses choosing their voters,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. “Extreme partisan gerrymandering is wrong and the court should rule it unconstitutional.” Hobert Flynn noted in Common Cause’s brief that Americans have been increasingly vocal in their opposition to partisan gerrymandering. “Elected officials from both parties are using these briefs to speak with one voice to increase competition and choice for voters,” she said.

“Whitford is an historic opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally draw a clear line and root out extreme, unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders,” said Michael Li, senior counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. “These gerrymanders undermine the accountability and representativeness at the heart of American democracy, and the problem has gotten so severe that it demands a solution. With a growing number of effective and reliable tools to enable the courts to identify extreme gerrymanders, we are hopeful that the Court will take this chance to eliminate egregious gerrymandering from our politics.”

In addition to briefs mentioned above, others were filed by historians, political scientists, geographers, civil rights leaders, law professors and others asking the court to affirm the lower court’s ruling and strike down Wisconsin’s mapping scheme.

Learn more about CLC’s efforts on behalf of the 12 plaintiffs in Whitford here.

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, Michele L. Odorizzi of Mayer Brown, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago Law School and Jessica R. Amunson of Jenner & Block.

Noteworthy Republican signers include:

• Congressman Mark Amodei (R-NV)
• Congressman Rod Blum (R-IA)
• William Brock, former U.S. Senator (R-TN), former chair of the Republican National Committee
• Tom Campbell, former Member of Congress (R-CA)
• Mike Castle, former Governor of Delaware and Member of Congress
• Rod Chandler, former Member of Congress (R-WA)
• Bill Clinger, former Member of Congress (R-PA)
• Congressman Michael Coffman (R-CO)
• Congressman Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
• Jack Danforth, former U.S. Senator (R-MO) and former U.S. ambassador to the UN
• Robert Dole, former Senate Majority and Minority Leader (R-KS), Republican nominee for president
• Jim Douglas, retired Governor of Vermont
• Jim Edgar, former Governor of Illinois
• Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD)
• David Jolly, former Member of Congress (R-FL)
• Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC)
• Governor John Kasich of Ohio
• Frank Keating, former Governor of Oklahoma
• Richard Lugar, former U.S. Senator (R-IN)
• Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
• John McKernan, former Governor of Maine
• Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus
• Connie Morella, former Member of Congress (R-MD)
• Bill Owens, former Governor of Colorado
• John Porter, former Member of Congress (R-IL)
• Congressman Tom Reed (R-NY)
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Governor of California
• Claudine Schneider, former Member of Congress (R-RI)
• Christopher Shays, former Member of Congress (R-CT)
• Alan Simpson, former U.S. Senator and Senate Republican Whip (R-WY)
• Peter Smith, former Member of Congress (R-VT)
• Olympia Snowe, former U.S. Senator (R-ME)
• Congressman Scott Tipton (R-CO)
• James Walsh, former Member of Congress (R-NY)
• Zach Wamp, former Member of Congress (R-TN)
• Christine Todd Whitman, former Governor of New Jersey
• Corinne Wood, former Lieutenant Governor of Illinois

Noteworthy Quotes:

“For decades, leaders on both sides of the aisle adhered to the notion that partisanship stopped at the water’s edge,” said former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). Unfortunately, today’s unrelenting partisanship on Capitol Hill means that that notion too often falls by the wayside. One of the causes of this dynamic is gerrymandering, whereby too many seats are safely controlled by one party or the other. For the good of our country, I urge the Supreme Court to take a stand and help curtail this practice.”

“Thirty years ago, my hero, Ronald Reagan, called partisan gerrymandering ‘antidemocratic and un-American,’” said former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA). “And it’s only gotten worse since then. It’s time for the Supreme Court to step up and rein in this corrosive, rigged practice that undermines our leaders’ ability to come together as Americans and solve our pressing challenges. When our average margin of victory in congressional races hit 37% last year, it should have been a wake-up call to all politicians to quit acting like banana republic dictators and allow fair elections with districts that represent the people, not the parties. Quite simply, gerrymandering must be terminated and the sooner the better.” 

“When I was in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans who cared deeply about issues often came together to figure out where they could agree in order to move the country forward,” said former U.S. Senator Jack Danforth (R-MO). Today, the center has collapsed and that’s come to a screeching halt. Extreme gerrymandering by both parties contributes mightily to the problem and reining it in must be part of the solution.” 

“The promise of the United States Congress is finding common ground to solve America’s greatest challenges,” said former Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). “Unprecedented levels of partisanship and polarization have degraded that promise and extreme partisan gerrymandering deserves a share of the blame. When the only races that matter are partisan primaries, there are regrettably no incentives to build consensus across the political aisle – which is the only way to solve problems. I encourage the Supreme Court to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering and help our Congress return to the problem-solving body our founders intended it to be.”

--

Read the briefs:

• Link to amicus brief filed by GOP statewide officials.
• Link to amicus brief filed by bipartisan group of current and former members of Congress.
  Link to amicus brief filed by bipartisan group of 65 current and former state legislatures.
• Link to amicus brief filed by Senators McCain and Whitehouse.

Urges Court to “strike a blow” against practice that “increasingly threatens our democracy”

WASHINGTON – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and co-counsel today filed a merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark partisan gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford. The brief urges the Supreme Court to strike down Wisconsin’s extreme partisan gerrymandering scheme which all but guarantees one party control of the state Assembly for the entire decade, irrespective of how the voters cast their ballots.  The case will be heard at the Supreme Court on October 3.

“Partisan gerrymandering is worse now than at any time in recent memory,” said Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center who will argue the case before the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court has the opportunity to help restore the integrity of American democracy by creating ground rules that safeguard every American’s fundamental right to vote and have it count.”

Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymander – created in 2011 by legislative aides and hired consultants in a secret room in a private law office – employed the latest mapping technology and data analysis to create a district plan that is one of the most extremely gerrymandered state legislative plans in the last four decades. Consequently, 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.  As a result, for the first time in 31 years, a lower court—after a four-day trial—struck down the plan as an unconstitutional gerrymander.

Appellees argue 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.

“Partisan gerrymandering is a concern for all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Across the country, lawmakers of both parties are seizing power from voters to keep themselves in control. We are confident that when the justices see how pervasive and damaging this practice has become, the Court will adopt a clear legal standard that will ensure our democracy functions as it should.”

The brief rebuts arguments advanced by the state, and highlights that the map was “crafted with an obsessive focus on partisan advantage.” It refutes the notion advanced by the state of Wisconsin that there is a neutral justification for the map’s large partisan tilt. The brief notes that several sets of maps, along with other evidence, demonstrate that neither efforts to comply with traditional redistricting criteria nor Wisconsin’s political geography can explain the map’s large and durable partisan skew.  Wisconsin’s 2011 map, the brief argues, clearly meets a three-prong test for a partisan gerrymander: it was designed with discriminatory intent; it has had a discriminatory effect; and there is no valid justification for the map other than partisan gerrymandering.

Amicus briefs in support of appellees will be filed on September 5, 2017.

Learn more about CLC’s efforts on behalf of the 12 plaintiffs in Whitford here.

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, Michele L. Odorizzi of Mayer Brown, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago Law School and Jessica R. Amunson of Jenner & Block.

Carson appeared at Trump rally in Phoenix; was introduced under formal HUD title

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released a legal complaint by letter to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) urging them to investigate a possible violation of the Hatch Act by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson on Tuesday night at a campaign rally for President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign.

Under the Hatch Act, Secretary Carson is legally permitted to attend political rallies, but cannot use his official government title during the appearance. This prohibition prevents officials from mixing personal and official activities in ways that lends governmental support to a partisan political candidate. Tuesday’s event in Phoenix, Arizona was a campaign event paid for by Republican Party funds.

“Misuse of the government’s authority to support a partisan political candidate is an issue that should be taken seriously to deter future violations,” said Walter Shaub, senior director, ethics at CLC, and the former director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). “Failure to address this misconduct would send the wrong message. We’re in the unusual circumstance of the presidential election cycle having started only months after the last election, which leaves plenty of time for the violations to multiply if there’s no accountability.”

Shortly before the end of the Obama Administration, in April 2016, then-HUD Secretary Julián Castro was found to be in violation of the Hatch Act when he endorsed Hillary Clinton during a media interview in his government office. In its report on Secretary Castro, OSC wrote, “[I]t is a use of official authority or influence to affect an election when an employee uses his official title while participating in political activity.”

According to the Office of Special Counsel's website: "Federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation​."

Texas's Modified Version of the Original Law, SB 5, is Just as Discriminatory as the Original SB 14, Court Says 

A federal court in Texas today permanently blocked Texas latest version of its voter photo ID law, SB 5. Campaign Legal Center represents Texas voters in its challenge to the law in the case Veasey v. Abbott. 

A federal court had already blocked the original Texas voter photo ID law, SB 14, from going into full effect during the 2016 presidential election. During the 2016 elections, an interim process was put into place as a “stop-gap” measure, allowing voters without the required photo ID to vote if they signed a declaration instead. In April of this year, the federal court held that the original law, SB 14, not only harmed minority voters in practice but was passed with the purpose of discriminating against minority voters. Because of this unconstitutional and purposeful discrimination, the court held today that both SB 14 and Texas’s amendments to the law in SB 5 must be invalidated.

Judge Ramos of the Southern District of Texas said Texas’s latest voter photo ID law, SB 5, keeps the same limited forms of photo ID required under SB 14 and therefore carries forward the same “discriminatory features” of the original SB 14 voter photo ID law.

 “Time and time again, federal courts have made it clear that Texas’s strict voter photo ID law is discriminatory,” said Danielle Lang, senior counsel for CLC. “It doesn’t matter how many times the state tries to dress the law in sheep’s clothing – its intent is to discriminate and prevent hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots. Now, Texas must return to nondiscriminatory ID practices in voting, which do not require photo ID.”