Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina

At a Glance

The Campaign Legal Center is part of a litigation team representing the League of Women Voters of North Carolina as well as numerous individual voters who have challenged the state’s congressional district maps as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

Partisan gerrymandering, or the drawing of electoral district lines to benefit one political party, is a serious problem in our democracy. This practice creates an unrepresentative and unfair democracy and also encourages self-interested politics. In jurisdictions nationwide, legislators have drawn legislative maps so that they can choose their voters, instead of voters being able to choose their representatives.

On February 5, 2016, in the federal court case Harris v. McCrory, a three-judge panel from the Middle District of North Carolina held that North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District and 12th Congressional District were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the 14th Amendment. Following this ruling, the Republican-led legislature redrew the state’s congressional districts to have a severe pro-Republican tilt, which the plan’s architects freely admitted “would be a political gerrymander.”

Expressly designed to give Republicans a 10-3 district advantage, despite the fact that North Carolina is a solidly purple state, the newly enacted North Carolina congressional plan is, by any measure, one of the worst partisan gerrymanders in modern American history.

It’s clear that the current redistricting process is undermining our democracy and partisan gerrymandering has become the political weapon of choice for legislators to maintain political power. The U.S. Supreme Court held that it has the authority and responsibility to decide partisan gerrymandering claims; in 2006, all nine justices agreed that excessive partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution. 

However, the Court has yet to adopt a standard for determining whether a redistricting plan constitutes a partisan gerrymander. Every proposed test to date has been deemed unworkable by the courts — too ambiguous and subjective to reliably identify the most objectionable plans. Without a legal standard, voters are free to challenge politically motivated maps in court, but judges, without clear guidance, ordinarily dismiss these cases out of hand. The result is that voters, like those in North Carolina, are unable to hold their representatives accountable and reign in extreme partisan gerrymanders.

The Campaign Legal Center is representing the League of Women Voters of North Carolina alongside the Southern Coalition for Social Justice as well as numerous individual voters who have challenged the state’s congressional district lines as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho. Our case seeks to establish that the North Carolina congressional plan enacted in February 2016 violates the 1st and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

This case is the first since Gill v. Whitford (Wisconsin) to present the efficiency gap as a legal standard to determine if a partisan gerrymander is too extreme.  

Plaintiffs

Rucho

Defendant

League of Women Voters

Associated Cases & Actions

Gill v. Whitford

Lawsuit: Unlawful Delay by FEC to Resolve CLC Complaint Against Private Prison Company Threatens Integrity of Government Contracting Process

Date
Body

GEO’s $225,000 in contributions to pro-Trump super PAC violated 75-year old protection against companies buying contracts through political contributions

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over its unlawful delay in enforcing federal law against GEO Group, one of America’s largest private prison companies. GEO broke the law by contributing to a super PAC that supported the Trump campaign during the 2016 general election. More than a year after CLC filed a complaint with the FEC over these violations, there is no indication the FEC has taken any action.

CLC’s original FEC complaint showed how GEO’s $225,000 in contributions to the super PAC Rebuilding America Now violated the 75-year-old prohibition on government contractors making political contributions. After President Trump was elected with GEO’s illegal backing, his administration reversed the prior administration’s plans to phase-out private prison contracts, then awarded GEO with $110 million in a new contract to build and operate a 1,000-bed immigration detention center in Texas. Now, GEO shares have more than tripled since hitting a low in 2016.

“The contractor ban is essential to prevent companies from using campaign contributions to buy government contracts, and that ban must be enforced,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation at CLC, who previously served as the FEC’s associate general counsel for policy. “This is why we need an effective FEC. If the agency sits on its hands, the law is not worth the paper it is printed on.”

“If the FEC doesn’t enforce the 75-year-old contractor contribution ban against companies like GEO Group, then taxpayer-funded contracts become an obvious way for politicians to reward their deep-pocketed campaign supporters,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. “As the FEC continues to delay taking action, GEO continues buying influence with illegal contributions. With the 2018 elections quickly approaching, the FEC must make clear that private prison companies and other contractors cannot expect to violate the law and get away with it."

In September 2017, the FEC fined another government contractor, Suffolk Construction, for contributing to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, in response to a complaint from CLC and Democracy 21. But the FEC has still not taken action on CLC’s complaint against GEO Group.

Last year, CLC sued to learn what research, evidence, or reports Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department relied upon in reaching its decision to reverse the prior administration’s phase-out of the use of private prisons. That litigation revealed that Session’s DOJ did not rely on any research, evidence, or reports, further suggesting that GEO’s illegal contributions informed the decision.

Read CLC’s original complaint filed on Nov. 1, 2016 and supplement from Dec. 20, 2016.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Husted v. Randolph Institute

At a Glance

Husted v. Randolph Institute is a challenge to Ohio’s unjustified purge of thousands of registered voters from its voter rolls. CLC's Paul Smith argued the case before the Supreme Court in January 2018 on the side of the voters.

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

Paul M. Smith, CLC Vice President for Litigation and Strategy, argued this case before the Supreme Court on January 10, 2018 on behalf of the Ohio voter plaintiffs. 

Summary

Husted v. Randolph Institute is a challenge to Ohio’s unjustified purge of thousands of registered voters from its voter rolls. Under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), states may not purge voters simply for failure to vote. Nonetheless, Ohio’s purge process does precisely that. If a voter fails to vote for two years, they are sent a single notice and must take affirmative steps to remain on the rolls. If this confirmation is lost in the mail, misplaced or forgotten, and the individual does not vote in the next two elections, the voter is purged and will not be able to vote in the future without re-registering entirely.

The ACLU and Demos sued. The Sixth Circuit agreed that Ohio’s purges were unlawful. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

What’s at Stake?

Every state (except one) requires voters to be registered in order to vote. In 1993, in order to expand participation in our democracy, Congress passed the NVRA to make sure that registration is relatively easy and that voters aren’t unduly purged from the roles. It specifically forbade purges on the basis of failure to vote. Ohio’s purge process flouts the NVRA and, if it continues, will disenfranchises thousands of voters simply because they decided not to vote in certain elections.

People often don’t vote in a given election but plan to vote in future elections. Indeed, many voters face substantial obstacles—long lines, inadequate transportation, demanding work schedules—to the right to vote and may not make it to the polls every election for those reasons. If states are allowed to kick voters off the rolls for this reason alone, these voters will likely not find out until it is too late to re-register. The result is they will be prevented from voting entirely, despite being eligible (and, rightfully registered) voters. In 2016, thousands of eligible voters appeared to vote and discovered they had unlawfully been purged from the rolls. Because of this case, they were allowed to vote a provisional ballot.

Campaign Legal Center Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief

CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court  arguing that Ohio’s program serves to further burden, and potentially disenfranchise, voters who already have to hurdle significant barriers to participate in our democracy. Low-income, disabled, and elderly citizens all face particular burdens on the right to vote: a majority of polling places are still not accessible to disabled voters; disabled, low-income, and elderly voters all disproportionately cite transportation as a reason they did not vote; and low-income voters struggle to get to the polls while juggling work schedules, child care, and other demands on their time and resources.  If these voters are kicked off the voter rolls solely because they don’t make it to the polls, they are even more likely not to be able to vote in future elections. Requiring these voters to re-register in order to vote undermines the very purpose of the NVRA and pushes people out of civic life.

Plaintiffs

Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State

Defendant

Philip Randolph Institute

Federal Court Strikes Down North Carolina Congressional Plan as Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymander

Date
Body

GREENSBORO, N.C.  – A three-judge panel for North Carolina’s Middle District has struck down North Carolina’s 2016 congressional plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. For the first time in history, a federal court struck down a congressional voting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. 

The 2016 plan was developed after a federal court invalidated two congressional districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.  When the legislature purported to “remedy” that racially gerrymandered plan with an unabashed and admitted partisan gerrymander, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and several voters from across the state filed suit.

CLC's redistricting team and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice represented the North Carolina League of Women Voters in the case.

Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) issued the following statement after the opinion was released:

“The court handed voters a major victory today by reinforcing the core principle that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.  North Carolina should take this opportunity to draw a fair map that does not discriminate against voters. And marginalized voters in other states should be encouraged that the courts have adopted a standard for measuring partisan symmetry that can be used to set limits on the practice of gerrymandering nationwide.”

The court’s order can be found here.

Per the ruling, the North Carolina General Assembly has until January 29 to enact a remedial plan; the federal court plans to employ a special master to draw an alternative remedial plan, and the remedial plan should be enacted before the 2018 congressional elections.

Learn more about the case here.

Issues
Redistricting

CREW & CLC File Motion to Name Hidden Donors in Money Laundering Case

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — Unnamed donors who funneled nearly two million dollars through a series of entities to a super PAC in an effort to keep their names off the contribution should not be allowed to remain anonymous, according to a motion to intervene filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in Doe v. FEC. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) serves as co-counsel in the case.

Following a CREW complaint, the FEC agreed to a $350,000 fine (a post-Citizens United record for a complaint from an outside group) with Government Integrity, LLC, the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the Now or Never super PAC for one of the clearest cases of dark money laundering in memory. The LLC used ACU, known for its annual CPAC conference, to launder $1.71 million to the super PAC, for which ACU pocketed $90,000. However, it is unknown where the funds originated.

“Federal law gives voters the right to know who spends millions of dollars to get candidates elected,” said Adav Noti, CLC’s senior director, trial litigation. “In this case, major political donors are trying to hide their identities by laundering money through shell companies and trusts. That has been illegal for decades, and this lawsuit will help uncover who is behind the political money-laundering conspiracy."

By a split decision, the FEC failed to adopt its general counsel’s recommendation to go after the originators of the contribution, an unnamed trust and trustee. CREW sued the FEC over this decision two weeks ago. In an unusual move, a trust and its trustee involved in the scheme—either as passthroughs themselves or as the original donor—sued the FEC in an attempt to keep their names from becoming public. CREW is moving to intervene as defendants in an effort to shine a light on these bad actors.“

This is one of the more blatant conduit contribution schemes we’ve seen,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said. “We need to know where it began and who has worked so hard—in violation of the law—to keep their contribution and their participation in this scheme secret.”

Click here to read the motion.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Dissolution of Pence-Kobach Commission is Good News for Voting Rights

Date
Body

Commission Never Planned to Address Real Problems in Our Democracy

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump signed an executive order dissolving the controversial Presidential Commission on Election Integrity (also known as the Pence-Kobach Commission), which Campaign Legal Center has strongly opposed as nothing more than a forum to undermine citizens’ right to vote. The administration has directed the Department of Homeland Security to review the commission’s initial findings and determine the next course of action.

“We know there are very serious problems in our democracy that voters want addressed, such as foreign interference and voter suppression efforts, but this commission never planned on tackling any of those,” said Danielle Lang, CLC senior counsel. “Instead, the commission was nothing more than a partisan tool to implement an agenda that would make it harder for Americans to vote. Thus far, DHS has been focused on real election integrity issues related to hacking and security of our electoral infrastructure, as it should be. CLC will be watching closely to see if President Trump and former Kansas Secretary of State Kobach, vice-chair of the commission, will try to derail DHS’s work in an effort to continue to push a partisan agenda that makes it more difficult for Americans to participate in the political process.”

In February 2017, CLC submitted a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to uncover documents regarding the commission’s plan for a “major investigation into voter fraud.”  In September 2017, CLC received a response to its FOIA request that showed an employee with the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky, pushed back on naming a single Democrat or any mainstream Republicans to the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity.

CLC will continue to file FOIA requests and utilize other legal tools as it watchdogs the administration’s efforts. 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Firing Mueller is a Red Line That Must Not be Crossed

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Walter Shaub, senior director, ethics at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) warned the administration, its surrogates, and its allies to back off their attempt to undermine the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. President Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, has publicly called for a second special counsel in a transparent effort to muddy the waters and impede Mueller’s investigation. In response, Shaub gave the following statement:

“The coordinated effort by President Trump and his surrogates to discredit the Mueller investigation raises serious alarms. Rather than making themselves complicit in this assault on the rule of law, Members of Congress should send a clear message to the President that firing Mueller is a red line he must not cross.”

Issues
Ethics

Final Tax Bill Will Not Include a Provision Allowing Churches to Endorse Political Candidates

Date
Body

Reports have indicated that the final tax bill will not include a repeal of the Johnson Amendment, a change that would have allowed charitable organizations organized as  501(c)3 nonprofits to engage in political campaigns on behalf of (or in opposition to) candidates for public office.

Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement:

“There is no reason that secretive billionaires should get a tax deduction for their dark money political contributions, and we are glad that this provision was stripped from the final bill. The outpouring of opposition to the rollback from voters, faith leaders, the nonprofit community, and transparency advocates stopped this ill-advised provision for now. But big money political donors still want a tax break for their secret contributions and we must remain vigilant so that similar language is not included in future legislation.”

Issues
Campaign Finance
Subscribe to