Alabama legislature moves in the right direction by passing bill to set a clear legal standard; the law still leaves many citizens without recourse

WASHINGTON - Yesterday, the Alabama Legislature passed HB 282, a bill that defines what crimes involve “moral turpitude” for the purposes of determining which citizens can vote. The bill’s language expressly admits that, as CLC has argued in Thompson v. Alabama, until now there has been “no comprehensive list of felonies that involve moral turpitude,” leaving the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of people to the whims of individual registrars.

“This bill is a step in the right direction,” said Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “With a stroke of her pen, Governor Ivey could enfranchise many Alabamians that have been wrongly denied the right to vote by the state’s longstanding, arbitrary process of disenfranchisement. We commend the legislature for taking the problem of Alabama’s inherently discriminatory ‘moral turpitude’ standard seriously and finally taking initial steps to resolve it.”

But this bill does not fully resolve Alabama’s deeply troublesome felon disenfranchisement laws. The process is still inherently racially discriminatory and overbroad, permanently disenfranchising many individuals, including many convicted of non-violent crimes. Alabama is one of only a dozen states that disenfranchises individuals after they complete their sentences. The bill also does not address Alabama’s system of conditioning restoration of the right to vote based on wealth, in violation of the United States Constitution. CLC continues to work on behalf of Alabama citizens to restore their right to vote.

Learn more about the plaintiffs.

Newly created nonprofit organization will not disclose its donors

On Monday, Sec. Hillary Clinton announced that she was launching a new political 501(c)(4) group, Onward Together. Staffers for the new group suggested it will not disclose the names of its donors. Larry Noble, senior director, regulatory reform programs and general counsel at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement about the importance of disclosure to the ongoing health of our democracy:

“It is disappointing that Sec. Hillary Clinton – who ran on a platform to “end secret, unaccountable money in politics” – would break the spirit of her own promise by starting a new dark money group to allow her to raise unlimited funds from secret donors. Disclosure is critical because voters deserve to know if our leaders will answer to them, or to wealthy special interest groups and donors. Transparency is the foundation of an open democracy. Clinton’s group is following a dangerous path that could further open the floodgates to even more unaccountable money in politics.”

Decision Leaves in Place Key Fourth Circuit Court Decision

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP case, leaving in place the circuit court’s decision that North Carolina’s omnibus voter suppression law intentionally discriminated against minorities, in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), released the following statement:

“The Supreme Court rightfully rejected taking up a review of North Carolina’s voter suppression law today. This case serves as a sobering reminder of the continuing fight to protect voters from discriminatory voting laws that legislators too often enact with the purpose of burdening minority communities. This was one of the most restrictive voting laws in the country—passed in the direct aftermath of the loss of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—so it is a huge victory for both North Carolina voters and the country that the Supreme Court will not review the Fourth Circuit’s decision striking down these restrictive laws.”

Claims of widespread voter fraud have been debunked by elected officials from both parties

WASHINGTON – Today, media reports indicate President Trump will sign an executive order establishing a commission to review alleged voter fraud and vote suppression in the American election system.

“If there is to be a commission, it should focus on how to make it easier to vote, so citizens can exercise their most fundamental right, rather than on a voter fraud myth that feeds attempts to make voting harder,” said Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. “But the appointment of Kris Kobach, who has a history of stoking fear of illegal voting without evidence, as vice-chair of this commission belies any serious interest in investigating voter suppression or strengthening the integrity of elections. If the commission wants to achieve its stated purpose, it should demand Kobach’s explanation for his involvement in systematic vote suppression efforts. Kobach is a national leader in ‘documentary proof of citizenship’ requirements – requiring voters to provide personal documents such as a passport or birth certificate – aimed at transforming the process of voter registration into a burdensome multi-step process.”

“The rationale for forming this commission was based on a lie by President Trump, who attempted to link errors on voter registration lists to widespread fraud,” said Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center. “When President Trump made the claim – widely invalidated – that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election, he lost the credibility needed to create a commission that would seriously strengthen the integrity of our elections.”

Countless Republicans, including the Senate Majority Leader, have said there was no evidence widespread voter fraud occurred in the presidential election. Numerous similar “studies” have been completed already - including by Kobach in Kansas - wasting taxpayer money without finding any evidence of widespread fraud. A five-year long search during the George W. Bush administration turned up ‘virtually no evidence of voter fraud,’ according to the New York Times. A study by the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) produced data showing voting records form 2000-2010, which show no link between voter fraud in states and the need for stricter voter ID laws.

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) believes the effect of President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey – at a time he was directing an investigation of serious allegations of Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, and possible involvement with President Trump’s campaign – makes imperative the appointment of a special counsel by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the creation of a special committee by Congress, to examine these matters.

“These extraordinary occurrences unavoidably have the appearance of an effort by the president to undermine the investigation of Russian attempts to intervene in our elections and disrupt our democracy,” said CLC President Trevor Potter, a former Republican commissioner and chair of the Federal Election Commission. “And the firing of Director Comey after his public statements about the FBI investigation will be understandably viewed by many as an attempt by the president and the leaders of the DOJ to close down the investigation.

“In order to protect the FBI investigation and to restore the integrity and public credibility of the DOJ, the deputy attorney general should appoint a special counsel to take over the investigation. This committee can create a public record, separating the facts from rumor and unfounded allegations.

“In addition,” Potter continued, “Congress should create a special committee to look into foreign interference in the 2016 elections, and also to investigate the circumstances of Director Comey’s firing. Once its investigation is complete, a special committee can offer legislative recommendations to protect and strengthen the integrity of our democracy and prevent future foreign efforts to interfere with our elections.”

Prior to his dismissal of the FBI director, President Trump repeatedly attacked the ongoing FBI and Congressional investigations, tweeting last week: “the Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election” and tweeting Monday: “The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?”

The latter tweet occurred after Director Comey had testified to Congress that the FBI was investigating Russian involvement in the election, and amounts to presidential interference with the existing investigation. According to several news accounts today, days before he was fired, Comey had requested “a significant increase in resources for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election,” thereby providing the attorney general and deputy attorney general (and the White House, if this request was shared) with additional notice of the seriousness of the investigation. Press reports indicate that in the same time period, the president requested DOJ leadership produce a memorandum justifying the dismissal of Director Comey.

Further, despite recusing himself from matters pertaining to the Russia investigation, it has been reported that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions involved himself in the firing of Director Comey, who had ultimate authority over the Russia investigation, calling into question whether he would involve himself in any other DOJ decisions that directly affect the leadership of the investigation.

DOJ regulations provide that the attorney general, “or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General”:

will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and:

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.

28 C.F.R. § 600.1 (emphasis added).

That standard is clearly satisfied here.

WASHINGTON – The legal team representing 12 Wisconsin voters in the case Gill v. Whitford filed a brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower court ruling striking down Wisconsin’s 2011 State Assembly map as unconstitutional. The brief responds to Wisconsin’s call to reverse the district court’s decision.

Lawyers from the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) along with co-counsel represent the Wisconsin voters in the case.

“A three-judge panel in Wisconsin federal court rightfully held that Wisconsin lawmakers drew these maps for the benefit of their own political party, with little regard for the will of the voters,” said Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. “Partisan gerrymandering of this kind is worse now than at any time in recent memory. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to ensure the maps in Wisconsin are drawn fairly, and further, has the opportunity to create ground rules that safeguard every citizen’s right to freely choose their representatives.”

The question now before the Supreme Court is whether it will affirm the ruling of the lower court and agree to standards that will safeguard the fundamental right of all Americans to have their vote count. The Supreme Court will have the opportunity to take up the case in conference later this spring before it adjourns for the summer recess. Because of the unique procedures for redistricting cases, the Supreme Court must consider the case, either summarily affirming, summarily reversing or hearing the case on the merits. 

On Nov. 21, 2016, Judge Kenneth Francis Ripple, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote for a three-judge district court panel that Wisconsin’s State Assembly district map violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The panel reached this conclusion after conducting a full trial on the matter, hearing extensive evidence from both sides.

“The threat of partisan gerrymandering isn’t a Democratic or Republican issue; it’s an issue for all American voters,” said Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center, and former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Across the country, we’re witnessing legislators of both parties seizing power from voters in order to advance their purely partisan purposes. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to adopt a clear legal standard that would ensure our democracy functions as it should.”

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 to create a district plan that is one of the most extremely gerrymandered state legislative plans in the last four decades.  As a result, in the first election under the plan, Republicans won a supermajority of 60 out of 99 seats in spite of 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.

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.