U.S. Supreme Court Affirms North Carolina’s 2011 Congressional Maps are an Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander

Date
Body

CLC's partisan gerrymander challenge to the state's maps will move forward

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court today, in Cooper v. Harris, affirmed a three-judge court’s decision finding that the North Carolina General Assembly used race as a predominant factor in drawing two districts in its 2011 congressional map. The lower court deemed the districts to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.

“The Supreme Court, in affirming the lower court opinion, sends a message that legislators cannot target and unnecessarily pack black voters in redistricting, even if their end goal is political advantage, as the legislators argued,” said Ruth Greenwood, deputy director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “In other words, politicians cannot purposefully use and sort voters by race merely to achieve partisan ends.”

CLC submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the North Carolina voters who challenged North Carolina’s racial gerrymander. The League of Women Voters, the Voting Rights Institute, the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the National Association of Social Workers also signed on to the brief. 

Read our case page on Cooper v. Harris.

Because the 2011 districts were struck down by the district court, the General Assembly redrew a new congressional map in 2016 to have a severe pro-Republican tilt, which the plan’s architects freely admit “would be a political gerrymander.” CLC and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, have filed a lawsuit, League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho, challenging the 2016 map as a partisan gerrymander. The case is set for trial in June 2017. 

Read our case page in League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho.

Issues

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling to Keep Soft Money out of Elections

Date
Body

Decision is consistent with court’s position in 2003 McConnell case

Today, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the federal “soft money” restrictions on contributions to state parties passed as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Today’s summary ruling affirms the three-judge district court’s decision in Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC.

“Voters are the winners of this decision to turn back unregulated soft money and to reaffirm the importance of effective party contribution limits,” said Tara Malloy, deputy executive director at CLC. “Without these soft money limits, political parties would again become vehicles through which big donors would attempt to buy influence over elected officials and their policy decisions.”

CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in support of the FEC on Feb. 13.

Read our case page.

Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC

At a Glance

The federal campaign laws have long placed limits on what individuals and certain entities can give to political parties in connection with federal elections. The Republican Party of Louisiana is asking a three-judge federal district court in D.C. to undo the “soft money” limits applicable to state and local party committees engaged in federal election activity.

Status
Closed
Updated
About This Case/Action

The federal campaign laws have long placed limits on what individuals and certain entities can give to political parties in connection with federal elections. The reason for these limits is simple: political parties should focus on engaging average voters instead of doing the bidding of just a handful of wealthy donors.

But loopholes in post-Watergate reforms allowed parties to bypass the limits. Political parties began soliciting and accepting “soft money,”[1] or large, unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and labor unions, to pay for “issue” ads that avoided directly calling for the election or defeat of a particular candidate but otherwise looked and sounded like campaign ads. Parties also used these unlimited contributions to fund activities that they claimed related to state and local elections, as well as mixed-purpose activities benefiting both federal and state candidates such as get-out-the-vote efforts. Although these funds were supposedly “non-federal,” they were used for activities that significantly boosted the prospects of candidates at all levels of the ticket, including federal candidates.

By soliciting and spending large soft-money contributions, parties could help donors evade the base limits for contributions to federal candidates, and those donors could exploit the naturally close ties between the parties and those candidates to obtain political favors – which the congressional record shows included anything from favorable legislative action to overnights in the Lincoln bedroom.

Congress sought to plug the so-called “soft-money loophole” by enacting the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) in 2002, which imposed limits on the contributions that federal, state and local party committees could collect. One BCRA provision established limits on contributions to state and local party committees insofar as the funds were spent on “Federal election activity,” which included:

  • Voter registration activities within 120 days of a federal election;
  • Voter identification, generic campaign activities, and get-out-the-vote activities in years when federal, state and local candidates appear on the ballot;
  • Public communications that promote or attack a federal candidate;
  • Compensation for party employees spending more than 25 percent of their time on federal election activities.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF LOUISIANA’S LEGAL CHALLENGE

The Republican Party of Louisiana is asking a three-judge federal district court in D.C. to undo the “soft money” limits applicable to state and local party committees engaged in federal election activity. The plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from limiting the sources and amounts of any contributions used by the party committees for independent activities. The challenge boils down to one erroneous proposition: contributions to state and local political parties cannot be corrupting as long as they are not spent in coordination with a candidate. However, this flies directly in the face of both common sense and controlling Supreme Court precedent.

The three-judge court hearing this case is bound by the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in McConnell upholding this specific soft money restriction. Even so — because the case is proceeding under an expedited judicial-review mechanism in BCRA allowing for a three-judge court with direct appeal to the Supreme Court — the case could be a blockbuster.

WHAT’S AT STAKE: THE RETURN OF SOFT MONEY

This case is yet another attempt to dismantle BCRA’s pro-democracy reforms and restore the soft-money era — so the stakes are high. Some have likened it to the next Citizens United, recognizing that it has been brought by the same lawyer, who claims he won’t rest until every money-in-politics rule has been overturned.

If these modest limits are struck down, it would severely damage the ability of everyday voters to have their voices heard over the din of big-money donors, as well as exacerbate the public’s fear that their elected representatives are beholden only to the wealthy donors who fund their campaigns for office.

The Campaign Legal Center has filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the challenged provision is a crucial firewall against the well-documented abuses of the soft-money era. To strike it down would blow an enormous hole in the anti-corruption edifice that Congress erected with BCRA, as it would once again enable state and local party organizations to serve as conduits for corrupt exchanges between candidates and donors.

**On Nov. 7, a three-judge district court panel upheld  BCRA’s limits placed on what individuals and certain entities can give to political parties, citing the precedent in McConnell upholding the soft money restriction. The Republican Party of Louisiana has filed a direct appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the parties are currently briefing the question of whether the Court should hear argument or simply affirm the district court.

***On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision made by the three-judge district court, effectively keeping hte restriction in place. Read our press release on the news.

Read our one pager about the case

For more information about the case, contact the Campaign Legal Center at [email protected].

 

[1] Under the federal campaign laws, all “contributions” must be made from funds that comply with the law’s disclosure requirements and source and amount restrictions—i.e., from “federal” or “hard” money.

Plaintiffs

Republican Party of Louisiana

Defendant

FEC

Tennessee Republican Party vs. SEC

At a Glance

A state party challenge to the law preventing pay-to-play practices in municipal security services.

Status
Closed
Updated
About This Case/Action

About

The state Republican parties of New York, Tennessee and Georgia challenged an important safeguard that prevents pay-to-play practices in municipal advisory services. The rule adopted by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) bars investment firms from soliciting government business for its municipal financial advisory services for two years after a firm or its associates make more than the legal minimum contributions to state or municipal officeholders who have influence over the award of such advisory contracts.

In its amicus brief, CLC argues that the state parties challenging the rule are ignoring extensive evidence of pay-to-play activity at both the federal and state levels, and the self-evident risk that allowing a municipal advisor to make substantial campaign contributions to officeholders with control over awards of municipal advisory business will give rise to corruption, or at a minimum, the appearance of corruption. The rule was adopted to ensure high standards of integrity in the municipal securities market and to prevent conflicted officials from awarding municipal advisory business to those who “pay to play.”

Case Status

Petitioners filed their merits brief on Nov. 16, 2016 and respondents filed their brief on Dec. 19, 2016. CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 23, 2016, urging the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on to reject the challenge to the rule. Oral argument was heard before the Sixth Circuit May 4, 2017.

UPDATE: On July 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit decided not to take the case because it lacked standing. This means that the rule will stand.

Plaintiffs

Securities and Exchange Commission and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board

Defendant

Tennessee Republican Party, Georgia Republican Party and New York Republican State Committee

Alabama Governor Should Sign Bill Restoring Voting Rights to Some People Subjected to Arbitrary ‘Moral Turpitude’ Law

Date
Body

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.

‘Onward Together’ Breaks Clinton’s Promise to End Secret, Unaccountable Money in Politics

Date
Body

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.”

Supreme Court Declines to Interfere with Lower Court Ruling: North Carolina Voter Suppression Law Is Racially Discriminatory and Will Not Stand

Date
Body

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.”

‘Election Integrity Commission’ Starts Down a Dangerous Path with Kris Kobach as Vice-Chair

Date
Body

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.

CLC Calls for Appointment of DOJ Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference in 2016 Presidential Election

Date
Body

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.

Issues