Litigators and Lead Plaintiff React to Decision

WASHINGTON – A three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin today struck down Wisconsin’s state assembly district map, which is one of the most extreme partisan gerrymanders in the United States in the post-2010 cycle.

With this decision, plaintiffs have successfully alleged and proven that a state legislative redistricting plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander for the first time in 30 years.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) along with regional local counsel represent lead plaintiff Bill Whitford and the other 11 plaintiffs in the case.

CLC Director of Voting Rights and Redistricting Program Gerry Hebert released the following statement:

“This is truly a monumental victory for the plaintiffs in this case, but more importantly this is an historic moment for our nation and the betterment of democracy. This case proves that the rights of Wisconsin voters were infringed upon and that the self-interested, unfair practice of partisan gerrymandering hurts our democracy. With this decision, partisan gerrymandering should come to an end in Wisconsin and is now on its way to extinction across the nation.  And with the implementation of the test we proposed and the court accepted, there will be, for the first time, a standard to identify this harmful practice.”

Peter Earle, one of the Wisconsin-based attorneys representing the plaintiffs, released the following statement:

“Today is a historic day and I am thrilled with the result not only for our plaintiffs, but for all Wisconsin voters. This decision will finally give voters in Wisconsin the power they deserve to shape their democracy. Now a fairer system will be created here in Wisconsin so all voters, not just a select few, will be able to have their voices heard.”

Bill Whitford, the lead plaintiff in the case, released the following statement:

“I’m very pleased with this decision. It is truly historic. As a lifelong Democrat the court’s decision recognizes the power of my voice and the voices of all other Democrats across the state. This decision could have a monumental impact in ensuring that voters’ voices are heard across the nation, regardless of party. I want fair elections, where the voters have the power, not a gerrymander for either side created by self-interested politicians. That’s what today’s decision is all about.”

The ruling issued today by the court stated the following:

“We find that Act 43 was intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters throughout the decennial period by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats. Moreover, as demonstrated by the results of the 2012 and 2014 elections, among other evidence, we conclude that Act 43 has had its intended effect.”

The parties have 30 days to submit their proposals for the nature and timing of the remedial process.  The plaintiffs’ three-part test, which was adopted in this case, can now be used across the country to fight back against unfair partisan gerrymandering.
 

Congress can make good on calls to ‘drain the swamp’

WASHINGTON – Today, a coalition of watchdog groups and congressional scholars urged House and Senate leaders from both parties to strengthen ethics rules and address known weaknesses in current rules. The package of proposed reforms cover travel, conflicts of interest, campaign activities by members and staff while Congress is meeting, the revolving door and enforcement. 

“With the incoming Trump administration’s promise to ‘drain the swamp,’ Congress has an opportunity to clean up its own house and enact common sense reforms to help restore faith in government,” said Meredith McGehee, strategic advisor at the Campaign Legal Center. “Americans are looking for Congress to recommit to ethics by closing loopholes and addressing conflicts of interest.”

“These reforms are non-partisan solutions that Republicans and Democrats should support,” said Aaron Scherb, director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, “because the American public expects and deserves a Congress that holds itself to the highest ethical standard.”

“This House of Representatives should seize on these recommendations during this rare opportunity to systematically address longstanding issues with the way it polices ethics,” said Daniel Schuman, policy director at Demand Progress.

Detailed in the attached report are 15 specific recommendations for the 115^th Congress. This Congress must work to follow through on its promises to put the American people before big donors and special interests by strengthening ethical protections. Endorsing these recommendations will show Americans that their government stands with them and is serious about changing Washington.

Joining in urging support for the proposed reforms are:

• Campaign Legal Center
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
• Common Cause
• Demand Progress
• Democracy 21
• Issue One
• Project on Government Oversight
• Public Citizen
• Thomas Mann
• Norm Ornstein
• James Thurber

Today, the Campaign Legal Center released the following statement about President-elect Donald Trump's decision to nominate Jeff Sessions for Attorney General:

“Jeff Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to fairness and equality under the law, a commitment that should be a minimum qualification for the position of Attorney General” said Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center.

“To the contrary, he has repeatedly demonstrated racial insensitivity to black citizens of Alabama and this country through both his words and actions. He has never apologized for his racially charged comments during his last tenure at the Department of Justice. I believe that Sessions represents a threat to voting rights for all minorities. It is frightening to think that Sessions will run the U.S. Department of Justice and have the opportunity to roll back voting rights through voter suppression in communities that have long struggled for equality.

As Attorney General of Alabama, Sessions prosecuted black citizens on phony charges of 'voter fraud.' Sessions has also supported discriminatory voter ID laws based on the myth of widespread voter fraud, denied a continuing history of discrimination against minority voters in the South, and celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, a decision that gutted the landmark Voting Rights Act, a law he will now be sworn to protect and enforce.”

CLC, Coalition of Groups, Urge President-Elect Trump to Reconsider Current Plan

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center, along with other watchdog groups and individuals, sent a letter calling on President-elect Donald Trump to alter his plan to have his children handle the Trump Organization business assets while he is president.

The letter encourages the president-elect to either place all business assets and investments into a genuine blind trust or the equivalent, or convert the Trump Organization businesses to cash and buy treasury bills and widely diversified mutual funds. “The failure to follow this course of action will create conflicts of interest of unprecedented magnitude,” the letter asserts.

The below statement can be attributed to Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center:

"The potential for conflicts of interest in this administration are unprecedented.  For the last 40 years, every President has taken appropriate steps to address potential conflicts of interest arising from their financial portfolio, usually through divestment or the establishment of blind trusts.

The Trump Organization is a multi-billion dollar company with business interests around the world.  Setting up a proper blind trust is a critical requirement to avoid conflicts of interest. Having Trump’s children run his business – while serving on his transition team - would not be meet this requirement.

Should President-elect Trump turn over the management of his business interests to his three adult children while retaining ownership, those conflicts will not go away. In fact, such an arrangement could endanger the President-elect. As owner of the business, he would remain legally liable for any violations of the law by his businesses.

Assets he has with foreign entities raise their own special set of questions and might be better handled with divestment. The best option for the President-elect is to enter into a genuine blind trust with control of the company in the hands of an independent Trustee with whom he and his family have had no business dealings. Failing that, he should sell his business to his children and establish a firewall regarding discussions of those interests during his Presidency."

--

The following groups and individuals signed onto the letter:

• Gary D. Bass
• Campaign for Accountability
• Campaign Legal Center
• Center for American Progress
• Center for Media and Democracy
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
• Common Cause
• Democracy 21
• Ambassador (ret.) Norm Eisen, chief White House ethics lawyer, 2009-2011
• Essential Information
• Issue One
• Thomas E. Mann
• OpentheGovernment.Org
• Norman Ornstein
• Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer, 2005-2007
• People for the American Way
• Project on Government Oversight
• Public Citizen
• Sunlight Foundation

HOUSTON – After six years of litigation, the pervasive and egregious corruption within the Houston Independent School District has been dealt a serious blow by a jury of Houston citizens. Today, the Campaign Legal Center, alongside Lawyers at Brazil & Dunn and The Greenwood Prather Law Firm, secured a multi-million dollar jury verdict against a former school board trustee and others for a widespread pay-to-play scheme.

CLC was part of a legal team representing a Houston construction contractor, Gil Ramirez, who was locked out of the school district’s construction contracts after refusing to participate in the scheme in which the school board president, Larry Marshall, was accepting bribes in cash and campaign contributions in exchange for ensuring that certain construction contractors would receive lucrative public contracts.

“School officials have the duty to ensure tax dollars, bond money and federal funds benefit the students and employees of the school district, not their own pockets,” said Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center. “This verdict sends a loud and clear message that corruption schemes will not be tolerated and that Larry Marshall will not get away with abusing his position by placing his own interests above those of the students and employees of the school district.”

Hebert, along with CLC Deputy Director of Voting Rights Danielle Lang, litigated the case before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Attorneys from the law firms Brazil and Dunn, and the Greenwood Prather Law Firm also represented plaintiff Ramirez. 

 “Six years ago I was asked to pay a bribe, or to make the right choice. I declined," said plaintiff Gil Ramirez. “After six years, that decision was finally vindicated and justice was rendered.”

--

Read the court decision