Brief filed in advance of full panel oral arguments on May 24 

WASHINGTON – Texas’ voter ID law, SB 14, is the strictest voter ID law in the country, discriminates against minority voters, and disenfranchises an estimated 600,000 registered Texas voters, the Campaign Legal Center argues in a brief filed Monday in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit’s full panel of judges will hear oral arguments in the case, Veasey v. Abbott, on May 24.

CLC attorneys represent plaintiffs Congressman Marc Veasey, LULAC and a group of Texas voters in the case. View this video to learn about the Texas voters harmed by Texas SB 14.

 “We have repeatedly proven – using hard facts – that the Texas legislators who passed this law intended to discriminate against racial and language minorities,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Seven of seven federal judges have found that Texas’ voter ID law discriminates against minority voters and would disenfranchise more than half a million registered voters.”

In 2012, the D.C. District Court held that Texas’ voter ID law would have a discriminatory effect on minorities and blocked the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. After the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, Texas began to enforce the law.

Following a two-week trial in 2014, a federal court again found Texas’ voter ID law to be discriminatory in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit agreed, ruling that the law discriminates against minority voters. Despite these rulings, the law is still in effect due to the 5th Circuit’s stay of the district court’s decision in 2014. In March, the 5th Circuit decided to rehear the case, to be ruled on by the full court.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently indicated that if the 5th Circuit fails to decide this case by July 20, the high court would consider taking action, on a request from Texas voters, to protect Texas voters in time for the 2016 presidential election.

“Texas’ voter ID bill is the harshest in the nation and undeniably harms Texas voters,” said Danielle Lang, legal fellow with the Campaign Legal Center. “The full 5th Circuit should uphold the detailed findings of fact that the trial court found so that Texas voters can get relief for this fall’s presidential election.” 

Voting Rights Institute Asks the Department of Justice to Investigate 

A Texas County sheriff appears to be intimidating Latino voters from exercising their federally protected right to vote, and today the Voting Rights Institute sent a letter calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate.

The Texas Observer recently reported that in 2014, Edwards County, Texas Sheriff Pamela Elliott attempted to lead an “angry mob” outside of a meeting of Latino voters, held at the home of a local community activist and former Rocksprings mayor Rachel Gallegos. The meeting was held on private property and was of a county Democratic Party Executive Committee. According to the report, the meeting was held by those who supported a candidate who was opposed by one of Elliott’s allies.

Elliott is up for election herself in Fall 2016, drawing into question whether she will abuse her power of office to get re-elected. In the last 15 years, Edwards County's Hispanic population has grown from 45 to 55 percent Hispanic, according to the report.  

“Federal law makes quite clear that it is illegal for anyone to intimidate or attempt to intimidate voters for the purpose of interfering with the right to vote,” said Gerry Hebert, an attorney with the Voting Rights Institute. “Voter intimidation or attempts to intimidate voters also carry criminal penalties, and we are calling on the Department of Justice to take swift action to investigate these serious allegations.”

The Voting Rights Institute is a collaborative of the Campaign Legal Center, the American Constitution Society and Georgetown Law School, and protects one of the most precious rights held by Americans — the right to vote. Established in response to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Voting Rights Institute is preparing the next generation of attorneys, experts and activists to preserve our democracy and protect the ability of all Americans to vote. 

WASHINGTON –  The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order indicating it would be willing to take action to protect voters in Texas in time for the 2016 presidential election, if the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fails to issue a ruling by July 20, 2016.

“We’re very encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the time constraints involved in this case,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “We believe the 5th Circuit has set up a schedule that may well foreclose the ability to obtain relief in time for the presidential election. This order gives us the opportunity to protect Texas voters if the 5th Circuit fails to rule in time.”

The Campaign Legal Center filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 25, calling for immediate action in the Texas voter ID case, Veasey v. Abbott. Seven federal judges have ruled that Texas’ voter ID law discriminates against minority voters, but the law is still in effect due to the 5th Circuit’s stay of the decision. 

Oral argument in the en banc 5th Circuit is scheduled for May 24, 2016. 

The Commission’s Actions, in Dismissing Five Straw Donor Complaints, Were “Arbitrary, Capricious and An Abuse of Discretion and Otherwise Contrary to the Law”

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed a lawsuit Friday night in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Election Commission for dismissing five complaints that CLC and D21 filed with the agency. The dismissed complaints called for FEC investigation into donors who broke disclosure laws by hiding behind personal Limited Liability Companies (LLC) to anonymously make contributions to super PACs.

CLC and D21, over the course of several years, filed complaints with the FEC against these donors for violating the “straw donor” provision of Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). These donors’ anonymous contributions ranged from $857,000 to over $12 million, and several of the donors openly admitted in the media that they had used their personal company for the purpose of hiding their identities from the public. Still, the FEC dismissed all five complaints, after the three Republican commissioners voted not to investigate and sanction these donors.   

“This clearly is an agency out of control,” said Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, who previously served as general counsel for the FEC. “The agency is now sanctioning the intentional undermining of the integrity of campaign finance disclosure.  Each time the FEC fails to pursue a serious violation of the law, it weakens our democracy and the ability of Americans to know who is truly influencing our elections. It also sends a loud and clear message that those who violate campaign finance laws will face no penalties.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that disclosure laws play a vital role in providing the electorate with critical information to make informed choices. Prohibiting the use of straw donors to hide the true source of a contribution is essential to the law.

“LLCs are growing vehicles for laundering dark money contributions into federal elections. Anonymous donors are giving contributions to Super PACs through LLCs, and only the LLCs, not the actual donors, are being disclosed to the public by the Super PACs,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. “Our FEC complaints and lawsuit are designed to bring an end to these ‘secret money’ schemes before they get completely out of hand and to obtain enforcement of the law in cases that we believe involve clear violations.”

The lawsuit states that in dismissing these complaints, the FEC has “undermined FECA’s purposes, including its goal of promoting transparency in elections and providing the electorate with information about who is speaking to it during elections.” CLC and D21, along with the public, “were deprived of timely information about the sources of the contributions made to the super PACs – information to which they are legally entitled to under FECA.”

The lawsuit calls for the court to find that the FEC’s dismissal of the complaints was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to the law,” and seeks a judicial order demanding the FEC enforce the law within 30 days.

Read our complaint.

The Campaign Legal Center, Other Groups, Remind Speaker Ryan It’s Been One Year Since the Last OCE Co-Chair Stepped Down  

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center, joined by an unusual coalition of groups and congressional experts from across the political spectrum, today called on House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to appoint a new co-chair of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to replace former Rep. Goss (R-Fla.) who stepped down one year ago today. 

“Naming a replacement for Rep. Goss will send a much needed signal that the Speaker supports the OCE and that he is committed, as the institutional leader of the House of Representatives, to continuing the Office of Congressional Ethics in the next Congress,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The OCE is essential to ensuring public credibility in Congress. The House Ethics Committee, through inaction or tortured interpretations of ethics rules and standards, continues to demonstrate how important it is to have OCE’s independent voice in the congressional ethics process.”

Signing the letter are: the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Demand Progress, Democracy 21, Issue One, Judicial Watch, National Legal and Policy Center, National Taxpayers Union, Norm Ornstein, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and Public Citizen.

The OCE was created in response to a serious loss of public credibility in the ability of Congress to enforce its own ethics rules and standards.  The investigations undertaken by the congressional ethics committees were often perceived by the public as whitewashes.  Further, partisanship within the House Ethics Committee’s ranks had left it unable to conduct Committee business in a fair and impartial manner.

Read the letter.