State rightfully complied with the Voting Rights Act, and did not engage in a partisan gerrymander

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously held the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission did not engage in a partisan gerrymander, but instead drew its legislative map to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The decision is a huge victory for voting rights.

“The high court has preserved the rights of minorities to elect candidates of their choice under existing plans,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Denying Arizona the ability to have considered the VRA’s guidance in drawing districts before Shelby County v. Holder was decided would have disrupted thousands of other plans that have previously considered the VRA in the drawing of their maps.”

Since Arizona drew its map in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the VRA, potentially allowing many jurisdictions across the country to implement racially discriminatory redistricting maps in the 2020 cycle if Congress does not act to restore the VRA.

Campaign Legal Center submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in support of Arizona’s ability to consider complying with the VRA in drawing its maps. 

The Voting Rights Institute today called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Daphne, Alabama’s City Council’s March 21 decision to reduce the number of polling places in the city from five to two. The city’s decision forces residents of one of the only districts with a sizable black population to travel more than two and a half miles away from their current polling place, while preserving the polling locations for most of the city’s heavily white districts.

“This is exactly the type of voting change that would have had to have been precleared by the Department of Justice before the Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling in Shelby County v. Holder,” said Harry Baumgarten, Legal Fellow with the Voting Rights Institute. “In gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has opened the door for these potentially discriminatory measures to be passed and implemented throughout the country.” 

The Voting Rights Institute, a project of the American Constitution Society, Campaign Legal Center and Georgetown University Law Center, sent the letter to the Department of Justice after receiving a complaint from African-American leader and voter in Daphne, Willie Williams. In addition to reducing the number of polling locations, the city also recently passed a new mid-decade redistricting plan whose impact on the black voting age population in each district is at best unclear because the city has not been forthcoming about the racial impact of its new plan.

 “We want fair and honest elections, and what the Daphne City Council has done in reducing polling locations is not fair and it’s not honest,” said Willie Williams, Daphne resident. “Voters need convenient polling places and need to be able to vote, and not be confused where to go to vote in their local elections.”

Read our letter.

The Voting Rights Institute 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 training the next generation of attorneys, experts and activists to preserve our democracy and protect the ability of all Americans to vote.

Whitford v. Nichol Partisan Gerrymandering Case to Go to Trial

A Wisconsin district court ruled today that 12 regular Wisconsin voters, represented by the Campaign Legal Center, can have their day in court to challenge the state’s 2012 partisan gerrymander, which unconstitutionally drew district lines in a way that would keep Republican control of the state’s legislature.

“The Campaign Legal Center is proud to serve as co-counsel to Wisconsin residents and Democratic voters who are challenging one of the worst partisan gerrymanders in modern American history,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The plaintiffs look forward to presenting evidence at trial showing that the plan was drawn in secret, in consultation with a political scientist and without any input from Democrats, in an attempt to maximize Republican wins and minimize Democratic influence over the political process for as long as the plan was in place.”

Though the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that excessive partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional and can be addressed by the courts, the Supreme Court has yet to develop a judicially manageable standard for courts to use in deciding these cases. 

“In denying Wisconsin’s motion for summary judgment and setting the case for trial next month, the three-judge court  has left it to us to develop a workable standard that reflects a voter’s right to fair and effective representation, and that’s exactly what we plan to do,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior redistricting counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. 

Read the order and opinion.

Allowing Public Officials to Engage in Public Business for Private Gain Undercuts Basic Principles of Our Democracy

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center today told the U.S. Supreme Court in a friend-of-the-court brief that it should reject former Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell’s claim that the First Amendment protects political quid pro quos in the case McDonnell v. United States.

“If the Supreme Court buys into former Gov. McDonnell’s arguments, politicians face no penalty for freely accepting gifts and favors from America’s wealthiest who are trying to buy influence,” said Tara Malloy, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Public officials should not be permitted to engage in public business for private gain, while pretending to represent the interests of their constituencies. That would undercut the very basic principles of our democracy and the integrity of our political system.”

Gov. McDonnell accepted from a wealthy business man and founder of the dietary supplement company Star Scientific Inc., Johnnie R. Williams, Sr., up to $175,000 of gifts and loans –including a Rolex, expensive vacations and shopping sprees, and money for his daughters’ wedding – in exchange for favors from the governor’s office. McDonnell was convicted on public corruption charges, but has appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing not only that these favors weren’t “official actions,” but also that his conduct was protected by the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decisions in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014).

Those cases held that general concerns about donors merely having “access” to a politician will not justify certain campaign finance restrictions – but Gov. McDonnell stretches these holdings beyond the breaking point, making the stunning argument that Citizens United actually created a constitutional right to lavish politicians with gifts in exchange for official favors and access.

CLC’s friend-of-the-court brief argues that neither of these Supreme Court cases “invented a new free-standing constitutional right to purchase access to officeholders” – not to mention that McDonnell in fact gave Williams more than “mere access” – and interpreting these decisions to create such a “right” would result in “enormous damage to this Court’s longstanding campaign finance precedents.”

Read our friend-of-the-court brief.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously held in Evenwel v. Abbott that all people count for the purpose of drawing voting districts, not just eligible voters.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is not only a victory for equality, it is a reaffirmation that our Constitution protects all of us,” said Campaign Legal Center Executive Director Gerry Hebert. “As Justice Ginsburg accurately points out in her opinion, our representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote. Today’s decision ensures that states can, and should, continue to draw their districts taking into account every person’s interests.”

The Campaign Legal Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of former Census Bureau Directors, arguing in defense of the total population standard, noting that states lack the proper data to count eligible voters for redistricting, rather than people, in the drawing of election districts.

Read the court’s opinion.

New Application Filed with High Court After 5th Circuit Refused to Rule 

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) today called on the U.S. Supreme Court to take immediate action in the Texas voter ID case so that voters will not be harmed by the law in the 2016 presidential election.

The application filed with the U.S. Supreme Court follows the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refusal to offer relief in time for the upcoming election. Last week, the appellate court effectively denied the Campaign Legal Center’s emergency motion to vacate its stay of a lower court’s ruling that struck down the law. Under the 5th Circuit’s order, the voter ID law will remain in effect as the case proceeds once again in the 5th Circuit, where it has languished since October 2014.

“Seven federal judges have ruled that Texas’ voter ID law discriminates against minority voters, but the law is still in effect,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The 5th Circuit has set up a schedule that likely forecloses our ability to obtain relief in time for the presidential election. We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that that no one is prevented from casting a ballot because this discriminatory law is in place.” 

The D.C. District Court, a Texas district court, and a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit have all found that the law discriminates against minority voters. The 5th Circuit’s stay of the district court’s decision in 2014 is the only reason the law is in effect.

“The stay was only granted because the District Court’s order was handed down days before the 2014 election and the 5th Circuit was concerned about changing procedures so close to the election. It should never have extended past 2014,” said Danielle Lang, legal fellow of the Campaign Legal Center. “The dangers identified by the court of appeals have passed, so there is no reason eligible Texas voters should once again be denied the right to vote.”

Our application to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on behalf of Congressman Marc Veasey and other plaintiffs.

Read our application.