Earlier today, Judge Terry P. Lewis of the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Florida found that the Florida Legislature violated the state constitution when it redrew its congressional boundaries. Voters in Florida overwhelmingly supported amending the Florida Constitution in 2012 to bar the Legislature from intentionally favoring or disfavoring a political party or an incumbent.  Today, Judge Lewis found a “group of Republican political consultants or operatives did in fact conspire to manipulate and influence the redistricting process” and that they did so “all with the intention of obtaining enacted maps for the State House and Senate and Congress that would favor the Republican Party.”  He further found that “[t]hey made a mockery of the Legislature’s proclaimed transparent and open process of redistricting”.   Judge Lewis found that the Republican political consultants “obtain[ed] the necessary cooperation and collaboration” from the Legislative leaders, enabling them to “infiltrate and influence the Legislature[.]” As a result, Judge Lewis found, they managed “to taint the redistricting process and the resulting map with improper partisan intent.”  

The Court found that Congressional Districts 5 (Rep. Corrine Brown) and 10 (Rep. Daniel Webster) were each drawn with the intent of favoring the Republican Party.  In the case of District 5, Judge Lewis found that it was “bizarrely shaped and does not follow traditional political boundaries as it winds from Jacksonville to Orlando.  At one point, District 5 narrows to the width of highway 17.”  The district was drawn to create a majority black voting age population even though it was unnecessary to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act, Judge Lewis found.  By removing black voters from another district and placing them in District 5, the Florida Legislature did so intentionally to make the adjoining district (District 7) more Republican.  As for District 10, Judge Lewis found it contained an odd appendage which was added to benefit the incumbent Webster.  District 10 was thus struck down because it was drawn intentionally to benefit the Republican Party and to favor the incumbent.

“In adopting the amendments to the Florida Constitution in 2010, Florida voters decided that voters should choose their elected representatives and that politicians shouldn’t choose their voters,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The Florida Legislature ignored the law and the will of Florida voters and let itself be hijacked by Republican political consultants and operatives.  The decision today is a devastating indictment of those who manipulated the redistricting process secretly behind closed doors and tried to shield it from the public.  Political consultants and legislators even destroyed evidence about the redistricting process, apparently in an effort to keep their conspiracy secret.  Today’s victory was a direct result of the hard work and dedication of Fair Districts Now, and particularly its leader, Ellen Freidin, who made certain that Florida’s voters got a decision that safeguards their voting rights.”

Hebert along with the Orlando law firm of King Blackwell Zehnder and Wermuth, and attorneys at Jenner and Block served as co-counsel to the League of Women Voters of Florida, the National Council of La Raza, and Common Cause Florida and Florida voters who brought the lawsuit.  The King Blackwell Zehnder and Wermuth law firm took the lead for the LWV Plaintiffs in the case.  The case was consolidated with another challenge to the redistricting brought by the Romo plaintiffs, who also prevailed today in their challenge.   

To read the full opinion of the Circuit Court, click here. 

Today, in Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) v. Sorrell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the State of Vermont’s campaign finance disclosure law and the application of state contribution limits to a purported “independent” political committee.

“This decision is an unqualified win for the voters of Vermont who will continue to receive the information they need about independent political spending to make meaningful decisions at the polls,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “In recent years the disclosure laws of nearly two dozen states have been attacked—even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the disclosure of independent election spending is entirely consistent with the First Amendment.”

In addition to challenging Vermont’s disclosure requirements, the plaintiff VRLC asked the court to invalidate the state contribution limits as applied to its sister committee that allegedly made only independent expenditures.  The Second Circuit, however, declined to take these unsupported allegations of independence at face value.  After reviewing the district court’s extensive factual analysis, it determined that the “independent” committee was functionally indistinguishable from VRLC, which openly contributed to and communicated with candidates, given “the overlap of staff and resources, the lack of financial independence, the coordination of activities, and the flow of information between the entities.” 

“For too long in federal elections we have seen so-called ‘independent’ groups operating hand-in-glove with candidates and parties, as well as with other committees that were clearly coordinating with candidates and parties.  The notion that their activities were truly independent and non-corrupting has been a sad joke,” said Ms. Malloy.  “It is a relief to see a court take seriously its responsibility to ensure that an ‘independent’ group is in fact independent and to draw the line on the type of coordinated activity that clearly gives rise to potential quid pro quo corruption and public concerns about the integrity of our political system.”

The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici brief with the Second Circuit in defense of Vermont’s disclosure laws and contribution limits.  

To read the full opinion of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, click here.

To read the brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, click here.

The House Ethics Committee has eliminated the requirement for House Members to disclose their privately financed travel on their financial disclosure forms, according to National Journal. The Committee made this change without any public announcement whatsoever, and when it was discovered yesterday the Committee Chair, Ranking Member and Committee staff refused to comment on the controversial move.

“With public confidence in the U.S. Congress reaching a record low of 7%, according to yesterday's Gallup poll, you would think the House Ethics Committee would focus on building public confidence in the institution, rather than looking for ways to make their dirty laundry harder to find,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center. “With the Committee’s longstanding and well-deserved reputation for protecting Members and stonewalling reporters, and the well-documented appetite of Members for free travel on the dime of those seeking to influence them, one would hope that the Committee would tread lightly when eliminating disclosure requirements for these junkets.”  

For decades, Members of Congress have been required to disclose on their financial disclosure forms the privately financed travel they accept. These trips include travel that is paid for by groups that don't lobby but which are often connected with sister organizations that do. According to Legistorm, members of Congress and their aides took more free trips in 2013 than in any year since the Jack Abramoff scandal—nearly 1,900 trips at a cost of more than $6 million. With this change in policy, the public will still be able to find travel disclosures through the Clerk of the House website, but the more commonly accessed financial disclosure forms will not have the information.

It is accurate to say, as the committee did today, that since passage of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007, there has been duplication between the travel reports and the disclosure form. But there has also been confusion. The instructions on the financial disclosure form as to what travel has to be listed say the Member does not need to disclose "privately-sponsored travel approved by the Ethics Committee, if post-travel disclosure was filed with the Clerk." However, the "Employee Post-Travel Disclosure Form" from the Ethics Committee states: "This form does not eliminate the need to report privately-financed travel on the annual Financial Disclosure Statements of those employees required to file them."

“Rather than address this admittedly confusing situation in a straightforward, public manner, with an explanation, the House Ethics Committee apparently chose silence, encouraging suspicion about their motives,” said McGehee. “If the Committee were really interested in improving disclosure, it would put its weight behind getting the financial disclosure forms information to be filed in a searchable, sortable, downloadable database instead of illegible PDFs. Once again, the Committee fails to understand the need for the institution to take extraordinary efforts to rebuild public confidence in an ethics process that is viewed an incumbency protection racket.”

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Common Cause, Justice at Stake and the League of Women Voters, filed an amici brief in Lair v. Motl urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a District Court ruling striking down Montana’s political campaign contribution limits.  The brief emphasizes that the District Court disregarded both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to overturn Montana’s limits on contributions to state candidates, including judges, from individuals and political parties.

“The Ninth Circuit has already found that Montana’s contribution limits are justified by vital and constitutionally permissible state interests, and the validity of that decision was in no way altered by subsequent Supreme Court case law,” said Megan McAllen, Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “The Supreme Court has been steadfast in its recognition that limits on direct contributions to candidates are a justifiable means of preventing corruption and its appearance.  Without legal precedent for doing so, the lower court effectively cleared the way for candidates to receive contributions of a million dollars or more from a single individual.  The risk of quid pro quo corruption could not be plainer.”

The District Court overturned the “base” candidate contribution limits applicable to individuals and PACs—which have already been upheld by the Ninth Circuit—as unconstitutionally low based on the Supreme Court’s intervening decision inRandall v. Sorrell, which struck down Vermont limits that were markedly lower and more restrictive than Montana’s.  Moreover, Randall did not fundamentally alter the Supreme Court’s longstanding approach to the review of contribution limits and thus did nothing to undermine the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision.

In addition to the limits on candidate contributions from individuals and PACs, the lower court struck down Montana’s limits as they apply to contributions from political party committees. Montana does not limit the amount that any individual or PAC may give to political parties, but instead restricts the “aggregate” amount a candidate can receive from his or her political party.  Montana’s party limits therefore represent an appropriately-tailored means of preventing circumvention of the individual contribution limits.  By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this summer in McCutcheon v. FEC struck down limits on the aggregate amount individuals could give to multiple candidates and party committees within the existing base limits, on grounds that those aggregate limits served no “plausible” anti-circumvention objective given the existence of base limits. 

To read the full brief, click here.

Discriminatory voting changes recently implemented in two Texas communities were highlighted in a statement submitted by Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert into the Senate Judiciary Committee record for today’s hearing on The Voting Rights Amendment Act (S.1945).  The discriminatory changes, which had previously been blocked as a result of the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, were implemented in two Texas jurisdictions after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the preclearance coverage formula in Shelby County v. Holder.  The Court’s decision in Shelby County left communities with a history of discrimination free to implement voting change without clearing them in advance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The voting changes made in both Beaumont and Galveston County, Texas had each been previously rejected by DOJ the year before the Shelby County decision from the Supreme Court.  In 2012, DOJ had forbidden the changes in both jurisdictions after determining that the changes significantly disadvantaged minority voters.  But once the preclearance coverage formula was struck down by the Supreme Court, both the Beaumont Independent School District and Galveston County the same discriminatory voting laws previously rejected by DOJ were promptly implemented in both communities.   

“The Voting Rights Amendment Act is a critically important piece of legislation that will help to safeguard the right of every American to vote,” said Hebert.  “The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County was woefully misguided and the discriminatory voting laws being implemented are a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County.  The actions in Beaumont and Galveston County are just two examples of discriminatory changes being implemented in the wake of the Shelby decision, but they are indicative of actions being undertaken across the country to undermine minority voting rights. These examples are part of a wave that will only continue to swell until the Voting Rights Amendment Act is enacted to stem the tide and protect the franchise.”

The statement submitted to the Judiciary Committee expresses strong support for Congress to enact a strong Voting Rights Amendment Act. 

To read the full statement and the attachments, click here.

The Democratic Governors Association (DGA) has withdrawn its challenge to Connecticut’s campaign finance laws enacted in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  The Campaign Legal Center, joined by three Connecticut watchdog groups, had filed amici briefs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut urging the court to reject the DGA’s attempt to have much of the organization’s election related activity to be declared outside of  Connecticut’s campaign finance laws. The DGA dropped its challenge after the court rejected its attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction against enforcement of key provisions of the law, finding DGA was unlikely to prevail on its claims.

“The voluntary dismissal of this suit is a victory for sensible campaign finance reforms and the citizens of Connecticut as the DGA was attempting to open the door for groups seeking to support candidates in Connecticut elections yet avoid registering as political committees and abiding by the state’s limits, prohibitions and reporting rules,” said Larry Noble, Of Counsel to the Campaign Legal Center.  “It is unfortunate that the State Elections Enforcement Commission had to fight this lawsuit in the first place and expend resources that could have been put to far better use actually enforcing the state’s campaign finance laws.”

DGA initially sought to bar the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) from considering Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy’s fundraising activities for the DGA if questions arise as to whether the DGA’s expenditures for Governor Malloy’s reelection were truly independent of his campaign.  The DGA later sought to reinvent its case as a broad attack on all of the rules applicable to organizations whose major purpose is election or defeat of candidates in Connecticut.

Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut joined in the brief.  Patrick Tomasiewicz, of Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, is serving as Counsel of Record in the filings.

To read the notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the DGA, click here.

To read the supplemental amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause of Connecticut, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and the League of Women Voters of Connecticut (June 6, 2014), click here.

To read the groups’ first amici brief (May 13, 2014), click here.