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. 

Republican Party of Louisiana Seeks To End Necessary Federal Contribution Limits for Political Parties

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC, a case attempting to further undermine campaign contribution limits.

Under one of the key provisions enacted as part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, state and local parties have limits on how much they can raise for federal election activities. With the help of Citizens United lawyer Jim Bopp, the plaintiffs – the Republican Party of Louisiana and two of its local committees – argue that the First Amendment forbids Congress from limiting the sources and amounts of these contributions.

“These contribution limits are a modest and necessary check,” said Tara Malloy, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Political parties are inherently tied to candidates and serve as ready conduits for corruption. When parties raise money to engage in federal election activities, such as get-out-the-vote efforts in their own states that support a presidential candidate, it’s difficult to make the case that these state party activities do not impact the federal candidates they benefit and cannot be subject to federal restrictions.”

In our friend-of-the-court brief, we argue that large contributions to political parties to fund federal election activity—even insofar as that activity is “independent” of federal candidates—give rise to the reality and appearance of corruption and must be subject to contribution limits to protect our democracy.

“There is a long and demonstrated history of political party donors exploiting close ties to obtain political favors,” said Megan P. McAllen, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “If these restrictions are struck down, we could see political parties shift their focus from engaging average voters to instead engaging a handful of billionaires. It doesn’t improve the parties, and it doesn’t improve democracy.”

Lawyers for the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and the law firm WilmerHale are part of the legal team, led by Scott L. Nelson of Public Citizen Litigation Group, representing the amici curiae on today’s filing.

Grant Enables Lawyers, Advocates to Protect Voting Rights Nationwide 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation today demonstrated its commitment to protecting voting rights by awarding a $1 million legacy grant to the Voting Rights Institute, a project of the American Constitution Society, Campaign Legal Center and the Georgetown University Law Center.

“We are incredibly grateful to the MacArthur Foundation for investing in this important work,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “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. By providing resources, litigating, educating, training and conducting new and original research, the VRI is growing the pool of voting rights attorneys and experts at this crucial time when they are needed the most. ”

Georgetown Law Dean William M. Treanor said,  “I could not be more pleased and proud that the MacArthur Foundation has chosen to honor the Voting Rights Institute and its crucial mission with this generous grant,” “The motto at Georgetown Law is, ‘Law is but the means; justice is the end.’ And nowhere is the need for justice greater than when it comes to protecting and preserving the right to vote.”

ACS President Caroline Fredrickson said, “This grant represents the tireless commitment of countless individuals to the idea that every American should have a voice in our political system,” “The Voting Rights Act—one of the most effective pieces of legislation ever passed – may be hobbled, but our dedication to the underlying democratic principles will endure.”
 
The VRI, launched in 2014, was established in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which nullified a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The VRI offers opportunities for students, recent graduates and fellows to engage in litigation and policy work in the field of voting rights, and educates attorneys about the skills and best practices of voting rights advocacy. To date, the VRI has represented parties and filed friend-of-the-court briefs in a number of cases, including four in the U.S. Supreme Court this term alone.  Furthermore, the VRI has trained 400 attorneys, law students and voting rights advocates in 10 cities nationwide, with more trainings on the schedule for 2016.

As part of this effort, the VRI today proudly launches a new website, www.votingrightsinstitute.org, which provides voting rights information to the public, resources for attorneys working on voting rights litigation (including expert witness documents and sample legal documents), and a tool for the public to report voting rights violations. It also provides updates on events, publications and other resources to elevate public awareness of changes to voting procedures, including problems implementing voter identification laws and voter registration restrictions.  The site leverages a technology platform developed by Pro Bono Net, which is used to support broad-based networks of legal aid, civil rights and pro bono lawyers.

Learn more about the Voting Rights Institute