Tonight, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the State of Texas’ Voter Photo ID (SB 14) law in Veasey v. Perry, just five days after a U.S. District Court struck down the law finding it had “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.”  The District Court also found it to be an unconstitutional poll tax. The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team representing voters and elected officials adversely impacted by the law.

The Circuit Court said its opinion was based “primarily” on the “fast-approaching election”, and said the District Court’s decision would “disturb the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins.”

“Unfortunately the Fifth Circuit’s stay will end up maintaining  the confusion that has been caused by the State’s error-riddled attempted implementation of the photo ID law over the last year,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of The Campaign Legal Center.  “It is deeply troubling that the court of appeals would allow an unconstitutionally discriminatory voter ID law to deny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of African-American and Hispanic voters so as not to inconvenience Texas election officials by informing them they could no longer demand photo ID which the lower court condemned as a ‘poll tax’.  It would have been relatively easy, if the injunction had been allowed to remain in effect, for Texas to avoid any confusion by simply announcing to all poll officials and voters that the IDs that Texas voters have been using for the last twenty years (including photo IDs) would be permissible IDs in the upcoming election.  We intend to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately.” 

The first challenge to the law was filed by the Campaign Legal Center in the summer of 2013 claiming that the voter photo ID law (SB 14) violates the 1st, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Section 2 of Voting Rights Act.  Several challenges (including one brought by the United States) were brought against the Texas law, which was one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.  All of the cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi. 

The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team that includes Chad Dunn and K. Scott Brazil (Brazil & Dunn), Neil G. Baron, David Richards (Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith), Armand Derfner (Derfner, Altman & Wilborn), Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. (LULAC) and Craig M. Wilkins and Teresa G. Snelson (Dallas County District Attorney’s Office).

To read the Fifth Circuit Court’s opinion granting a stay pending appeal, click here.

To read the Legal Center's Brief in Opposition to the Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment Pending Appeal (October 12, 2014), click here.

To read the opinion of the District Court, click here. 

Today, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) ignored the laws passed by Congress in order to provide wealthy individuals a way to double the amount they can contribute to the national political parties. Vice Chair Ann Ravel joined with Republican Commissioners to greenlight the gutting of existing federal limits on contributions to national political parties established in the wake of Watergate.  A single individual can now give more than $250,000 to either the RNC or the DNC each presidential cycle.

Yesterday, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, strongly urged the FEC to reject the request from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC) seeking to undermine the existing federal limits on contributions to national political parties established in the wake of Watergate.  The watchdog groups filed comments on the FEC’s draft responses to Advisory Opinion Request 2014-12, where the national party committees seek permission to raise funds for party conventions under a separate contribution limit.  

“This is a disgraceful and activist decision that ignores the laws passed by Congress to combat corruption,” said Larry Noble, of the Campaign Legal Center.  “One has come to expect such efforts to dismantle the current contribution limits brick by brick from the current Republican Commissioners, but Vice Chair Ravel’s vote to give the national party committees a new way to tap wealthy donors is  incredibly disappointing and irresponsible. It is even more egregious in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the aggregate limit on what an individual can give to all party committees.  As of today, an individual can give more than a quarter million dollars to the RNC or the DNC each presidential election cycle. Perhaps the Vice Chair should have done her public listening tourbefore ripping up federal law because I don’t think the public is going to tell her that it wants her to give wealthy donors additional avenues to buy still more influence in Washington.”

In response to the Advisory Opinion Request filed by the RNC and the DNC, the FEC had produced two alternative draft advisory opinions.  The comments filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 strongly supported Draft A which concluded that raising convention funds under a separate limit is clearly prohibited by federal statute and under existing FEC regulations.  The comments strongly condemned Draft B’s assertion that convention committees can be considered separate “national committees” with their own contribution limits on the basis that this view is not only  contrary to the law, but is based on misrepresentations of previous rulings by the FEC.  The comments went on to warn that such an advisory opinion from the FEC would lead to a proliferation of ‘separate’ national committees that could be utilized to skirt existing contribution limits on a massive scale.

The RNC and DNC Advisory Opinion Request was filed after repealing the federal funding for national party conventions that had been in place for more than four decades. Democratic Commissioners Ellen Weintraub and Steven Walther voted against the new limit.

To read the comments filed yesterday by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, click here. 

Tonight, a federal court struck down Texas’ Voter ID (SB 14) law as an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote in Veasey v. Perry.  Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi found SB 14 had “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.”  Further the court held that the law constituted an “unconstitutional poll tax.”  The Campaign Legal Center was part of the legal team representing voters and elected officials adversely impacted by the law.

“The Texas voter ID law was a truly disgraceful act by legislators who passed legislation dictating which Texans to disenfranchise, suppressing the ability of state’s minority communities to vote and thus choose their own representatives in government,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of The Campaign Legal Center.  “Judge Ramos clearly recognized the law for its true discriminatory intentions and acted accordingly to strike it down for what it was in her thoughtful opinion. Choosing which voters will cast ballots and which voters will not for partisan gain and discriminatory purposes is behavior we expect from Third World dictators and Soviet-era despots not legislators and a governor in one of our own states.” 

The complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center in the case claimed that the voter photo ID law (SB 14) violates the 1st, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Section 2 of Voting Rights Act.  Several challenges (including one brought by the United States) were brought against the Texas law, which was one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.  The cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi. 

The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team that includes Chad Dunn and K. Scott Brazil (Brazil & Dunn), Neil G. Baron, David Richards (Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith), Armand Derfner (Derfner, Altman & Wilborn), Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. (LULAC) and Craig M. Wilkins and Teresa G. Snelson (Dallas County District Attorney’s Office).

To read the court’s opinion striking down the law, click here.

To read the original complaint, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, strongly urged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to reject the request from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC) seeking to undermine the existing federal limits on contributions to national political parties established in the wake of Watergate.  The watchdog groups filed comments on the FEC’s draft responses to Advisory Opinion Request 2014-12, where the national party committees seek permission to raise funds for party conventions under a separate contribution limit.

 In response to the Advisory Opinion Request filed by the RNC and the DNC, the FEC produced two alternative draft advisory opinions.  The comments filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 strongly support Draft A which concludes that raising convention funds under a separate limit is clearly prohibited by federal statute and under existing FEC regulations.  The comments strongly condemn Draft B’s assertion that convention committees can be considered separate “national committees” with their own contribution limits on the basis that this view is not only  contrary to the law, but is based on misrepresentations of previous rulings by the FEC. The comments go on to warn that such an advisory opinion from the FEC would lead to a proliferation of ‘separate’ national committees that could be utilized to skirt existing contribution limits on a massive scale.

“What the party committees are seeking is nothing short of permission to violate the laws passed by Congress.  Draft A recognizes this and correctly rejects it,” said Larry Noble, of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Draft B’s assertions are positively ludicrous and would amount to the FEC usurping the power of the legislative branch by arbitrarily handing out exemptions to the laws passed by Congress.  The FEC has a long and sad tradition of carving out loopholes in federal campaign finance laws but Draft B would represent a new low if passed by the commission.”

The RNC and DNC Advisory Opinion Request was filed after repealing the federal funding for national party conventions that had been in place for more than four decades as a part of the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms.   

To read the comments filed today by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, click here.

Today, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District affirmed a sweeping lower court decision upholding numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance law in Texas Democratic Party v. King Street Patriots.  The Campaign Legal Center filed amicus briefs in both the district court and the Court of Appeals defending the constitutionality of Texas’s campaign finance laws.   

“The King Street Patriots’ claims had no merit and the Court of Appeals, like the district court, saw right through the legal smoke and mirrors and upheld the laws,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The case is part of a wave of litigation across the country attempting to overturn a host of state campaign finance laws following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The King Street Patriot attorneys come from the same familiar stable of lawyers and groups challenging campaign finance laws from Hawaii to Maine.  As with many of the other challenges, the plaintiffs here overreach and argue that Citizens United implicitly invalidated corporate contribution restrictions – a position completely unsupported by the courts.”

The Texas Democratic Party filed an action against the King Street Patriots, alleging that the non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation made in-kind contributions to the state Republican Party in violation of Texas’s restriction on corporate political contributions, and failed to register as a “political committee” and comply with state disclosure law.  The King Street Patriots, in response, filed a broad counterclaim challenging the constitutionality of numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance law.

The lower court granted summary judgment to the Texas Democratic Party and dismissed the counterclaim, allowing the original Texas Democratic Party action to move forward on a separate track seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in connection to the alleged violations of state campaign finance law.

To read the opinion of the Appeals Court, click here.

To read the brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center in the Appeals Court, click here.  

 To read the summary judgment opinion of the district court, click here.

Today, Campaign Legal Center’s latest Voting Rights Institute training will take place in Miami, Florida. At the session, co-hosted by American Constitution Society, practitioners will learn the ‘ins and outs’ of protecting the right to vote through the enforcement of voting rights laws.  Cases brought to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution will be a particular focus of the training.  

The half-day training program, taught by some of the most respected voting rights practitioners in the country, will count toward Continuing Legal Education (CLE).  This will be the fifth Institute training session held this year, with previous trainings held in New York City, Atlanta, Georgia, Columbus, Ohio and Washington, DC.

“To understand the urgent need for a new generation of voting rights litigators one need look no further than the widespread voter suppression laws enacted in the run-up to the 2014 elections and currently being challenged in the courts,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The Supreme Court’s disastrous Shelby County decision was a huge setback for voting rights in our nation, unleashing a flood of laws at the state and municipal level designed to curb voting rights.  Now, more than ever, we need a new generation of voting rights litigators to help win back the right of all Americans to vote.”

Experts in the field will provide background on the Voting Rights Act and relevant federal court cases to participants and will then focus on the mechanics of litigating voting rights cases.  Campaign Legal Center’s Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert serves as lead instructor and is joined by veteran voting rights litigators and scholars in the field.

In addition to Mr. Hebert, the Institute’s expert faculty will include: Nancy Abudu (Director of Legal Operations , ACLU of Florida); Neil Bradley (Former Associate Director at ACLU Voting Rights Project); Chad Dunn (Partner, Brazil & Dunn); and Franita Tolson (Betty T. Ferguson Professor of Voting Rights, Florida State University College of Law).

Financial support for the Voting Rights Institute has been provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, and the Wallace Global Fund.   Holland & Knight has also generously provided the use of its Miami offices for the training.

For more details on the timing and location of the Miami training, click here.

Today, a broad range of reform, conservative and taxpayer organizations joined with scholars to urge House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to strengthen the House ethics process. The National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Judicial Watch joined reformers in calling on the bipartisan House Leaders to make the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) permanent, to grant the Office subpoena power and to bring the work of the House Ethics Committee out from behind closed doors through increased transparency in the process.  

“The Office of Congressional Ethics has brought a level of accountability to the House ethics process yet the final arbiter -- the House Ethics Committee -- remains a secretive committee that has garnered a reputation for dysfunction and protecting Members,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director. “OCE has a proven track record.  Giving it subpoena power will improve the credibility and accountability of the House ethics process. Further, the Ethics Committee itself must increase its own transparency if it is to shed its reputation as the committee of ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.’”

Those signing the letter include the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, Thomas Mann, League of Women Voters, National Taxpayers Union, Norman Ornstein, Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense and James Thurber.

The full letter to the Speaker and the Minority Leader follows:

October 6, 2014

The Honorable John Boehner                                    

Speaker of the House                                                 

U.S. House of Representatives                                  

Washington, DC  20515                                            

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi  

House Minority Leader

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC  20515

Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi:

The process the U.S. House of Representatives currently employs to investigate and resolve allegations of ethical improprieties and violations was significantly improved with the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).  The Office has provided a place for allegations to be credibly heard and investigated and has alleviated some of the most serious concerns about a process that had become utterly dysfunctional.

But there are still weaknesses in the current system that need to be addressed quickly and meaningfully.  We the undersigned groups urge you, in bipartisan agreement, to publicly endorse these changes:

• Make OCE permanent.

As was noted in a previous letter,[1] we urge you to publicly and expeditiously announce your intention to continue the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) for the 114^th Congress.  The OCE has provided a credible means for allegations of violations by Members and staff to be investigated and, if warranted, dismissed and has compiled a stellar record of conducting fair investigations and bipartisan cooperation.  Yet the OCE lives in a state of instability, existing tenuously from Congress to Congress.  OCE should be made a more permanent institution of Congress.

• OCE should be given subpoena power.

Currently, the OCE does not have the power to compel testimony from witnesses when investigating allegations of ethics violations.  As a result, the Office can be hobbled in its efforts to complete its investigation -- which in turn undermines its fact-finding function and the scope of its recommendations.  In providing this power, rules can be included to ensure the power to issue a subpoena is wielded carefully in a bipartisan manner and to protect against abuses.  But without it, an uncooperative witness can stymie an investigation, blocking the OCE from working as intended and shielding important aspects of an investigation from review.

• Increase transparency of and access to information from the House Committee on Ethics

The House Ethics Committee continues to do most of its work behind closed doors, giving rise to reasonable suspicions that it is more interested in protecting individual Members than the integrity of the institution.  One important step that can be taken to increase the Committee’s credibility is to increase and improve the public availability of documents pertaining to House ethics, such as all current and historic guidance ("pink sheets") issued by the Committee. In addition, many of the ethics documents made available through the Clerk's office should also be online, such as legal defense fund disclosures and statements of recusal. We applaud the Committee for publishing its current and historic decisions online and hope it will continue the practice.      

We look forward to hearing your response to these proposals.

Sincerely,

Campaign Legal Center

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Common Cause

Democracy 21

Judicial Watch

Thomas Mann
League of Women Voters

National Taxpayers Union

Norman Ornstein

Project On Government Oversight (POGO)

Public Citizen

Sunlight Foundation

Taxpayers for Common Sense

James Thurber

To read the full letter, click here.

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a challenge to the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure provisions in Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission (FEC). Last month, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief in the case, urging the Court to reject the suit, arguing that the exact same disclosure provisions had been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as the 2010 Citizens United decision.

“We are pleased the court recognized what plaintiff ignored: that the Supreme Court upheld this disclosure requirement not only in McConnell v FEC, but also under Chief Justice Roberts in Citizens United v. FEC,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “While a slim majority of the current Supreme Court has been overtly hostile to numerous longstanding campaign finance reforms, it has been steadfast in recognizing, by overwhelming margins, the vital public interest in disclosing the identities of those seeking to influence election outcomes. The district court properly rejected plaintiff’s request to overturn a law enacted to prevent ‘dark money’ groups spending to influence elections anonymously.”

Plaintiff sought to run a broadcast ad referring to Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) shortly before Election Day without disclosing its donors. The challenged law requires such disclosure when groups spend more than $10,000 on “electioneering communications”—defined as any television or radio ad that mentions the name of a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. Congress enacted the “electioneering communications” disclosure law as part of the McCain-Feingold Act to curb widespread evasion of earlier disclosure requirements that applied only to “express advocacy” ads. Since then, the Supreme Court has twice upheld the “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements: first in McConnell v. FEC (2003) in a facial challenge, and again in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in an as-applied challenge nearly identical to the current lawsuit.

To read the court’s opinion, click here.

To read the brief, click here. 

Last night, in New York Republican State Committee v. SEC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a challenge to an SEC pay-to-pay rule.  The regulation bars investment firms from managing state assets for two years after a firm or its associates make more than de minimis contributions to officeholders or candidates in a position to award investment contracts.   The lawsuit was brought by the state Republican parties of New York and Tennessee, both of which argued that the rule indirectly affected their fundraising, and burdened their members and candidates.

The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the SEC that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was vested with jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the play-to-play rule.

The district court, however, also expressed grave doubts as to whether plaintiffs had demonstrated standing to challenge the SEC rule, noting that plaintiffs, as political parties, were not the target of the rule and that “plaintiffs’ standing relied entirely upon the independent actions of third parties not before the Court —i.e., investment advisers.”   It further noted that even in light of plaintiffs’ supplemental filings, “whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring this case remains in doubt.”

On August 29, 2014, the Campaign Legal Center filed an amici brief arguing that the challenged rule was consistent with the First Amendment and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.

“While we fully expect this case will be refiled, we find this ruling dismissing the case and questioning plaintiffs’ standing encouraging,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “But even without the question of standing, the courts have long recognized the vital public interest in such pay-to-play restrictions, as well as their role in safeguarding the public’s faith in government.” 

The rule was implemented after SEC and state investigations uncovered extensive evidence of fraud in the award of state investment contracts.  One such scheme involved former New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who was ultimately convicted of steering $250 million in pension funds to an investment firm in exchange for gifts and more than $500,000 in contributions.

To read the court's memorandum opinion and order dismissing the case, click here and here.

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