Today in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, groups advocating representative democracy filed an amici brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of an Arizona state constitutional amendment passed by voters giving an independent commission responsibility over congressional redistricting. The law is being challenged by the Arizona State Legislature, which engaged in a series of extreme political gerrymanders that led voters to approve the creation of an independent redistricting commission.

"The fact that this law is being challenged by legislators who desire to rig the process once again speaks volumes about why Arizonans voted to put that responsibility into the hands of an independent commission," said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Associate Executive Director. "The Constitution guarantees that Members of Congress will be chosen 'by the People of the several States' -- not that Members of Congress or legislators will handpick their constituents in the several States. As we note in our brief, the U.S. Supreme Court 'has made clear that it believes extreme partisan gerrymandering is a significant problem that amounts to disruption of our constitutional order.' But a practicable standard for adjudication has remained elusive, so voters like those in Arizona have had no recourse but to take matters into their own hands."

The challenge is being brought under the elections-clause of the U.S. Constitution which states in part that "[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." In February 2014, a three-judge federal court in Arizona ruled that when voters acted to amend the state's constitution and create the commission, they were acting in the capacity of the Legislature.

While the case could be decided narrowly, a broader ruling could impact a number of similar state redistricting commissions across the country. The redistricting commissions in most of the states were created by the legislatures, but in California voters passed a similar state constitutional amendment in the face of stiff opposition from legislators.

The groups joining in the brief in support of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission include the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters of the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundations, Common Cause and Democracy 21. The Campaign Legal Center gratefully acknowledges the work of attorneys at Jenner & Block LLP who serve as lead counsel for our amici group.

To read the brief, click here.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 2, 2015.

The course will review campaign finance and voting rights cases, and will provide students opportunities to prepare legal memoranda and briefs in pending cases.  Students may also review proposed legislative materials, at a time when voting rights and campaign finance reforms are facing new challenges across the country.

“Voting rights and campaign finance litigation is highly specialized but vitally important work for the health of our democracy, and this course allows students to get under the hood and get their hands dirty in pending cases,” said J. Gerald Hebert of the Legal Center.  “Our goal is to help prepare students to make an impact in these fields at a watershed moment.  The U.S. Supreme Court has drastically altered voting rights and campaign finance law under Chief Justice John Roberts, making the coming years a critical period in the courts for both fields.  I know from experience that Georgetown University law students are exceptional and motivated students who will produce excellent work product to aid our effort to uphold existing campaign finance laws and safeguard the right to vote.”   

The semester-long course consists of a weekly two-hour seminar and ten-hours of supervised work per week.

“The Supreme Court was very clear in stating that base contribution limits serve a vital government interest by preventing corruption of public officials and went on to cite FEC rules that ensure those limits are not circumvented,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Unfortunately, the Court didn’t realize that the FEC hasn’t been enforcing some of the rules, and other rules cited by the Court are riddled with loopholes.  The FEC must fix and enforce the corruption-preventing rules cited by the Court.  Additionally, the Commission should strengthen the coordination rules and issue rules for the new party accounts slipped into the omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the last Congress.”

In December, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill that included a completely unrelated amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act to raise the contribution limit to party committees exponentially for specific activities, but its language is broad and ripe for abuse.  The outstanding coordination issues relate to extensive cooperation between candidates and outside groups that is allowed by the current ineffective coordination regulations—at odds with recent Supreme Court decisions promising that outside group spending would be totally independent of candidates.

The comments filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 offer very specific recommendations to the FEC on effective implementation of new and existing regulations in order to prevent widespread circumvention of the base contribution limits and to properly regulate outside groups and party committee spending in keeping with the laws passed by Congress. 

Both the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 requested an opportunity to testify at the FEC’s February 11 hearing on the matter.

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

Last night, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, urged the State Ethics Commission of New Jersey to investigate possible violations of the state’s ethics and conflict of interest laws by Governor Chris Christie.  The Governor accepted chartered flights and free tickets to games from Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, who is a significant stakeholder in a company awarded lucrative contracts with the Port Authority.  According to press reports, Governor Christie personally pushed for the Port Authority to award the contract to Legends Hospitality LLC to operate the observation deck on the top floor of One World Trade Center.  Further, the Governor has extensive dealings with the National Football League, including the granting of more than seventeen million dollars in state funds in the form of sales tax breaks and security costs surrounding the State’s hosting of the 2014 Super Bowl.

“There's no doubt that once he became governor, a lot of people looking to do business with New Jersey wanted to be Chris Christie's friend,” said Larry Noble, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “But that's not the type of friendship that justifies lavishing gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars on the governor.  The ‘personal friendship’ exemption is understood to mean longstanding friendships, not ones cultivated after one is elected to high public office and with those who have a business relationship with the government.  We urge the State Ethics Commission to quickly launch an investigation to determine whether these actions were appropriate and legal, and we urge the commission to make public its findings and reasoning.”

New Jersey ethics laws prohibit public officials and their families from accepting any gifts offered in an attempt to influence them in the performance of the public duties and responsibilities.  

The letter urges the commission to address the claimed “personal friendship” exemption and determine whether Gov. Christie and Mr. Jones’ friendship stemming from the performance of the former’s official duties is sufficient grounds for accepting the gifts under the exemption.

To read the letter to the State Ethics Commission of New Jersey, click here.

Today, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert began teaching a semester-long voting rights class at New York Law School (NYLS).  Through the study of constitutional amendments, Supreme Court jurisprudence and legislative action, including the Voting Rights Act, the course will trace the history of voting rights in the United States.  The course will also examine federal, state and local efforts to restrict voting rights, including new laws passed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.  Under Mr. Hebert’s guidance, students in the class will evaluate pending court cases involving voting rights and determine whether participation in the litigation is appropriate.

"I am honored to be a part of New York Law School with its long and rich tradition of bold and innovative academic excellence,” said Hebert.  “I look forward to providing students with practical experience in actual pending cases to advance the cause of justice in the field of voting rights." 

Founded in 1891, NYLS has been a "vibrant, diverse and forward-thinking center of legal studies" for well over a century.  Early lecturers at the law school included Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes. Notable alumni are vast in number and include U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, poet Wallace Stevens, and Justice Emilio Nunez, the first Latino to be named to the bench in New York State.

The Campaign Legal Center is pleased to announce that Scott Thomas, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), has joined the organization’s Board of Directors.  Mr. Thomas is currently co-leader of the Public Policy and Political Law Practice at the law firm Dickstein Shapiro.

First appointed to the FEC by President Reagan in 1986, Mr. Thomas was reappointed by President Bush in 1991 and by President Clinton in 1997 and served until 2006.  While at the FEC, Mr. Thomas was involved with efforts to require disclosure of party soft money and to strengthen the Commission’s enforcement process. 

“Scott brings to our board a wealth of experience and expertise from his decades in the field of campaign finance, including twenty years as an FEC Commissioner where it was my great pleasure to serve with him in the 1990s,” said Trevor Potter, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission and president of the Campaign Legal Center.  “He will be a tremendous asset to our board and we look forward to working with him for many years to come.”

“I look forward to serving on the Board,” said Mr. Thomas.  “The Campaign Legal Center has provided a valuable service to the public over the years by promoting transparency in government and laws that encourage broad participation in our democratic process.”

Mr. Thomas served for nine years as an attorney in various capacities at the FEC before his appointment as a Commissioner.  He is a member of the District of Columbia bar and admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  He has served on the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Election Law as well as the Elections Committee of the ABA’s Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice.  A native of Wyoming, Mr. Thomas graduated from Stanford University and received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center.  

Yesterday in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, groups concerned about impartial justice filed an amici brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of a Florida law barring the personal solicitation of contributions by judicial candidates.  The brief argues that personal solicitations by candidates undermine public faith in the judicial process and that the state has a duty to safeguard judicial integrity through a reasonable and targeted response like the ban on those solicitations.

“Allowing judicial candidates to personally solicit campaign contributions undermines public confidence in the judicial process, and makes litigants question whether judges can remain impartial before those they have asked for money in order to gain office,” said Megan P. McAllen, Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “States have a duty to protect judicial integrity and the public’s faith in fair courts, and the state of Florida’s solicitation ban is a reasonable and targeted bulwark to safeguard the public trust.”

Currently, Florida judicial candidates must create a committee to solicit contributions on their behalf.  The brief argues that personal solicitations by judicial candidates create the perception that judges may favor their contributors in court.  

The brief also emphasizes that under Florida’s rule, judicial candidates are in no way inhibited from communicating about their fitness for office or speaking on issues of public concern. The rule thus protects a vital interest in judicial impartiality but imposes only a minor restriction on the conduct of judicial candidates. 

The groups joining in the brief in support of the solicitation ban include the Campaign Legal Center, Justice at Stake, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, the Center for Media and Democracy, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and Demos.  The Campaign Legal Center gratefully acknowledges the work of the attorneys of Kaye Scholer LLP.

To read the brief, click here.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on January 20, 2015. 

BACKGROUND:

Thirty-nine states use elections to select judges. In order to protect the impartiality of the courts, the state of Florida, like 29 other states, prohibits judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Instead, a special campaign committee solicits and collects contributions. This case involves a challenge by Lanell Williams-Yulee, who was disciplined by the Florida Bar and charged a fine for professional misconduct after sending a mass-mail fundraising letter in 2009 to launch her county court judge campaign. Williams-Yulee challenged Florida’s canon as an infringement of her right to free speech. The Florida Supreme Court rejected that challenge, reasoning that prohibiting personal solicitation by judicial candidates serves to preserve the existence and appearance of a fair and impartial judiciary. In October 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Williams-Yulee’s First Amendment challenge to Florida’s canon.

In the last 12 years, the Supreme Court has twice considered cases about judicial campaign activity. In 2002, the Court decided, 5-4, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, to strike down Minnesota’s “announce clause,” a canon of judicial conduct prohibiting judicial candidates from discussing disputed and controversial legal and political issues. In another significant case, Caperton v. Massey, the Supreme Court recognized that spending in judicial campaigns could create an appearance of bias, requiring a judge to recuse himself.