Today, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and a number of Houston residents filed suit against Harris County in Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas maintaining that Harris County officials wrongly rejected voter applications through discriminatory practices against Latino and African American applicants. Representing LULAC and the residents who filed suit are attorneys from the Campaign Legal Center, Project Vote, and Chad Dunn of Brazil & Dunn.

Among other things, LULAC filed the suit in an attempt to stop the discriminatory purging of registered Latino and Black voters in Harris County.  In the petition, LULAC asserts the following claims:

• The changes in voting procedures by Harris County have not been pre-cleared by the United States Department of Justice or by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  These actions are “standards, practices and procedures” subject to the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.
• Harris County has disproportionate higher percentage rates of rejected voter registration applications from minority citizens than from Anglo citizens resulting in discrimination against African-Americans and Latino citizens which is in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973.
• Harris County’s voter purge program was based on faulty death matches and is in violation of Section 8(b)(1) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(b)(I), which provides that any state or local program or activity designed to ensure the maintenance of accurate and current voter registration rolls “shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” 
• Harris County acted with racially discriminatory intent in denying the right to vote of African-American persons in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• Harris County deprived a fundamental right to vote protected under the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.

“Harris County has used discriminatory practices in purging otherwise qualified voters and citing minor technicalities for rejecting their registration applications,” said LULAC National President Margaret Moran. “We filed the suit in order to stop these discriminatory practices. Our singular goal is to make sure that all qualified individuals have the opportunity to exercise their Constitutional protected right to vote in this year’s election.”

“Harris County has a lengthy and sad history of voter discrimination and regrettably the only way to bring it into compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution has been through court orders,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director.  “We hope this complaint will once again serve to bring the county into compliance with federal law and safeguard the rights of Latino and African American citizens.”

"Once again, Harris County zealously seeks to exclude people of color from the electoral process, thumbing its nose at federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution and the quintessentially American belief in one person one vote," said Catherine M. Flanagan, Director of Election Administration for Project Vote.

To read the complaint, click here.

The rush of litigation challenging campaign finance and disclosure laws continues unabated more than two years after the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision.  In addition to these challenges, the upcoming election has spurred a new wave of litigation over state voter purges and controversial voter photo identification laws.  For your reference, the Campaign Legal Center has updated a summary document of recent cases of interest at the federal, state and municipal level. The summary provides a brief description of pending and recently decided cases, and the Legal Center’s involvement in those cases.

The most recent summary of litigation produced by the Legal Center is always available on our Court Cases of Interest page directly beneath the “Active Court Cases of Interest.” 

To view a PDF of the summary, click here.

To view the Court Case of Interest page, click here.

We are pleased the court did not approve this law for the 2012 Election as tens of thousands of registered voters would have been disenfranchised. The state was ill-prepared to implement its photo voter ID law for the 2012 election and it was forced to continually change the law during the course of the trial in order to safeguard voting rights. Ultimately the law that the court has approved for 2013 and beyond is a huge departure from the bill enacted by the South Carolina legislature.

This decision is a victory for the voters of South Carolina over their own elected officials. An unfair and undemocratic law has been drastically improved and the Campaign Legal Center will monitor the State’s implementation of the law in 2013 and beyond to ensure voting rights are protected. The 2012 Election was the most pressing concern and that has been addressed.

The Legal Center serves as co-counsel with the ACLU for a group of Intervenors who would have been harmed if the voter ID law as enacted was allowed to take effect.

To read the opinion, click here.

To read the Defendant-Intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions, click here.

To read the Defendant-Intervenors' reply to South Carolina's response to its proposed findings and conclusions, click here.

An as applied challenge to the constitutionality of disclosure provisions for groups running “electioneering communications” was turned away by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Hispanic Leadership Fund (HLF) v. the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The organization is seeking to air television advertisements criticizing President Obama without complying with “electioneering communication” disclosure requirements. The court upheld the constitutionality of the requirements and rejected HLF’s argument that references to “the White House” and “the Administration” in three of the group’s ads do not constitute unambiguous references to a clearly identified federal candidate—part of the legal definition of “electioneering communication.” The court, however, ruled that two of HLF’s five proposed ads would not meet the definition.

“While we do not agree with the court’s opinion that the use of the President’s recorded voice in an ad would not constitute a reference to a clearly identified candidate to any hearing American with a television set, the court did recognize most of the ads for the bald-faced attempts to evade disclosure that they are,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “It is important to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and emphatically upheld disclosure laws as vital to the public interest by enabling voters to make informed decisions on Election Day and preventing corruption of elected officials. This case is just one of a string of cases brought by groups attempting to buy influence in Washington while hiding their funders from the public.”

“Electioneering communication” disclosure requirements apply to broadcast ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate in close proximity to an election. The law defines “clearly identified” to include not only ads that explicitly name a candidate, but also ads that make the identity of the candidate “apparent by unambiguous reference.”

The ads proposed by HLF would not mention President Obama by name and instead would use the terms “the White House” and “the Administration” and even audio recordings of the President’s voice. In an attempt to evade the electioneering communication disclosure requirements, HLF argues that its ads do not refer to a clearly identified candidate.

HLF v. FEC was originally filed in federal court in Des Moines, Iowa, but the court dismissed it as an improper venue.

The challenge is based on an advisory opinion request (AOR) filed with the FEC in June by American Future Fund (AFF), asking whether it could run similar ads to those proposed by HLF. The FEC, as it has regularly under the current lineup of commissioners, deadlocked on whether such advertisements constitutedelectioneering communications requiring disclosure reports. The Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed comments arguing that the ads clearly constituted “electioneering communications” subject to disclosure laws.

To read the order of the court, click here. 

To read the court’s memorandum opinion, click here.

To read the brief filed today by the Campaign Legal Center, click here.

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

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion for preliminary injunction in a constitutional challenge to Illinois contribution limits inIllinois Liberty PAC (ILP) v. Madigan.  Specifically, ILP challenged the contribution limits of $50,000 per election from PACs to a candidate for state office, $5,000 per election cycle from individuals to a candidate for state office, and $10,000 per election cycle from an individual to a PAC.  The Campaign Legal Center, with the assistance of local counsel David R. Melton and Thomas Rosenwein, filed a briefamici curiae in support of the state law limits on behalf of itself, together with Chicago Appleseed and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

In analyzing whether to grant plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, a determination based largely on plaintiffs’ likelihood of eventual success on the merits of their arguments, the district court noted the long line of Supreme Court and lower court cases upholding contribution limits and concluded that ILP’s arguments “cannot be reconciled with prevailing campaign finance precedents.”  The district court concluded “it is highly likely” that the state law limits will “survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

“The district court recognized that Illinois’ contribution limits are a constitutionally permissible means of preventing corruption and correctly rejected Illinois Liberty PAC’s call to suspend the limits in the weeks leading up to the 2012 elections,”said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “In a state where the last two governors have gone to jail for corruption, including one governor whose unlimited pursuit of campaign contributions was at the heart of the scandal, the court explicitly recognized that suspending the state’s contribution limits would reopen the door to corruption and do irreparable harm to Illinois and its citizens. This is an example of where the Legal Center can play a vital role in litigation, making clear that there is a long line of court precedent supporting the constitutionality of contribution limits.”

To read the court’s memorandum opinion and order, click here. 

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

Today, a federal court in Wyoming dealt another setback to groups challenging disclosure laws nationwide.  Citing a “wall of precedent” upholding disclosure laws, U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl refused to preliminarily enjoin a number of FEC regulations and policies that implement the federal disclosure laws in Free Speech v. FEC.   Specifically, Free Speech is challenging the “subpart (b)” definition of “expressly advocating” (11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) and the FEC’s methodology for determining when a group has campaign activity as its “major purpose” – both crucial regulations in implementing the disclosure requirements applicable to about independent spending in federal elections. 

The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici brief in the case defending the disclosure regulations.

“In upholding these federal regulations, the Wyoming district court has joined the near consensus of the courts that political disclosure is a vital measure that ensures a well-informed electorate and combats political corruption.” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “Across the country disclosure laws are being challenged by groups seeking to keep secret their deep-pocketed but publicity-shy funders.  While the surge in legal challenges is troubling, we are heartened to see that almost all courts to review disclosure laws in the post-Citizens United era have upheld those laws.”

Free Speech is just one case in a nationwide litigation campaign challenging state, local and federal disclosure laws applicable to both candidate elections and ballot referenda.  It closely resembles another challenge to the FEC’s “subpart (b)” definition of “expressly advocating,” Real Truth About Abortion v. FEC, which was recently rejected by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March of this year, Free Speech submitted an advisory opinion request to the FEC proposing to run a series of attack ads and seeking to avoid registering as a political committee in order to hide the identities of its contributors.  The Campaign Legal Center, joined with Democracy 21, filed comments with the FEC at the time urging the Commission to advise the organization “Free Speech” that many of its ads were “express advocacy,” and as a result, it would likely be required to register and report as a political committee.

The Legal Center and Democracy 21 were aided in this litigation by Larry B. Jones of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, the Cody, Wyoming Division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.

To read the minute order of the district court, click here.   

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