Ensuring Fair Voter Registration Practices in New Mexico (Millions for Prisoners New Mexico v. Toulouse Oliver)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing Millions for Prisoners New Mexico and several individual New Mexicans in a lawsuit challenging the state’s burdensome and discriminatory requirement that voters with past felony convictions can only register to vote in person. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

In a victory for the freedom to vote, New Mexico passed the New Mexico Voting Rights Act (NMVRA) in 2023. The law restored the voting rights of over 11,000 Americans with past felony convictions on probation and parole by establishing that the right to vote is restored upon a person’s release from prison.  

Unfortunately, many of those 11,000 voters still can’t access their freedom to vote due to unnecessary barriers and burdens created by state and local officials.

The NMVRA requires that the New Mexico Corrections Department share data with the Secretary of State so they can maintain an up-to-date list of individuals disqualified from voting because they are currently incarcerated. However, the Corrections Department has failed to supply accurate data to the Secretary of State since the law’s passage.  

Despite the faulty data, the Secretary of State has told county clerks to deny voter registrations from people with past felony convictions if they are flagged as having ever been convicted of a felony unless they appear in person to prove they are not currently in prison.

Given how unreliable the lists and data are, many voters with past felony convictions have had their voter registration application denied when they register to vote the same way most New Mexicans register: online, with assistance from a civic engagement group, or by mail. As a result, voters who are flagged as having a prior felony conviction can only register to vote in person.  

New Mexicans who are fully eligible to register and vote and, in some cases, have been eligible for years or decades, are being treated differently than other voters and are forced to jump through hoops to vote. Organizations like Millions for Prisoners New Mexico are likewise unable to help these voters register due to the in-person registration requirement.  

Eligible registrants who are denied under this policy received confusing and intimidating denial letters telling them that election officials have received information they have been convicted of a felony or have been incarcerated and that they are therefore “ineligible.”  

Ultimately, the denial of individuals’ registrations on this basis violates both the NMVRA and the fundamental right to vote guaranteed by the New Mexico Constitution.  

CLC, in partnership with New Mexico attorney Daniel Yohalem, have filed a lawsuit in state court to challenge the in-person requirement and to ensure that New Mexicans who have been wrongly denied are allowed to vote. 

What’s At Stake?

Organizations, like Millions for Prisoners New Mexico, that are dedicated to assisting New Mexicans with past felony convictions register to vote and participate in elections are unable to assist prospective voters because of the in-person registration policy. Many of the same organizations that worked tirelessly to pass the NMVRA are therefore unable to conduct meaningful outreach to register newly eligible voters to fulfill the law’s promise.

The Secretary of State, Corrections Department, and county clerks have had over one year since the NMVRA went into effect to ensure that every eligible New Mexican can exercise their freedom to vote, but still have not done so. Now, on the eve of a major federal election, New Mexico voters are paying the price. 

Associated Cases & Actions

Restore Your Vote: Felony Rights Restoration

Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Barring Enforcement of SB1 for Voters with Disabilities

Date
Body

Ruling prohibits Alabama from restricting assistance for disabled, blind, and low literacy voters in 2024 election.

Washington, D.C. — In a victory for voting accessibility across Alabama, the Alabama NAACP (AL NAACP), Greater Birmingham Ministries (GBM), the League of Women Voters of Alabama (LWVAL), and the Alabama Disability Advocates Program (ADAP) have successfully defended the rights of absentee voters who are disabled, blind, and low literacy to receive the help of anyone of their choice ahead of the 2024 elections in the absentee application process. The organizations are represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU AL), and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP).

Siding with civic engagement groups and their constituents, a federal district court ruled today in the case of Alabama NAACP, et al. v. Marshall that SB 1’s key restrictions on absentee application assistance likely violate Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 208 requires that blind, disabled, or low literacy voters have the ability to receive help from anyone of their choice. Today’s preliminary injunction means that while the lawsuit continues, SB 1’s key criminal sanctions cannot be enforced against disabled, blind, or low literacy voters or against their chosen assistors.

In response to the ruling, Plaintiffs and their attorneys have released the following statement: 

“Nonpartisan civic engagement groups — composed of civic-minded, democracy-loving, everyday Americans — do the hard work of fighting to ensure that every American can access the fundamental freedom to vote. We’re glad that the district court has sided with the rights of the voters and is committed to promoting voting accessibility. Our democracy works best when everybody can participate in it, and this ruling prevents the enforcement of a cruel law that would have suppressed the voices of blind, disabled, and low literacy voters. We’re proud of this victory, and we will continue to fight to ensure that all Alabamians can easily exercise their right to vote.” 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Victory for Utahns! Supreme Court Unanimously Voids Amendment D

Date
Body

Salt Lake City, UT – Today, Campaign Legal Center, on behalf of League of Women Voters Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government and Utah voters, successfully defended Utahns’ right to reform their own government by citizen initiative.

Today, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that proposed constitutional Amendment D is void and shall be given no effect. The Court found that the Legislature failed to publish the proposed amendment in Utah newspapers as the state constitution requires. The Court also ruled that the ballot language was unconstitutionally misleading because it says the amendment would do the opposite of what it says it would do. Because the Legislature did not follow the requirements of the state constitution in advancing the amendment, the amendment is void.

“The Utah Supreme Court upheld a fundamental principle that never should have been in doubt — the government must honestly present the questions voters are asked to decide,” said CLC’s Mark Gaber. “The Utah Legislature failed at every step in this process and voters will now see their constitutional rights affirmed.”

“This is a tremendous victory for the people of Utah that affirms the right of the people to ethical and transparent government,” said MWEG’s Emma Petty Addams. “We're grateful for the clear message this decision sends: constitutional checks and balances exist for a reason and everyone must follow the constitution.”  

“I hope this is a new day for the people of Utah,” said LWV UT’s Katharine Biele. “I hope the legislature understands they represent us. We look forward to working with them in the future on the issues that affect all Utahns.”

Issues
Redistricting
Voting and Elections

Electing the President: A New Report from Election Experts

Date
Body

Washington D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center, Protect Democracy and Bipartisan Policy Center released a report outlining the timeline and procedures that will guide the presidential election process.  

The report examines the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) and the role it will play in the upcoming election.

Click here to view the report.

Click here to view a two-page summary of the report.

The ECRA was passed with bipartisan support in 2022 and is a critical safeguard in ensuring that U.S. elections run smoothly. The 2024 election will be the first presidential election utilizing the ECRA’s updated rules.

The ECRA clarifies the timeline and process for casting and counting electoral votes by:

  • Requiring states to appoint electors on Election Day in accordance with pre-existing law, which prevents state legislatures from subverting the will of the voters.
  • Clarifying that the governor must certify their state’s slate of electors – unless another official is designated – and establishes a deadline for doing so.
  • Providing an expedited process for federal courts to resolve disputes about a state’s certification of electors under the ECRA.  
  • Clarifying the vice president’s role in the process when Congress meets to count each state’s electoral votes.  
  • Raising the threshold for Members of Congress to object to a state’s certified election results.

RSVP NOW: On September 24 we’ll be sitting down with experts for a virtual discussion on the crucial role the ECRA will have in this year’s presidential election and dive deep into what the process will look like from 2024 forward.

 

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.  

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Protect Democracy is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing American democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government.

The Bipartisan Policy Center is a mission-focused organization helping policymakers work across party lines to craft bipartisan solutions. By connecting Republicans and Democrats, delivering data and context, negotiating public policy, and creating space for bipartisan collaboration, BPC helps turn legislators’ best ideas into durable laws that improve lives. Since 2007, the Bipartisan Policy Center has helped shepherd countless bills across the finish line. 

Issues
Voting and Elections

New Guides to Protecting Election Certification from Interference in Battleground States

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Campaign Legal Center, All Voting is Local, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, and Protect Democracy have coauthored “Election Certification Processes and Guardrails,” guides to election certification and the state laws protecting the process in seven battleground states. The guides explain how state laws can protect against threats or delays to election certification and emphasize that refusal to certify is illegal in each state.

The guides published today are written for elections officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Each state’s guide provides the legal mechanisms that state and local officials can deploy in response to refusals to certify elections. Across all states:

  • Certification of election results is a mandatory duty
  • If an official delays or refuses to certify results, state officials and courts can step in to compel certification.
  • State officials can hold officials who refuse to certify accountable through civil and criminal penalties.

Since 2020, over 30 local elections officials across the country have voted against or threatened to refuse to certify an election. Earlier this year, three commissioners in Washoe County, Nevada initially refused to certify the results of two primary election recounts. Two of the three commissioners reversed course, acknowledging that they had a mandatory legal duty to certify. That effort to disrupt the mandatory certification process, like every other attempt, was unsuccessful. In some instances, the rogue officials’ actions caused delays but the election results were ultimately certified. Despite their failures, these attempts may still succeed in sowing further distrust in the elections process overall and plant the seeds for bad-faith rejection of the results in the 2024 presidential election.

Related resources:

“Can Georgia's Election Board Refuse to Certify Results? The Law Says No” Campaign Legal Center (September 2024)

“Election Deniers Continue Attempts to Meddle with Certification — But the Process Is Resilient,” Brennan Center (August 2024)

“Election Certification, Explained,” Protect Democracy (July 2024)

“Certification Is Not Optional,” Protect Democracy (March 2024) 

“How State and Local Election Certification Works,” Brennan Center (March 2024)

Rep. Andy Ogles’ New Financial Statements Raise More Questions

Date
Body

Washington, DC — The much-delayed financial disclosure reports of Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee became public this week, raising more questions about his financial interests. 

On September 13, 2024, more than a year after the original filing deadline, Rep. Ogles finally amended his financial disclosure for 2022. He also filed his 2023 report, which was submitted four months after the due date and a month after the final statutory deadline. 

In January 2024, CLC filed a complaint against Rep. Ogles for failing to report a $700,000 line of credit while also failing to show sufficient assets to cover a $320,000 loan he reported having made to his campaign in a Federal Election Commission filing. Rep. Ogles later called this a “pledge” that was “mistakenly included” in these filings. 

Rep. Ogles’ new disclosures continue to appear incomplete or inaccurate, raising more questions about discrepancies in his federal filings. 

Specifically, Rep. Ogles has newly reported an “investment property” worth up to $1 million that does not appear to match public records. He is now reporting a bank account worth between $50,000 and $100,000 that he failed to disclose in 2022. Rep. Ogles has also reported that he and his wife own several investment portfolios but has not disclosed what the underlying assets are. 

Kedric Payne – CLC's Vice President, General Counsel, and Senior Director for Ethics – released the following statement: 

“The public has a right to know what, if any, financial obligations to outside sources an elected official may have because it allows the public to be informed of any potential conflicts of interest. 

Rep. Ogles’s failure to be transparent in his financial disclosure reports not only risks obscuring the truth of these details for his constituents, but it can also create an environment in which more people become distrustful of their lawmakers. 

The Office of Congressional Ethics must conduct an investigation into these concerning patterns by Rep. Ogles, which may represent a violation of federal law.”

Issues
Ethics
Subscribe to