Plaintiffs brought the case in September 2006 to obtain a declaratory judgment confirming that the City of Ocean City, NJ has the home rule authority to adopt an ordinance that would provide for public financing in municipal elections.  Their lawsuit was prompted by the refusal of the Ocean City Council to consider the proposed public financing ordinance on the advice of the City attorney, who claimed that the proposed ordinance was beyond City’s legislative power to enact.  The state trial court ruled against plaintiffs in June 2007, finding that Ocean City was preempted by the state in matters of public financing. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the trial court’s decision that Ocean City was preempted by state law with respect to public financing.

In July 2006, the local chamber of commerce (COMPAC) challenged San Jose’s limits on contributions to political committees making only independent expenditures in municipal elections.  COMPAC argued that independent expenditures did not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, and that consequently there was no constitutional rationale for a limit on contributions to a committee making only independent expenditures.  The district court struck down the limits on September 20, 2006.  On October 14, 2008, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision, holding that the district court should have abstained from hearing the case because the San Jose Elections Commission was conducting an ongoing state administrative proceeding against COMPAC.

In June 2006, self-funded candidate Jack Davis filed suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia challenging the “Millionaire’s Amendment” of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold Law). The “Millionaire’s Amendment” allowed congressional candidates to accept up to six times the federal candidate contribution limit ($2,300 at the time) if they faced opponents who spent large amounts of personal funds in their campaigns. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Millionaire’s Amendment violated Davis’ First Amendment rights.

In July 2006, Representatives Shays and Meehan challenged regulations promulgated by the FEC in response to an earlier case litigated by the Congressmen (Shays I).  On September 12, 2007, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia struck down multiple sections of two FEC regulations relating to coordination and the definition of “federal election activity.” Both the FEC and plaintiff Shays appealed the district court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In June 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision invalidating almost all sections challenged by plaintiffs in the FEC’s regulations on coordination and “federal election activity.”

Willie Ray and several others brought suit (represented by CLC attorneys) challenging then-Attorney General Greg Abbott’s racially selective prosecutions of black and Latinos voters for alleged voter fraud. This lawsuit also involved federal constitutional and statutory challenges to several unprecedented provisions of the Texas Election Code that authorize a variety of sweeping criminal penalties for those who seek to provide legitimate and necessary aid to elderly and infirm voters who vote by mail.  Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court. On remand from the Fifth Circuit, the parties resolved the case by stipulation.  

In April 2006, mayoral candidate Michael Nutter filed suit to enforce Philadelphia’s newly-enacted contribution limits in connection to several individuals who allegedly were exploring mayoral candidacies but not abiding by those limits. These individuals counter-claimed, arguing that the City’s campaign finance law was beyond Philadelphia’s home rule authority and preempted by state law, which places no limits on political contributions. The state trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the City ordinance was not preempted by state law. In December 2007, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the City campaign finance law as a permissible exercise of the City’s home rule authority.

This case challenged the constitutionality of an Indiana law that requires voters to present either a state or federal photo identification in order to vote.  The question was whether the law unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote.  The Supreme Court upheld the law, concluding that the photo I.D. requirement within the state’s legitimate interests in preventing voter fraud and that any burden imposed on the right to vote was outweighed by these interests.

In September 2004, the WA State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) filed an enforcement action against the 527 group Voter Education Committee (VEC) for the organization’s failure to register as a state political committee and comply with state disclosure requirements. VEC filed a counter-suit challenging the state disclosure laws and claiming the state may only regulate “express advocacy,” not “issue advocacy.” In September 2007, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision that a 527 organization could constitutionally be regulated as a “political committee” subject to state campaign finance disclosure laws.  The Washington Supreme Court rejected VEC’s claim that the state definition of “political committee”—which was virtually identical to BCRA’s “promote, attack, support, oppose” or “PASO” test—was unconstitutionally vague.