Safeguarding D.C. Voters’ Adoption of Ranked Choice Voting and Semi-Open Primaries (Wilson et al. v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Rice et al.)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing proponents of Initiative 83, a ballot initiative to institute ranked choice voting and semi-open primaries in Washington, D.C. — which D.C. voters overwhelmingly passed in the November 2024 election. 

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

In June of 2023, District of Columbia voters proposed an initiative to introduce ranked choice voting in all D.C. elections and to allow independent voters not registered with any political party to vote in D.C. primary elections, which they were previously not able to do. 

Proponents of Initiative 83 sought to implement these pro-voter reforms through a citizen-led ballot initiative in order to put the power to decide whether these reforms would advance democracy directly in the hands of the people of D.C.

D.C. voters overwhelmingly voted for Initiative 83 in the November 2024 election: 73% voted to approve the initiative with large majorities of support in every ward in the District. Now, CLC is stepping in to defend the voices of those D.C. voters who have worked to propose and successfully adopt Initiative 83’s democratic reforms through the ballot initiative process.

Initiative 83 ends the disenfranchisement in the District of Columbia’s primary elections of nearly 75,000 independent D.C. voters. Research demonstrates that primaries open to independent voters promote greater voter participation; have higher voter turnout rates; result in more representative and accountable officeholders; and eliminate barriers to voting for many voters.

Initiative 83 also introduces ranked choice voting, which will allow voters to rank up to five candidates according to their preferences in each District election (other than for political party offices).  

In a ranked choice election, a candidate with a majority (50%+) of first-choice rankings wins. But if no candidate wins such a majority, then an “instant runoff” occurs: The candidate who received the fewest first-choice preferences is eliminated, and voters who ranked the now-eliminated candidate first have their ballots added to the totals of their next-choice candidate. This process repeats until one candidate receives a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.  

Research shows that ranked choice voting has several beneficial effects for democracy, including requiring candidates to represent a majority of voters; discouraging negative campaign tactics, which may in turn, decrease political polarization; ensuring fair representation for underrepresented groups; and allowing voters to more fully express their political preferences. Experience also proves that voters who use ranked choice voting understand it, are satisfied with it, and have confidence in its results.

In August of 2023, the D.C. Democratic Party, the Chair of the Party, and an individual voter filed a lawsuit alleging that Initiative 83 was unlawful. Although the case was dismissed at first for being untimely, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and sent the case back down to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits of the case.  

To defend Initiative 83’s pro-voter policies, CLC has filed a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss the underlying complaint, on behalf of Lisa D. T. Rice, a D.C. independent voter who proposed Initiative 83, and Grow Democracy D.C., a nonpartisan nonprofit advocating for the implementation and funding of Initiative 83 by the D.C. Council.  

Initiative 83 meets all of the requirements for a citizen-led ballot initiative, and its pro-democracy reforms are legal under both D.C. and federal law.  

We are asking the Superior Court to safeguard voters’ ability to create meaningful pro-democracy change in Washington, D.C. and uphold Initiative 83.  

Campaign Legal Center Responds to Sentencing of Former Rep. George Santos

Date
Body

Washington, DC — Today, former U.S. Rep. George Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for violating federal campaign finance laws.  

Campaign Legal Center filed the first Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint in January 2023, alleging misconduct by Rep. Santos, who was eventually charged with multiple crimes relating to a scheme to defraud donors and was expelled from his seat in the House of Representatives.

Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:

“Today’s sentencing is a major victory for the many voters and donors who were deceived or defrauded by former Rep. George Santos. Santos’ brazen fraud and misconduct, which included serious violations of federal campaign finance laws, was an affront to his constituents, his donors, and the integrity of our democracy. The fact that he was held accountable should speak loudly to anyone contemplating similar actions aimed at exploiting the democratic process for personal gain.

“Campaign Legal Center also commends the diligent enforcement efforts of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which helped bring about this result. Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests.

“The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians’ personal interests.”

###

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 on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

Issues
Campaign Finance

VICTORY for Voters — Unlawful, Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted

Date
Body

Washington, DC — Today, a key part of an anti-voter executive order was successfully halted after the president attempted to act beyond his power and direct an independent agency to make drastic changes to our elections.  

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion and order affirming that it is not within the president’s authority to direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent bipartisan agency, to implement burdensome and unnecessary documentation requirements for voter registration. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) — represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and State Democracy Defenders Fund (SDDF) — sought to prevent the EAC from taking any action to implement Section 2(a) of President Trump’s anti-voter executive order. 

The president does not have the authority to tell the EAC what changes they should make to the federal voter registration form. By law, the EAC determines the content of the federal voter registration form in accordance with strict rules set by Congress in the National Voter Registration Act. The president cannot legally dictate to the EAC what that form’s contents should be.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for voters across the country - particularly voters of color - and our democracy,” said Roman Palomares, LULAC National President. “Efforts to silence the voice and votes of the U.S. electorate must not stand because our democracy depends on all voters feeling confident that they can vote freely and that their vote will be counted accurately.”

“No president has the authority to dictate our election systems and processes,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “The Constitution gives the states and Congress the express power to regulate our elections. We are happy to see that the Constitution’s core principle of separation of powers has been upheld in this instance, and we look forward to continuing our challenge so everyday Americans can make their voices heard without unnecessary barriers.” 

“Military voters, nearly half of whom are voters of color, already jump through so many hoops just to participate in the very democracy our families serve to protect,” said Sarah Streyder, executive director of Secure Families Initiative. “We welcome today’s ruling as it halts what was an unlawful process that would have disproportionately harmed our community’s access to the ballot box.”

“This ruling is a resounding victory for democracy and the rule of law,” said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund. “No president can trample the Constitution to impose anti-voter restrictions. Today’s decision affirms what we’ve known all along: our election systems must remain free from political interference, and the independence of our institutions must be protected.”

“This is a major win for our students in Arizona and across the country. If this anti-voter executive order had been allowed to continue it would have suppressed the ability of young people to vote. We’re thankful to the Campaign Legal Center, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and all the people who put in work to protect our voting rights.” Kyle Nitschke, Co-Executive Director of the Arizona Students’ Association. 

Keep up with our action against the administration’s unlawful executive order here. Read more about our lawsuit here.

###

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 on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

Issues
Voting and Elections
Subscribe to