Washington, DC — On Friday, Oct. 31, a key part of an anti-voter executive order was permanently halted following successful, early action by a coalition of nonprofit groups to stop this unlawful power grab by the president, protect the freedom to vote and safeguard our system of checks and balances. 

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) — represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) — sought to prevent the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from taking any action to implement Section 2(a) of the president's March 25, 2025, executive order. In its opinion, the court held that Section 2(a) is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. 

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted our motion for summary judgment and issued an injunction that permanently halts the EAC from implementing Section 2(a) of the president’s order, which ordered the EAC to add a documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirement to the National Mail Voter Registration Form. 

"This is not just a victory for LULAC, but for every eligible voter," said Juan Proaño, LULAC Chief Executive Officer. "The Court sent a clear and powerful message: no president can unilaterally rewrite election law to suppress the vote. This ruling safeguards the voices of millions who depend on the integrity of our democratic system." 

“Efforts to silence the voices and votes of the American electorate must not stand,” said Roman Palomares, LULAC National President. “Our democracy depends on every voter’s confidence that they can cast their ballot freely and have it counted accurately.” 

“The Constitution is clear: Only the states and Congress have the power to regulate our elections, not the president,” said Bruce Spiva, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center. “Maintaining — and enforcing — this separation of powers is critical. With the 2026 midterm elections only a year away, now more than ever, we must safeguard the freedom to vote for all Americans.” 

"This is a historic victory for active-duty military families, " said Brandi Jones, Acting-Co Director of Secure Families Initiative, “Generations of people throughout American history have fought to establish the right to vote for every American. Black Americans, Indigenous Americans, communities of color, and women have taken on this fight facing violence and at times death. We are proud to follow their footsteps.” 

“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 Democracy Defenders Fund. “No president can trample the Constitution to impose burdensome restrictions that make it harder for Americans to vote—ID requirements would disproportionately impact certain citizens, such as those who cannot afford to meet them. Today’s decision reaffirms that Congress and the States run elections and that the president does not have the authority to manipulate our election systems for his benefit and his liking.” 

“This is a huge victory to protect student voting rights. DPOC requirements in AZ are already burdensome. This executive overreach of our elections would have made it even more difficult for voters to access the ballot,” said Kyle Nitschke, Co-Executive Director of the Arizona Students’ Association. 

Keep up with our action against the administration’s unlawful executive order at this link. Read more about how Campaign Legal Center is holding the current administration accountable at this link. 
 

###

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.

Washington, D.C. — On Wednesday, October 29, 2025, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted an amicus brief in Dinner Table Action, et al. v. Schneider, et al., a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, defending a Maine state law limiting contributions to super PACs.  

Megan McAllen, director of campaign finance litigation at CLC, released the following statement:

“Since 2010, the D.C. Circuit and other appellate courts have said that money given to groups making ‘independent expenditures’ — commonly known as super PACs — cannot constitutionally be limited because these contributions cannot corrupt. The last 15 years have shown us otherwise.

“Voters today live under a system where wealthy special interests can route millions of dollars through super PACs to influence the outcomes of elections. In turn, we see elected officials turn their backs on constituents and put the bottom line of their biggest donors above the public interest.  

“The corrosive influence of big money over elected officials has been recognized time and time again. And federal courts and juries have recognized that elected officials highly value super PAC largesse benefiting their candidacies and are willing to trade official acts for it — a clear instance of quid pro quo corruption.  

“As the record since 2010 bears out, a large check cut to a super PAC can readily serve as the ‘quid’ in a corrupt bargain between the PAC and a candidate. Now, an overwhelming majority of Maine voters are attempting to set the record straight and rein in super PACs.

“As Campaign Legal Center explains in our brief, the unlimited financial contributions super PACs are allowed to accept inherently create opportunities for corrupt quid pro quo exchanges. Maine’s law is a step in the right direction to addressing the pervasive threat corruption poses to public confidence in our democracy.”

###

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.

Washington, DC — Today, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted our motion for summary judgment and issued an injunction that permanently halts the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from implementing Section 2(a) of the president’s March 25, 2025 executive order, which ordered the EAC to add a documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirement to the National Mail Voter Registration Form. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) — represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) — sought to prevent the EAC from taking any action to implement Section 2(a) of President Trump’s anti-voter executive order. In its opinion, the court held that Section 2(a) is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.  

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress — not the president — the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections. We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections.”

Follow our action against the administration’s unlawful executive order. Read more about our lawsuit.

###

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.

Washington, DC — Today, American Oversight and Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed suit against the Trump administration for failing to release records about new federal voter data maintenance efforts, including the Department of Homeland Security’s overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, which has evolved into a federal voter data system using various sources to flag potential noncitizens on state voter rolls — changes that could be used to justify large-scale voter purges and disenfranchise eligible voters. To date, the Trump administration has provided no explanation of how the system operates or what safeguards exist to protect Americans’ voter information from improper use.

The set of three lawsuits seek to compel the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to release emails and related records that could shed light on how the administration is using federal data systems to verify the citizenship of those on state voter rolls. The records could also reveal how agencies are coordinating to build or operate a shared voter-maintenance database.

“The Trump administration has quietly built a federal voter-roll program that could strip power from the states and silence millions of voters, yet it has offered virtually no explanation for how the system operates or how they will safeguard voters’ rights and protect the integrity of future elections. Given this administration’s record of weaponizing federal agencies to advance false claims of voter fraud, the public has every reason to be concerned,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight. “The impact will fall hardest on those already forced to fight for access to the ballot — Black, brown, immigrant, low-income, disabled, and young voters — under the false banner of ‘fraud prevention.’ The public has a right to know what this system is, what data is being used, and whether proper safeguards are in place to protect voters. Transparency is essential to protecting the integrity of our elections and combating dangerous voter fraud conspiracies intended to disenfranchise marginalized communities.”

"Federal agencies appear to be collecting and sharing the highly sensitive personal information of millions of Americans with little to no public oversight or clarity into their purpose, and under the guise of so-called 'voter roll maintenance,’ which is a function entrusted to the states," said Jonathan Diaz, Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center. "These efforts are part of a troubling pattern of actions by the Trump administration to insert the executive branch into election processes that the Constitution assigns to Congress and the states, which could undermine Americans' freedom to vote. We will keep pushing for the federal government to be transparent on where this data is coming from and how it is being used so that every voter can vote with confidence that their voice will be heard in our elections.”

Louisiana was the first to use a new federal system to check the citizenship status of registered voters. However, Louisiana officials have reported that the system flagged just 79 instances of voting by suspected noncitizens in at least one election since the 1980s — a figure that represents only 0.0027 percent of the state’s 2.9 million registered voters, and may include some individuals who are in fact eligible to vote.

The lawsuit asks the court to order DHS, USCIS, and SSA to release all nonexempt, responsive records, including communications with DOGE and state election officials, contracts with outside entities, and any guidance or training materials related to implementation of the program.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has repeatedly used federal power to influence the 2026 midterm election cycle. With a history of punishing states that refuse to do his bidding, he has publicly pressed states to redraw congressional maps ahead of the midterms, intervening directly in the redistricting process in states like Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina to lock in additional Republican seats rather than wait for the usual post-census period.

Additionally, Trump ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate ActBlue, the main online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates, while ignoring its GOP counterpart, WinRed. The DOJ has also demanded detailed voter registration data from states, threatening legal action against some Democratic-led states that have not complied. Furthermore, Trump has also indicated he will sign an executive order outlawing voting machines and mail-in ballots, despite courts blocking his earlier executive actions that sought to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

###

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.

Washington, DC — The League of Women Voters of Michigan, represented by Campaign Legal Center, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, and the Michigan law firm Goodman Acker, filed a motion late yesterday to intervene on behalf of voters in U.S. v. Benson, a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Michigan for failing to comply with the department’s demand for the state’s complete voter file. The Department of Justice hasn’t provided a sufficient justification for seeking this data, which includes sensitive information such as driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

The League of Women Voters of Maine and the League of Women Voters of New York State recently filed motions to intervene in similar cases brought by the Department of Justice against their states. Campaign Legal Center and the Brennan Center for Justice represented them. The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, League of Women Voters of Minnesota, and League of Women Voters of California also filed motions to intervene in similar cases brought by the Department of Justice.

The organizations commented on yesterday's motion, filed in the U.S. Western District Court of Michigan, as follows:

“Our democracy works best when every voter has a chance to participate in the electoral process. The Justice Department’s efforts to access voter data from states nationwide, including Michigan, is an act of federal overreach that risks violating voters’ privacy and potentially disincentivizing people from casting ballots. The Constitution is clear that the states and Congress have the power to administer and regulate elections. We will keep fighting to protect Americans from the Trump administration’s attempts to limit the freedom to vote.” — Brent Ferguson, Director of Strategic Litigation, Campaign Legal Center. 

“We will not stand by while a federal fishing expedition puts the information of millions of Michiganders at risk and encourages voter intimidation. There is no reason for the federal government to seize control of voter data that they do not need and have no right to possess. We are seeking to intervene to send a clear message to the administration and voters: we will fight to protect our members’ and voters’ data from unlawful seizure. We are proud to stand with our partners in defending the integrity of our democracy.” — Lynne Kochmanski, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Michigan.

"The Department of Justice’s relentless crusade to demand sensitive voter data from states, now landing in Michigan, is a flagrant power grab that tramples critical voter privacy laws and undermines the trust in our democratic processes. The League has already sought to intervene in five other cases, and we will not back down until we ensure that Michigan’s voter files remain shielded from political interference. No voter deserves to be intimidated by their own government.” — Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters of the United States.

“The Justice Department’s case against Michigan is part of an effort to collect voter files — including drivers’ license and social security numbers — from every state. This push is part of the administration’s campaign to undermine our elections. The department may manipulate the data in service of false claims about our elections or to pressure states to remove eligible voters from the rolls. The states have been protecting voters’ personal information and running reliable elections for decades and decades. Yet the federal government is now trying to amass a trove of sensitive information about American voters that would put their privacy at risk.” — Eileen O’Connor, senior counsel, Brennan Center for Justice.

###

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.

Washington, D.C. — Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) and Campaign Legal Center (CLC) are demanding the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) launch investigations into Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s continued failure to divest from numerous financial holdings, including his financial stake in High Plains LLP, which reportedly holds up to $25 million in North Dakota farmland. Because Secretary Bessent is making policy decisions that could affect these holdings, this is a clear and unacceptable conflict of interest.

Over the past several weeks, it has become clear that Secretary Bessent has been deeply involved with bilateral trade negotiations and tariff decisions involving China that affect the value of soybeans, one of the primary crops produced by High Plains LLP, meaning that Secretary Bessent could be financially benefiting from his insider knowledge and direction.

“Secretary Bessent has himself admitted, on national television no less, that he has a significant financial interest in decisions affecting soybean prices through his ownership of High Plains LLP,” said Virginia Canter, chief counsel for ethics and anti-corruption at Democracy Defenders Fund. “But the law is clear. Federal officials can’t participate in decisions in which they have a financial interest. Treasury OIG must take action immediately to address the blatant corruption.”

Before his confirmation, Bessent pledged to Treasury ethics officials that he would divest at least two dozen assets within 90 days of assuming office to avoid violating ethics rules, but he has yet to provide documentation showing he has done so, the DDF and CLC complaint noted. When he failed to meet that deadline, DDF and CLC called the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and OIG to investigate Secretary Bessent’s apparent failure to comply with his ethics agreement and subsequently filed a formal complaint.

“Secretary Bessent initially agreed to end his ownership stake in High Plains LLP because of the conflicts of interest — yet he continues to hold that stake while apparently participating in decision-making that could impact its value,” said Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Executive branch officials are required by law to take immediate action to either recuse themselves from the matter at hand or divest from their personal holdings if a conflict of interest arises. An investigation is needed to determine whether Secretary Bessent’s public work in trade negotiations that could directly impact his assets is an attempt to enrich himself."

Executive branch officials hold some of the most powerful positions in government, and it is their responsibility to prioritize the best interests of the American people, not their own personal interests. DDF and CLC call on OIG to promptly initiate a thorough investigation into whether or not Bessent violated the law and release a report on their findings.

Read the full letter 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.