WASHINGTON, D.C. — Tomorrow, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing to markup 14 proposed bills that would further silence the voices of more than 700,000 Washington, D.C., residents. D.C. residents have no voting representation in the House or the Senate of the U.S. Congress. This package would further erode D.C.’s control of their local affairs by granting Congress more authority to overturn bills passed by the democratically elected D.C. City Council and signed by the mayor. The bills would also eliminate the democratically elected position of D.C. attorney general — a position adopted by the people of D.C. by referendum — and codify portions of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in August to increase the presence of federal law enforcement within the District that residents overwhelmingly oppose. 

Bruce V. Spiva, senior vice president at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement on tomorrow’s markup on D.C.-related bills:

“Congress is once again attacking the local control and democratic rights of the more than 700,000 residents of Washington, D.C. The markup in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of a troubling package of 14 bills will further silence the voices of D.C. residents.

“D.C. residents pay more per capita in federal taxes than any other jurisdiction and have fought in every war since the founding of the Republic. Yet, they are denied the same rights as every other American. The lack of statehood for residents of Washington, D.C., is fundamentally a democracy issue. D.C. residents are currently only able to express their will through a democratically elected local government. They possess no voting representation in Congress to protect their interests. Congress should not interfere with D.C. residents’ control of their own local affairs as expressed through their elected local government.

“The package of bills being reviewed by the Oversight Committee will do just the opposite. These bills will further erode D.C. residents’ right to self-governance and further oppress the residents of the nation's capital, who deserve the same rights as all Americans. Our country was founded on the principle that government without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.

“Lawmakers who support democracy must respect the will of D.C. residents and reject this attempt to overturn laws enacted by their elected councilmembers and mayor. Campaign Legal Center strongly supports D.C. statehood and urges the Oversight Committee to move forward on D.C. statehood and not backward by supporting this package of bills that at its core is undemocratic.”

###

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 bipartisan bill was introduced in the House of Representatives that could help address a longstanding ethics problem in Congress. The “Restore Trust in Congress Act” strengthens existing rules on congressional stock trading by prohibiting Members of Congress, as well as their spouses and dependents, from owning or trading stocks. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has advocated for years for legislation that bans trading individual stocks and properly penalizes members who break the law, all core tenants of the bill introduced today.  

This reform is needed to address the shortcomings of the STOCK Act, which over a decade after its passage, has not lived up to its goal of increasing public trust that Members of Congress are prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans over their own personal wealth.  

While multiple efforts have been put forth to reform congressional stock trading, this latest solution by House members offers the necessary bipartisan support needed to pass this law. With the Senate working to advance similar legislation, a full ban on congressional stock trading moves closer to becoming law.    

Kedric Payne — CLC’s vice president, general counsel, and senior director, ethics — issued the following statement in response to this development:  

“Campaign Legal Center has been fighting for years to improve laws regulating the way Members of Congress trade stocks. As long as sitting lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks connected to the industries they oversee, the public will question whether they are prioritizing their own personal profits over the public interest. We applaud this bipartisan legislation that incorporates the key provisions of stock act reform CLC has fought to advance — a ban on stock ownership that is enforceable and holds lawmakers accountable.”  

Over a decade of poor enforcement of the STOCK Act — and allegations of lawmakers enriching themselves during times of economic uncertainty or public crisis — has contributed to decreased public trust in our elected officials, institutions and government.  

CLC has long called on Congress to implement a full ban on stock trading by sitting lawmakers — alongside enforceable accountability mechanisms that ensure no one can skirt the law.  

Catch up with our multi-year effort to highlight the problem of congressional stock trading and advance meaningful reform efforts here.  

Washington, DC — Today, the Spirit Lake Nation, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and several individual Native voters filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, formally asking the Court to review our case in its upcoming term.

Represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Native American Rights Fund (NARF), the Law Office of Bryan L. Sells, LLC and Robins Kaplan LLP, the plaintiffs have been fighting since 2022 for fair representation for Native American voters and against attacks on the Voting Rights Act.

“The current North Dakota voting map gives my community a chance to elect who we want to represent us — just like other communities across the state. It is fairer than the map the state originally put into place, and nobody is saying it’s not.  Instead, the Eighth Circuit is saying that Native voters and Tribal Nations don’t even have the right to fight for a fair map. The idea that we don’t have the right to advocate for ourselves and for fair voting is undemocratic and goes against the principles that our country was founded on,” said Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chair Jamie Azure.

“For years, Native voters in North Dakota have been fighting for adequate representation. It affects our day-to-day lives, our communities, and our well-being when we can’t elect a candidate to represent our interests. We deserve representation just like other communities around the state. It is shameful that, when we succeeded in court and got a fair map in place, the state turned its attack against the Voting Rights Act and a person’s right to vote free from discrimination. We need the Supreme Court to protect our fundamental right to vote and be heard,” said Spirit Lake Tribal Chair Lonna J. Street.

“It is unacceptable that we must go all the way to the United States Supreme Court just to defend our right to a fair map. Politicians should not be able to manipulate district lines to decide which voters get a voice. The court promised fairness, yet the State of North Dakota is choosing to waste time and taxpayer dollars fighting against the simple principle of equal representation,” said plaintiff Collette Brown (Spirit Lake Tribe).

“The decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to take away our fair map is nonsensical. They claimed that we don’t have the ability to fight back against lawmakers who treat us unfairly, and that flies in the face of years of court decisions and legal proceedings. Of course the Voting Rights Act gives us certain rights, and of course we are able to sue to enforce them. That is the way that it has been since 1965,” said plaintiff Zachery S. King (Turtle Mountain Chippewa).

Following the plaintiffs’ trial court victory, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a shocking anti-democratic decision in May.  Rather than reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ case, the court ruled that plaintiffs had no ability to file suit to begin with, shutting the courthouse door to private plaintiffs seeking to protect their rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This stunning ruling kneecaps the main federal protection against racial discrimination in voting.

This ruling prevents affected voters from being able to bring suits on their own behalf in the seven states making up the Eighth Circuit and leaves the Department of Justice as the only entity capable of suing to enforce Section 2 in those jurisdictions. In July, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, which puts that decision on hold and ensures that the fair map Plaintiffs won at trial remains in effect.

The Tribal Nations and Native American voters who filed this lawsuit ask the Supreme Court to uphold fair maps for the North Dakota state legislature and to reject efforts to undermine the VRA. Allowing a discriminatory map to be re-instituted would rob Native voters of their ability to elect a candidate of their choice to the state legislature.

“The protections of the Voting Rights Act must be enforceable by all Americans,” said Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “If the Eighth Circuit's ruling is allowed to stand, American voters will lose the right to defend themselves against racially discriminatory maps and voting laws. Private individuals and organizations must be allowed to continue bringing lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the VRA, the most important civil rights law Congress ever enacted.” 

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides a right to vote free from racial discrimination. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that voters cannot sue to enforce that right. The decision is counter to the spirit of democracy and equal access to the vote, and it goes against decades of  practice and case law from courts throughout the country. We expect the Supreme Court to reverse this anti-democratic, outlier decision,” said NARF Staff Attorney Lenny Powell.

The Supreme Court should uphold fair maps, abide by precedent, and confirm voters' power to enforce their voting rights in court.

###

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.

Seattle, WA — Today, Latino voters in Washington state’s Yakima Valley successfully defended their right to have an equal voice in state legislative elections. In the case, Soto Palmer v. Hobbs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a challenge to a district court's 2023 ruling that Washington’s 15th Legislative District was enacted in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and affirmed that the new, fair district put in place to address the violation was a proper remedy. This decision keeps in place the lower court's ruling and preserves a fair voting district for Latino voters in the Yakima Valley area. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside co-counsel MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), the UCLA Voting Rights Project, and attorney Edwardo Morfin of the Morfin Law Firm in Washington, has represented individual Latino voters challenging the state legislative district in the case since January 2022. 

After successfully proving at trial that the enacted legislative district violated Section 2 of the VRA by unlawfully “cracking” Latino voters in the Yakima Valley, the district court ordered that a new, lawful district be drawn. This new district gave Latino voters in the Yakima Valley area an equal voice in state legislative elections for the first time in decades in the 2024 election. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an effort by two individual voters and a state legislator — who had intervened in the case to defend the discriminatory district — to prevent the new, fair district from taking effect for the 2024 election. The intervenors subsequently appealed the district’s court’s rulings to the Ninth Circuit.   

Oral argument was held at the Ninth Circuit in March 2025, and today, the decision of the lower court was left in place because the Ninth Circuit found that the intervenors lack standing to appeal the court’s liability ruling, and affirmed that the new remedial district put in place to address the Section 2 violation complies with federal law. This ruling is a victory for Latino voters in the Yakima Valley because it keeps in place the district court’s ruling and the new, fair district. 

"For the first time in decades, Latino voters in Washington state’s Yakima Valley were able to have an equal voice in their state legislative elections because of the new remedial map,” said Annabelle Harless, director of redistricting litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “The Ninth Circuit’s ruling today allows Latino voters in the region to continue to elect state legislators who best serve their community. Despite challenges from bad actors attempting to revert back to a discriminatory map, Yakima Valley’s Latino voters persisted in their fight and successfully defended their right to fair representation.” 

"The Ninth Circuit correctly upheld the right to vote and free and fair elections in Washington,” said Sonni Waknin, Senior Staff Attorney at the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “We are proud to represent our clients who have fought for years to ensure that Latinos are given the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice to the Washington legislature."

"The resistance Latino voters have faced in opposition to our efforts at improving fairness in elections for marginalized communities is appalling,” said Eddie Morfin of the Morfin Law Firm. “The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Latino voters in Yakima Valley, who have faced decades of discrimination, should have a say in who represents them. I will keep fighting for fairness every chance we get." 

“Today, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the historic decision that protects Yakima Valley Latino voters from dilutive redistricting,” said MALDEF Western Regional Counsel Ernest Herrera. “We are glad that the Ninth Circuit panel recognized that the intervenors’ appeal had no standing or merit.”

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the dismissal of a separate but related case, Garcia v. Hobbs, as moot. CLC submitted an amicus brief in the Garcia case on behalf of the clients in Soto Palmer, urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm the case’s dismissal, because it is moot and was filed to impede success in Soto Palmer, and as part of a broader effort to attack the Voting Rights Act. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment in this case is therefore also a victory.

Keep up with the latest on this case here.