In Georgia, the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC) is elected on a statewide basis, even though members serve in one of five geographically-based districts.  On July 14, 2020, a group of Black voters filed a case challenging Georgia’s at-large system of election for the state’s PSC under Section 2 of the VRA. On August 5, 2022, the district court found that the PSC system of election unlawfully diluted the votes of Black Georgians.

But ultimately, on November 24, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the statewide electoral structure for PSC was deliberately chosen by the legislature to further the state’s interests and that plaintiffs had failed to provide an adequate remedy at the first stage of the Gingles test that would preserve that interest.  

CLC joined with FairVote, RepresentUs, and Protect Democracy to submit an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs’ petition for the Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. The brief emphasizes the purpose and requirements of the first part of the Gingles test—clarifying that there is no requirement for plaintiffs to present an adequate remedy at the liability stage—and the range of options available to remedy vote dilution under the VRA including non-plurality at-large electoral systems. Amici are represented by Hogan Lovells in the filing of the brief.

What's at stake:

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision involved a novel misreading of the requirements to prove a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a deeply troubling departure that could complicate future VRA litigation and does not make any sense under existing law—and altogether prevented the plaintiffs from using Section 2 to dismantle a statewide at-large system, concerningly weakening the scope of the Voting Rights Act contrary to its text and intent.  

The current system of electing the PSC dilutes the voices of Georgia’s Black voters, and CLC and our partners are calling upon the U.S. Supreme Court to consider all options to ensure that every Georgian voter can be heard in the state’s elections. 

Three lawsuits have been filed against Arizona’s 2023 Election Procedures Manual. The lawsuits -- brought by Arizona Republican Legislators, the Republican National Committee and the Arizona Republican Party, and Arizona Free Enterprise Club, respectively -- make a variety of claims, many of which try to thwart court decisions that protect Arizona voters.

The Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM) is a detailed guidance document that outlines the rules for election administration. The EPM spells out everything from voter registration, to how to ensure overseas military voters’ ballots are counted, to actually running a polling site on Election Day. It’s an important document for both election administrators and voters to navigate and understand Arizona’s election laws.  

CLC successfully won a lawsuit against Arizona in February 2024 striking down provisions of two new Arizona laws that severely restricted the ability of Arizonans — particularly Latino and Native Arizonans — from exercising their freedom to vote. The EPM included guidance based on this suit to ensure Arizona’s Elections were run in a nondiscriminatory way. Two of these EPM lawsuits attack CLC’s voting rights win by challenging these parts of the EPM. The third tries to circumvent federal protections against voter intimidation.  

What’s at Stake

CLC is filing friend-of-the-court briefs in two of the lawsuits in support of Arizona's Secretary of State.  

In the first friend-of-the-court brief, on behalf of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), the San Carlos Apache Tribe (Tribe), and Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.,  CLC is highlighting for the court: (1) the importance of the EPM in ensuring uniform and orderly elections and (2) the necessity for the EPM to explain how court rulings affect Arizona Election statutes.  

In the second friend-of-the-court brief, CLC, along with Protect Democracy and the League of Women Voters of Arizona, are explaining that the First Amendment does not give people a right to intimidate voters. In fact, laws prohibiting voter intimidation protect the First Amendment rights of Arizona voters by making sure every citizen’s voice is heard on Election Day.