Federal Judge Strikes Down Some Anti-Voter Arizona Policies, Leaves Others in Place

Date
Body

On February 29, 2024, a federal judge struck down discriminatory, anti-voter provisions of two Arizona laws, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, passed in 2022 that undermined Arizonans’ freedom to vote and violated federal law. The judge’s order also leaves a few anti-voter provisions intact.

At issue in the case were discriminatory provisions of the two anti-voter laws, including one that denied the freedom to vote to Arizonans who did not list their birthplace on the state registration form and another that required county officials to investigate naturalized Arizonans’ citizenship status without good cause. This decision strikes down those provisions, while leaving other discriminatory investigation provisions and a proof of citizenship requirement for state and local elections on the books.

The decision, following a two-week trial in November 2023, comes after the District Court struck down other discriminatory provisions of H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 last September.

“This decision took important steps to stop anti-voter policies that make it harder for all Arizonans to cast a ballot – especially Latino and Native voters who have long faced significant barriers to accessing their fundamental freedom to vote,” said Danielle Lang, Senior Director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “While we are still reviewing the full scope of the decision, we are glad the Court removed some of the barriers that H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 have placed on Arizona’s students, Latino voters, and Native voters as they seek to exercise their freedom to vote.”

“This was a years-long fight that, thankfully, has finally concluded with the Judge’s decision,” said Alejandra Gomez, Executive Director at Living United for Change in Arizona.  “The proponents of this measure should take this ruling to heart - that when you attack voting rights in Arizona, we will exhaust all remedies available to ensure our people can vote securely, freely, and safely. We knew from the start that HB 2492 was a bill that was discriminatory in nature and was an attempt to silence voters who have been historically disenfranchised. If implemented this would have posed  drastic negative consequences for Arizona voters. That’s why we stood up to the Arizona legislature, and why we’re glad the judiciary was able to confirm that harm with this ruling.” 

“LULAC supports our Constitution and fighting back against the politics of hatred and division,” said Domingo Garcia, LULAC National President. “The court’s ruling is a win for all Americans, particularly historically disenfranchised Latino voters who believe that the right to vote is a fundamental guarantee that must not be compromised or denied.”

“In the state of Arizona, American Indian people fought a long political battle to win the right to vote,” says Maria Dadgar, Executive Director, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. “Without supporting these efforts for change, a great portion of Arizona’s citizens, would remain disenfranchised. This lawsuit is a reflections of ITCA’s deep commitment to protecting the right to vote for all.”

“We applaud the court’s ruling and thank all those involved in getting this important decision," said San Carlos Apache Chairman Terry Rambler. "Although tribes won the right to vote over 75 years ago, this case demonstrates that efforts to block this right continue today.  Self-serving legislation that attempts to discriminate and suppress voter turnout is truly un-American and supporters of it should be ashamed.  The San Carlos Apache Tribe will continue to stand with all individuals and organizations in ensuring that all Americans can exercise their constitutional right to vote.”

"The Arizona Coalition for Change celebrates the federal court's decision to strike down key discriminatory provisions of H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 as a significant victory for the voting rights of Arizonans" said Sena Mohammed, Executive Director of Arizona Coalition for Change.  "While we are heartened to see some of the most egregious barriers to voting removed, we remain concerned about the provisions left intact. Our fight for a truly inclusive democracy continues, as we stand committed to ensuring every Arizonan can exercise their fundamental right to vote without undue hindrance. We believe in a democracy that serves all its citizens, and we will keep pushing against policies that seek to silence our communities. This ruling is a step in the right direction, but our work is far from over. Together, with our partners, we will persist in our efforts to dismantle all forms of voter suppression in Arizona." 

“We are excited to celebrate a win today with our partners," said Kyle Nitschke, Co-Executive Director for the Arizona Students' Association. "We know there is much more work needed to be done to expand student voting access, but it’s a relief to see some of the worst provisions of these bills that would have affected students were found to violate federal law”

“The Court’s rulings provide vital protections to Arizona voters and send a clear message that the state cannot deprive its voters of the federal voting rights that protect every U.S. citizen in the country,” said Courtney Hostetler, Senior Counsel at Free Speech For People. “No eligible voter should be deprived of their right to vote for failing to provide the state with information irrelevant to their eligibility, or be subject to baseless scrutiny based on their status as naturalized citizens. We will continue to challenge efforts by elected officials to undermine federal voting rights or to prevent eligible voters from casting their ballot."

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the San Carlos Apache Tribe Department of Justice, Barton Mendez Soto PLLC, Free Speech for People and Mayer Brown, LLP filed the lawsuit on behalf of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), Arizona Democracy Resource Center (ADRC), Arizona Coalition for Change (ACC), the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) and the San Carlos Apache Tribe. 

Last September, the U.S. District Court struck down numerous discriminatory provisions of H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, including a restriction that would have allowed Arizona to reject federal voter registration forms submitted without additional documents proving their American citizenship. Voters are already required to attest to their citizenship – under penalty of perjury – to register to vote, and federal law prohibits states from imposing additional paperwork requirements to register for federal elections.

September’s ruling also struck down the requirement that applicants provide additional documentary proof of their residence when registering to vote using the federal voter registration form. That provision created yet another hurdle for Arizonans, and it was especially burdensome for Native voters who, due to disinvestment in Native communities, are more likely to lack the required documentation–including in some regions of the state where residents lack residential addresses altogether . 

Learn more about the case here.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Campaign Legal Center Files Ethics Complaints Against 41 U.S. Senate Candidates Nationwide for Missing Financial Disclosure Forms

Date
Body

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has filed a complaint with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics (Senate Ethics Committee), urging it to investigate 41 candidates running in 21 states who failed to file personal financial disclosure forms for their respective campaigns.  

All U.S. Senate candidates are required to file personal financial disclosure forms with the Senate Ethics Committee once they raise or spend at least $5,000 for their campaigns. Those who ignore these rules risk further investigation by the U.S. attorney general.  

“Whether the failure to file personal financial disclosure forms were accidental or intentional, voters across nearly two dozen states have been deprived of critical information about the financial interests of Senate candidates running to represent them,” said Kedric Payne, CLC’s Vice President, General Counsel, and Senior Director of Ethics. “Without this information, voters can’t know where these candidates’ financial interests and liabilities lie, and when conflicts of interest arise, they will be harder to uncover. In order to gain the public’s trust, the 41 Senate candidates identified in our complaint should not delay in sharing this information with the public.”  

The Senate Ethics Committee has a track record of referring purposeful omission of these forms to the U.S. Justice Department regardless of the electoral outcome of candidates’ campaigns. This committee must communicate transparently what the rules are and enforce them accordingly.  

Voters have a right to know the financial interests of candidates wanting to become their elected officials. When Senate candidates file this information in a timely and truthful manner, we can maintain an electoral and governance process built on transparency and public confidence. 

Issues
Ethics

In a Victory for Arizona Voters, AZ Superior Court Upholds Proposition 211

Date
Body

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Arizona’s Superior Court dismissed (link here) a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 211 (Prop 211) for the second time. This ballot measure, supported by 72 percent of Arizona voters in 2022, implements a robust traceback disclosure system to track the original sources of money spent in elections. It is the product of years of hard work by Voters’ Right to Know, which is represented by Campaign Legal Center Action (CLCA) in this case.  

“Today’s court ruling is a major win for voters in Arizona. Campaign spending transparency laws are protected by the First Amendment right of Americans to be well-informed voters. This precedent has once again been upheld by the courts,” said Trevor Potter, President of Campaign Legal Center. “Voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence their decisions at the ballot box. In 2022, Arizonans overwhelmingly supported Proposition 211, calling for robust traceback measures that will make it possible for them to identify the original sources of campaign spending in future. Let’s hope that other challenges to this law are similarly dismissed.”  

This is the second time that the Arizona Superior Court affirmed the constitutionality of Prop 211. The plaintiffs – Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two anonymous donors– filed the original lawsuit against the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) and the Arizona secretary of state on the grounds that traceback disclosure violated their free speech rights. After their initial lawsuit was rejected, they then returned to the court a month later with an amended suit that claimed the law, as applied to them specifically, was unconstitutional and therefore merited an exemption.  

In this decision, Arizona’s Superior Court has followed well-established Supreme Court precedent holding that disclosure protects the First Amendment right of voters to know who is trying to influence their vote and, ultimately, policymaking decisions by elected officials. Those seeking exemption, like the plaintiffs, must show that that they are likely to face serious harm from being identified as the original source of campaign contributions.  

Legal challenges like the one to Proposition 211 and other campaign finance disclosure laws remain, but today’s ruling represents a win for Arizonans, transparency, and for everyone who cares about reducing political corruption and enhancing informed participation in our democracy. 

Issues
Campaign Finance

Congress Can and Must Revitalize the Voting Rights Act

Date
Body

Today, as we approach the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, members of the U.S. Senate, led by Sen. Durbin and Sen. Warnock, reintroduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA). This pro-democracy legislation, named after the late civil rights icon, would amend and restore the full strength of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  

“The John Lewis VRAA will help America realize the true promise of our democracy: a government of, by, and for the people,” said Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “59 years ago, John Lewis and thousands of other civil rights champions shed their blood on the Edmund Pettus bridge in the fight for a better, more inclusive democracy. Today, we seek to honor their vision. Campaign Legal Center strongly endorses the John Lewis VRAA and urges legislators to work across party lines to protect the freedom to vote for all — a goal that transcends political divides.”  

Attacks on voting rights escalated after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, with the attacks growing even more persistent since 2020. In the past decade, Americans have seen cutbacks to early voting periods, sudden changes to polling place locations, passage of racially discriminatory maps, new and unnecessary roadblocks to casting ballots and restrictions on the right of nonpartisan civic engagement groups to help citizens participate in the democratic process.  

Notably, the VRAA would reestablish and revitalize the important preclearance system gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, as well as strengthen the right of voters to challenge discriminatory election laws, which the Court has also weakened in recent years. These essential reforms will protect Black and brown voters throughout the voting process and help ensure every American can participate in our democracy.      

 

 

Issues
Voting and Elections
Redistricting

Defending the right of Maine voters to have elections free from foreign influence

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. - In November, over 86% of voters in Maine supported the passage of Question 2, a ballot measure designed to ban foreign spending in state elections. But this morning, the right of Maine voters to have elections free from foreign interference faced its latest challenge, when an oral argument was heard in the U.S. District Court of Maine in a challenge to this new law from four different plaintiffs.

After over three hours of argument, the court stated that it anticipated releasing its decision by the end of February, when the law is slated to go into effect.

“It feels strange that this even needs to be said, but foreign entities should not be able to spend money to influence our elections. Mainers deserve a government that is responsive to them, not foreign interests,” said Tara Malloy, CLC’s Senior Director for Appellate Litigation & Strategy. “By barring entities owned or influenced by foreign governments from spending to influence state elections, Question 2 empowers Maine voters, restores their right to democratic self-governance and reduces the power of wealthy special interests.”

This slate of lawsuits is just another example of wealthy special interests using campaign money to try and shape political decision-making at all levels of government — and oftentimes at the expense of everyone else.

For more, read our latest blog on what’s at stake with these lawsuits, and explore our action page to better understand why it’s so critical for voters in Maine to have elections free from foreign money.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Defending Maine’s Ability to Keep Foreign Money Out of State Elections

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center is participating in the defense of Maine Question 2, known as the “Prohibit Foreign Spending in Elections Initiative,” in four lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the initiative. CLC represents Protect Maine Elections, the ballot measure committee that was founded to help draft and enact Question 2.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In December 2023, four separate lawsuits were filed in a federal court in Maine seeking to overturn Question 2, Maine’s newly enacted initiative that bars entities owned or influenced by foreign governments from spending to influence state elections. The plaintiffs in these actions include several foreign government-owned utility companies based in Maine with a history of heavy campaign spending in state ballot referenda.  

Maine voters overwhelmingly approved Question 2 in November 2023 with over 86% voting in support, the largest margin of approval in the 115-year history of state ballot questions.

The initiative represented the culmination of a multi-year effort of both Maine legislators and citizens to correct loopholes in federal and state law that had allowed foreign-owned domestic corporations to spend tens of millions of dollars in state candidate and ballot initiative elections, undermining Maine’s commitment to local democratic self-governance.

The foreign money initiative comprises three main components to counter this influx of foreign money into Maine governance. The heart of the law is its ban on electoral spending by corporations in which a foreign government has an ownership share of more than 5%. Then, to prevent circumvention of this foreign money ban, the law also directs media entities to establish internal “due diligence policies” designed to ensure that they do not broadcast prohibited foreign government-sponsored election ads. Finally, the initiative also contains a transparency measure, requiring foreign government-influenced entities to include brief disclaimers identifying themselves on any public communications made for the purpose of lobbying state or local officials.

The plaintiffs in these four cases challenge all these provisions, arguing that they infringe on their exercise of First Amendment rights and are preempted by federal campaign finance law. But as Protect Maine Elections explained in its filings with the district court, the U.S. Supreme Court has already approved the federal foreign money ban, affirming that citizens have “a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.”  

This interest is equally compelling with respect to efforts by states to prevent foreign nationals from spending money in state and local elections, and in particular ballot referenda, where voters participate in direct democracy to enact their own laws. Ten other states — from California to Maryland — have also enacted laws like Maine’s to prohibit foreign nationals from spending to influence their citizen-initiated ballot measure processes.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have also made clear that the interest in preventing foreign influence extends to spending by “foreign corporations.” In fact, these precedents may allow laws restricting election spending by corporations with any foreign investors — but Maine takes a much more targeted approach. The initiative uses a 5% ownership threshold, relying on a well-recognized benchmark for corporate control already incorporated into existing federal securities law, and focusing on only the small fraction of domestic corporations that are controlled by foreign governments.

The disclaimer requirement is also key to shining a light on attempts by foreign governments to influence state and local policy. As Protect Maine Elections pointed out, this disclaimer requirement functions as a state counterpart to longstanding federal disclosure requirements, for instance in the Foreign Alien Registration Act, that also seek to ensure that citizens are aware of lobbying by foreign interests and are apprised the identity of their lobbyists and policies they are advocating.

What’s At Stake?

When foreign entities are able to spend to influence our elections, it becomes harder for ordinary Americans to participate in the democratic process and feel like they have a voice in our government.  

By enacting Question 2, Mainers joined a wave of over a dozen other states and localities from coast to coast that have similar sought to shield their state elections from foreign influence and to vindicate their citizens’ interest in local self-governance. 

Subscribe to