Campaign Legal Center (CLC) previously filed a complaint against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for failing to disclose gifts of travel he received from a nonprofit as required by Florida’s ethics laws. Since then, CLC has learned of more undisclosed plane travel that Governor DeSantis took from wealthy special interests going as far back as 2018. CLC’s Kedric Payne—Vice President, General Counsel, and Senior Director of Ethics—released the following statement in response to this new development:  

“Floridians have a right to know and be assured that their elected officials are acting in the public’s best interest. Government officials complying with the state’s transparency laws is essential for maintaining public trust in these institutions, and with our democracy as a whole.  

Building upon our previous action from July, Campaign Legal Center has filed a supplemental complaint against Governor Ron DeSantis for failing to report at least eight previously undisclosed plane trips in 2018. Under Florida law, state government officials like Gov. DeSantis are required to report travel gifts costing over $100 to the Florida Ethics Commission by the last day of each calendar quarter.  

Despite Gov. DeSantis’s political ambitions at the national level, he is still bound by state ethics laws in Florida. His failure to report these trips, paid for by wealthy special interests, is a clear violation of the law and risks eroding public trust. We urge the Florida Commission on Ethics to investigate past and present omissions by Gov. DeSantis to report plane trips he received as gifts.”  

Yesterday, in a win for the voters of Georgia, a federal district court allowed a lawsuit challenging anti-voter provisions in Georgia’s S.B. 202 to proceed to trial. The U.S. District Court ruled that elements of the S.B. 202 law could violate nonpartisan civic engagement groups’ right to free speech. The case can now head to trial. 

The Voter Participation Center and the Center for Voter Information filed suit in April 2021 to block enforcement of parts of Georgia’s anti-voter law, S.B. 202, that restrict the distribution of vote-by-mail applications to voters. The lawsuit alleges that S.B. 202 violates nonpartisan civic engagement groups’ First Amendment right to core political speech by restricting their ability to engage with voters. In so doing, these provisions create deliberate barriers to voting, primarily in communities of color, restricting Georgians’ freedom to vote. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Smith Gambrell Russell and Councill, and Gunnemann & Chally represented the non-profits in their lawsuit.

“All of the work that we have done is aimed at one mission: to make sure that underrepresented voters are able to have their voice heard in their democracy. We are optimistic that this trial will give Georgia voters their day in court, and show that the provisions in S.B. 202 would make it more difficult to vote, especially for the New American Majority – people of color, young people and unmarried women,” said Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Voter Participation Center (VPC) and Center for Voter Information (CVI). “This law makes it virtually impossible to run vote-by-mail application programs that have been proven time and time again to help Georgians cast their ballots. That’s why we fought back – to protect programs that we know help eligible Georgia voters. We reject this assault on democracy and will keep working to ensure every eligible American can make their voice heard.” 

“Georgia’s election experience has demonstrated the overwhelming need for election laws that allow voters to cast their ballot safely and freely, so that every voice is heard and elections reflect the will of the voters,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “S.B. 202 limits core political speech protected by the First Amendment, and we are glad to have the opportunity to prove that in court. At the end of the day, S.B. 202's effort to restrict civic engagement groups ultimately punishes voters, who otherwise might not be able to make their voice heard in our democracy.”   

“Voting rights are civil rights,” said Kadie D’Ambrosio, counsel at Councill, Gunnemann & Chally. “This case presents important issues affecting Georgia voters, and we’re pleased to participate in this effort to protect the democratic process.”

S.B. 202, a massive anti-voter bill passed in March 2021, made numerous changes to Georgia’s election system that, among other things, prohibited civic engagement groups from effectively distributing vote-by-mail applications. Specifically, S.B. 202 required all such applications to bear a false and misleading disclaimer, banned the personalization of vote-by-mail applications, and imposed administrative burdens that would have made it nearly impossible for nonpartisan civic engagement groups to distribute vote-by-mail applications to voters. 

Many Georgia voters rely on third-party groups to provide them with prefilled and preprinted absentee ballot applications that they can easily review and submit to their county elections official without need for a broadband internet connection or access to a printer or scanner at home. This was particularly true during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, but remains the case for Black and brown voters, voters in rural areas, and young voters who are more likely to lack the means or opportunity to obtain and prepare vote-by-mail ballot applications on their own. 

This lawsuit has already spurred a legislative change to fix and remove the false and misleading disclaimers that S.B. 202 required all vote-by-mail applications to include. The remaining elements of the lawsuit will be heard at trial in 2024. 

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American’s rights to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process.

The Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information are non-profit, non-partisan organizations founded in 2003 to help members of the New American Majority – unmarried women, people of color and young people – register and vote. Since then, the organizations have helped over 6 million people register and cast ballots.

In a victory for Arizona voters, a federal judge struck down last week numerous discriminatory, anti-voter provisions of two recently enacted Arizona laws, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, that undermined Arizonans’ freedom to vote and violated federal law. 

Notably, the U.S. District Court’s decision prevents Arizona from rejecting voter registration forms submitted without documentary proof of citizenship, which discriminates against Latino citizens, who already face unique barriers to voting. 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 requirements to register for federal elections.  

The decision also invalidated the requirement that applicants provide documentary proof of their residence when registering to vote. 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. 

“Our democracy works best when every voter can participate. Today’s ruling validates that fundamental principle of American democracy,” said Danielle Lang, Senior Director of Voting Rights at Campaign Legal Center. “This is a victory for every Arizonan, but especially for Latino and Native voters who have long faced significant barriers to accessing their fundamental freedom to vote. This much is clear: no voter should be excluded from our democracy just because of where they live or where they are from. We look forward to continuing the fight to defend Arizonans’ freedom to vote on the remaining provisions of these anti-voter laws.” 

"The right to vote is a fundamental right that should be accessible to all citizens in this nation. We should be working to make it easier to vote rather than focusing on excluding voters from the democratic process,” said Alejandra Gomez, Executive Director of Living United for Change in Arizona. “Today is a major victory for democracy, and LUCHA will continue its work to defend Arizonans’ right to vote; whether it is in the streets or the courts, we will be present." 

"LULAC is winning the battle for voting rights, and this historic decision in Arizona is only the first," said Domingo Garcia, LULAC National President. "Let this be the clarion call for justice in the federal courts of Texas, Iowa, Florida, and anywhere else where election fixers try to deny us our constitutional rights!"

“This court ruling is a resounding victory for the people of Arizona and a reaffirmation of the core principles of our democracy. The striking down of discriminatory provisions in H.B. 2492 and H.B 2243 sends a powerful message; that no one’s right to vote should be infringed upon based on their ethnicity or the documentation they possess” said Sena Mohammed, Executive Director for Arizona Coalition for Change. “We must ensure that every Arizonan, regardless of their background, has an equal and unobstructed path to exercise their fundamental right to vote. This decision is a step towards a more inclusive and just democracy for all.”

“This is another court ruling protecting student voting rights in Arizona.” said Shayna Stevens, Co-Executive Director of the Arizona Students’ Association. “Arizona students deserve to have access to fair voter registration and voting processes without additional barriers to exercising their right to vote. ASA celebrates this ruling as a victory ensuring students have the ability to participate in our Democracy regardless of their background. It is ASA’s hope that this ruling prevents future bills attacking our voting rights; but we are prepared to continue defending all Arizonans’ rights to vote at the state legislature, the ballot box and in the courts.”

It was not until the Snyder Act of 1924 that Native Americans were enfranchised, but not in Arizona. Only through the 1948 case of Porter v. Hall were Arizona tribal members finally able to vote. “Sadly, this was an effort by the legislature to step back in time and make it harder for Native Americans to vote,” said San Carlos Apache Tribe Chairman Terry Rambler. “Disenfranchising voters is wrong and un-American.  Fortunately Judge Bolton recognized this fact and our right to vote and be heard remains protected.”

“Too many Arizona voters—particularly voters of color—face significant barriers to exercising their right to vote,” said Courtney Hostetler, Senior Counsel for Free Speech For People. “This ruling removes some of the unlawful hurdles that the challenged laws put in the way of Arizona voters, and demonstrates that no state can deprive voters of the voting rights guaranteed to them by federal law. We celebrate this decision and look forward to challenging the remaining barriers posed by these vote suppression laws.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the Department of Justice of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, 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. 

The challenged law returned Arizona to its arbitrary ‘dual-registration’ system, where a voter’s right to vote in federal elections is contingent on which form, state or federal, the voter uses to register. The law also prohibited voters who do not produce specific documents from using vote-by-mail or early voting and prevented them from voting in presidential elections at all. Today’s decision prevents Arizona from enforcing those provisions. 

The decision also prohibits unlawfully purging voters from the registration rolls within 90 days of an election and rejecting registration forms that do not have the citizenship box ‘checked’-- even if proof of citizenship is submitted.