Under Washington State law, commercial advertisers that run election-related advertising must maintain certain records about the ads purchased on their platforms and disclose that information if requested by a member of the public. The required information includes the content of the ad, the identity of the person who paid for it, and the amount paid. Social media companies must also disclose the demographics of the audiences targeted and reached by the ad.  

Between 2018 and 2021, Meta (the parent company of Facebook) repeatedly failed to comply with this law. In response to the Washington Attorney General’s enforcement action concerning these violations, Meta challenged the constitutionality of the law. In 2022, a trial court in Washington found for the State, ruling that the challenged law covered “a very appropriate subject for disclosure, and . . . is very constitutional,” and ordering a $25 million penalty against the platform. Meta appealed this decision, arguing that the law violates its First Amendment rights.  

CLC, joined by the League of Women Voters of Washington, Fix Democracy First and the Brennan Center for Justice, has filed an amicus brief supporting the State of Washington in defending the disclosure law. CLC’s brief explains why the law is important in enabling state advocacy groups like the League of Women Voters and Fix Democracy First to obtain vital information about who is financing the advertising influencing voters’ choices. The brief also explains how the significant rise in online political spending presents a new threat to democracy by facilitating the spread of misinformation and exacerbating political polarization. Laws requiring transparency and disclosure can help address this problem.

What's At Stake?

Washington’s law is consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent on campaign finance disclosures, and in fact advances First Amendment principles by contributing to a more informed voting public.   

As political advertising moves increasingly online and federal regulations have failed to keep up — and tech platforms have failed to self-regulate — disclosure laws like Washington state’s have become an important protection for voters. Such laws make it harder to spread disinformation without accountability and easier for voters to assess both who is behind each advertisement as well as the full range of advertisements being fielded. Disclosure thus provides a key piece to solving the ever-growing puzzle of online electioneering as platforms give advertisers the ability to microtarget ads to specific, narrow audiences and to spread political messages widely and anonymously.  

North Dakota law requires absentee and mail ballots to be postmarked by the day before Election Day. These ballots are then counted when they are received by election officials in the thirteen days between Election Day and the meeting of the Canvassing Board. North Dakota is one of several states that requires ballots received before the vote canvassing deadline to be counted so long as they were cast before Election Day. 

In July 2023, Mark Splonskowski, the County Auditor of Burleigh County, North Dakota, filed a lawsuit alleging that North Dakota law allowing lawfully cast ballots postmarked prior to Election Day to be counted after Election Day violates federal law which sets Election Day as a single specific day. He argues that state and federal law conflict and as an election official he would be put in the position of having to choose which to follow. The state of North Dakota is defending the law, arguing—among other things—that there is no conflict between state and federal law. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) represents the League of Women Voters of North Dakota (LWVND) as an intervenor-defendant in this suit. 

WHAT’S AT STAKE 

The challenge seeks to eliminate North Dakota’s uniform deadline for casting mail and absentee ballots, which would lead to widespread confusion and disenfranchisement for voters who cast absentee ballots or otherwise vote by mail. LWVND conducts voter education and get-out-the-vote efforts that would be directly impacted by a change in when mail ballots must be returned. And the many LWVND members who vote regularly by mail would face uncertainty and the possibility of having their properly-cast ballots rejected because of delays from the U.S. Postal Service. 

The Plaintiff’s claims rest on the assertion that federal statutes setting the time for Election Day also implicitly require all votes to be received and counted on or before Election Day. Courts have regularly rejected these types of challenges, including most recently in Illinois, on the grounds that they conflate the requirement for when a ballot must be cast with when the ballot must be received or counted by election officials. The ballots at issue are lawfully cast in accordance with state law prior to Election Day, and nothing in the federal election day laws sanctions, much less requires, rejecting valid and timely cast votes.