Salt Lake City, UT -- This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the dangerous “independent state legislature” theory presented in the Moore v. Harper case from North Carolina. The Court  reinforced the long-held rule that state legislatures regulating federal elections are bound by the important checks and balances provided by state constitutions and enforced by state courts. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) represents the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWV Utah), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and a bipartisan group of individual voters in a lawsuit challenging Utah’s gerrymandered congressional voting map and asking the court to reinstate Prop 4, a citizen-led initiative that prohibited partisan gerrymandering.  

CLC, LWV Utah and MWEG issued the following joint statement after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Moore v. Harper: 

“In the Moore v. Harper decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the well-established role that state courts play in protecting voters' constitutional rights in federal elections, which is precisely what we are asking Utah’s Supreme Court to do. 

Through the passage of Prop 4, Utahns made it clear that they wanted to prohibit gerrymandering and assign an independent and nonpartisan commission the lead role in drawing Utah’s electoral districts. Utah politicians repealed these limits and then ignored both the will of voters and their own state constitution by drawing an unfair voting map behind closed doors that divides communities and prioritizes their political party’s interests above the interests of voters.  

Utah voters have a right to choose their own politicians, not the other way around. We look forward to defending Utahns’ rights to free and fair elections at the Utah Supreme Court on July 11.”

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Moore v. Harper rejecting the dangerous “independent state legislature” theory and affirming the long-held norm that state legislatures are bound by the important checks and balances provided by state constitutions and enforced by state courts.  

In response, Paul Smith, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), issued the following statement: 

“We are heartened that the Supreme Court has rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory and affirmed the role of state courts in ensuring that voters have an equal voice in our democracy.    

Today's decision means the law remains as it has been for more than two centuries: state courts and state constitutions can continue to facilitate a more transparent, inclusive and accountable democracy.  

While the Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for democracy, the fight for fair maps in North Carolina and across the country is far from over. CLC will continue fighting for fair maps so voters can feel confident that they choose their representatives, not the other way around.”  

Background: 

Moore v. Harper is centered on a gerrymandered congressional map in North Carolina. In 2021, North Carolina lawmakers crafted a congressional map that gave their own political party an unfair advantage in elections.   

North Carolina voters took the map to state court and initially won in the North Carolina Supreme Court. However, the state legislature asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case based on a fringe legal concept known as the “independent state legislature” theory. 

That dangerous theory would have given politicians nearly unchecked power to manipulate voting maps and pass state laws that thwart the will of voters by undermining the freedom to vote. 

Last October, CLC and eight other organizations spanning the political spectrum filed a friend-of-the-court brief encouraging the Supreme Court to preserve the role of state courts and independent redistricting commissions in making congressional redistricting more democratic and fair. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Toronto-based ECN Capital Corporation (“ECN Capital”) for violating federal campaign financial laws prohibiting foreign national contributions.

Florida campaign finance records show that from 2018 to 2022, ECN Capital gave over $100,000 in foreign national contributions to state political committees. Recipients of this funding include the past two gubernatorial campaigns for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, in addition to Friends of Ron DeSantis, the state-level PAC that illegally transferred $82.5 million in soft money — money that isn’t subject to federal campaign finance laws — to Never Back Down, a federal super PAC supporting DeSantis’s current presidential bid.

“The recent, unprecedented rise of ‘soft money’ in federal elections undermines the crucial campaign finance laws that exist to uphold transparency, combat corruption, and safeguard the electoral process,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center. “As this complaint shows, foreign money may already be influencing the 2024 presidential election, which obviously undermines voters’ ability to trust that the electoral process and their government are truly serving their interests.”

For decades, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) has prohibited foreign nationals – foreign corporations included – from making contributions in connection with any local, state, or federal elections. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from participating in a decision-making processes related to making political contributions.

U.S.-registered subsidiaries of ECN Capital also made contributions to federal and state elections totaling over $122,000 in this same four-year period. Given that ECN Capital’s subsidiaries appear to exist only on paper, ECN Capital’s officers — several of whom appear to be Canadian nationals — most likely participated in decision-making around this group of contributions, such that the contributions from the U.S.-based subsidiaries also violated federal campaign finance laws.

The FEC has taken action in the recent past on illegal foreign contributions, even in an era that has seen the Commission regularly fail to uphold the law. As the sole government agency tasked with enforcing federal campaign finance law, enforcing the prohibitions against foreign influence are an important part of the FEC’s mission.

The FEC should investigate this political spending by ECN Capitol and take appropriate action to uphold and enforce the law.

Phoenix, AZ – In a major win for the rights of voters in Arizona, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, has upheld Proposition 211. Also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act, the law implements robust traceback disclosure, giving Arizonans information about the original sources of money spent to influence their votes.  

Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 211 in November 2022, with 72% of voters in support. The ballot measure was the result of years of hard work, written and supported by Voters’ Right to Know, which is represented by Campaign Legal Center Action (CLCA) in this case. 

One month after the law’s passage, the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two anonymous plaintiffs filed suit against the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) and the Arizona secretary of state, alleging that the law is unconstitutional and seeking to prevent its implementation. CLCA, working on behalf of Voters’ Right to Know, intervened in the case to defend its constitutionality under the Arizona Constitution.  

“To reduce political corruption and give citizens the information they need to participate in our democracy, we need real transparency about who is spending big money on elections,” said Terry Goddard, former Attorney General of Arizona and Chairman of Voters' Right to Know. “Prior to the passage of this law, Arizona’s campaign finance system led to our state being described as ‘one of the most pro-dark-money statutes imaginable’ – thanks to our voters, we now have one of the most robust disclosure systems in the country. This ruling confirms the wisdom and the will of the people of Arizona, who voted so strongly in favor of transparency.” 

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld disclosure and disclaimer laws like Prop 211 as important transparency measures that protect citizens’ right to be informed voters,” said David Kolker, Senior Counsel for Campaign Finance at CLCA. “This law provides voters with essential information about the people and forces behind campaign spending – allowing them to make an informed choice at the ballot box – without interfering with a spender’s right to speak.” 
 
With this ruling, the Superior Court has followed well-established precedent that disclosure, rather than violating free speech, serves to protect Americans’ First Amendment right to be well-informed voters. While challenges to Prop 211 and other campaign finance disclosure laws remain, today is a win for Arizonans, for transparency, and for everyone who cares about reducing political corruption and enhancing informed participation in our democracy.
 

See the ruling here.