For more than 40 years, private individuals and groups have brought claims under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) to challenge discriminatory districts and ensure that voters of color have an equal opportunity to have their voices heard in our democracy.  

Just this past term, in Allen v. Milligan, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a case brought by individual voters challenging racially discriminatory maps passed by the Alabama legislature. However, today a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit of Appeals upheld a lower court decision over voting maps in Arkansas, ruling that private individuals and groups cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2.  

The 8th Circuit’s ruling contradicts more than 40 years of court decisions awarding relief to private litigants under the VRA and conflicts with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Allen v. Milligan. Moreover, the ruling is out of step with other circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, which just this month affirmed the right of private plaintiffs to bring claims under Section 2. 

In response, Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“Eliminating individual people's right to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act runs contrary to settled law, common sense and any basic concept of fairness: when the government discriminates against people, they should have a right to fight back in court. 

If today’s erroneous ruling were to be upheld, it would have a significant impact on the rights of voters of color to challenge discriminatory redistricting maps. Private suits under the VRA are critical to ensuring that voters of color are able to secure fair maps and make their voices heard. 

The fight is far from over.  CLC will continue working alongside our partners to fight back against today’s clearly incorrect decision and make sure that voters of color can continue to use Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to secure fair maps and make their voices heard in our democracy.” 

CLC submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case decided today, Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas, on behalf of former U.S. Department of Justice officials arguing that private lawsuits are critical to enforcing the VRA. Historically, the majority of Section 2 cases have been brought by private litigants — with thousands of litigants bringing such cases over the past few decades. 

The Eighth Circuit's ruling — which applies to Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — provides that only the Attorney General of the United States can bring lawsuits to challenge discriminatory maps under the VRA, though it leaves open the possibility that private groups can seek relief under other federal statutes.

Fargo, ND – Today, a federal judge ruled that North Dakota’s legislative maps discriminate against Native voters by denying them an equal voice in our democracy. The ruling comes after the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and individual Native voters challenged the maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for illegally diluting the Native vote. 

“Working together, tribes can accomplish anything. This decision shows the impact tribal nations can make when they unite to stop the cycle of exclusion and underrepresentation that has for generations prevented too many Native people from voting and from having a say in state-level decision-making,” said Turtle Mountain Chippewa Chair Jamie Azure. 

Spirit Lake Tribal Chair Lonna J. Street agreed. “Native people have the right to vote in North Dakota and the Spirit Lake Tribe will defend that right each election if we must, however, this case could have been avoided if the people elected to positions of power abided by the laws that protect voters,” said Chair Street. 

The 2020 Census showed the number of Native voters in North Dakota grew to 5.9% of the state’s voting age population, yet the state legislature adopted a legislative district map that reduced the number of candidates Native voters could elect in northeast North Dakota. The court ruled that the plan diluted Native voting strength by drawing map boundaries that cracked apart communities near the Spirit Lake Reservation and packed voters near the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation into a separate subdistrict. 

In the first election using the map that the court has today invalidated, Native voters could only elect two of the 141 state legislators. For the first time since 1991, no Native American serves in the North Dakota State Senate as a result of map passed by the legislature. 

The case, Turtle Mountain Chippewa et al v. Michael Howe, was the first racial vote dilution case tried after the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed Section 2 of the VRA in Allen v. Milligan in June. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and The Law Office of Bryan L. Sells represent the plaintiffs in their suit. Tim Purdon of Robins Kaplan LLP represents the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe.

“We applaud the Court’s ruling, which helps ensure North Dakota’s Native voters can make their voices heard and elect leaders who will best serve their communities,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “North Dakota’s Native voters, who deserve an equal voice in our democracy, will no longer have their voices drowned out by unfair maps.” 

“Native people in North Dakota have had to fight for generations for the state to honor their right to vote, and with this decision, Spirit Lake and Turtle Mountain voters now gain what they have always asked for — the fair opportunity for equal representation that the Voting Rights Act requires,” said NARF Staff Attorney Michael Carter. 

The judge found that the 2021 North Dakota legislative map deprives "Native American voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, in violation of Section 2 of the VRA." The findings of fact issued by the court noted "...under the 2021 redistricting plan, Native Americans hold zero seats in the Senate and two House seats. Either of the [Tribes'] proposed plans would yield one Senate seat and three House seats. While certainly not dispositive, this obvious disparity as to proportionality is further evidence of vote dilution under the totality of circumstances."

The court ordered the North Dakota Legislative Assembly to abandon the map and replace it with a VRA-compliant map before the November 2024 election. By December 22, 2023, the state must provide a map that does not violate Section 2 of the VRA. The Turtle Mountain Chippewa and Spirit Lake Tribes may provide expert analysis and propose any changes by January 5, 2024.

More information about the case can be found here. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center and 24 partners and allies submitted a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), urging the nation’s highest court to adopt a meaningful and consequential ethics code of conduct.   

Following a series of ethics lapses by multiple justices, which gained notoriety throughout 2023, SCOTUS announced on Monday that it had adopted a “code of conduct.” Unfortunately, this code consists largely of a series of recommendations for the way justices should conduct themselves with no tangible mechanism for enforcement — falling fall short of the  material changes CLC and the letter’s co-signers have long been calling for.  

“Despite the Supreme Court of United States unveiling a ‘code of conduct’ this week, little has changed. The new code fails to provide for any enforcement, making the prospect of real accountability for ethics violations unlikely. The result is a federal judiciary that will continue to accumulate public scrutiny and distrust,” said Delaney Marsco, Senior Legal Counsel for Ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “This is why Campaign Legal Center and 24 partner groups and allies have joined together to directly call on the Court to take the reasonable and logical steps necessary to change the status quo. A commitment to accountability through ethics enforcement is necessary to restore public trust in the Supreme Court.” 

CLC and 24 partner groups and allies are calling on the Court to ensure its code has a compliance mechanism. Specifically, SCOTUS should create an internal ethics office that will provide the justices with consistent guidance as to how this code of conduct — and other applicable rules — should be followed, as well as an internal ethics office to investigate possible violations. 

These steps are the clearest way forward for the nation’s highest court to build public trust. Similar ethics rules are already in place for members of the executive and legislative branches and exist for judges serving on federal courts. It is critical for the public’s trust in our democratic institutions that the highest court in our nation is held to at least those same ethical standards, and that justices are held accountable when they violate those standards.  

Accusations of ethics violations by individual Supreme Court justices have increased in recent years, with six of the nine current justices facing scrutiny for possible ethics issues since late 2022. At a time when public trust in the nation’s highest court is at a historic low, the reforms proposed by CLC and its partners merit serious consideration and adoption by the Supreme Court.  

Read the full letter here.

Bozeman, Montana — Today, the League of Women Voters of Montana (LWVMT), represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Upper Seven Law, filed a motion in Montana state court to block HB 892, a voter registration restriction that threatens Montanans’ freedom to vote. The groups argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague and imperils both Montanans’ freedom to vote and the important democracy-building work of nonpartisan civic engagement organizations like LWVMT. LWVMT initially filed suit against the law on October 31.  

HB 892 was signed into law on May 22, 2023 with the stated purpose of preventing people from voting twice in the same election, an action which is already prohibited under Montana and federal law. But HB 892 goes much further than this. HB 892 makes voters and voter registration organizations responsible for ensuring that registration applicants somehow deregister from a previous address. Furthermore, HB 892 could punish voters who do not provide detailed information—even if it is unintentionally omitted—about their previous place of residence when applying to register to vote. 

Under HB 892, if a voter trying to register is not able to comply with these requirements, they risk felony prosecution, including penalties of up to 18 months in prison, fines up to $5,000, or both. 

“We agree that voters should not vote twice in the same election, but HB 892 goes beyond penalizing double voting to threaten the act of registering to vote itself,” said Nancy Leifer, president of the League of Women Voters of Montana.  “HB 892 weakens democracy in Montana by discouraging voters from registering to vote. It also threatens the critical voter services work the League does for voters across the state. The League is ready to defend the rights of Montana voters and protect their freedom to vote.”

“HB 892 punishes voters,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “It would punish grandparents moving into an elderly-care facility or students moving across the state for school, all for the ‘crime’ of not deregistering to vote or not being able to provide complete information about previous registration. This law is unnecessary and cuts deeply into Montanans’ fundamental rights, and we look forward to joining the League of Women Voters of Montana to challenge it in state court.” 

Federal law places responsibility for deregistering voters on election officials, not voters. Also, since both Montana law and federal law already criminalize double voting, HB 892 only serves to punish voters for innocent voter conduct. HB 892 appears likely to disproportionately harm voters in already-vulnerable populations, including housing-insecure individuals, elderly voters moving into assisted living facilities, students, Native voters, formerly incarcerated Montanans, active-duty service members and veterans, low-income voters, and voters who otherwise move frequently.

Additionally, because of the criminal penalties it attaches to voter registration, HB 892 discourages nonpartisan civic engagement organizations like LWVMT from widely spreading their pro-voting message and doing the vital work of voter registration,  outreach and engagement.  This is a violation of the LWVMT’s constitutionally protected rights.  

More information about the case can be found here.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it has adopted a so-called "code of conduct" following recent allegations of ethics lapses. Trevor Potter, President of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and a Republican Former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), released the following statement: 

“Campaign Legal Center has long advocated for the Supreme Court to engage in efforts to bind itself to a code of ethical conduct. At first glance, the 'ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct' of the Supreme Court, released on November 13, 2023, may seem like a step in the right direction, but the reality is that this statement by the Court does not constitute a binding ethics code or rule and does not satisfy basic principles of government ethics under any branch of government at any level.

The 'code' merely lays out principles that justices ‘should,’ but are not required to abide by. The lack of any true measure or method of enforcing this 'code' makes it clear that this is little more than an effort to assuage public outrage without assuming any actual accountability for ethics in our nation’s highest court.  

Every other branch of government has a dedicated body responsible for enforcing its ethics code, yet the Court does not even attempt to create one for itself here. This 'code' changes nothing about the existing system of ethics self-policing in the Supreme Court. In fact, buried at the end of the document, the Court says they may rely on a variety of sources in interpreting the requirements of the ethics code — business as usual.   

This 'code' manages to provide a lot of suggestions, but no dedicated entities or clear processes to interpret the code of conduct, investigate violations and enforce compliance. If this is the best the nine justices of the Supreme Court can do, then Congress must act to ensure actual accountability for ethics.”