Today, in a historic victory for Wisconsin voters, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers signed into law fair, non-gerrymandered maps that ensure Wisconsinites will vote in constitutional state legislative districts in time for the 2024 election. This means, for the first time since 2011, Wisconsin voters will have a meaningful say in who controls the statehouse.

Today’s development follows the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s momentous decision last December striking down Wisconsin’s non-contiguous state legislative maps as unconstitutional. 

That decision stemmed from a lawsuit brought in August 2023 by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC) alongside Law Forward, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, and Arnold & Porter on behalf of individual Wisconsin voters who were harmed by the unconstitutional state legislative maps.

“For thirteen years, Wisconsinites suffered under unfair and unconstitutional maps — but today, that changes,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center and a native Wisconsinite. “The adopted maps represent a massive win for democracy, respect communities, and give a voice to Wisconsinites who have been silenced for far too long by gerrymandered maps deliberately designed to drown them out. These maps give all Wisconsinites — no matter where they live in the state or which party they support — a fair shot to make their voice heard in 2024.” 

After the December 22, 2023 decision striking down the state legislative maps, parties were given a deadline of January 12, 2024 to submit map proposals. On February 13, the Wisconsin State Legislature voted to adopt the maps proposed to the Court by Governor Tony Evers without any changes and, today, he signed them into law. According to the analysis of the Court’s neutral consultants, respected leaders in their field, these maps meet Wisconsin’s constitutional requirements and are politically neutral.

“Wisconsin is indebted to the 19 voters who bravely took a stand and acted, breaking the gerrymander that has stifled voters’ voices for the past 13 years,” said Dan Lenz, staff counsel for Law Forward. “Our clients now have a real chance to enact the change they have been working towards. For democracy to work for us all it must include us all, and this important effort ensures our elected representatives represent us instead of trying to rule over us. Today's win builds on the decade of litigation and organizing work for fair maps in Wisconsin and is a credit to the team including the Campaign Legal Center, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum, Arnold and Porter and Law Forward.”

Thirteen years ago, Wisconsin lawmakers, behind closed doors and in defiance of the state constitution, drew new district lines that essentially guaranteed one-party GOP control of the legislature. In 2021 the Legislature’s proposed districts, which were ultimately adopted, increased the partisan skew of the 2011 maps and perpetuated blatantly noncontiguous legislative districts. December’s decision struck those down – and today’s development ensures Wisconsin voters will have the opportunity to vote under fair maps in 2024.

More details about the case can be found here. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the super PAC “Last Best Place PAC” failed to file the required pre-election independent expenditure report despite running an ad expressly opposing Tim Sheehy, a U.S. Senate candidate from Montana. 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), independent expenditures — communications that expressly advocate for or against a clearly identified candidate — of more than $10,000 made more than 20 days before an election must be reported to the FEC within 48 hours. Despite producing an ad that appears to fit these parameters, Last Best Place PAC never submitted a 48-hour independent-expenditure report to the FEC, and the super PAC’s 2023 end-of-year disclosure report stated that it had made no independent expenditures. 

“Voters will be facing an influx of political ads as we get closer to this year’s primaries, and they have a right to know who is spending to influence their vote and our government,” said Erin Chlopak, senior director of campaign finance at CLC. “Super PACs and other groups that fail to properly disclose information about their funding sources and spending are depriving voters of critical information. As the only agency tasked with enforcing federal campaign finance law, the FEC must ensure that groups like ‘Last Best Place PAC’ are transparent about how they are raising and spending money to influence elections.” 

Last Best Place PAC, which has reportedly spent over $5.8 million on ads attacking Sheehy since its inception on September 5, 2023, recently filed its 2023 year-end report, which revealed its ties to the national Democratic Party: It received all of its funding from Majority Forward — a group that supports the Democratic leadership-aligned super PAC SMP (formerly Senate Majority PAC), and spent virtually all of its money to pay a previously unknown Virginia-based vendor, “Mountain Media,” which shares an address with “Old Town Media,” a media buyer that works exclusively with Democratic candidates and PACs.

By not timely disclosing its independent expenditures, as the law requires, Last Best Place PAC helped obscure who was truly behind obvious efforts to influence the Republican primary election for the U.S. Senate in Montana, undermining voters’ ability to evaluate its ads with a complete understanding of the group’s apparent motives.

Wealthy special interests often run elections ads that are deliberately misleading. That is why super PACs are required to, in a timely manner, disclose information that gives voters insight into who is spending to influence their vote. The FEC must investigate this failure by Last Best Place to disclose this information.

See the Complaint here. 

Today, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a bipartisan bill into law that helps ensure Arizona’s election deadlines comply with the federal Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 – a move that helps secure Arizona’s elections and enables Arizona’s presidential election results to be properly transmitted to Congress, reflecting the will of Arizona’s voters.

Catherine Hinckley Kelley, senior director for policy and strategic partnerships at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“Campaign Legal Center commends Arizona lawmakers for their bipartisan effort to update the state’s election laws. 

The bill signed today by Governor Hobbs is a robust bipartisan compromise that aligns Arizona’s post-election timelines with new federal deadlines – a necessary improvement ahead of the 2024 presidential election. This is a step forward for democracy, for Arizona’s voters, and for trust in Arizona’s elections.

Campaign Legal Center hopes other states will follow Arizona’s example and make necessary legislative updates in advance of this election.”

Background: 

In December 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act (the ECRA), a law that updated the archaic Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887. 

Among other changes that address vulnerabilities in the process of casting and counting electoral votes revealed in the 2020 presidential election, the ECRA mandates that each state’s executive must certify the state’s slate of electors six days before the date on which the electors meet to officially cast their votes; for the 2024 presidential election states must certify their presidential election results by December 11. A number of other states have updated their laws to align with the new federal deadlines.

Today’s bipartisan bill signed by Governor Hobbs aligns Arizona’s post-election process to comply with the deadlines set in the ECRA by:

• Requiring county boards to meet and canvass the election results on the third Thursday after the election, shortening the timeline for this post-election process;
• Requiring the Secretary of State to perform the state canvass no later than the third Monday after the election; 
• Specifying a timeline for initiation of a recount by requiring the Secretary to certify facts to the Maricopa County Superior Court within 24 hours of the last county canvass or the last day allowed for county canvass, whichever is earlier;
• Requiring that “logic and accuracy” testing on the tabulators to be used in the recount to take place within two calendar days after the court orders the recount;
• Requiring the use of electronic transmission for canvass results to the Secretary of State, thus speeding up the process;
• In the case of a recount, allowing a hand recount and machine tabulation recounts to be conducted simultaneously, saving valuable time in the recount timeline. 

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Anderson, a case determining whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in excluding Donald Trump from its presidential primary ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ahead of today’s oral argument, Paul Smith, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement:  

“Today, the Supreme Court will hear a case of extraordinary importance to our democracy. It is vital that, one way or another, the Court returns a clear ruling as quickly as possible to avoid any potential confusion in the upcoming presidential election. However the Court decides, election officials deserve time to properly prepare for the upcoming election, and voters deserve time to make an informed decision.”

Background: On January 18, 2024, CLC, alongside the Brennan Center for Justice, Protect Democracy, and the League of Women Voters, filed a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson urging the Court to reject Donald Trump’s plea to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation of its own state’s election laws. The amicus brief takes no position on whether Donald Trump is ineligible for the Colorado ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and backs neither party in the case.    

Washington, D.C. - Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed two separate complaints with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics (Senate Ethics Committee) focused on eight U.S. Senate candidates in Michigan. The complaints call on the Committee to investigate these candidates for failing to adequately disclose legally required information about their personal finances. 

One complaint concerns Senate candidate Hill Harper for his blatant omission of details regarding his personal income, while the other complaint calls for the investigation of seven other Michigan Senate candidates: Nasser Beydoun, Zack Burns, Michael Hoover, Peter Meijer, Sherrell Ann O'Donnell, Sharon Maureen Savage, and Alexandria J. Taylor – all of whom failed to file any personal financial disclosures whatsoever. Ignoring these rules is a violation of the Ethics in Government Act. Intentional violations could prompt further investigation by the U.S. attorney general.

“Voters have a right to know the financial interests of the people hoping to represent them in electoral office,” said Kedric Payne, CLC’s Vice President, General Counsel and Senior Director of Ethics. “Failure to timely file financial disclosure reports or omitting the required details altogether not only deprives voters of this critical information, but in some cases may conceal a campaign’s true sources of funding from law enforcement and the Senate Ethics Committee itself.”  

Senate candidates are required to file and submit personal financial disclosure forms to the Senate Ethics Committee after declaring their candidacy and raising or spending at least $5,000 for their campaigns. While Mr. Harper received an initial extension to submit these forms, his disclosures omit details about his income despite his personal loans and contributions totaling more than $460,000 to his own campaign, and a public record of paid employment during this filing period. Meanwhile, the other seven Michigan Senate candidates (listed above) have no personal financial disclosures on file with the Senate Ethics Committee.  

The Senate Ethics Committee has a history of referring knowing and willful failures to file personal financial disclosure forms to the U.S. Justice Department, whether or not candidates win their elections. Given the recent expulsion of former Representative George Santos of New York for filing fraudulent disclosure forms, the Senate Ethics Committee needs to transparently communicate and enforce current financial disclosure rules with candidates.  

Timely and truthful completion of these materials by candidates helps the electoral and governance process remain transparent and helps build public confidence in candidates seeking to represent their constituents in Congress.