VICTORY: Federal Court Affirms That Tennessee Election Officials Cannot Deny Voter Registration to Eligible Tennesseans with Past Felony Convictions, Must Inform Potential Voters of Eligibility

Date
Body

Tennessee voters achieved a victory when a federal judge affirmed that Tennessee election officials cannot deny voter registration to eligible Tennesseans who have past felony convictions and that they must inform potential voters of eligibility requirements for voting after a felony. Campaign Legal Center represented voters in this lawsuit against Tennessee’s unequal, inaccessible voting rights restoration process.

 

“The Tennessee NAACP is pleased with the federal judge’s ruling,” said Gloria Sweet-Love, president of the Tennessee NAACP. “It takes us a step closer to removing barriers for formerly incarcerated Tennesseans who are seeking free and fair access to the ballot box. We must do all that we can — and we urge the courts and the state Election Division to do all they can — to guard against democratic backsliding, and ensure that all Tennesseans have voter protections.”

 

"This court decision marks a significant victory in our ongoing battle for voting rights restoration for those silenced by felony disenfranchisement, said Keeda Haynes, senior legal counsel at Free Hearts. "While we celebrate today, we remain vigilant in our fight against the evolving challenges and barriers to voting that have emerged since we first filed this lawsuit. Our commitment to 'free the vote' remains unwavering until every disenfranchised voice is heard."

 

“For too long, Tennessee has maintained policies designed to confuse, mislead, burden and shut out fully eligible voters who never lost the right to vote at all,” said Blair Bowie, director of Campaign Legal Center’s Restore Your Vote program. ”Yesterday’s ruling is a win for Tennesseans who have been wrongly denied a voice in their government for too long — and a step in the right direction.”

 

“This ruling is an important development towards the goal of ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote gets to vote,” said Charles Grant, shareholder at Baker Donelson.    

 

Tennessee has the second-largest disenfranchised population in the country, more than 470,000, second only to Florida, and disenfranchises over 20% of its Black citizens, the highest rate of Black disenfranchisement in the country.

 

Yet not every Tennessean with a prior felony conviction has lost the right to vote. For example, between 1973 and 1981, Tennessee did not have felony disenfranchisement, so felony convictions from that period did not take away the right to vote. Moreover, people whose felonies were reversed or expunged have the right to vote. And, even with the most complicated and error-ridden voting rights restoration process in the country, thousands of Tennesseans have successfully restored their right to vote.

 

However, for years, Tennessee’s voter registration form plainly misinformed potential voters on the law, incorrectly stating that a person with a felony conviction could not register if they had not received a pardon or restored their voting rights — even if they received a felony in the "grace period" mentioned above or had their conviction reversed or expunged. 

 

Additionally, the policy of elections officials was to deny voter registration forms from anyone with a felony, even if that person indicated that they had never lost the right to vote. 

 

In 2019, the Tennessee NAACP and Campaign Legal Center informed the Elections Division that these policies violated the National Voter Registration Act and in 2020, the groups, as well as Free Hearts and Baker Donelson, brought a lawsuit.

 

In August 2023, after being on notice of these violations for years, the Elections Division made a last minute attempt to come into compliance with the law and then asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit as moot. However, on April 18, 2024, the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that the Election Division’s policies violate the National Voter Registration Act. 

 

Additionally, the Court expressed skepticism that the state would not go back on its recent policy changes if the case were dismissed, writing that “[t]he timing of Election Division’s policy change also raises suspicions that its cessation is not genuine.” 

 

The Court’s ruling does not change the reality that, currently, Tennessee Election Officials have unlawfully created a “two-step” voting rights restoration process that makes it just one of three states that effectively permanently disenfranchises citizens with prior felony convictions. This process resulted from a major, bad faith misinterpretation of the law by the Elections Division last summer requiring all Tennesseans to restore their “full citizenship rights” before they can restore their voting rights — in addition to filling out the Certificate of Restoration (COR) form. 

 

Then, earlier this year, TN Elections Division confirmed that it wrongly interprets Tennessee law to conclude that, if a person who was convicted of a felony doesn’t or cannot get their full gun rights restored, they won’t ever be able to restore full citizenship and, thus, their voting rights in Tennessee — a policy that threatens to preclude Tennesseans with many types of felonies, including anyone with a felony drug conviction, from ever restoring their right to vote.

 

Learn more about Tennessee’s felony disenfranchisement regime.

 

Learn more about Campaign Legal Center’s lawsuit against TN’s unequal, inaccessible voting rights restoration process, TN NAACP v. Lee.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending Limits on Coordinated Spending by Political Parties (NRSC, et al. v. FEC)

At a Glance

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) filed suit to challenge longstanding limits on how much political parties can spend in “coordination” with federal candidates. CLC has joined the case as an amicus curiae to help defend the coordinated spending limits, arguing the lawsuit is foreclosed by a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court to uphold these federal limits.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In November 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and two Republican officeholders filed suit to challenge the federal limits on how much political parties can spend in “coordination” with candidates to advocate their election.

These limits had been previously upheld in a 2001 Supreme Court decision, but the NRSC is now asking the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to disregard this controlling precedent because, it alleges, both the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and the “factual backdrop” have changed in the intervening 20 years.

CLC has joined the case as an amicus curiae to help defend the coordinated spending limits, arguing that neither the law nor the political context has changed in any significant way that would undercut the utility — or constitutionality — of the party coordinated spending limits at issue.

Federal law has long considered the money a donor spends at the direction or suggestion of a federal candidate to be the equivalent of a contribution to that candidate because this type of “coordinated” spending is “as useful to the candidate as cash.” A coordinated expenditure is consequently subject to federal contribution limits and reporting requirements to ensure that it does not corrupt candidates in the same way a large contribution might.

The Supreme Court upheld the limits on party coordinated spending in its 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee — known as the “Colorado II” decision. In so holding, the Court was less worried that the party itself would corrupt candidates, and more concerned that unlimited party coordinated expenditures would make political parties an attractive vehicle for donors seeking to circumvent the individual contribution limits in order to buy influence with candidates and officeholders.  

The route of circumvention is simple: instead of giving their chosen candidate only the $3,300 allowed by the individual contribution limit, a deep-pocketed donor could give another $41,300 annually to the national party committee with the understanding that the party would allocate these funds to their chosen candidate. If the party could spend all this money in coordination with the candidate, then this donor — and countless future donors — could effectively give the candidate a $45,000 contribution.  

If, however, the party must spend this money independently of the candidate, then this spending may well “provide little assistance to the candidate’s campaign,” as the Supreme Court has recognized, greatly diminishing the possibility that the money will secure the donor a quid pro quo. The party coordinated spending limits thus act as a “brake” on the money that would otherwise run through this route of circumvention.

What’s at Stake?

Since the party coordinated spending limits were enacted in the 1970s, these limits have checked the corruptive effect of large contributions flowing through party committees to candidates and prevented the quid pro quo exchanges that such contributions would otherwise facilitate.  

As the Supreme Court explained in Colorado II, if the party coordinated spending limits were eliminated, “the inducement to circumvent would almost certainly intensify”: The individual contribution limits would be greatly “eroded” by donors exploiting the much higher party contribution limits to route over 10 times the amount of the base contribution limits to the party to spend in coordination with their preferred candidates.

Because the limits allow political parties to spend only a prescribed amount of their money in direct coordination with a candidate, however, they moderate the risk that a party committee could effectively pass on every big donation — or six-figure check collected via joint fundraising — to the donor’s chosen candidate in the form of coordinated expenditures. 

Defending Foreign Corporate Election Spending Ban in Minnesota (Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Choi)

At a Glance

In 2023, Minnesota enacted a law prohibiting corporations with foreign owners from spending to influence Minnesota state elections. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce sued to overturn the law on First Amendment and federal preemption grounds, and CLC has joined the case as an amicus curiae to help defend the law.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In 2023, Minnesota enacted the Democracy for the People Act, which included many pro-democracy policies relating to voting and campaign finance. The Act included provisions prohibiting for-profit corporations and limited liability companies with foreign ownership from making expenditures or contributions to influence voters’ decisions about candidates seeking election and ballot measures. The threshold of ownership that triggers the prohibition is 1% in the case of a single foreign investor or 5% in aggregate in the case of multiple foreign investors.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in July 2023 seeking to invalidate this prohibition on campaign spending by foreign-influenced corporations, arguing that it violated its members’ First Amendment rights and was preempted by federal law. 

In December 2023, CLC joined the case as an amicus curiae, filing a “friend of the court” brief defending the ban on foreign-influenced corporate campaign spending. CLC’s brief outlines how state laws seeking to shield state elections from the influence of foreign money are not preempted by federal law, and in fact are a critical tool to protect elections from foreign pressures and “preserve the basic conception of a political community.”

As Minnesota also argued, the U.S. Supreme Court has already approved the federal foreign money ban, affirming that citizens have “a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.” 

This interest is equally compelling with respect to efforts by states to prevent foreign nationals from spending money in state and local elections, and in particular ballot referenda, where voters participate in direct democracy to enact their own laws. Ten other states — from California to Maryland — have also enacted laws like Minnesota’s to prohibit foreign nationals pending to influence their citizen-initiated ballot measure processes.

What's at Stake?

American government is meant to be of, by, and for the people – free from foreign influence to protect the rights of American citizens to democratic self-governance. However, foreign interests – including foreign-owned businesses and other corporations – have spent substantial sums to influence U.S. elections at the federal, state, and local levels over the last decade, often overwhelming the resources of local citizens and advocacy groups.

Minnesota’s Democracy for the People Act and similar laws in other states are meant to prevent foreign-owned corporations from exerting undue influence over state elections and to vindicate their citizens’ interest in local self-governance.

CLC Speaks Out Against Efforts to Spread Disinformation Ahead of Trump-Johnson Press Conference

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, former President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are expected to hold a joint press conference on “election integrity” at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla.  

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement ahead of the expected press conference:

“It’s unfortunate that self-interested politicians, including the former president and current House speaker, continue to spread disinformation about how the election process works, all under the guise of ‘election integrity.’ Of course, the security of our elections is already the central focus of U.S. election officials. It is a disservice to our democracy when leaders who should know better choose to peddle falsehoods about voting for personal and political gain. Their efforts seek to destroy the integrity of our elections, not uphold it. 

“Campaign Legal Center has been at the forefront of the movement to combat efforts to sabotage our elections, working with state and federal lawmakers to protect the freedom to vote and ensure all votes are counted. With yet another contentious election year well underway, voters should rest assured that significant steps have been made toward guaranteeing the safety and security of the election process.”

Issues
Voting and Elections

Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United file FEC Complaint Regarding Potential Soft Money Violation by Sen. Cruz and iHeart Media

Body

Washington, DC: Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that Sen. Ted Cruz violated provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that prohibit federal candidates or officeholders from soliciting or directing “soft money” in connection with a federal election.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cruz violated FECA by entering into an agreement with iHeartMedia, Inc., a publicly traded corporation, through which iHeartMedia transferred corporate funds—totaling over $630,000 to date—from its ad sales associated with Cruz’s podcast “Verdict with Ted Cruz” to a federal super PAC, Truth and Courage PAC, supporting Cruz’s 2024 reelection efforts. 

Erin Chlopak, Campaign Legal Center’s Senior Director of Campaign Finance, issued the following statement: There is a reason why federal candidates are legally prohibited from using ‘soft money’ - that is, money raised outside the scope of federal election law - to power their campaigns. This type of funding risks putting the priorities of wealthy special interests above everyone else and makes our political process more vulnerable to corruption. Yet all available information makes it seem that a partnership between Texas Senator Ted Cruz and iHeartMedia has produced such an illegal transfer, with over $630,000 in ‘income’ from Cruz’s podcast moving to a super PAC supporting his reelection. To give Texas voters clarity, the Federal Election Commission must swiftly investigate this matter and determine whether Sen. Cruz played a role in directing this transfer.

(See the complaint here)

Issues
Campaign Finance
Subscribe to