Washington, D.C. – This afternoon, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the State of Arizona’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging two recently enacted anti-voter laws, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, for imposing severe, arbitrary and discriminatory burdens on Arizona voters that undermine their freedom to vote and violate federal law.

“We have a choice between a democracy that is inclusive of all voters or one that excludes voters based on where they live or where they are from. This is a victory for every Arizonan, but especially for Latino and Native voters who have faced significant and pervasive barriers to accessing the ballot box,” said Danielle Lang, Senior Director of Voting Rights at Campaign Legal Center. “We are thankful Arizona’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit was denied and look forward to defending Arizonans’ freedom to vote in court.” 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the Department of Justice of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Barton Mendez Soto PLLC, Free Speech for People and Mayer Brown, LLP filed the lawsuit on behalf of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), Arizona Democracy Resource Center (ADRC), Arizona Coalition for Change (ACC), the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) and the San Carlos Apache Tribe. 

Under the challenged law, many Arizonans are denied the freedom to vote based on the type of voter registration form they submit and whether they can obtain, copy and submit additional paperwork that proves their current residence and U.S. citizenship status with their voter registration. Voters are already required to attest to these facts – under penalty of perjury – to register to vote, and federal law prohibits states from imposing additional requirements to register to vote in federal elections. 

This policy discriminates against entire sectors of voters, including Native voters who face unique barriers to voting. Due to continued disinvestment in Native communities, voters living on tribal lands do not always have street addresses assigned to their homes and often cannot provide proof of a residential address. Arizona’s law asks voters to go far beyond what is already required under federal law, posing a potentially insurmountable barrier to voting for many Native voters.  

The law even goes so far as to prohibit voters who do not submit burdensome, unnecessary paperwork from voting early or by mail and prevents them from voting in presidential elections at all.

H.B. 2492 further discriminates against naturalized citizens by requiring them to disclose their place of their birth, which is irrelevant to any voter qualification. The law could also subject voters to investigation and prosecution if the information they provide contradicts the information in stale, faulty databases. 

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, alleges that H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 violate the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit asks the court to block enforcement of the law’s challenged provisions.

Annapolis, MD – Last week, the Maryland Voting Rights Act (MDVRA) was publicly filed in the Maryland legislature and a hearing has now been set for March 7th, 2023 at 1pm in the House Ways and Means Committee. This landmark legislation, SB0878/HB1104, builds on the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), which is known as the “crown jewel” of the civil rights movement yet has been repeatedly chipped away at by the Supreme Court.

Many of Maryland’s counties and municipalities have a troubling history of racial discrimination in voting, including literacy tests, property requirements and policies that use discrimination in the criminal legal system to keep voters from the ballot box. Sadly, some of the practices that target voters of color – especially Black Americans – persist to this day. In fact, Baltimore County recently faced litigation over a gerrymandered map that was racially discriminatory. In addition, in Federalsburg, Black residents and community groups are advocating to change the town’s racially discriminatory at-large election system, which has resulted in no Black candidate ever winning election to the town council, despite a significant and growing Black population. 

Upon passing and enacting the MDVRA, Maryland would join a growing number of states that have adopted state-level Voting Rights Acts (state VRAs) to protect voters of color after the Supreme Court has undercut the federal VRA and even as the push for federal voting rights legislation to restore its full power continues. 

The Maryland Voting Rights Act would:

• Prevent voting discrimination before it occurs by requiring counties and other jurisdictions with a demonstrated history of discrimination to get pre-approval of certain voting changes from the Attorney General or a court;
• Expand protections for voters who don’t speak English as their primary language;
• Protect voters against intimidation and deceptive practices;
• Make it easier for voters experiencing discrimination to fight back in court; and
• Add critical research and enforcement tools, such as a statewide database of demographics and voting rules.

​​Campaign Legal Center, ACLU of Maryland, Common Cause Maryland, and NAACP Legal Defense Fund have all urged passage of the bill this year:

“The right to vote is a basic American freedom that every citizen should have equal access to. Sadly, Black Marylanders and other voters of color have faced significant barriers to the ballot box that persist to this day,” said Paul Smith, Senior Vice President of Campaign Legal Center. “To make matters worse, the Supreme Court has repeatedly chipped away at the federal Voting Rights Act, opening the door for states to pass laws that exclude voters of color from our democracy. The Maryland Voting Rights Act will be an important tool to protect voters of color from discrimination and we applaud this effort to strengthen our democracy.”

“Voting rights are fundamental. Before all else, we must safeguard access to the ballot box. The Maryland Voting Rights Act is a crucial step toward creating a more reflective and representative democracy that works for all Marylanders,” said Morgan Drayton, policy and engagement manager at Common Cause Maryland. “This legislation will bolster our state’s voter protections and provide much-needed legal recourse for voters whose rights are denied or abridged, and it’s about time that we make this happen.” 

“LDF congratulates lawmakers in Maryland for this act of leadership and for taking this important step toward establishing a vibrant multiracial democracy in their state,” said Legal Defense Fund President and Director-Counsel Janai S. Nelson. “We urge lawmakers in Maryland to come together and seize this opportunity to show the rest of the nation that it is in our collective power to lay the foundations of a better future.”

“The right to vote is the pillar of our democracy. Without strong safeguards for this right, discrimination and disenfranchisement would be left unrestrained at every level of politics,” said Deborah Jeon, Legal Director at ACLU of Maryland. “And given the U.S. Supreme Court's increasingly worrisome record on civil rights, there's reason to fear further retrenchment in federal protection for equal ballot access. That's why we must adopt the Maryland Voting Rights Act so that all Maryland voters are valued and protected no matter what losses future federal court rulings bring."

###

Washington, D.C. - Kedric Payne, Vice President, General Counsel and Senior Director for Ethics at Campaign Legal Center and former Deputy Chief Counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, issued the following statement: 

“The Office of Congressional Ethics is the only independent ethics investigatory body in Congress. As an independent and non-partisan watchdog, the OCE has conducted investigations that have brought public awareness to numerous issues of high importance to voters – things like failures to file timely stock trading reports, the acceptance of improper gifts and misuse of official resources.

This is why those of us who care deeply about holding our elected officials accountable and ensuring that members of Congress prioritize the needs of their constituents over their own financial interests were disheartened last month when the House of Representatives enacted a rules package containing provisions seemingly designed to make the OCE less effective.

These provisions required certain members of the OCE’s board to immediately vacate their positions and limited the body’s ability to replace any vacant position to a thirty-day hiring window. Without these members, the OCE would not have been able to function at full capacity, meaning accountability for ethics violations in the House would have been severely curtailed.  

This is why today’s news that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have appointed qualified members to the board is so encouraging. These newly appointed and re-appointed members can now begin hiring staff in order to get the OCE functioning for this Congress.

While there are still numerous ways that the OCE could and should be improved, having the OCE fully staffed and functioning is essential for independent and nonpartisan ethics oversight and accountability in Congress. The American public deserves effective ethics enforcement in Congress, and we at Campaign Legal Center are optimistic that the steps taken this week will help hold members of Congress accountable and help keep Americans informed.”