VICTORY: Court Blocks Kansas Anti-Voter Law Targeting Civic Engagement Groups

Date
Body

In a victory for the voters of Kansas, a federal court sided with the Voter Participation Center to permanently block the enforcement of anti-voter provisions in HB 2332. This is a win for democracy and will make elections more accessible for all eligible voters of Kansas. U.S. District Court Judge Kathryn Vratil ruled today that the law “is an unconstitutional infringement on plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to speech and association.”

In 2021, the Voter Participation Center, a nonprofit civic-engagement organization which helps to register and turnout voters, including to vote by mail, filed suit against Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, and Johnson County District Attorney Stephen Howe. Later that year, the district court granted VPC a preliminary injunction stopping the law from going into effect. With this ruling, the district court makes that decision final. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Kansas attorney Mark Johnson represented the non-profit.

The Kansas Legislature overrode the Governor’s veto and passed HB 2332, an omnibus elections bill that prohibits out-of-state entities from mailing advance mail ballot applications to any voter in the state, in violation of the organizations’ ability to engage in voter engagement efforts that constitute core political speech under the First Amendment. HB 2332 would have criminalized the mailing of advance mail ballot applications personalized with the voter’s name, address and other information, even if the voter provided that information and specifically requested an advance mail ballot application.

“Kansas’s law was one in a nationwide trend by state legislatures moving to restrict the freedom to vote,” said Paul Smith, Vice President for Litigation and Strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. “Beyond just targeting voters, however, laws like HB 2332 specifically take aim at the ability of nonpartisan, public interest organizations to help people navigate confusing systems and encourage them to exercise their ability to vote by mail. HB 2332 is unconstitutional, and we are glad the court sided with voters and the organizations who help voters make their voice heard. ”

“HB 2332 was a dangerous law and that is why we took action. It would have made voting more difficult for Kansans by threatening their ability to vote-by-mail,” said Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Voter Participation Center (VPC). “In the 2020 election, we saw firsthand the urgency of vote-by-mail in the midst of the pandemic. That’s why we fought back–to protect Kansans from this assault on our democracy. We will keep working to ensure every American can make their voice heard.”

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American’s rights to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process.

The Voter Participation Center is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in 2003 to help members of the New American Majority register and vote. Since then, the organization has helped more than 5.7 million people register and cast ballots.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending Transparency for Campaign Spending in Arizona — Americans for Prosperity, et al., v. Meyer, et al. (Federal-Level Challenge)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center Action is representing Voters’ Right to Know, the political action committee that wrote and campaigned for Arizona’s Proposition 211, which requires major campaign spenders to disclose the true sources of money behind campaign media spending.

CLC Action is helping to defend the law in federal court.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In March 2022, AFP and AFPF filed suit against the Commissioners and Executive Director of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) and the Arizona Secretary of State, seeking to overturn the newly enacted Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act.

Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 211 in November 2022, with 72% in support. By shining light on the original sources of secret spending, also called “dark money” campaign contributions, the Act enhances robust debate and provides voters with information critical to choosing, and holding accountable, their elected leaders.

The Act requires major campaign media spenders to disclose the original sources of large donations they receive, including information about persons who act as intermediaries between the original sources of money and the spender. Those spenders must also put their donors on notice that their money may be spent to influence elections and give them an opportunity to opt out of having their donations so used.

On April 28, 2023, CLC Action filed a motion to intervene in the District of Arizona on behalf of Voters’ Right to Know (VRTK), the committee originally formed to create and support Proposition 211 as a ballot initiative. VRTK is seeking to enter the case to help defend Prop 211, alongside the CCEC Commissioners and the Arizona Secretary of State.

What’s at Stake

Before the passage of Proposition 211, Arizona’s existing campaign finance disclosure system was described as “one of the most pro-dark-money statutes imaginable,” resulting in a flood of secret spending each election cycle.

AFP and AFPF argue that Arizona’s new traceback disclosure and disclaimer provisions under Prop 211 violate their rights under the First Amendment, alleging that the disclosure provisions chill protected speech and improperly compel association between upstream donors and campaign media spenders.

The plaintiffs’ complaint includes both a “facial” challenge—seeking to declare the entire new statute unconstitutional—as well as an “as-applied” challenge, seeking a special exemption for themselves. VRTK asks the court to dismiss both of these challenges.

Associated Cases & Actions

Defending Transparency for Campaign Spending in Arizona — Center for Arizona Policy, Inc., et al., v. Arizona Secretary of State, et al. (State-Level Challenge)

Kedric Payne, Campaign Legal Center Vice President, General Counsel and Senior Director for Ethics, Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Date
Body

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Kedric Payne – Vice President, General Counsel, and Senior Director of Ethics at Campaign Legal Center – testified before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, during a hearing on Supreme Court Ethics Reform. 

“The scandals surrounding the Supreme Court in recent months and years have led to a significant decline of public trust in the Court,” said Kedric Payne. “The Supreme Court can increase public trust in the judiciary by establishing specific and relevant ethics practices that have already proven effective in the other two branches of government.” 

Ethics rules for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) lag behind those for executive and legislative branch officials and even other federal judges. Supreme Court Justices determine for themselves if they will recuse from cases where they may have conflicts of interest. They also are exempt from following an official code of conduct. Justices oftentimes fail to publicly disclose information about privately sponsored trips. With no ethics enforcement body, there is no way to ensure the Justices behave ethically.  

Some reforms that could make SCOTUS more ethical – and trustworthy by public standards – include:   

  • An internal ethics enforcement body. 

  • A code of conduct for the Supreme Court.  

  • Non-binding reviews of Justices’ recusals by the Judicial Conference. 

  • More disclosure requirements for privately sponsored travel. 

Public trust is a bedrock upon which all our democratic institutions rely – including the Supreme Court. The Court now has a golden opportunity to reassure the public that it understands this fundamental truth and will work towards becoming a more ethical branch of our federal government.

Issues
Ethics

Pro-Democracy Groups Sue Louisiana Over Inequitable Felony Disenfranchisement Scheme

Date
Body

Baton Rouge, LA — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Bill Quigley of Loyola University Law School filed a lawsuit on behalf of Voice of the Experienced (VOTE), the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (Power Coalition) and the League of Women Voters of Louisiana (LWV of Louisiana) asking the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to declare a part of the state’s felony disenfranchisement scheme unconstitutional and illegal under federal voting rights law. 

Currently, Louisianans who were removed from the voter rolls because of a felony conviction cannot register when they become eligible unless they present additional documentation from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), which can be difficult to obtain. This paperwork is an unnecessary burden because DPSC already provides election officials with the information to confirm registrants’ eligibility after a felony conviction. 

Moreover, individuals with past felony convictions who had not been previously registered to vote have no such paperwork requirement. Tens of thousands of Louisianans with past felony convictions whose voting rights have been restored could be denied registration because of this policy. 

This burdensome additional requirement and arbitrary treatment of people with felony convictions who are attempting to re-register to vote violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The NVRA prohibits states from creating additional documentation requirements to register to vote beyond the voter registration form itself. The lawsuit asks the court to remove arbitrary state-imposed barriers that disenfranchise formerly incarcerated individuals.  

“Louisiana's arbitrary and unnecessary requirement for formerly incarcerated people attempting to re-register to vote denies them a full and equal voice in the political process and perpetuates longstanding disparities in democratic participation,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center. 

“Some people finished their sentences decades ago, and are being told to see their parole officer and get paperwork. Others have only ever been on probation, and should never have been suspended at all. Ultimately, it is a waste of everyone’s resources to try and help one person after another navigate a redundant requirement,” said Bruce Reilly, deputy director of Voice of the Experienced (VOTE). 

“We have stood with our founding and anchor partner, Voice of the Experienced, from the beginning with the passage of Act 636, re-enfranchising formerly incarcerated voters,” said Ashley Shelton, founder, president and CEO of the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. “The legislature did the right thing by restoring rights and it is just as important to do it the right way, in compliance with the NVRA. We waste the time of citizens and advocates when we overcomplicate what federal law has already protected.”

“Voting should be a simple, accessible process for all Louisianans, including those with prior felony convictions,” said M. Christian Green, president of the League of Women Voters of Louisiana. “Our state’s current  process places an unnecessary burden on Louisiana voters and only hinders their ability to participate fully in our democracy. Restoration of voting rights is an essential part of full participation in society for those with past felony convictions.” 

“Voting should never be a burden,” said Celina Stewart, chief counsel and senior director of advocacy and litigation at the League of Women Voters of the US. “Louisiana's current policy imposes inequitable barriers on voters with past felony convictions and clearly violates the letter and purpose of the National Voter Registration Act. Every eligible voter deserves equal access to the ballot, free from unnecessary obstruction and arbitrary processes that further disenfranchise them.” 

 

VOTE will be speaking on this issue at their Legislative Advocacy Day on May 2nd at 12pm CT at the Louisiana State Capitol. RSVP to [email protected] if you plan to attend.

More information on the lawsuit is available here, and the complaint can be found here.

### 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Fighting Louisiana’s Unnecessary Barriers for Re-enfranchised Voters (VOTE v. Ardoin)

At a Glance

CLC represents Voice of the Experienced, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, the League of Women Voters of Louisiana and their members with past convictions who are seeking to register to vote after their rights were restored. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

About This Case

This case challenges Louisiana’s requirement that some voters with felony convictions provide documentary proof of eligibility to register to vote, while other voters, even some who also have felony convictions, are not required to do so. Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.   

Louisiana’s felony disenfranchisement scheme is a vestige of Jim Crow, borne from efforts to use the criminal legal system to suppress the Black vote. Until 2019, Louisiana had one of the highest voter disenfranchisement rates for individuals with felony convictions in the United States.  

In 2019, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 636, which provided that certain individuals with felony convictions on probation or parole are  allowed to register to vote. Act 636 opened the door to voting rights restoration for more than 30,000 Louisianans on either probation or parole and has allowed for the restoration of tens of thousands more since.   

Still, Louisiana has struggled to implement access to the right to vote for individuals with felony convictions. Initially under Act 636, individuals had their voting rights restored only after they submitted documentation from the Department of Corrections to a local registrar’s office showing that they are eligible to register to vote.   

This paperwork is not readily available to many affected citizens and the requirement prevented many Louisiana citizens from registering. Moreover, parishes inconsistently implemented the paperwork requirement and did not adequately advise individuals about how to obtain the necessary documentation.   

In 2021, the Louisiana legislature passed Act 127 to remove the paperwork requirement for rights restoration, making it clear that individuals with felony convictions can register to vote regardless of whether they present proof of eligibility to the registrar.  

However, the State continues to require documentary proof of eligibility from prospective voter registrants who were registered prior to their felony convictions and thus had their registrations “suspended” because of their conviction. The paperwork requirement for “suspended” voters continues the long history of erecting additional barriers to voting for individuals with felony convictions. 

Louisiana’s paperwork requirement violates the NVRA, which prohibits states from requiring  registrants to provide additional documentation beyond the voter registration form. The documentary proof of eligibility requirement also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the requirement arbitrarily treats “new” and “suspended” voters differently, despite the fact that such voters stand in the same shoes.  

Moreover, Louisiana’s criminal and election agencies already maintain and share data regarding individuals’ felony convictions, making the additional documentation requirements unnecessary and inefficient. 

Our democracy works best when all voters can participate. We’re fighting this policy of unequal treatment for certain voters impacted by the criminal legal system to ensure that all voters can access the ballot.  

Associated Cases & Actions

Restore Your Vote: Felony Rights Restoration
Subscribe to