New Study Reveals 66% of Conservatives and 46% of Independent Voters Lack Confidence in Elections

Date
Body

New York, New York – Today, the Ad Council Research Institute (ACRI) and the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released findings from a new study that revealed a significant knowledge gap, as well as ongoing fears and concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the U.S. election process among many conservative-leaning and independent voters. The new study, (Dis)Trust in Elections: Rebuilding Voter Trust & Confidence in the U.S. Election Process, offers organizations, government entities, election boards, and election officials key insights into the ideal target audience for election-confidence building efforts.

“Especially as we head into a new election cycle, the need to instill trust in the process at all levels among American voters is paramount,” said Derrick Feldmann, lead researcher and managing director of ACRI and Ad Council Edge. “While our findings show distrust is present, there is hope. Making this information available will empower organizations in communities across the country to change the tide of voter doubt for the upcoming election cycle and those in the future.”

“American voters should have the utmost confidence that when they cast their ballots on Election Day, their vote will count,” said Sandhya Bathija, vice president of communications for CLC. “Clearly, the research indicates there are some gaps that must be addressed. But there are also reasons to be optimistic—that by drawing attention to the checks and balances within our electoral process, we can help increase knowledge and change attitudes and behaviors among this unique demographic of voters.” 

Key findings from the study include:

  • The ideal target audience for confidence-building efforts is conservative-leaning and independent voters.
    • Only about a third (31%) of conservative-leaning voters in the sample believe the 2020 presidential election was conducted fairly and accurately. Another third (35%) are not very confident, and 31% are not confident at all.
    • Half of independent voters (51%) were somewhat confident, with 28% not very and 18% not at all confident in the fairness and/or accuracy of the election.
  • Distrust is built by multiple factors and exacerbated by a lack of knowledge.
    • Top beliefs among conservative-leaning voters that contribute to distrust: voting fraud took place (74%), unregistered voters and/or undocumented immigrants voted (72%), encouraging multiple voting / making voting easier for some (58%).
    • Top beliefs among independent voters: Encouraging multiple voting/ making voting easier for some (50%), voting fraud took place (48%), unregistered voters and/or illegal immigrants voted (44%).
  • Despite ongoing distrust, people still support the country, believe in the US, and plan to continue exercising their right to vote in the future.
    • 43% of conservative-leaning voters and 39% of independents say this distrust has no impact on their likelihood to vote; 38% of conservatives and 32% of independents say it makes them much more likely to vote.

(Dis)Trust in Elections: Rebuilding Voter Trust & Confidence in the U.S. Election Process provide a deeper look into voter distrust in the U.S. election process. Download the report here.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending Nonpartisan Civic Engagement Organizations in Florida (League of Women Voters of Florida Education Fund v. Moody)

At a Glance

Florida enacted a law severely curtailing the ability of civic organizations to conduct voter registration activities. CLC serves as counsel to the League of Women Voters of Florida Education Fund in a case challenging the constitutionality of that law.

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

On May 24, 2023, Florida enacted a new law imposing some of the nation’s most stringent restrictions on voter registration activities. The law imposes unprecedented civil and criminal penalties on groups that might violate one of many burdensome restrictions while collecting and submitting voter registration forms. These include:

  • Severe civil and criminal penalties for retaining a voter registration applicant’s “personal information,” even with the consent of that applicant.
  • Costly civil penalties for failing to deliver voter registration applications to election officials within a short 10-day period—up to $250,000 per civic organization in a calendar year.
  • Prohibitions on non-U.S. citizens and people with certain felony convictions “collecting or handling voter registration applications” on behalf of the civic organization.
  • Requirements for volunteers to give “receipts” to each voter registration applicant that they assist, which must include the registrant’s personal information, including their political party affiliation, the volunteer’s name, the civic organization’s name.
  • Mandatory registration of every volunteer conducting voter registration activities on behalf of the civic organization with the Division of Elections, including submitting their name and address to the Division.
  • Mandatory registration of any civic organization conducting voter registration efforts with the Division of Elections before each election cycle, changing current law which only requires registration once.

For years, voter registration drives have been a way for historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups to empower their communities and gain access to the ballot box. Yet, Florida—which has one of the lowest percentages of its voting-age citizens registered to vote in the country—is unlawfully chilling the efforts of organizations working to get people registered, in apparent response to civic efforts during the last election cycle to boost voter registration and turnout in the state.

Lawmakers in Florida have asserted that the law is needed to combat “issues” in these civic organizations’ voter registration efforts—without offering any real evidence that such “issues” exist or would be addressed by threatening civic groups with civil and criminal penalties.

Instead, the new law hampers the activities of civic groups seeking to register and mobilize voters in their communities. In so doing, the law creates burdensome, unnecessary, and irrational restrictions on these groups’ protected voter registration speech and activity in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Associated Cases & Actions

Defending Civic Engagement Groups

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)
Subscribe to