VICTORY: Judge Blocks Restrictions on Voter Registration Activity and Distribution of Absentee Ballot Applications

Date
Body

Jefferson City, Mo. — This afternoon, a judge for the Cole County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction in our LWV MO and Missouri NAACP v. Missouri lawsuit, which blocks enforcement of several provisions in H.B. 1878 that criminalizes voter engagement activity and distribution of absentee ballot applications conducted by civic engagement groups. 

The law imposed severe restrictions on basic voter outreach and assistance efforts, backed by serious criminal sanctions. The judge agreed these provisions likely violated civic engagement groups’ right to core political speech by severely curtailing their ability to engage with voters.  

The plaintiffs, League of Women Voters of Missouri (LWVMO) and Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP of Missouri), are represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri and the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition (MOVPC) in the lawsuit. 

“We applaud the Court’s ruling, which blocks enforcement of H.B 1878’s restrictions on what civic engagement organizations like the League of Women Voters of Missouri and the Missouri NAACP can do to educate and engage with voters. Instead of making our elections any safer, the law criminalizes the very organizations that work around the clock to make our democracy stronger and more accessible,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “Voter engagement is political speech. While the 2022 election is only a few days away, this ruling means that civic engagement organizations will be able to engage with voters over the weekend and in future elections, so every Missourian can make their voice heard.”   

“We’re delighted that the court recognized the League's essential role in encouraging and enabling all eligible Missourians to participate in our democracy,” said Marilyn McLeod, president of the League of Women Voters of Missouri. “Although we only have a few days before the 2022 general election, this preliminary injunction lets the League’s  paid staff and volunteers breathe easier as we continue our work to help voters.”

“We are gratified that the court has yet again sided with the rights of the NAACP and voters who work to protect the right to vote,” said Nimrod Chapel, Jr., President of the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP.  “The NAACP has long led the fight for African American voting rights. In these Jim Crow provisions, lawmakers stripped us of critical ways to engage our communities by criminalizing our ability to encourage voting and good Citizenship. Black voters have been disproportionately harmed by these restrictions. With today’s ruling, we will uplift our voices loud and strong to protect the right to vote heading into next week’s critical elections.” 

“Voter engagement and education are central to the mission of both the League of Women Voters of Missouri and the Missouri NAACP. While we remain disappointed that the Missouri legislature passed these provisions in HB 1878 that violate free speech in the first place, we are grateful that the court has recognized the harm they have caused and has issued a decision to prevent future harm.” said Gillian Wilcox, Deputy Director for Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri.

“The court recognized that the work of engaging voters in our democracy is protected by our constitution. The challenged measures in HB1878 criminalized efforts to encourage voter registration and voter participation,” said Denise Lieberman, Director & General Counsel of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition. “It is unfortunate that the measures chilled voter engagement activity as long as they did, but after today’s ruling, Missouri’s civic engagement organizations can rest assured that they can go about their critical work in the days leading into next week’s elections without fear of criminal prosecution.” 

The lawsuit specifically challenged provisions in the law that prohibited compensating people for voter registration activities and mandated that anyone who assists with more than 10 voter registration applications – which happens regularly at community engagement events – must both register with the state and be a registered voter themself, subject to criminal penalties.

Additionally, the law prohibited "soliciting” a voter into obtaining an absentee ballot application, which denied eligible Missourians the help they needed to vote in a secure and convenient way. In fact, the bill’s language was so vague that the ban on “soliciting” absentee ballot applications could be used to criminalize a volunteer who tells a voter that will be out of town on Election Day that they can vote absentee.

Failing to comply with these strict and confusing prohibitions could have put innocent volunteers on the wrong side of the law and, in Missouri, violating election laws could mean losing the freedom to vote for life.

The preliminary injunction was granted a mere four days before the 2022 general election, hamstringing the work civic engagement groups could do to get out the vote ahead of the election this year. Nevertheless, LWV MO and Missouri NAACP will continue working to fulfill their mission to bring as many Missouri voters into the political process as possible. 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Updating the Electoral Count Act to Protect the Will of the People in Presidential Elections

At a Glance

The 2024 presidential election is likely to be one of the most contentious ever. In advance of the 2024 election and to protect the will of the people, CLC successfully urged Congress to update the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887, the law that provides the primary legal framework for casting and counting Electoral College votes in presidential elections.

Status
Closed
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

The president and vice president are chosen by the Electoral College, which is composed of individuals called “electors” from each state. When Americans cast their ballots for president, they are actually voting for their state’s slate of electors. After Election Day, electors meet in their respective states to cast their electoral votes and send those votes to Congress. The role of Congress is to count the electoral votes from each state to confirm the winner. 

The ECA sets a timeline for selecting electors and transmitting their votes to Congress. The ECA also establishes procedures for how Congress counts the electoral votes and the role of the vice president, who presides over this process under the 12th Amendment as the president of the Senate.

To help prevent future attempts of election manipulation due to outdated language in the ECA, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) successfully urged Congress to modernize the ECA by the end of 2022. Currently, CLC is working to support states ahead of the 2024 presidential election to ensure their presidential election procedures conform to the newly passed federal law. 

What Congress Has Done

On July 20, 2022, a bipartisan group of senators, led by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), introduced the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA). Soon thereafter, the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a hearing that demonstrated the widespread consensus among experts and across the political spectrum about how the ECA should be modernized.

On September 19, 2022, Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced a separate proposal in the House to update the ECA, the Presidential Election Reform Act (PERA). Their legislation was swiftly brought to the House floor, where lawmakers voted to pass the bill by a vote of 229-203.

On September 27, the Senate Rules Committee held a business meeting to advance the ECRA in the legislative process, adopting bipartisan amendments that strengthened the bill and set the stage for a floor vote by the full Senate before the end of 2022.

On December 23, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act as part of an end of year omnibus funding and policy package. On December 29, President Joe Biden signed the bill into law. 

Some key updates to the law include:

  • Prohibits state legislatures from changing the law after Election Day to overrule their voters and the results of the popular election
  • Provides procedures to resolve disputes about electors and election certifications before those disputes reach Congress
  • Strictly limits opportunities for members of Congress to second-guess states’ certified election results
  • Clarifies the vice president’s ministerial role in the counting of electoral votes and reinforces that the vice president does not decide election results 

Opposing the Use of Super PACs as “Slush Funds” for Presidential Candidates — CLC v. FEC (Dismissal Suit—Jeb Bush super PAC)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy 21 have sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for its dismissal of their complaints alleging that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Right to Rise Super PAC violated a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that prohibits federal candidates from “establishing, financing, maintaining or controlling” an entity that raises or spends unregulated funds outside of the federal contribution limits and source restrictions.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

BCRA prevents the use of candidate-controlled super PACs as vehicles for the wholesale circumvention of the contribution limits enacted to prevent quid pro quo corruption and its appearance. When a candidate campaign illegally “outsources” its fundraising and other operations to a supposedly independent super PAC, it is often able to evade important transparency requirements as well, leaving voters in the dark about the nature of a candidate’s financial support. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy 21 filed administrative complaints with the FEC on in March and May of 2015 alleging that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush had violated this BCRA provision by establishing, financing, maintaining and controlling Right to Rise Super PAC, which “act[ed] on his behalf” by raising and spending millions of dollars of unregulated money to promote his presidential campaign.




The complaints further alleged that Bush had illegally delayed announcing his candidacy and registering his campaign committee — likely in attempt to sidestep the prohibition on federal candidates establishing or operating super PACs. The plaintiffs further alleged Bush had used unregulated money to “test the waters” of his possible run for President and to fund de facto campaign activities prior to his declaration of candidacy and had failed to file required disclosure reports detailing his spending in this period. 

Citing news reports, the FEC complaint detailed the involvement of Bush and his close advisors in “establishing” the super PAC, noting that Bush and his associates reportedly recruited high-level staff for Right to Rise, such as installing Mike Murphy, one of Bush’s top advisers, at its helm. The FEC complaint also alleged Bush and his associates “financed” Right to Rise Super PAC, and that Bush himself, his advisors, and members of his family personally conducted fundraising for the super PAC. 

More than seven years after plaintiffs filed their first administrative complaint, the FEC finally took action, but only to dismiss the complaints without any investigation or enforcement action — despite a recommendation from its Office of General Counsel finding reason to believe the alleged violations had occurred.  

What's At Stake?

At stake is whether the FEC will enforce an important provision of federal law that prohibits federal candidates from establishing or operating super PACs—and other entities that do not comply with federal contribution limits and source restrictions—to serve as “slush funds” that finance their “testing-the-water” and campaign activities.


Without vigorous enforcement, the financing of campaigns for federal office becomes a free-for-all, and wealthy donors, including corporations and unions, can sidestep federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements by making unlimited contributions to super PACs effectively operated by their favored federal candidates

Plaintiffs

Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21

Defendant

Federal Election Commission

Associated Cases & Actions

CLC v. FEC (Delay Suit—Jeb Bush super PAC)

Lichtenstein v. Hargett

At a Glance

On behalf of a local organizer and community engagement groups, CLC is challenging Tennessee’s felony prohibition on distributing absentee ballot applications, which deters organizations and individuals from encouraging and assisting eligible voters in obtaining mail ballots.

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

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) represents individual Jeffrey Lichtenstein and community organizations the Memphis A. Phillip Randolph Institute (MAPRI), Free Hearts, Memphis Central Labor Council (MCLC), and the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP, in their efforts to stop enforcement of a law that criminalizes the distribution of absentee ballot applications by anyone other than an election official.

Mr. Lichtenstein and the Tennessee-based community organizations who brought this suit wish to distribute absentee ballot applications to eligible voters during voter engagement and get out the vote campaigns. But Tennessee law prohibits the plaintiffs from providing voters with the tools necessary to vote by mail. Although the application is available to download on the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website, it is a felony to download the application and provide it to an eligible voter—even at the voter’s request. Tennessee is among a very small minority of states that restrict voter engagement and advocacy in such a draconic manner. The lawsuit asks the Court to find that the law violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to engage in political speech, and to stop the State from enforcing the prohibition.

Subscribe to