Maryland Voting Rights Act Would Protect Voters in Wake of a Decade of Supreme Court Rights Rollbacks 

Date
Body

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."

###

Issues
Voting and Elections

Statement by Kedric Payne on Encouraging Updates Regarding the Office of Congressional Ethics

Date
Body

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.” 

Issues
Ethics

Opposing Special Interest Loopholes in Campaign Finance Law Enforcement — ECU v. FEC (Rick Scott Appeal)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center Action sued the Federal Election Commission on behalf of End Citizens United after the FEC dismissed ECU’s administrative complaints alleging inappropriate coordination between then-Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, and a super PAC, New Republican, among other campaign finance violations.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires candidates for public office to declare their candidacy and file reports that disclose who their donors are and how they spend campaign funds, including political contributions. FECA also prohibits super PACs from donating to candidates and their campaigns or coordinating with them.  

Starting in 2017, Rick Scott and his nascent Senate campaign engaged in a blatant scheme to circumvent these important anti-corruption and pro-transparency laws. Scott illegally delayed declaring his candidacy with the FEC to avoid triggering federal requirements, while co-opting New Republican PAC to raise millions of dollars outside the legal limitations, which would later be spent supporting his campaign.   

In May 2017, when Scott became Chair of New Republican, the super PAC had made no independent expenditures since 2014 and had not received a contribution in over a year. Scott quickly staffed the super PAC with his political allies, declared a new mission (to support then-President Trump’s policies while rebranding the Republican Party), and ramped up fundraising operations, raising over a million dollars by the end of 2017 and a further $1.2 million in the first quarter of 2018.   

Yet the super PAC did not spend any of that money on its purported new mission. Indeed, while Scott was Chair, New Republican continued to make no independent expenditures in support of any candidates, and it aired no issue ads. That all changed when Scott announced his Senate campaign in April 2018.   

The day of Scott’s announcement, New Republican rolled out a new website — prepared and paid for in advance — and a new objective: electing Rick Scott. This time New Republican meant it, spending over $29 million on that objective in the 2018 election, almost all either in support of Scott or in opposition to Sen. Bill Nelson, his Democratic rival.   

CLCA, on behalf of ECU, sued the FEC for its dismissal of ECU’s administrative complaints detailing the campaign finance violations of Scott and New Republican. The district court, however, affirmed the FEC’s dismissals of ECU’s complaints. In so doing, the district court both misinterpreted the law and mischaracterized the FEC’s actions. Consequently, CLCA — on behalf of ECU — has appealed the district court decision to the D.C. Circuit, asking the Circuit Court to correct the district court’s obvious errors.    

What’s at Stake

Voters have a right to know which wealthy special interests are spending big money to secretly influence our votes and our government. Campaign finance laws are in place to ensure that voters are informed about who candidates are beholden to, and to prevent the corrupting influence of wealthy special interests from commandeering elections. It’s time for the Court to step in and make clear that co-opting a super PAC isn’t a clever way of raising money — it’s a violation of the law. 

Plaintiffs

End Citizens United

Defendant

The Federal Election Commission

Brown v. Scanlan

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center is urging the New Hampshire Supreme Court to rule that extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the New Hampshire Constitution.  

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In 2022, a group of New Hampshire voters filed a lawsuit arguing that the state senate and executive council maps passed by the legislature are unlawful partisan gerrymanders in violation of multiple provisions of the state constitution. The plaintiffs allege that the state maps “crack” and “pack” Democratic voters based on partisanship to ensure Republicans will reliably and durably control state government for a decade, despite New Hampshire being a swing state. The district court dismissed the case by ruling that no matter how extreme the maps are gerrymandered for partisan advantage, the judiciary is powerless to uphold New Hampshirites’ constitutional rights. The plaintiffs appealed.  

CLC’s Amicus Brief  

CLC has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief that explains why the New Hampshire Supreme Court has the authority and the obligation to review the plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims.  

Among other provisions, the New Hampshire Constitution contains a Free Elections Clause, which provides a manageable standard that the court needs to evaluate whether a particular redistricting map constitutes an impermissible partisan gerrymander. This constitutional guarantee that “[a]ll elections are to be free” is undermined when the political process has continuously failed New Hampshire’s voters and allowed legislators elected from gerrymandered districts to insulate themselves from the electorate. There is firm historical grounding for applying New Hampshire’s Free Elections Clause to prohibit excessive partisanship in the redistricting process. 

The problem of gerrymandering is only getting worse. The combination of an increasingly polarized electorate and the sophisticated tools that propel today’s mapmaking enables gerrymanderers to dilute the voting strength of a disfavored group of voters with precision, entrench favored incumbents, and often secure preferred electoral outcomes for a decade. Courts are critical to correct this problem. The state judiciary is the only institution with both the constitutional authority to stop gerrymandering and the lack of political incentive to allow it.  

The New Hampshire Supreme Court can and should step in to block these extreme partisan gerrymanders and their distorting effects on democracy.  

Subscribe to