Barriers to the Ballot Box: A Conversation with Author Gilda Daniels

On Aug. 23, 2022, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) hosted the event, “Barriers to the Ballot Box: A Conversation with Author Gilda Daniels,” about Daniel’s book “Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America.”   

During the event, Daniels discussed the tactics being deployed in the 21st century to prevent Americans from exercising their freedom to vote and how we can fight for comprehensive solutions that would protect the right of voters to participate in our democracy. 

Mussi v. Hobbs

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is advocating to ensure that Arizonans’ voices are heard on the issues that impact their lives by protecting the First Amendment rights of those who gather and sign petitions to place initiatives on the ballot.  

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

In the first half of 2022, over 400,000 Arizonans signed petitions to place the Arizona Fair Elections Act on the ballot this November. The ballot initiative would safeguard Arizonans’ freedom to vote and ensure that the will of voters prevails over partisan actors attempting to seize power for themselves.  

Arizonans have the right to decide these crucial questions about how to protect and strengthen our democracy. The state’s petition circulation process provides an avenue for Arizona voters to enact or reject laws like the Arizona Fair Elections Act by popular vote. To put the initiative to a statewide vote this November, Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections (the Committee) was required to submit petitions from at least 237,645 signatures from registered voters. On July 7, 2022, they delivered more than 400,000.  

That staggering number reflects both the dutiful efforts of those gathering petition signatures and Arizona voters’ high level of interest in ensuring free and fair elections in their state. Unsurprisingly, the special interests whose influence would be curtailed by the initiative are less enthusiastic.  

Indeed, seeking to keep the measure off Arizonans’ ballots this November, the special interest group Arizona Free Enterprise Club — along with two individuals — filed suit to invalidate nearly 80% of the signatures submitted by the Committee based on an unfounded and extreme interpretation of Arizona’s requirements for petition circulators.  

For example, the complaint calls for disqualifying any petition sheets where the person who collected signatures did not include their registration number on both sides of the sheet.  

In other words, the plaintiffs in this case seek to invalidate the work of scores of petition circulators and the voices of hundreds of thousands of Arizonans for exceedingly minor errors and omissions, like including a registration number on only one side of a tally sheet.  

A state trial court rejected many of the plaintiffs’ frivolous objections. On August 22, 2022, CLC filed an amicus brief in the Arizona Supreme Court in support of the Committee, stressing the robust constitutional protections for the petition circulation process and the serious harm posed by the plaintiffs’ attempts to do an end run around it.

What’s at Stake? 

The plaintiffs’ bid to invalidate the majority of the signatures gathered in support of the Arizona Fair Elections Act poses grave threats to our democracy. Their unfounded objections not only threaten Arizonans’ right to have a say on an issue of utmost importance this November but also the First Amendment rights of petition circulators and petition signers alike.  

The First Amendment has long protected the collection of signatures to qualify ballot initiatives as “core political speech,” as signature gatherers conduct the important work of engaging with and educating the electorate. As such, the Supreme Court has held that restrictive circulation polices, like the ones put forward in this lawsuit, may unconstitutionally limit the signature collector’s political expression.  

Additionally, the Supreme Court has recognized that petition signatures — like votes — are a means for citizens to participate directly in our democracy. As a result, the free speech and free expression rights of petition signers would be violated if the plaintiffs succeed in invalidating hundreds of thousands of Arizonans’ signatures which favored placing the Arizona Free Elections Act on the ballot based on technical errors.  

Voters deserve to have a say on the issues that matter to them. Invalidating hundreds of thousands of signatures based on minor technical errors clearly violates the free speech rights of signature collectors, the signers themselves and every Arizonan who wants to strengthen our democracy.  

Plaintiffs

Mussi

Defendant

Hobbs

League of Women Voters, Missouri NAACP Sue Over Law Criminalizing Voter Engagement Efforts

Date
Body

Lawsuit seeks to protect civic engagement groups’ right to register and assist Missouri voters

Jefferson City, Mo. — Two nonpartisan civic engagement organizations sued the state of Missouri and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in Cole County Circuit Court to block provisions of one of the nation’s most extreme laws restricting voter registration activity and distribution of absentee ballot applications. The law violates the right to core political speech by severely curtailing the 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 (MO NAACP), are represented by Campaign Legal Center, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri and the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition in the lawsuit.   

In May, the Missouri legislature passed H.B. 1878 through a rushed and opaque process which concluded in the final 24 hours of the legislative session. The law, which is set to go into effect on August 28, imposes severe restrictions on basic voter outreach and assistance efforts, which are backed by serious criminal sanctions. 

Specifically, the challenged provisions prohibit compensating people for voter registration activities and mandate 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. 

The law is so vague that simply offering reimbursement for parking or pizza to volunteers could put organizations at risk of violating the law. The law also prohibits "soliciting” a voter into obtaining an absentee ballot application, which denies eligible Missourians the help they need  to vote in a secure and convenient way. 

The statute does not define what it means to “solicit” an application. Failing to comply with these strict and confusing prohibitions could 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.

“Missourians just voted in a secure primary without the restrictions and requirements imposed by H.B. 1878, underscoring how much of a sham the law is. Instead of celebrating civic engagement groups for their work to encourage participation in our democracy, Missouri legislators criminalized basic voter outreach efforts,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “Civic engagement organizations help make sure every voice is heard, including voters of color who have been historically marginalized. Our laws should protect and expand the freedom to vote, not punish democracy’s do-gooders and make it more challenging for Missourians to register to vote or vote absentee.” 

Absent court action, H.B. 1878’s changes to Missouri’s election laws will be in effect for the November 8 general election, creating deliberate barriers to voter registration and absentee voting which will be most acute in communities of color. The restrictions on civic engagement organizations threaten their ability to hold community-based voter engagement events, obtain and retain volunteers to assist voters and chill their constitutionally protected political speech. 

“Because of these provisions, the Missouri NAACP will have to stifle our voter registration and absentee voting activities at the very time heading into the midterm elections when the NAACP would be otherwise engaging these communities in registration and absentee voting,” said Nimrod Chapel, Jr., President of the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP. “The NAACP has led the fight for African American voting rights for generations. The disparities that still exist place our very livelihoods at stake. Missouri lawmakers have stripped us of critical ways to engage our communities. The NAACP is committed to free and fair elections where people of color are not targeted for exclusion.”

"The NAACP is dedicated to protecting the rights of voters. Missouri's new law would make it more difficult for civil rights groups to register voters, criminalize some efforts to encourage lawfully registered voters to cast ballots, and needlessly prevent some registered voters from voting,” said Janette McCarthy Wallace, general counsel of the NAACP. “Put simply, the law would suppress votes and disenfranchise voters." 

LWVMO and MO NAACP, as well as their volunteers and staff, reasonably fear that H.B. 1878 will criminalize many of their current and most basic voter outreach efforts. In fact, the bill’s language is so vague that the ban on absentee ballot solicitation 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. 

“HB 1878 is breathtaking in the ways it undermines democratic participation in Missouri by criminalizing the activities of the very civic engagement organizations that help ensure underserved communities have access to the democratic process,” said Denise Lieberman, director and general counsel of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, which has lead statewide efforts to advocate against HB1878. “HB 1878 stands to halt voter registration drives and prevent organizations from getting absentee ballot applications to the communities who need it most.”

“For over a century, the League of Women Voters of Missouri has worked to educate and empower voters, and we are proud of our members’ essential voter registration and education work,” said Marilyn McLeod, president of the League of Women Voters of Missouri. “This law criminalizes work we do regularly and, ultimately, harms Missouri voters who rely on the League’s work to ensure their voices are heard at the ballot box.” 

Many Missouri voters have been able to participate in our democracy thanks to the work of nonpartisan civic engagement groups who help people register to vote or apply for an absentee ballot. Instead of encouraging and supporting the work of these groups to drive voter turnout, Missouri legislators choose to criminalize basic voter engagement activities and restrict access to absentee voting.

“These new restrictions limiting voter registration and absentee ballot assistance will add further detriment to Missouri’s election process which is already ripe with deeply rooted systemic barriers that impede access to the ballot of marginalized communities,” said Luz María Henríquez, Executive Director of the ACLU of Missouri. “Registering voters, at its core, is political speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Rather than enacting legislation to encourage and increase participation in the democratic process, the politicians in Jefferson City pass laws that criminalize voter engagement and mobilization efforts.”

CLC, ACLU of Missouri and MOVPC, filed suit on behalf of LWVMO and MO NAACP challenging certain provisions of H.B. 1878 for violating those organizations’ rights to free speech, free association and due process enshrined in the Missouri Constitution.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Defending Nonpartisan Civic Engagement Organizations in Missouri (LWVMO and Missouri NAACP v. Missouri)

At a Glance

The League of Women Voters of Missouri and Missouri State Conference of the NAACP are challenging several parts of Missouri’s anti-voter bill that restrict civic engagement groups’ ability to assist with voter registration and absentee ballot applications. 

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

The League of Women Voters of Missouri (LWVMO) and Missouri State Conference of the NAACP (Missouri NAACP) filed a lawsuit in Missouri state court challenging several provisions of Missouri’s new anti-voter bill, H.B. 1878. The plaintiffs are represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri (ACLU MO), and the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition (MOVPC).

Among other restrictive measures, the bill: (1) prohibits any person other than a government employee from being paid to assist with voter registration; (2) requires any person who assists more than 10 voters with registration to register with the Secretary of State as a “voter registration solicitor” ; (3) mandates that only registered voters in the state of Missouri are permitted to assist with voter registration; and (4) forbids anyone from suggesting a person should obtain an absentee ballot application.  

The challenged provisions violate LWVMO’s and Missouri NAACP’s freedom of speech, freedom of association and due process protections enshrined in the Missouri Constitution. 

To make matters worse, these restrictions are backed by harsh criminal penalties. In Missouri, if someone violates election law, they could lose the freedom to vote for life. The bill’s language is so vague that a volunteer could be subject to prosecution, including prison time, for simply reminding a voter that they can vote absentee if they will be out of town on Election Day.  

LWVMO and the Missouri NAACP hold frequent voter registration events in communities throughout Missouri. Volunteers travel to places like churches, naturalization ceremonies, high schools and community colleges, back-to-school events, food drives and more to promote civic engagement by encouraging attendees to register to vote and cast a ballot.  

During those events, volunteers also make absentee ballot applications available for eligible voters, encourage voters to apply to vote absentee and assist voters with the absentee ballot application process. Engagement efforts like these are an important tool in making voting accessible, especially for voters from historically marginalized communities, including voters of color, low-income voters, and voters with disabilities, as well as young voters. 

H.B. 1878 could put a halt to much of this important work, severely hampering protected political speech and activity by LWVMO, the Missouri NAACP and their members and employees.  

Through their voter engagement work, these organizations and their members seek to communicate a pro-voter message and encourage civic participation. Unfortunately, because of H.B. 1878’s broad reach and vague provisions, voter engagement will become far more difficult for civic engagement organizations. Civic engagement groups like LWVMO and Missouri NAACP will likely be barred from encouraging voters to apply to vote absentee or assisting voters with absentee ballot applications. 

Our democracy is strongest when every voter can make their voice heard. Our laws should protect and expand the freedom to vote, not punish the people who are trying to strengthen our democracy by helping more Missourians vote. 

Florida Officials Failed to Do Their Job, Voters to Pay the Price

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. – Blair Bowie, senior legal counsel and Restore Your Vote manager at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced the state is charging 20 people with illegal voting due to past felony convictions.

“Florida’s strategy to criminalize people with felony convictions for voting is a transparent voter intimidation tactic designed to keep Floridians from even trying to vote. Advocates asked for a process for people with convictions to easily determine their eligibility. The state refused. Since Florida’s felony disenfranchisement law is so complex, Florida election officials swore under oath that they would check voter registrations, every day, and remove voters with convictions who are ineligible. They failed to keep that promise, and now 20 Floridians are facing charges and possible prison time because the elected officials want to score a political point at their expense.

Floridians voted for an inclusive democracy where every voice is heard. Instead of criminalizing people for trying to vote, Florida must create a process to determine registrants’ eligibility. In fact, the state is required to do so under federal law. The right to vote is a basic democratic freedom and Floridians with felony convictions are citizens who should have a say on the issues that directly impact their lives.”

In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly passed Amendment 4 to lift Florida’s lifetime ban on voting for people with felony convictions. In response, Florida politicians passed a law – SB 7066 – which erected new barriers that prevent people with felony convictions from voting.

Among other things, the law makes it extremely difficult for someone with a past felony conviction to determine whether they can vote.  For a person to be guilty of illegal registration and voting, they must have known they were ineligible. However, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has not released any evidence showing that these individuals knew they could not vote.

Many Floridians reasonably believed they could vote because their registrations were approved and they were not taken off the rolls before the election. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion stating that all 85,000 people with felony convictions who registered to vote before the trial were “entitled to vote” unless the state removed them  from the rolls. Since they were never removed, those individuals had every reason to believe they could vote.  

This is not the first time Florida has criminalized people with felony convictions just for trying to vote. In April, the state charged 10 Floridians for illegally voting – even though many had no knowledge they could not vote and were actually in custody when they registered and cast ballots. There too, the county presented little evidence, if any, that these individuals were aware they could not vote when they registered and cast a ballot. That evidence is required to prove illegal voting and illegal registration charges.

These charges are part of a larger anti-democratic strategy in Florida to criminalize and intimidate voters with felony convictions, so even those who can vote are too afraid to.

People with felony convictions can find out if they can vote at RestoreYourVote.org. Restore Your Vote is a free, anonymous tool to help people with felony convictions find out if they can register to vote or have their rights restored.

Defending Campaign Finance Disclosure in San Francisco — San Franciscans Supporting Prop B v. David Chiu

At a Glance

CLC has joined a case defending a City of San Francisco disclosure law that requires certain campaign ads to include disclaimers listing the ad’s sponsor and the sponsor’s top contributors, enacted through referendum to ensure city voters receive immediate information about who is financing the election messages they see.

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

In May 2022, a ballot measure committee and several other political groups sued San Francisco, challenging the city’s recently-amended disclaimer law that requires election ads to list not only their sponsors but also the sponsor’s top three contributors, and — if those top contributors are committees — to list those committees’ top two contributors, i.e., “secondary contributors.” This law provides city voters with contemporaneous, “on-ad” disclosure about who is financing the election advertising they view, enabling them to make informed decisions at the polls.

The challenged provisions were enacted in November 2019 by over 75% of city voters as a part of Proposition F. San Francisco’s referendum is part of a nationwide trend — where jurisdictions from Alaska to Rhode Island to Hawaii have enacted similar transparency laws to provide their voters with immediate, “on-ad” information about the sponsors and the principal funders of election advertising.

The district court in June 2022 denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and declined to block enforcement of the city’s “secondary contributor” disclosure provisions. The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2022, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) joined the case to help, defending the constitutionality of the city disclaimer law and urging affirmance of the district court’s decision.

What’s at stake?

The plaintiffs argue that San Francisco’s disclaimer law unconstitutionally “compels speech” and that the contributor disclosure provisions sweep too broadly and may confuse voters. CLC points out, however, that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld disclaimer laws as important transparency measures that protect voters’ right to know who is attempting to influence their election choices. CLC’s brief also marshals the growing body of social science research that demonstrates how public disclosure of the sources behind election spending, particularly through contemporaneous on-ad disclaimers, equips voters with valuable informational shortcuts that facilitate knowledgeable choices on Election Day.

Plaintiffs

San Franciscans Supporting Prop B

Defendant

David Chiu