Kansas City, KS — Today, in a decision that will have ramifications for Kansas' voters for a decade, Kansas' Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling. The lower court had found that the state’s recently enacted congressional map constituted a partisan gerrymander and intentionally diluted the voting power of racial minorities, violating the Kansas Constitution.

“The Kansas Supreme Court’s reversal of the lower court’s decision is a slap in the face to voters and runs afoul of the democratic values spelled out in Kansas’ own constitution. The Kansas Legislature crafted gerrymandered maps that purposefully divide Kansans based on race and political views to serve a political interest instead of the community’s needs," said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center. "Campaign Legal Center will keep fighting for fair maps, because voters deserve to choose their politicians instead of the other way around.”

“We’re obviously very disappointed for our clients,” said Sharon Brett, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas. “This will have ripple effects for elections for years to come, and tells entire categories of voters in the state that their rights under our state constitution are meaningless."

Alonzo, et al. v. Schwab, which was filed on behalf of 11 Kansas voters, alleged that Kansas’ 2022 congressional redistricting plan intentionally dilutes the voting power of racial minorities and constitutes a partisan gerrymander, violating the Kansas Constitution.

In April, a Kansas district court blocked the gerrymandered maps from taking effect and called for the Kansas Legislature to return to the drawing board to produce fair maps that ensure every voter has an equal voice ahead of the 2022 election. 

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

Kansas City, KS — This afternoon, oral arguments occurred before the Kansas Supreme Court in the Alonzo, et al. v. Schwab case, in a challenge by Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU of Kansas and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement after oral arguments concluded:

“Kansas’ Republican legislators passed a blatantly gerrymandered map that intentionally dilutes the voting power of racial minorities and Democratic voters to serve their political interests instead of the community’s interests. The Kansas Supreme Court must reaffirm what the lower court already determined: Kansas voters of all parties and races deserve to live under fair maps that give every voter an equal voice."

Alonzo, et al. v. Schwab, which was filed on behalf of 11 Kansas voters, alleged that Kansas’ 2022 congressional redistricting plan intentionally dilutes the voting power of racial minorities and constitutes a partisan gerrymander, violating the Kansas Constitution.

In April, a Kansas district court blocked the gerrymandered maps from taking effect and ordered the Kansas Legislature to return to the drawing board to produce fair maps that ensure every voter has an equal voice ahead of the 2022 election. Watch the oral argument before the Kansas Supreme Court here. 

Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:

Today’s decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate is a disappointing one. American campaign finance laws are designed to limit political giving that overly indebts officeholders to donors and results in political favors. Permitting candidates to solicit unlimited post-election contributions to repay their personal campaign loans and put the donor money in their own pockets gives an obvious and lamentable opening for special interests to purchase official favors and rig the political system in their favor.

At stake in this case was a provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that set a modest $250,000 limit on post-election fundraising to retire candidate loans and had largely operated without controversy since its adoption as part of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002. Campaign Legal Center, joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause and Democracy 21, had filed an amicus brief in this case, defending the law.

In holding the limit unconstitutional, the Court’s majority dismissed widely shared and self-evident concerns regarding the corruptive potential of post-election candidate loan repayments – which function like gifts that line the pockets of candidates after Election Day. The reasons for these concerns are documented in the record before the court. Voters are also unable to properly take into consideration this fundraising as these “gifts” come after votes have already been cast.

This decision conflicts not only with the Supreme Court’s longstanding recognition that putting money into candidates’ pockets creates an inherent risk of corruption but also with common sense and historical experience. As CLC’s amicus brief made clear – in a section Justice Kagan cited in her dissent – there is abundant evidence from across the country that post-election contributions can give rise to actual and apparent corruption.

While the direct effects of this decision are limited to the narrow federal provision at issue in the case, it reveals a Supreme Court increasingly out of step with the American people – who overwhelmingly recognize that unchecked campaign giving poses profound risks to the integrity of our democracy. More immediately, the ruling could imperil an array of similar restrictions on post-election loan repayments adopted at the state and local level out of legitimate concerns over corruption.