CLC Lawsuit Challenges Arizona’s Discriminatory Anti-Voter Law

Date
Body

WASHINGTON - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Barton Mendez Soto PLLC filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) and the Arizona Democracy Resource Center (ADRC) challenging H.B. 2492, an anti-voter law which imposes unnecessary and discriminatory burdens on Arizona voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

The lawsuit alleges that H.B. 2492 denies eligible Arizona voters the right to vote based solely on which type of voter registration form they submit and whether they can obtain, copy and submit paperwork that proves their current residence and U.S. citizenship status with their voter registration. Voters are already required to attest to these facts – under penalty of perjury – to register to vote, and federal law prohibits states from imposing additional requirements to register to vote in federal elections.

H.B. 2492 targets naturalized voters with additional burdens to vote, requiring them to disclose their place of their birth, which is irrelevant to any voter qualification. The law could also subject voters to investigation and prosecution if the information they provide contradicts the information in stale, faulty databases. These anti-voter provisions discriminate against entire sects of voters, including naturalized citizens, college and university students and married people who change their name, preventing them from freely exercising their freedom to vote.

“The anti-voter policies in H.B. 2492, signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey, create new barriers to Arizonans’ freedom to vote and violate longstanding federal law,” said Trevor Potter, founder and president of Campaign Legal Center and Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Voters should be able to cast their ballots freely, safely and equally to make the promise of democracy real for all Arizonans. This law takes Arizona in the wrong direction.”

“LUCHA works tirelessly to engage millions of Arizona voters across the state and to encourage them to participate in our democracy. We are outraged to see this piece of anti-voter legislation be signed into law. But we aren’t giving up,” said Tomás Robles, Co-Executive Director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA). “We are eager to join the effort to challenge it in the courts, and just as eager to continue our work marching with Arizonans to the polls.”

"For the past 93 years, LULAC has fought to ensure that Hispanics around the nation have the right to vote. Today, we reaffirm this commitment and stand up for the rights of Arizonans to this most sacred tenet of American Democracy and strenuously oppose HB2492," said Domingo Garcia, National President of League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

“HB 2492 is a barrier to students being able to vote. We have seen time and time again when registering students to vote that additional documentation requirements intimidate students, limit students, and stress students out on such an important matter in their adulthood,” said Cesar Aguilar, Executive Director of Arizona Students’ Association (ASA). “When ASA along with LULAC was able to change how students registered to vote in LULAC V. Reagan, it made a huge difference. Students felt confident in the easy process, and it helped ASA register thousands more students. Putting more barriers up for students only makes it harder to vote, period.”

"We believe that everyone should have a voice in decisions that impact our communities, including the laws that govern our lives. This bill is a direct attack on our people's voices," said M. Teresa Mabry, Co-Executive Director of Programs and Strategy for Arizona Democracy Resource Center (ADRC) Action.

In 2018, CLC filed a lawsuit against Arizona over its “dual registration system,” alleging that election officials in Arizona were determining whether to register voters for federal elections based solely on whether the voter submitted a state-issued registration form or a federal registration form. As a result of the lawsuit, election officials are required to register voters for federal elections regardless of which form they used and must compare registration applications against the state driver’s license database to determine whether the state already had proof of a voter’s U.S. citizenship before blocking a voter from registering for state elections.

H.B. 2492 returns Arizona to its arbitrary dual-registration system, where a voter’s right to vote in federal elections is contingent on which form the voter uses to register. The new law also prohibits voters who do not produce specific documents from using vote-by-mail or early voting and prevents them from voting in presidential elections at all.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court against Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, alleges that H.B. 2492’s burdensome registration requirements violate the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the National Voter Registration Act. The lawsuit asks the court to block enforcement of the law’s challenged provisions.

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

Issues
Voting and Elections

Challenge to Discriminatory Voter Registration Restrictions Targeting Latino and Native Voters in Arizona (LUCHA v. Fontes)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center and co-counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of several national and Arizona-based organizations alleging that two of Arizona’s new anti-voter laws impose severe, arbitrary and discriminatory burdens on Arizona voters that undermine their freedom to vote and violate federal law.

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

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and co-counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), and Arizona Democracy Resource Center (ADRC) challenging Arizona’s H.B. 2492, which was signed into law on March 30, 2022.

The lawsuit alleges that H.B. 2492 denies eligible Arizona voters the right to vote based solely on which type of voter registration form they use to register to vote and whether they have or can obtain paperwork that proves their current residence and U.S. citizenship status. Voters are already required to attest to these facts – under penalty of perjury – to register to vote, and federal law prohibits states from imposing additional requirements to register to vote in federal elections.

In 2018, Campaign Legal Center filed a lawsuit against Arizona over its “dual registration system,” alleging that election officials in Arizona were determining whether to register voters for federal elections based solely on whether the voter submitted a state-issued registration form or a federal registration form. As a result of the lawsuit, election officials are required to register voters for federal elections regardless of which form they used and must compare registration applications against the state driver’s license database to determine whether the state already had proof of a voter’s U.S. citizenship before blocking a voter from registering for state elections.

H.B. 2492 returns Arizona to its arbitrary dual-registration system, where a voter’s right to vote in federal elections is contingent on which form the voter uses to register. The new law also prohibits voters who do not produce specific documents from using vote-by-mail or early voting and prevents them from voting in presidential elections at all.

Federal law prohibits states from creating unnecessary barriers that restrict eligible voters’ freedom to vote. Voters should be able to cast their ballots freely, safely and equally to make the promise of democracy real for all Arizonans.  

CLC President Speaks Out on Anti-Voter Law in Arizona

Date
Body

WASHINGTON , D.C. — Trevor Potter, founder and president of Campaign Legal Center and Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, issued the following statement after Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed H.B. 2492 into law. Potter recently authored an op-ed for the Arizona Republic outlining the anti-voter provisions of the bill.

“The anti-voter policies in H.B. 2492, signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey, create new barriers to Arizonans’ freedom to vote and violate longstanding federal law. Voters should be able cast their ballots freely, safely and equally to make the promise of democracy real for all Arizonans. This law takes Arizona in the wrong direction.”

Issues
Voting and Elections

CLC v. FEC (Delay Suit—Trump Campaign Subvendor Reporting)

At a Glance

CLC has sued the FEC for its failure to act on CLC’s July 2020 administrative complaint alleging that then-President Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign committee (and an associated fundraising committee) violated federal campaign finance transparency requirements by routing hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign spending through intermediaries without disclosing the ultimate payees.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires federal political committees to disclose comprehensive details about their spending, including the name of each person that receives a campaign expenditure or other payment above $200 along with the amounts, dates and purposes of those payments.

The FEC has made clear that this reporting requirement can apply even when a political committee routes the spending through another entity. In particular, a political committee must disclose information about the ultimate recipient of its spending if (1) the intermediary through which it routed that spending does not have an arm’s-length relationship with the committee or (2) the intermediary merely acted as a conduit for payments to the ultimate payee.

In other words, campaigns can’t evade disclosure by funneling payments through intermediaries.

In July 2020, CLC filed an administrative complaint with the FEC alleging that then-President Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign committee and an associated fundraising committee had violated these reporting requirements. Drawing on media reports and public records, the complaint (which CLC supplemented in January 2021) alleged that the committees had funneled payments to vendors through two firms with close ties to the campaign without disclosing the details of the ultimate payments as required by FECA.

One of the businesses, American Made Media Consultants (AMMC), was apparently created by Trump campaign officials. The other, Parscale Strategy, is the consulting firm of former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale. CLC’s administrative complaint therefore alleged that Trump’s political committees did not have an arm’s-length relationship with either firm.

In addition, CLC’s filings alleged that both AMMC and Parscale Strategy functioned as conduits through which the campaign paid vendors and staff that were working for the campaign. Parscale Strategy, for example, reportedly paid the salaries of several campaign officials, including Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lara Trump.

Because both AMMC and Parscale Strategy had close ties to the two Trump committees and served merely as conduits for payments to campaign vendors, FECA required the committees to disclose the details of the ultimate payments to the vendors — not just the top-level payments to AMMC and Parscale Strategy.

But rather than comply with this requirement, the committees reported only unitemized bulk payments to AMMC and Parscale Strategy, hiding the details of the committees’ spending from public scrutiny.

If the FEC fails to act on an administrative complaint within 120 days, the complainant can ask a court to declare this inaction contrary to law. Pursuant to this provision — and after waiting over 600 days for the FEC to act on its administrative complaint — CLC sued the agency in March 2022, asking a District of Columbia  federal court to order the FEC to act on its administrative complaint.

What’s at Stake

As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, disclosure of campaign finance information serves a vital purpose: equipping voters with the knowledge necessary “to make informed decisions” when evaluating candidates and their messages. By allowing the Trump committees to conceal their spending, the FEC  leaves voters in the dark about those committees’ activities and invites future campaigns to similarly evade transparency requirements.

The FEC has a responsibility to ensure there is transparency and accountability in our elections by investigating and acting on potential FECA violations like those alleged in CLC’s administrative filings.

Plaintiffs

CLC

Defendant

FEC

Subscribe to