In the Matter of the 2022 Maryland Legislative Redistricting

At a Glance

This case is a challenge to Maryland’s state legislative redistricting plan, arguing that the plan is an extreme partisan gerrymander that violates the Maryland Constitution. CLC filed an amicus brief discussing the harms of partisan gerrymandering and advocating that the Maryland Court of Appeals rule that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

CLC’s amicus brief explains that partisan gerrymandering — whether done by Democrats, Republicans or anyone else — harms all citizens’ freedom to vote and right to equality in the political process. Partisan gerrymandering enables mapdrawers to skew district lines so that politicians can pick their voters and enhance their political advantage. CLC argues that Maryland’s maps should provide for the fair and effective representation of all citizens, not just the people likely to support the politicians drawing the map. CLC’s brief contends that Maryland courts should use manageable and reliable standards and tools to evaluate extreme partisan gerrymanders. CLC encourages the court to rule that the Maryland Declaration of Rights’ Free Elections Clauses and its guarantees of equal protection and free speech limit politicians’ ability to use partisan gerrymandering to silence voters holding minority political viewpoints.

What’s at stake

Fair and community-driven districting is key to empowering voters and ensuring that elections reflect the will of the people, no matter where they live, their background, or who they support. Partisan gerrymandering does the opposite. Gerrymandering is contrary to basic democratic principles because it allows self-interested politicians to draw lines that skew elections by favoring some voters over others.

Maryland has long had problems with partisan gerrymandering, which culminated last redistricting cycle in the U.S. Supreme Court case Benisek v. Lamone that was a companion litigation to CLC’s Rucho v. Common Cause case. While the U.S. Supreme Court in those cases declined to intervene to restrict partisan gerrymandering, it explicitly recognized that state courts applying state constitutional protections can ensure their state’s citizens have fair maps.

State supreme courts in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio have answered the call by recently ruling unconstitutional numerous partisan gerrymanders. Now, the Maryland Court of Appeals can do the same by making clear that partisan gerrymandering has no place in Maryland.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Denies Review in Case Challenging Santa Fe, New Mexico Political Spending Disclosure Laws

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. – Today, in a win for political transparency, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to hear an appeal in Rio Grande Foundation v. City of Santa Fe. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) served as counsel to the city defendants in the Supreme Court proceedings.

“Voters in Santa Fe, and in every municipality, have a right to know who is spending to influence ballot measure campaigns. We applaud the Supreme Court for denying review in this case and leaving the decision below in place,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center. “Special interests often run elections ads that are deliberately misleading, and today’s ruling means Santa Fe voters will be able to weigh the credibility of those ads and cast an informed vote.”

The challenged disclosure provision requires “event-driven” reporting: whenever a person or entity spends above a certain threshold to support or oppose a city ballot proposition, the person is required to disclose that spending, as well as certain donors who contributed for the purpose of funding it. The ordinance was challenged by the Rio Grande Foundation (RGF), an Albuquerque nonprofit that regularly participates in legislative and policy advocacy in New Mexico.

RGF’s constitutional challenge was rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed on standing grounds. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari leaves the city’s important transparency provision in place.

CLC is pleased to see the Supreme Court refuse yet another challenge to campaign finance transparency. The Court has long recognized that disclosure is a constitutional means of protecting voters’ right to know about the sources of election-related spending. 

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

Issues
Campaign Finance

Discriminatory Washington State Legislative Map to Remain in Place for 2022 Election, Lawsuit Heads to Trial

Date
Body

Tacoma, WA — Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), issued the following statement after a district court in Washington denied a CLC motion to block the enacted state legislative map for district 15 from going into effect for the 2022 election cycle. The complaint alleges that the map denies Latino voters the ability to elect their preferred candidates to the Washington state legislature.

“No matter our color, background or zip code, most of us want to have a say in who represents us. Latino voters in the Yakima Valley and Pasco regions deserve to have a fair opportunity to make their voices heard and elect candidates who will listen to them and meet their needs. The fight is far from over and we will continue to advocate for Latino voters in Washington so they can have a say in important matters that impact them every day.”

The state legislative map drawn this year will shape lives and communities in Washington for the next decade. While the lawsuit made a strong case that there would be irreparable and immediate harm to the Latino community in the Yakima Valley and Pasco regions, the district court held that the Supreme Court’s Purcell doctrine prevented the implementation of relief at this point in the election cycle. Campaign Legal Center and co-counsel, the UCLA Voting Rights Project, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Morfin Law Firm will continue to advocate for Washington’s Latino voters in a trial scheduled for January 2023 so that Latino voters have an equal chance to make their voice heard in future elections.

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

Issues
Redistricting

BREAKING: Campaign Legal Center Complaint over Canadian Business Executive Funding Trump-Aligned Super PAC Results in 3rd Biggest Fine in FEC History

Date
Body

The Federal Election Commission has imposed a $975,000 fine on Wheatland Tube, LLC and Zekelman Industries. The fine stems from a 2019 complaint from Campaign Legal Center, filed after the companies’ chief executive – a citizen of Canada – illegally arranged $1.75 million in contributions to the Trump-affiliated super PAC America First Action.

Washington, D.C. - This week, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) handed down a $975,000 fine – the third-largest in the agency’s history and the largest fine ever for a violation of the ban on foreign spending in American elections. The decision stems from an FEC complaint that Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed in May of 2019.

CLC’s complaint alleged that Barry Zekelman, a Canadian national, violated federal law’s ban on any foreign national directly or indirectly making contributions in connection with a federal election. Zekelman had participated in the decision to direct $1.75 million in contributions from Zekelman Industries subsidiary Wheatland Tube to the super PAC America First Action, Inc.

"We applaud the FEC for doing its job. Imposing this serious penalty helps protect the voices of voters from being drowned out by foreign corporations and other special interests,” said Adav Noti, vice president and legal director of Campaign Legal Center. "Super PACs funded by foreign money are just one example of how wealthy special interests use campaign contributions to rig the political system in their favor. Super PACs should now be on notice that there are major consequences for breaking the ban on foreign contributions.”

CLC filed its initial complaint following reporting by The New York Times that detailed Zekelman’s attempts to influence the Trump administration. The administration went on to rule in favor of Zekelman Industries on a series of claims the company has made against foreign competitors. Sales and profits subsequently surged at the privately held company.

The FEC is the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of our political campaigns. Recent failures by the FEC to enforce campaign finance laws has resulted in an explosion in secret spending, threatening Americans’ First Amendment right to have their voices heard. By administering the third-largest fine in the agency’s history, the FEC this week took a rare step towards standing up for the rights of American voters.

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

Issues
Campaign Finance
Subscribe to