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.

The lawsuit follows years of FEC inaction and alleges that Heritage Action for America failed to disclose the donors who funded the group’s election spending as mandated by federal law.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed suit against Heritage Action for America, a 501(c)(4) arm of the Heritage Foundation. The complaint alleges that Heritage Action spent over $1 million on advertisements supporting Republican U.S. House of Representatives candidates during the 2018 election cycle but failed to publicly disclose its contributors in violation of campaign finance law.

CLC filed suit after more than three years of inaction by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on an administrative complaint CLC filed with the agency in 2018. CLC sued the FEC in 2021 over its delay, and a federal court found that the agency’s failure to act violated the law, triggering CLC’s right to file suit directly against Heritage Action. The lawsuit adds to the growing number of cases where a district court has authorized CLC and other watchdogs to step in to enforce federal campaign finance laws directly after the FEC fails to act.

“Wealthy special interests use secret money to rig the political system in their favor. To reduce their undue influence, we need real transparency about who is spending big money on elections,” said Adav Noti, vice president and legal director at Campaign Legal Center. “Because the FEC failed yet again to do its job and left American voters in the dark, CLC is stepping up to enforce transparency requirements and ensure 501(c)(4) organizations like Heritage Action comply with federal law.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on May 3 that the FEC’s failure to act in this matter violated the law, and that CLC’s complaint against Heritage Action was “credible” and “outline[d] a legitimate threat to the health of our electoral processes.” This ruling cleared the way for CLC to take action directly against Heritage Action.

This is one of a series of cases in which CLC has stepped in to enforce federal campaign finance law — most recently, CLC filed suit against 45Committee, a dark money group that spent upwards of $38 million dollars during the 2016 cycle and Iowa Values, a dark money group supporting Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst.

Voters are entitled to real transparency about who is spending big money in elections — but repeated failures by the FEC to properly enforce campaign finance laws have only encouraged bad actors. In the absence of FEC action, groups like CLC are obligated to step up to ensure that federal campaign finance law is enforced.  

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