Victory: CLC Complaint Prompts District Court to Hold the FEC Accountable

Date
Body

Washington, DC — Today, a district court has ruled that the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the only agency tasked with enforcing federal campaign finance law, must be held accountable to its mission of fostering transparency. This decision comes after the FEC’s dismissal of a February 2024 complaint filed by Campaign Legal Center alleging campaign finance reporting violations by Last Best Place (LBP) PAC. 

Erin Chlopak, senior director for campaign finance at Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement: 

In a win for transparency, the FEC has now been told that it must do its job and cannot refuse to enforce the law without a meaningful explanation. After the FEC dismissed Campaign Legal Center’s complaint against Last Best Place PAC for alleged campaign finance reporting violations, CLC sued, challenging the FEC’s flawed and inadequate explanation. In an opinion released today, the court agreed, rejecting the FEC’s dismissal decision as 'arbitrary and capricious' and 'too conclusory to survive' judicial review. 

When the FEC refuses to enforce the laws that ensure transparency around election ads, voters’ ability to understand the campaign messaging they are bombarded with is compromised. And when the FEC attempts to shirk its enforcement duties without explanation, it is imperative that courts take action to hold the agency accountable. Campaign Legal Center welcomes the court’s decision, which demands that the FEC explain itself when it issues decisions declining to enforce our campaign finance laws.” 

### 

Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Founded in 2002, CLC fights for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. 

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Native American Voters in North Dakota Urge Eighth Circuit to Reinstate Voting Rights and Fair Maps

Date
Body

St. Paul, MN — The Spirit Lake Tribe, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, and several individual voters today filed an en banc petition urging the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to reconsider a recent decision that stripped voters of their right to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The panel’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would silence Native voters in North Dakota and disenfranchise millions across seven Midwestern states.

The unprecedented decision held that private citizens may no longer bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA — a key provision used for decades to combat racially discriminatory voting laws — claiming the law does not create individual rights. The ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent and undermines hard-fought victories by Native communities.

“The fair map we secured led to a historic first – a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota legislature. This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government,” said Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street.

“Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice. We will continue to fight for fair representation,” said Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Chairman Jamie Azure.

"We went to court because the map the state passed made it harder for Native voters like me to have a real voice. The court agreed and gave us a fair chance to elect candidates. Now, the Eighth Circuit wants to take away my right to question maps that silence votes, not because we were wrong, but because they say the Voting Rights Act does not create rights. That’s not justice and we’re going to keep fighting for that,” said plaintiff and North Dakota Native Vote Board Member Wes Davis (Turtle Mountain Chippewa).

“Throughout the redistricting process, we asked to be fairly represented. When the state adopted an unfair and illegal map, we challenged it — and we won. But now, the Eighth Circuit has erased that victory on a legal technicality that goes against decades of settled law. I will continue to stand with my community and demand fair representation in our legislature,” said plaintiff Collette Brown, North Dakota Representative for District 9.

“I joined this case because I saw firsthand how the state’s map silenced Native voters in our community. It split us up in ways that made it nearly impossible to elect people who understand our lives and will stand up for our interests. The lower court agreed and fixed that. Now the Eighth Circuit has reversed that progress. The court says that we never had the right to challenge it in the first place and that no North Dakota voter has that right anymore. That’s not just disappointing — it’s dangerous. Native voices matter, and we’re not done fighting to make sure they’re heard,” said plaintiff Zachery S. King (Turtle Mountain Chippewa).

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Native American Rights Fund (NARF), Robins Kaplan, LLP, and the Law Office of Bryan L. Sells, LLC — on behalf of Native American voters on the Turtle Mountain Reservation and Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota — filed the en banc petition arguing Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act/Klan Act of 1871 is and must remain a means to enforce the voting guarantees of Section 2 in every state of the nation. The current disputed map dilutes the voting power of North Dakota’s Native American voters.

“Two weeks ago, two Eighth Circuit judges ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not create voting rights enforceable by voters in court. The full Eighth Circuit should overturn that radical and unlawful ruling, which flouts Supreme Court precedent and congressional intent. Voters in the seven states of the Eighth Circuit — including Native American voters in North Dakota — should not be afforded fewer voting rights than those in the rest of the country,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at CLC. “Campaign Legal Center and our partners have been in this fight for over three years, and we will see to it that Native American voters from the Turtle Mountain Band and Spirit Lake Tribe are able to make their voices heard and achieve fair representation without deliberate barriers.”

“This decision is a devastating blow to Native voters and to the Voting Rights Act itself. For decades, private citizens — especially in communities like Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake — have relied on Section 2 to challenge racially discriminatory voting laws. The Eighth Circuit has now become the only federal appellate court to block those claims from being heard. It’s a dangerous precedent that denies voters across seven states the right to defend their most fundamental freedoms. We’re not backing down. NARF will continue to fight to ensure that Native people can have a voice in the political process,” said NARF Staff Attorney Lenny Powell.

If this decision stands, only the U.S. Department of Justice is authorized by the VRA to file lawsuits in the Eighth Circuit, which effectively closes off voters’ ability to challenge unfair maps as the department diminishes its Civil Rights Division. Native American voters in North Dakota have been fighting for a fair map since 2021. If this decision is left in place, their right to fair representation could vanish overnight.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events

Issues

Does the Rule of Law Still Matter in a Second Trump Administration?

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump’s second term has been characterized by overreaching executive orders, troubling attacks on our electoral system, clear conflicts of interest, and a blatant disrespect for the rule of law, the Constitution and our system of checks and balances.  

These actions paint an alarming picture of a president attempting to consolidate power at all costs.

Demanding Transparency from DOGE (In re U.S. DOGE Service U.S. Supreme Court brief)

At a Glance

To avoid discovery, the government argues DOGE is not an agency subject to FOIA. On behalf of government transparency scholars, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted a Supreme Court brief arguing courts should look at what DOGE is actually doing to determine whether FOIA applies, instead of relying on the government’s own representations.   

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
About This Case/Action

Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics (CREW) filed a lawsuit demanding that DOGE answer its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered DOGE to respond to discovery to help determine whether DOGE is an agency covered by FOIA. 

DOGE has now appealed those orders to the U.S. Supreme Court. DOGE is arguing courts may only rely on executive orders that establish part of the Executive Office of the President to determine whether DOGE — or any other government entity established by the executive branch — is subject to FOIA.

CLC has joined the case with an amicus (or friend-of-the-court) brief representing government transparency professors whose research, teaching and writing focus on information and transparency law.  

CLC’s brief argues that the history of FOIA does not require courts to simply accept the government’s assessment of what is or is not an agency for purposes of FOIA, and how adopting such a rule would permit the government to evade the public’s right to transparency.  

What’s At Stake?

The government cannot decide for itself if it’s subject to FOIA or not. A legal test like this would undermine the purpose of FOIA and other transparency laws.  

This transparency law has historically been applied on the basis of a government entity’s activities, not just on what the government says.  

Accepting the government’s interpretation would allow and incentivize presidents to create more entities similar to DOGE that can operate within a black box and avoid transparency laws.