Ensuring Colorado’s Redistricting Maps Fulfill the State Constitution’s Protections Against Vote Dilution

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed two briefs in two cases before the Colorado Supreme Court on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Colorado League United of Latin American Citizens (together, “LULAC”), advocating for congressional and state legislative redistricting maps that would avoid the preventable dilution of Latino voters’ electoral influence.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In 2018, Colorado voters overwhelmingly supported two amendments to the state constitution that created two independent redistricting commissions for the 2021 cycle, one to redraw Colorado’s congressional map and the other to redraw Colorado’s state House and state Senate maps. Part of the amendments established the criteria for the commissions to use in determining district lines, including the key requirement that the commissions must avoid adopting a map that would needlessly dilute the electoral influence of Colorado’s minority voters.

The congressional commission disregarded this new “electoral influence” requirement, claiming that it was merely a restatement of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). Based on this flawed interpretation, the Congressional Redistricting Commission’s submitted map would dilute the electoral influence of Colorado’s Latino voters in the southern parts of the state and areas in north Denver.

The Legislative Redistricting Commission working on the state House and state Senate maps drew lines that fulfilled the electoral influence requirement. The Legislative Redistricting Commission complied by devising “crossover districts” that enabled pockets of substantial minority voter populations in the state to combine with other cohesive voters in a way that avoids preventable vote dilution. The Legislative Redistricting Commission drew these crossover districts even in areas where the federal VRA would likely not be applicable.

CLC filed briefs on behalf of LULAC directly in the Colorado Supreme Court advocating for the Court to interpret the “electoral influence” requirement to mean what it says and carry out Colorado voters’ intent to establish protections against minority vote dilution that exceed the federal VRA. CLC’s brief in the congressional case encouraged the court to reject the Congressional Redistricting Commission’s lawyers’ misinterpretation of the Colorado Constitution that would erase the electoral influence requirement from the Colorado Constitution and send the submitted map back to the commission to be corrected. CLC’s brief in the state legislative case encouraged the court to rule that the Legislative Redistricting Commission fulfilled its constitutional obligations to avoid preventable vote dilution.

What's at Stake

Latinos in Colorado comprise one-fifth of the state’s population, including an increase of nearly a quarter of a million new Latino residents over the last decade. But Latino voters have faced substantial structural obstacles embedded in Colorado’s redistricting plans that have historically prevented them from translating their political strength into effective representation. Only one Latino candidate has ever represented Colorado in the House of Representatives, and candidates supported by Latino voters are rarely elected. Colorado voters in 2018 sought to correct this course by enshrining protections of minority voters’ electoral influence in the state constitution. The court must enforce those protections in harmony with other redistricting considerations to ensure that Latino voters have an effective voice in the political process.

Plaintiffs

CLC, LULAC and Colorado LULAC

Defendant

Colorado Congressional Redistricting Commission

CLC Files Complaint Against Former Missouri Gov. Turned Senate Hopeful Eric Greitens, Alleging Illegal Spending

Date
Body

Former Missouri governor and current Senate candidate Eric Greitens illegally spent more than $100,000 from his gubernatorial campaign to help launch his Senate campaign and falsely described some of that spending as a personal contribution from himself.

Washington, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens (R) for the allegedly illegal spending of over $100,000 of leftover funds from a state-level gubernatorial campaign account to finance the startup costs of his ongoing U.S. Senate campaign.

This unlawful spending included payments to his Senate campaign manager, as well as to public relations firms and media consulting firms, and for digital costs.

Federal law prohibits Senate candidates from using state campaign funds to support their run for federal office because state-level contributions are subject to different rules than federal-level contributions. When a Senate candidate uses funds raised under state rules, they evade federal laws designed to guard against corruption and gain an unfair advantage over their opponents.

"While Greitens’ 2022 Senate campaign may only accept contributions of up to $2,900 per individual and, importantly, cannot receive corporate funds, his gubernatorial campaign raised dozens of contributions far exceeding that amount — some as much as $100,000 and above," said Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform for Campaign Legal Center. "Senate candidates cannot quietly finance their campaign with six-figure and corporate contributions.”

Additionally, it appears that Greitens violated federal transparency requirements by falsely describing some of that spending as a personal contribution from himself to his Senate campaign. 

The FEC is the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of our political campaigns. The agency needs to take action against Eric Greitens and his campaigns for this blatantly illegal spending. Missouri voters have a right to know where the money being spent to influence their votes is coming from. Like all Americans, they have a right to a fair and transparent electoral process.  

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

Issues
Campaign Finance

OCE Moves on First True Enforcement of the STOCK Act, Months After Complaint Filed by CLC

Date
Body

On March 8, 2021, Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint against Rep. Malinowski for apparent violation of the STOCK Act. Newly released documents show the Office of Congressional Ethics also sees, "substantial reason to believe" there was a violation.

Washington, D.C. - Just over seven months after the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint against Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) for allegedly violating the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, the independent Office of Congressional Ethics has also found, "substantial reason to believe" that he violated a law designed to promote transparency.

The law at hand, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, was signed into law in 2012 with the goals of preventing insider trading and increasing transparency in regard to stock trading activity by members of Congress.

This law is tied to legitimate concerns over conflicts of interest that arise when members of Congress take official actions related to their financial interests.

In the ten years since the law was enacted, enforcement has been lax and penalties have been tantamount to a slap on the wrist – leading to a widespread trend of violations that crosses ideological and geographic lines. The complaint against Malinowski was just the first of 13 such complaints filed so far in 2021 against sitting members of Congress (including five Democrats and eight Republicans) to be acted upon.

“Proper STOCK ACT enforcement is a critical step for holding members of Congress accountable to the public," said Delaney Marsco, senior legal counsel for ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Elected officials craft laws that directly impact the lives of Americans, so voters have a right to know whether their representatives are acting in the public’s interest or for their own financial gain.”

If elected officials are not held accountable for failing to promptly and properly disclose stock trades, and the penalties for such violations remain inadequate, this trend of members failing to comply may continue and worsen – enforcement needs to become the norm.

It is important that the OCE has taken the rare step of referring this matter to the House Committee on Ethics, which now has the power to recommend to the full House an appropriate repercussion for the Rep. Malinowski. But this step being taken does not mean that this matter is over – the  committee must take action to ensure that the STOCK Act is being truly and strongly enforced. 

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

Issues
Ethics
Subscribe to