Civic Engagement Groups Prepare for Trial Challenging Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law

ATLANTA, GA – In a victory for voters, a federal court today said a lawsuit challenging Georgia’s anti-voter law can move forward. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) brought the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of VoteAmerica, the Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information. The lawsuit specifically contests provisions of Georgia’s S.B. 202 that violate the groups’ First Amendment right to distribute vote-by-mail applications. The lawsuit is now on a fast track for a decision on the merits.

“Georgia’s anti-voter law threatens the critical work of nonpartisan organizations that help vulnerable communities vote,” said Paul Smith, vice president for litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “We look forward to the opportunity to show the court the serious constitutional problems with Georgia’s law.”

“This is an important step forward for Georgia voters and for the defense of civic participation,” said VoteAmerica founder and CEO Debra Cleaver. “As we saw in the 2020 general election and 2021 runoff elections, millions of Georgians requested, received and cast their votes by mail, leading to unprecedented voter turnout. A backlash against high turnout amongst African-American, Latino and other voters of color should not be allowed to win the day.”

“Today’s decision by the court is a major win for Georgia’s voters,” said Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Voter Participation Center (VPC) and Center for Voter Information (CVI). “Through this lawsuit, we are contesting Georgia’s anti-voter law and specifically the provisions that would inhibit our ability to help Georgians vote-by-mail. At VPC and CVI, we’ll keep fighting to win this legal battle in Georgia, protect our democracy, and ensure every American can make their voices heard.”

In March 2021, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed S.B. 202 into law. The omnibus measure makes numerous changes to Georgia’s election system, specifically targeting access to vote by mail. These changes to Georgia’s election code prohibit the Secretary of State, county election officials and other government officials from sending vote-by-mail applications directly to any voter unless the voter specifically requests one. The law restricts third party organizations from distributing vote-by-mail applications to voters. Furthermore, the law imposes a $100 fine for every application sent by an organization to a person who has already requested, received, or voted using an absentee ballot—a major financial disincentive for nonprofit groups trying to aid with absentee ballot applications to registered voters.

Learn more about CLC’s work to combat state-level bills restricting Americans’ freedom to vote.

Issues

Voting and Elections

CLC Releases New Report on Reforming Arizona Campaign Finance Law

Issues

Campaign Finance

FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate

At a Glance

Federal law limits candidates from using more than $250,000 in contributions raised post-election to repay personal loans candidates make to their campaigns. In 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz and his Senate campaign committee sued the FEC, complaining that this law violated the First Amendment.

Status

Closed

Updated

Wed, 12/08/2021 - 12:00

Issues

Campaign Finance

About This Case/Action

Until Sen. Cruz filed his lawsuit, FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, the narrow yet important provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that sets a modest $250,000 limit on post-election candidate loan repayments had largely operated without controversy since its adoption as part of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002.

To set the stage for a constitutional test challenge to the loan-repayment limit, Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 immediately before the 2018 general election, then filed suit in Washington, D.C. federal court. There, Cruz argued that the restriction limiting candidates from using more than $250,000 in post-election contributions to repay personal loans violates the First Amendment.

In June 2021, the three-judge court agreed, reasoning that the federal government had not provided an adequate anti-corruption justification for the limit and striking it down as unconstitutional.

The case now heads to the U.S. Supreme Court under a special review provision that provides for direct appeal to the Supreme Court in constitutional challenges to the McCain-Feingold law.

On Aug. 6, 2021, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief in the case, defending the law and urging the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court. The next month, the Court set the appeal for plenary briefing and oral argument, which is now scheduled for Jan. 19, 2022. On Nov. 22, 2021, CLC, joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause and Democracy 21, filed a second amicus brief during the merits phase of the appeal, again urging the Court to reverse the ruling below.

What’s At Stake:

Federal law does not limit how much candidates can spend on their own campaigns nor how much they can loan to their own campaign committees. FECA, in fact, gives wide berth to the possibility that candidates may choose to self-finance — an activity accorded First Amendment protection.

The only thing the challenged law limits is using more than $250,000 in contributions solicited after an election to repay candidate loans. This form of payment comes with a self-evident and acute risk of corruption—because, unlike contributions raised in the normal course of an election cycle to facilitate campaign messaging, funds raised post-election to repay a candidate loan essentially flow right back into the candidate’s pocket for his or her personal use.

Post-election loan repayment contributions are therefore more accurately viewed as “gifts”— raising all the same corruption risks as would a candidate’s or officeholder’s acceptance of other direct financial benefits. The risk of corruption posed by what is functionally a personal “gift” to a candidate is clear. A donor, possibly one with business before a committee the candidate sits on, is essentially giving that candidate a personal check.

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to restore an important anti-corruption measure that serves as a modest and commonsensical limit on how much candidates can repay themselves after Election Day for personal loans to their campaigns.

Plaintiffs

Federal Election Commission

Defendant

Ted Cruz for Senate

Ohio Restrictions Could Curtail Work of Election Officials and Civic Organizations

Issues

Voting and Elections

Alice Huling

Voting Rights Groups Urge Ohio Attorney General Yost to Issue Opinion on Possible Election-Related Activity Ban

Date

Thu, 12/02/2021 - 12:00

Body

Cleveland, OH — Campaign Legal Center, All Voting is Local, Ohio Voice, and Common Cause today urged Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to issue an opinion for County Boards of Elections on what election-related activity is permitted or restricted under a newly implemented law that appears to forbid election officials from collaborating with advocates.

The budget bill passed by the Ohio Legislature this summer includes a provision that calls for a potentially sweeping prohibition on collaboration between election officials and community groups, a move that will limit voter registration and other efforts to help voters make their voices heard. However, public comments by the Secretary of State’s office and state legislators from both parties have indicated it was not the legislature’s intent to ban such programming, ultimately creating confusion about what is or isn’t restricted.

“The ongoing confusion among local election officials, the uneven interpretation of this new law by county prosecuting attorneys, and the lack of clarity in the law itself warrants an unambiguous opinion from your office,” the groups wrote in the letter.

"We believe that the current law, under any interpretation, represents poor public policy,” said Kayla Griffin, Ohio State Director for All Voting is Local. “It should be amended to remove the ban on collaboration or repealed entirely to avoid any situations that could hinder voter education and the work of elections officials.”

“What is clear is that this law has created confusion for local election officials who are simply trying to do their jobs and conduct activities that are critical to successful and inclusive democratic practices in Ohio,” said Danielle Lang, Senior Director for Voting Rights at Campaign Legal Center. “The legislature, in a bipartisan fashion, must amend or repeal this ban and allow these activities to continue. For the sake of all Ohio voters.”

Background: On its face, Revised Code § 3501.054 purports to bar any public official responsible for administering or conducting an election from collaborating with any nongovernmental entity on activities related to voter registration, education, poll worker recruitment, or similar election-related activities.