Congress can and must act to guarantee equal, nondiscriminatory access to the freedom to vote

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released a report grading states on their 2021 legislative sessions. This is the first report to zoom in on how states have changed their vote-by-mail and early voting laws this year, finding that seven states enacted restrictive laws in the first half of the year. The report uses a ten-point scale to grade the performance of all states that have completed their legislative sessions, examining the impact of changes caused by COVID-19 and detailing which states are making those changes permanent.

CLC held a press call on voting rights today with New Georgia Project, viewable here.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced early Wednesday his plan for floor action in September on a revised version of the For the People Act, signaling that it will be a top priority after the Senate returns from recess. The report details how the new bill would positively impact the 13 states included in the report who currently require an excuse to vote by mail, and the 16 states included in the report that don’t currently have a two-week early voting period. In addition, at least four states that passed restrictive laws in the first half of this year would have been subject to preclearance – which would have required them to prove to the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court that their laws did not discriminate against voters of color – if the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act were in place.

“Federal intervention would have succeeded in preventing dozens of states from passing laws this year that severely curtail millions of Americans’ freedom to vote. Voting rights legislation must be passed urgently by Congress when they return from recess before more damage is done,” said Caleb Jackson, legal counsel, voting rights at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a co-author of the report. “The expansion of vote-by-mail and early voting opportunities were key to the 2020 election having the biggest election turnout in a century. States should be working to expand these opportunities so that voter turnout can continue to improve. Our democracy works best when all voters are able to exercise the freedom to vote in safe and accessible elections.”

CLC’s report findings include:

• Racial impact: With the exception of Maryland, the legislatures in states with the highest Black populations that changed their vote-by-mail and early voting policies each made changes for the worse: Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana.
• COVID-19 Impact: The COVID-19 pandemic led several states to expand access to vote by mail and early voting. During the 2020 elections, 10 states changed their laws to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail either generally or because they feared contracting the coronavirus. Only one of the 10 states that expanded vote-by-mail eligibility in 2020 is in the process of making that expansion permanent: New York. One of the four states that extended its early voting period during the pandemic permanently established three days of early voting through a bipartisan election reform package: Kentucky.
• Partisan Impact: In 2020, we saw an expansion of vote by mail in red and blue states alike. Five of the 10 states that expanded vote-by-mail eligibility in 2020 were states that the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, won by 10 or more percentage points. Trump also won every one of the four states that expanded their early voting periods in response to the pandemic.

Under the law, candidates for federal office are barred from coordination with super PACs and other outside groups supporting their candidacy.  

Washington, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center Action (CLCA) and End Citizens United (ECU) sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC) after the Commission deadlocked, dismissing ECU’s complaint against Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida).

ECU had filed a complaint with the FEC to hold Sen. Scott accountable for coordination with New Republican PAC, a super PAC which spent over $29 million supporting his election during the 2018 cycle.

At the heart of the complaint is the fact that Scott, who served as chairman of the super PAC from May 2017 until the end of that year and employed several close allies, raised significant funds for the group before launching his bid for Senate in April 2018. During that time, the group’s stated purpose was to support President Trump. On the day of Scott’s declaration, New Republican PAC declared in a press release that it was now “focused on the election of Rick Scott” and spent significantly to support his election.

Despite the FEC’s general counsel concluding there was reason to believe Scott broke the law and recommending further investigation, the FEC dismissed the complaint, split 3-3 in a deadlock along party lines.

In response to this dismissal, End Citizens United is now filing a lawsuit, asking the court to direct the FEC to take action against Scott for illegally using his super PAC to raise and spend millions of dollars on his Senate campaign.

This is another example of gridlock at the FEC undermining its ability to enforce anti-corruption campaign finance laws and why we need to enact the For the People Act (H.R.1/S.1) to reform the FEC. The For the People Act would restructure the FEC’s enforcement process, making it a more effective watchdog that enforces the law.

“Once again, the FEC is betraying the American people by allowing massive election cheating to go unpunished,” said Adav Noti, Senior Director of Trial Litigation and Chief of Staff at CLC Action, and former Associate General Counsel of the FEC. “While we are confident the courts will hold the FEC and Senator Scott accountable, our nation needs and deserves an election enforcement agency that actually enforces the law. Congress must overhaul the FEC and permanently break this cycle.”

“The FEC’s refusal to enforce the law and allow politicians like Senator Rick Scott to blatantly break campaign finance rules is an affront to the American people and undermines our free and fair elections,” said Tiffany Muller, President of End Citizens United. “No political candidate should be allowed to get away with breaking the law to win an election and if we have to use the courts to get the FEC to enforce the law, we will continue to do so. But it’s a short-term action that doesn’t solve the bigger problem. Congress must step in and pass the For the People Act to reform the FEC and stop political candidates from engaging in these corrupt practices to win elections.”

Federal law and FEC regulations prohibit candidates from soliciting contributions to super PACs unless certain critical measures are taken to ensure that the solicited contributions comply with federal contribution limits and prohibitions. Senator Scott took no such measures during his time leading New Republican PAC, instead raising millions of dollars which were later used to support his election. By dismissing this case, the FEC is yet again showing that it is not the effective watchdog this country needs. 

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

Web Tool Empowers Americans to Demand Fair Maps During Map Drawing Cycle 

WASHINGTON – In preparation for the August 12 release of redistricting data by the U.S. Census Bureau to the states, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is relaunching PlanScore.org, an empowerment tool to measure voting maps and evaluate them for partisan impact. 

As the 2021 map drawing cycle heats up, PlanScore will collect and analyze new district plans as they are proposed in states nationwide. The free web tool is intended for map drawers to assist them in ensuring they are creating fair maps, and also for policymakers, advocates and journalists to hold map drawers accountable to fair districting standards.  

“The voting districts that will be finalized in the coming weeks will be cemented for the next 10 years. PlanScore.org empowers voters to hold map drawers accountable and demand fair maps during this critical map drawing year,” said Mark Gaber, director, redistricting at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “Visitors to the website can score new district maps and assess whether the plans are gerrymandered. We are bringing the ability to measure partisan gerrymandering directly to the people and giving map drawers a tool to ensure that they draw fair maps.”  

The site contextualizes the gerrymandering taking place this cycle by allowing visitors to click on states and compare them to other states or previous maps from the same state. PlanScore.org presents the most comprehensive historical dataset of partisan gerrymandering ever assembled, going back to the 1970s, and includes all four main academic measures of gerrymandering.

To interview an expert for a redistricting story, email [email protected]. 

“Voting districts drawn this year will shape our lives and our communities for the next decade,” said Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, and a PlanScore founder. “But first, to understand the impact of gerrymandering on our voting maps, we need to be able to measure it. That is where PlanScore comes in. With the help of data from election experts around the country, we are expanding this free service to score and publish plans for all 50 states. This is a tool to help advocates hold map drawers accountable.” 

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate to defend a law that prevents potential corruption from arising when politicians make personal loans to their own campaigns only to repay them with donations received after Election Day.

Federal law limits candidates from using more than $250,000 in contributions raised after the date of an election to repay outstanding personal loans made to their campaign. In 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-T.X.) put $260,000 of his own money into his reelection and sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC) the following year, complaining that this law prevented him from paying off the last $10,000 with post-election contributions. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with Sen. Cruz, striking down the limit on the amount candidates can raise post-election to repay personal loans to their campaigns.

What should concern all voters is that the funds raised for such a purpose are not the typical campaign contributions made to a candidate to support an active campaign; instead, they are solicited after the election has occurred for the sole purpose of repaying the candidate’s personal campaign loans—and thus the money effectively goes right into that candidate’s pocket.

The risk of corruption posed by what is functionally a personal “gift” to a candidate is high—a donor, possibly one voters may disapprove of, or one with business before a committee that candidate sits on, is essentially giving that candidate a personal check.

“This time, the FEC got it right,” said Paul Smith, vice president for litigation & strategy at CLC. “They are appealing to defend a law which has the clear purpose of preventing corruption. In these types of post-election loan repayments, you can trace a direct line from the donor to a candidate’s personal bank account.”

Voters have a right to know which wealthy special interests are writing checks to their elected officials, a knowledge that becomes useless if that check is written after Election Day. It should be no surprise that Americans overwhelmingly express concern over the potentially corruptive nature of post-election campaign contributions.   

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