Advocating for Polling Place Access in the Deep South

At a Glance

Voters across the Deep South have seen a reduced access to the polls because of mass closures of polling places. Fewer polling places results in long wait times and longer journeys to the polls, reducing access to the ballot box for voters of color and low-income voters. CLC is working with organizers to advocate for better in-person voting access for marginalized voters. 

Status
Active
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

Persisting problems with local election administration creates barriers to the ballot box, particularly for communities with a history of racial discrimination at the polls.

A significant issue is the restriction of in-person voting. State and local governments, now free from the Voting Rights Act of 1965’s provisions, have reduced the number of locations to vote in-person on Election Day and during early voting. In Louisiana, for example, parish governments closed a total of 126 polling places between 2012 and 2018. In Mississippi, county governments closed a total of 96 polling places between 2012 and 2018. And in Alabama, county governments closed a total of 72 polling places during the same time period.

These problems should be seen in the context of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the provision of Voting Rights Act that prevented some states from passing discriminatory voting laws. Unfortunately, many Southern localities have taken full advantage of this freedom from federal oversight to impose hard-to-spot practices that create barriers for voters of color in every election.

The removal of a polling place in a neighborhood can cause longer wait times and voter confusion when voters show up to the wrong polling place. Likewise, a lack of access to early voting reduces the opportunity for marginalized communities to vote, since marginalized communities tend to use early voting at higher rates. In the Deep South in particular, most states do not provide universal vote by mail, so the majority of voters must vote in-person to exercise their right to vote.

Before the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act authorized the federal government to prevent these discriminatory practices through a process called “preclearance.” In jurisdictions subject to preclearance, the federal government would provide oversight to every change in voting policy and watch out for potentially discriminatory adverse effects. Although federal preclearance is now gone, community organizers are in the position to gather their own information to show the patterns and practices to enforce the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act. While we wait for Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act, it is up to organizers to engage in their own “community preclearance” to fill the gap by spotting and responding to issues that prevent voters from accessing the ballot box.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has partnered with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and organizers in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to provide resources on expanding access to the ballot, and to advocate for better policies to increase the number of polling places on Election Day and during early voting.

Campaign Legal Center Files Complaint Against Bipartisan Set of 23 Super PACs

Date
Body

WASHINGTON - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against 23 super PACs that had worked to illegally conceal their affiliation - denying voters the right to know who is spending big money to influence their vote.

Established, D.C-based super PACs tied to the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties are among the 23 groups listed in the complaint, as are a number of so-called “pop-up super PACs” that existed solely to influence one congressional race.

Between 2017 and 2020, 18 of these super PACs falsely presented themselves to voters as independent groups, with most utilizing names that suggested ties to the given state or region in which they were trying to influence voters. Wealthy special interests often run election ads that are deliberately misleading. Voters need to know who is funding these ads so they can weigh their credibility and cast an informed vote.

What these groups illegally concealed from voters was their affiliation with established national super PACs tied to Congressional leadership. Combined, these 18 groups spent more than $200 million attempting to influence voters in competitive federal elections across the country, with nearly all of that funding coming from the 5 national groups.

"Senior leaders of both parties have been steering money from wealthy special interests to front groups specifically designed to trick voters," said Adav Noti, Senior Director of Trial Litigation and Chief of Staff at CLC Action, and former Associate General Counsel of the FEC. "Voters have a right to know when big money is flowing into their elections from D.C.-based groups hiding their agendas and funding behind fake names. The vast scope of this illegal concealment should prompt swift investigation and a firm crackdown by the FEC."

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires that political committees publicly disclose “the name, address, relationship, and type of any connected organization or affiliated committee” within 10 days of becoming a political committee. The fact that these 18 “pop-up super PACs” received most or all of their funding from these established D.C-based groups clearly demonstrates such affiliation.

The FEC, which is the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of our political campaigns, must hold these groups accountable for concealing this important information from American voters. We need real transparency about who is spending big money on elections.

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

Issues
Campaign Finance

Blassingame v. Trump

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center Action filed an amicus brief in support of the Capitol Police officers and members of Congress who are suing Donald Trump and his allies for the injuries they caused when the counting of votes was disrupted on Jan. 6, 2021.

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

On Jan. 6, 2021, a violent pro-Trump mob stormed the United States Capitol to prevent federal officials from discharging their duties to count the Electoral College ballots and ratify Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the established winners of the 2020 presidential election. The mob—provoked by Trump and his allies’ relentless disinformation campaign about the 2020 election and rallying calls to “stop the steal” and “fight like hell”—violently overran law enforcement officers to impede the electoral process. The chaos left five people dead and countless injured, and halted the formalization of the 2020 election results for hours.

Members of Congress and injured Capitol Police officers sued Donald Trump and his allies under a Reconstruction-era statute, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, alleging that Trump and his allies formed a civil conspiracy with the people who came to the Capitol to disrupt the counting of electoral votes in Congress.

Our Brief

CLC Action filed an amicus brief supporting the members of Congress and Capitol Police officers’ cases. The brief explains why the key provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 apply to the disruption of the electoral vote counting in Congress and prohibit Trump and his allies’ core involvement, based on the statute’s text, the 1871 Congress’ design and intent, and historical source material.

Subscribe to