KANSAS CITY – Today, two voting organizations filed suit today in federal court in Kansas against Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Johnson County District Attorney Stephen Howe to block anti-voter provisions in HB 2332. The lawsuit, filed by VoteAmerica and the Voter Participation Center, two nonprofit charitable organizations focused on encouraging voters to vote by mail, seeks to block enforcement of a new law restricting the distribution of mail ballot applications to voters in the state.

Earlier this year, the Kansas Legislature overrode the Governor’s veto and passed HB 2332, an omnibus elections bill that prohibits out-of-state entities from mailing advance mail ballot applications to any voter in the state, in violation of the organizations’ ability to engage in voter engagement efforts that constitutes core political speech under the First Amendment. HB 2332 also criminalizes the mailing of advance mail ballot applications personalized with the voter’s name, address and other information, even if the voter provided that information and specifically requested an advance mail ballot application. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Lathrop GPM LLP are representing VoteAmerica and the Voter Participation Center.

“Kansas’s new law is the latest in a nationwide trend by state legislatures moving to restrict the freedom to vote,” said Paul Smith, Vice President for Litigation and Strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. “Beyond just targeting voters, however, laws like HB 2332 specifically take aim at the ability of nonpartisan, public interest organizations to help people navigate confusing systems and encourage them to exercise their ability to vote by mail. HB 2332 is unconstitutional, and we hope the court will strike it down.”

“More Americans than ever voted by mail last year, which meant that even during a pandemic there was record high turnout, which is a sign of a healthy democracy,” said VoteAmerica Founder and CEO Debra Cleaver. “State legislators in Kansas and across the country apparently think more people exercising their right to vote is a bad thing and instead prefer lower turnout elections where they can better dictate who can and cannot vote.  And now they want to want to block nonpartisan charitable organizations like VoteAmerica from simply helping voters - regardless of their political affiliation -- request mail in ballots. It’s intentionally voter suppressive, it’s undemocratic, and that’s why we’re suing.”

“HB 2332 is dangerous: it makes voting more difficult for Kansans by threatening their ability to vote-by-mail,” said Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Voter Participation Center (VPC). “In the 2020 election, we saw firsthand the urgency of vote-by-mail in the midst of the pandemic. That’s why we’re fighting back today to protect Kansans from this assault on our democracy and will keep working to ensure every American can make their voice heard.

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

NEWARK—Today, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey and Salvation and Social Justice, represented by the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and Campaign Legal Center, filed an amicus curiae brief in Conforti v. Hanlon, a case challenging New Jersey’s use of “the line” and other misleading features in its ballot design.

New Jersey is the only state in the country that organizes its primary election ballots by bracketing together a county-supported group of candidates in a column or row (“the line”), rather than listing each office and the candidates for that office in separate sections from one another. These bracketing rules in addition to other ballot design defects not only mislead and confuse New Jersey voters, but also disproportionately harm voters and candidates of color.

“Fair voter access is about more than just drop boxes and early voting hours. New Jersey’s primary ballot layout confuses voters, leading to decreased participation and keeping voters from having their voices heard,” said Jesse Burns, executive director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. “We cannot accept the disproportionate effect that our ballot design has on voters and candidates of color. New Jersey must do away with this overly-complicated ballot layout in favor of one that displays all candidates equally and provides voters with a straightforward ticket.”

Fair and clear ballot design is vital to a healthy democracy. Using “the line” not only grants bracketed candidates favorable positions on the ballot and systematically biases voters toward those candidates, it also, as today’s brief argues, negatively impacts voters because the manipulation of ballot position to capitalize on the bracketing bias undermines voter choice and the integrity of the democratic process.

“During a time when democracy is under attack and we must do everything possible to strengthen and expand it, New Jersey is instead subverting it by maintaining an outmoded primary ballot design that misleads and confuses voters and interferes with their right to vote,” said Henal Patel, director of the Democracy and Justice Program at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. “These ballot design flaws disproportionately burden Black and other voters of color and make it more difficult for candidates of color to win office, undermining the goal of fair representation. This is exactly the opposite of what our state should be doing during these pivotal times.”

Ballot design studies demonstrate that when basic usability principles are ignored in ballot design, as is the case with “the line,” the affected voters will disproportionately be Black and other voters of color.

“In order to achieve fair representation, there must be fair ballot design,” said Jade Ford, an attorney for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Ballot design impacts voters, not just candidates for office. These types of defects also disproportionately affect voters of color and lower-income communities. It is time for New Jersey to address these systemic threats to the democratic process.”

Because candidates on “the line” are most often incumbents or party operatives, who in New Jersey are overwhelmingly white despite the state’s 45% population of color, it is also more difficult for candidates of color to win electoral office, negatively impacting fair representation. The New Jersey State Assembly is currently 70% white, and the State Senate is 75% white.

“Salvation and Social Justice is committed to fair and just elections in New Jersey. This case presents an opportunity for our state to align with jurisdictions across the country to safeguard a healthy democracy for all. New Jersey’s current ballot structure unfairly burdens communities and candidates of color. Without a fair opportunity to run for office, our entire state suffers. The time is now for New Jersey to do what’s right. Our democracy depends on it,” said Rev. Dr. Charles Boyer, founding director of Salvation and Social Justice.

Plaintiffs in the 2020 case include New Jersey House, Democratic Committee, Township Committee and County Clerk candidates, as well as New Jersey Working Families. Defendants are county clerks from Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, Bergen, Atlantic, and Hudson counties. After defendants, along with Intervenor-Defendant Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, moved to dismiss the case, plaintiffs filed an opposition to that effort. The amicus brief supports plaintiffs’ opposition to having the case dismissed.

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

MICHIGAN – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld the state of Michigan’s voter-approved independent redistricting commission (IRC) as constitutional in Daunt v. Benson, allowing it to proceed with public input as the data is collected from the 2020 Census. The decision is a shot in the arm for the movement to adopt IRC’s as a viable solution to gerrymandering across the country. It could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It is time for fair maps in Michigan," said Paul Smith, vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), attorney of record in the case. "Today's decision reaffirms the right of Michiganders to ensure that elections are decided by voters, not politicians. This victory will allow the commission to proceed, allowing the voters' will to be heard."

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) represents Voters Not Politicians (VNP), the grassroots group that drafted and sponsored the constitutional amendment to create an IRC. The issue in the case is whether it is constitutional to make the Michigan Commission a true citizens’ commission, by excluding from consideration people who have had recent involvement in government and political affairs. The Sixth Circuit has now twice rejected that argument in two separate appeals. The challengers could, like any member of the public, engage in redistricting by taking part in the public hearing process. But they were properly excluded from consideration to join the commission.

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