In states that choose their judges through elections, judicial codes of conduct are “‘[t]he principal safeguard against judicial campaign abuses’ that threaten to imperil ‘public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the nation’s elected judges.’” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 889 (2009) (citation omitted). For this reason, it is universally acknowledged that judicial codes further “a vital state interest.” Id.

A brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters of the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Common Cause, and Democracy 21. This brief discusses why partisan gerrymandering poses a threat to our democracy and how, without judicial recourse, partisan gerrymandering can be prevented by allowing the people to exercise their lawmaking power over the redistricting process. 

The amicus brief on behalf of former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau, produced in conjunction with the Campaign Legal Center.

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision reflects a fundamental and indefensible misunderstanding of this Court’s precedents on redistricting. If allowed to stand, the decision would encourage states to eliminate coalition districts—districts in which white voters join in sufficient numbers with minority voters to elect the minority’s preferred candidate—and replace them with unjustifiably race-driven districts, all with the purported aim of ensuring compliance with the VRA. This result turns the VRA on its head and runs afoul of the clear dictates of the Equal Protection Clause. It should be reversed. 

Supplemental comments submitted jointly by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 in response to questions posed by Commissioner McGahn to Paul S. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center at the Commission’s March 3 rulemaking hearing regarding coordinated communications under 11 C.F.R. § 109.21

Letter sent to the U.S. Census Bureau from 34 organizations, including the Campaign Legal Center. The organizations urge the Bureau to count incarcerated people at their home address, rather than at the particular facility that they happen to be located at on Census day.

A letter written by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG. The organizations are writing to inform Chairman Skaggs and Co-Chairman Goss of their views regarding the limited circumstances under which the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics Committee) can remove a matter from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). 

A letter written by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG. The organizations are writing to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Republican Leader John Boehner, urging them to support the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), and the House Resolution and OCE rules implementing the resolution that limit the ability of the House Ethics Committee to remove ethics matters from the OCE.

Letter from the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation and U.S. PIRG to the Office of Congressional Ethics. The organizations write to express their gratitude for the work done by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) and to encourage Pelosi and Boehner's offices to ensure its uninterrupted operations in the 113th Congress by reactivating the agency and appointing the necessary board members.

Letter written by Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, League of Women Voters, National Legal and Policy Center, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation and U.S. PIRG to the U.S. House, express gratitude for creating and maintaining over the last four years the unique Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The organizations also urge representatives to proceed in a timely fashion to consider and appoint qualified and responsible members to OCE’s board of directors so that the agency’s useful work is not interrupted as we enter the 113th Congress. 

Earlier this month, you announced that you will be resigning from the U.S. House of Representatives in February to take a position as President and Chief Executive Officer at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). Your decision to accept a job at NRECA while remaining in office until February raises significant potential conflicts of interest and certainly creates the appearance of such conflicts. 

Letter to Representative Shuler by the Campaign Legal Center regarding Potential Conflicts of Interest. Shuler's decision to accept a government affairs position at Duke Energy raises significant potential conflicts of interest and certainly creates the appearance of such conflicts for the time he remains in office. 

A letter to Chairman Goss and Vice-Chairman Skaggs by attorneys concerned that the Board has amended its rules without providing any opportunity for notice or comment and with no summary or explanation of these changes being made available to the public. 

A letter to Chairman Goss and Co-Chairman Skaggs repsonding to recent suggestions by several attorneys in private practice that the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) reconsider its rules of procedure. The rules changes suggested by these attorneys in a February 4, 2013 letter to OCE are inappropriate for OCE as currently structured and would impede the agency’s ability to make the ethics process more accountable and transparent.  

On May 29, several groups and individuals from a wide array of the ideological spectrum wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi urging them to discount attacks of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) by a former staff director of the House Ethics Committee.  Those signing the letter were the Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, Thomas Mann, National Legal and Policy Center, Norm Ornstein, Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Public Citizen and Jim Thurber.

Former House Ethics Committee staff Director Dan Schwager, in an op-ed in Politico, accused the OCE of leaking its own report on Members' travel to Azerbaijan.  However, Mr. Schwager presents no proof for this allegation other than claiming that OCE has a "bunker mentality."  The letter stresses the important contributions of OCE in improving the credibility of the House ethics process.

On May 29, several groups and individuals from a wide array of the ideological spectrum wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi urging them to discount attacks of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) by a former staff director of the House Ethics Committee.  Those signing the letter were the Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, Thomas Mann, National Legal and Policy Center, Norm Ornstein, Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Public Citizen and Jim Thurber.

Former House Ethics Committee staff Director Dan Schwager, in an op-ed in Politico, accused the OCE of leaking its own report on Members' travel to Azerbaijan.  However, Mr. Schwager presents no proof for this allegation other than claiming that OCE has a "bunker mentality."  The letter stresses the important contributions of OCE in improving the credibility of the House ethics process.

A diverse coalition of civic organizations and academics sent a letter today to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics and to the House leadership calling on the committee to respect established rules of procedure in handling a complaint regarding member and staff travel to Azerbaijan. 

We are writing to urge the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to undertake a review of current procedures and rules and to make changes that will improve the Committee’s process for dealing with allegations of ethics violations. The public accurately perceives this process as insular and opaque, thus damaging public confidence in the institution you, as Chair and the Ranking Member of the Committee, are charged with upholding. We hope you will consider the following proposed changes in the spirit they are intended, as constructive improvements to the ethics process, as evidenced by their efficacy in the U.S. House of Representatives and other legislative bodies: