Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
On December 6, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the decision below, which granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
On August 26, 2019, a California appeals court in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Newsom affirmed a decision striking down a state law that would have enabled public financing programs at the state and local level in California. The legislature enacted the law in 2016 in an effort to rein in political corruption and broaden electoral participation.
Voters Not Politicians' motion to intervene was granted in the Daunt v. Benson case by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
On July 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed a lower court decision upholding Seattle’s innovative democracy voucher public financing program. Plaintiffs challenged the public funding program as an unconstitutional use of tax dollars. The State Supreme Court rejected this argument holding that the program does not restrict plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a January 15 opinion by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman finding that Secretary Ross lied about his reasons for adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
On Thursday, June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
On May 30, 2019, a unanimous 6th Circuit panel upheld all challenged provisions of Kentucky’s ethics and campaign finance laws. The appellate court found that the provisions barring state legislators from receiving gifts and campaign contributions from state lobbyists were constitutional, and that plaintiffs—one sitting state senator and one legislative candidate—lacked standing to challenge the corresponding restrictions on lobbyists themselves.
On May 21, 2019, the en banc D.C. Circuit rejected all three of the Libertarian Party’s constitutional challenges to the federal contribution limits, finding that the First Amendment does not require “as applied” exceptions from facially valid contribution limits for supposedly non-corruptive bequests, and upholding the higher special-purpose “cromnibus” limits as a valid “tweak in Congress’s decades-long project to fine-tune” our campaign finance laws. The decision reaffirms that contribution limits are permissible preventative anti-corruption measures and that courts should defer to Congress’s empirical judgments about where precisely to set the dollar amounts of such limits.
On July 31, 2018, the Michigan State Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Michigan redistricting ballot initiative case. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, allowing the redistricting measure to be voted on by Michigan's citizens in November, 2018.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered an order in the Pennsylvania gaming industry campaign contribution restriction case. The court is striking down a Pennsylvania law that bars casino owners and others with a stake in the gambling industry from donating to political campaigns in the state.
The Supreme Court of the State of Washington entered an order in Seattle's public financing system case after finding that the case warrants direct review under the cited statute.
On Friday, January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was taking two partisan gerrymandering challenges, out of North Carolina and Maryland. Oral arguments were scheduled for March 2019.
On January 4th the Court issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The district court in Maine denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the results of the election conducted using Ranked Choice Voting.
Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a split decision in this case. The district court had previously upheld all four provisions. In this decision, the judges upheld all but one of those provisions.
Today, the Court issued this opinion from Judge Niemeyer, Judge Bredar, and Judge Russell. This opinion was issued in conjunction with a judgment that directed Maryland to institute redistricting reform.
Today, the Court issued this judgment that grants the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and denies the defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. This ensures that Maryland will undergo redistricting reform.