Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
On May 29, 2020, CLC filed a motion asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction in advance of the August primary in Minnesota.
CLC submitted written comments to the state of Washington's Public Disclosure Commission regarding the adoption of two amendments to a campaign finance act that would protect elections from foreign interference.
On May 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to stop a law that disenfranchises Alabamians with past convictions on the basis of wealth by requiring payment of all fines and fees prior to voting rights restoration.
This document is a template request for an advisory opinion on voter eligibility. Any Floridian who is unsure of their eligibility may submit this document to the Florida Division of Elections to request an opinion on their eligibility. However, to be eligible no voter need submit this form. For more information on eligibility to vote in Florida, visit RestoreYourVote.org.
On May 24, 2020, the Court issued its Opinion on the Merits following the historic 8-day trial in Jones v. DeSantis. The Court found that Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system violates the Constitution as applied to all individuals who genuinely cannot pay their legal financial obligations as a condition of voting. The opinion further held that the conditioning of voting rights restoration on the payment of court costs and fees is an illegal poll tax that violates the 24th Amendment, and that Florida’s voter registration forms violate the National Voter Registration Act. The Court established a new procedure for Floridians with past felony convictions to determine their eligibility to register and vote.
This decision applies not only to the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but to the entire plaintiff class, represented by CLC.
On May 19, 2020, CLC filed a complaint in federal court challenging Minnesota’s requirement that voters have a witness sign their absentee ballots in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit also challenges the requirement that the witness be a registered Minnesota voter. CLC represents the League of Women Voters of Minnesota Education Fund and Minnesota voter Vivian Latimer Tanniehill, and Lathrop GPM LLP serves as co-counsel.
On May 11, 2020, filed a complaint in federal court on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and its Texas chapter (Texas LULAC) challenging the State of Texas’s restrictions on who can apply for and cast absentee ballots in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The Complaint alleges that Texas’s absentee ballot scheme unduly burdens Texans’ fundamental right to vote, has a disparate impact on Texas’s Latino population in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and discriminates on the basis of age in violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
On May 11, 2020, CLC filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and its Texas chapter (Texas LULAC) in a lawsuit brought against the State of Texas challenging its restrictions on who can apply for and cast absentee ballots in light of the coronavirus pandemic.
CLC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the Democratic dark money group Big Tent Project Fund, which spent nearly $5 million in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary and appears to have a major purpose of influencing federal elections, violated the law by failing to register as a political committee and publicly disclose its donors.
Records of stock transactions from various Senators and Representatives of both parties that occurred between mid-March to mid-April.
This manual is designed to provide all the tools citizens with convictions, activists, and advocates need to help people in Alabama know if they can vote or to restore their right to vote.
CLC filed an amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit on October 29, 2019 urging it to set aside the district court decision in CREW v. FEC (New Models). The lower court found that the FEC’s post-deadlock dismissal of CREW’s enforcement complaint was not subject to judicial review because the two no-voting commissioners included a passing reference to “prosecutorial discretion” in their statement of reasons for the dismissal.