May 2, 2008 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: May 2, 2008

Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law

On April 28, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to produce photo identification. In a ruling that split the Justices into three separate groups, the Court rejected a facial constitutional challenge to the law. The Legal Center had filed an amici curiae brief in the case on behalf of twenty-nine scholars supporting the challengers of the voter ID law.

In a statement, Campaign Legal Center Director of Litigation J. Gerald Hebert stressed that in the narrow ruling six Justices left open the door to future challenges and that it would be a mistake for other states to ram through bills with onerous requirements for partisan gain.

von Spakovsky Not Vindicated by Supreme Court Decision

On May 1, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director, J. Gerald Hebert, released a statement in response to recent press reports that the decision made in the Indiana voter ID case could clear Hans von Spakosvky's record of voter suppression and partisanship while at the Department of Justice.

Despite these reported claims, the decision in the Indiana voter ID case in no way vindicates Hans von Spakovsky and does not make him now eligible to be confirmed to the Federal Election Commission. The statement made clear that, contrary to statements made by von Spakovsky that the Indiana ruling vindicated his decision while at the Justice Department to approve a Georgia voter ID measure, the Indiana decision did not assess the legality of the voter ID law on Voting Rights Act grounds, which was the issue in the Georgia case. The statement noted further that the Georgia voter ID approved by von Spakovsky required payment of a few (making it different from Indiiana), and that a federal court in Georgia has struck down the Georgia law as a "modern day poll tax."

Fourth Circuit Upholds NC Judicial Public Financing Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision yesterday in Duke v. Leake, affirming a district court dismissal of a lawsuit by North Carolina Right to Life (NCRL) challenging several provisions of North Carolina's judicial election public financing program. Specifically, NCRL challenged a matching "rescue funds" provision, reporting requirements for nonparticipating candidates and independent spenders, and a 21-day pre-election contribution ban.

The Campaign Legal Center, together with nine other organizations "concerned about the influence of money on judicial integrity, impartiality and independence," filed an amici curiae brief in support of the State and the challenged provisions. The Fourth Circuit cited our amici brief in recognition of recent high-spending judicial election campaigns in other states around the nation.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the matching funds provision is not unconstitutionally coercive, noting that "the First Amendment gives the plaintiffs neither a right to outraise and outspend an opponent nor a right to speak free from response." The Fourth Circuit further concluded that the "plaintiffs' arguments against the reporting requirements lack merit," noting that the Supreme Court's decisions in Buckley and McConnell make clear that the NC reporting requirements are constitutional. Finally, the Fourth Circuit held that the 21-day pre-election contribution ban is a constitutionally permissible "closely drawn means of advancing the state's interest in operating a public financing system to minimize the danger of corruption (or the appearance thereof) in judicial elections."

Joining the Legal Center as amici in the case were: the American Judges Association; the Center for Civic Policy; Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action; the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform; the League of Women Voters of the United States; the League of Women Voters of North Carolina; Progressive Maryland; Public Citizen, Inc.; and the Reform Institute.

Oral Argument Set in Shays III Case

Oral argument in Shays v. Federal Election Commission ("Shays III") before the United States Court of Appeals has been set for May 5, 2008. The Court of Appeals panel consists of Judge David Tatel, Judge Merritt Garland, and Judge Timothy Griffith.

On February 21, the Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of Senator Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) with the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The brief was filed in support of Representative Christopher Shays' (R-CT) challenge to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), pertaining to "coordinated communications," federal candidate and officeholder solicitation at state party fundraising events, and "federal election activity."

Fourth Circuit Strikes Down Key Provisions of North Carolina's Campaign Finance Law

On May 1, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that several provisions of North Carolina's state campaign finance statute were unconstitutional in North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake . The Court of Appeals struck down North Carolina's $4,000 contribution limit as applied to committees making only independent expenditures, finding that this limit did not further the state's interest in preventing corruption. The Court also found unconstitutional North Carolina's definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure," insofar as they relied upon contextual factors to determine whether a communication "supported" or "opposed" a candidate. The statutory definition of "political committee" was also invalidated because it turned on whether "a major purpose" of a group was the nomination or election of a candidate.

On February 28, 2005, the Legal Center, along with Democracy 21, filed an amici brief with the district court in this case to defend the contribution limits as applied to committees making independent expenditures. The brief argued that the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC makes clear that contributions used for independent expenditures may constitutionally be regulated.

CLC Updates "Cases of Interest"

This week, the staff of the Campaign Legal Center has updated a summary of court cases of interest in the areas of campaign finance and election law. The document, current as of April 2008, provides a brief description of the pending and recently decided cases, and the Legal Center's involvement in those cases. As a reference and an update, the document was sent to congressional offices and allied reform groups as well as to reporters and editors around the country.

Legal Center Blog Highlights

Each week, the Campaign Legal Center staff posts blog entries on its site, www.clcblog.org. To read this week's entry, "von Spakovsky Gets it Wrong…Yet Again," "CLC Cases of Interest," or to sign up for the blog, click here.

Week in the News

To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on a variety of Campaign Legal Center issues, please click here.