Supreme Court

Is the Montana Disclose Act in the Supreme Court’s Crosshairs?

Election Law Society · December 28, 2022 ·

By Lucas Della Ventura

From George Washington’s warnings of the danger of corruption to “drain the swamp,” the influence of large sums of money in the pockets of politicians and their campaigns have concerned Americans throughout the nation’s history. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court breathed life into Thomas Jefferson’s forewarning that the judiciary would enable corruption: “The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments.” With the removal of limitations on corporate “independent” expenditures, the Court tied the state governments’ hands in enacting and enforcing state laws restricting campaign contributions. The modern era of unlimited corporate campaign spending was birthed, seeing a 900% increase in campaign spending by corporations and other outside groups. From 2010 to 2018, Super PACs, also offspring of Citizens United, are estimated to have spent $2.9 billion on federal elections. According to OpenSecrets.org, the leading website that tracks money in politics, so-called “dark money” groups (organizations that spend money from undisclosed sources) have spent roughly $1 billion — mainly on television and online ads and mailers — since Citizens United was decided.

Although the Court in Citizens United struck down limitations on “independent” expenditures, all of the Justices, save Thomas, approved of strong disclosure regulations. Justice Kennedy stated, “The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” In reaction to Citizens United and the flood of corporate and dark money entering into not only presidential elections, but also local elections, states like Montana, enacted comprehensive disclosure regimes. These state disclosure regimes have remained largely unscathed in the election law context, but not in others. The Supreme Court recently struck down a California regulation that required charities known for their conservative political activism and campaign financing, to disclose to the California Attorney General’s Office IRS forms containing the names and addresses of their major donors. Notwithstanding that the case focused on a state’s governmental interests in investigating charitable misconduct and the state’s lack of narrow tailoring, the decision put on alert states like Montana that have strong campaign finance disclosure regimes.

Montana, the frontier state heralding the motto “Oro y Plata” (Spanish for gold and silver), sees itself at the frontier of legal challenges seeking to reshape how the wealth of the nation is treated by campaign finance and disclosure regimes across the country. Since 2015, the Montana Disclose Act has withstood several such tests. In 2018, Montanans for Community Development v. Mangan, Montanans for Community Development (MCD), a 501(c)(4) that sought to send electioneering communications (issue advertisements, also known as “mailers”) refused to disclose its donors in accordance with Montana law. MCD’s two mailers at issue attacked environmentalists and encouraged fossil fuel industry promotion, mentioning candidates in upcoming Montana elections. The 9^th Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that the disclosure requirements survive exacting scrutiny by serving a sufficiently important informational interest and being substantially related to the state’s interest.

The 9th Circuit elaborated on its stance regarding disclosure laws in NAGR v. Mangan, another challenge to Montana’s state disclosure requirements. The court cited to Citizens United in championing the information enhancing role disclosure laws play by stating, “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” The court added, “Far from restricting speech, electioneering disclosure requirements reinforce democratic decision making by ensuring that voters have access to information about the speakers competing for their attention and attempting to win their support.”

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in both Montana cases, the Supreme Court’s lurch to the right and recent decision in AFP v. Bonta may spell danger to state efforts to achieve transparency in elections and protect the compelling informational interests provided by electioneering disclosures.

A Bumpy Road to Voting in Wisconsin: Absentee Ballot Issues

vebrankovic · October 28, 2020 ·

By: Brianna Mashel

This election cycle has been turned on its head by safety concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to recent reporting by the Pew Research Center, about four-in-ten registered voters (39%) say they plan to cast their vote by absentee or mail-in ballot this year (or already have done so), compared with 33% who say they plan to vote in person on November 3, and 21% who have voted in person or plan to vote in person at an early voting location before Election Day. In fact, even before the onset of the pandemic, voters casting mail-in ballots increased nearly threefold between 1996 and 2016 – from 7.8% to nearly 21% – and the Census Bureau’s voter supplement data found seven-in-ten adults favor allowing any voter to vote by mail. Nonetheless, there is significant variation from one state to another on the handling of absentee and mail-in voting. A case in point is Wisconsin, which has opted to rely on its existing absentee voting system even though it is currently one of the nation’s hot spots for COVID-19, with hospitals treating a record high number of patients with the disease.

In Wisconsin, absentee voting is relatively easy. Any registered voter is eligible to request an absentee ballot and voters do not need a reason or excuse to vote absentee. A ballot request and a copy of an acceptable photo ID with the applicant’s request must be received by the clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday before Election Day. The completed absentee ballot must be delivered no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. This year, as many as two-thirds of all ballots, or roughly 2 million, are projected to be cast absentee. Although this process seems simple, Wisconsin voters have already experienced bumps in the road – literally.

Schrödinger’s Citizens: The Trouble with Territorial Disenfranchisement

Election Law Society · October 19, 2020 ·

By Scott Meyer

According to a 2017 poll, nearly half of Americans were unaware Puerto Ricans were U.S. citizens. This discrepancy seems to bely the fact that U.S. territories, of which Puerto Rico is the largest, constitute over three and a half million U.S. citizens, have some of the highest military enlistments per capita, and even pay some federal taxes. However, despite over a century of combined history as U.S. territories, their citizens still lack one of the foundations of American democracy: the right to vote in presidential elections.

The reasoning for territories’ disparate treatment comes from Supreme Court rulings from the early nineteen-hundreds, which became known as the Insular Cases. As Justice Kennedy succinctly explained in Boumediene v. Bush: “[i]n a series of opinions later known as the Insular Cases, the Court addressed whether the Constitution, by its own force, applies in any territory that is not a State.” The Court then noted the delicate balance between imputing constitutional rights to territories versus respecting their existing laws, a tension which could result in confusion and instability. To this end, the Insular Cases Court came up with “…the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies in full in incorporated Territories surely destined for statehood but only in part in unincorporated Territories.”

Political Attire Bans: What Can You Wear When You Vote?

Election Law Society · November 21, 2018 ·

By: Samantha Becker

On June 14, 2018, the Supreme Court invalidated a Minnesota law that prohibited wearing any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” inside a polling place on Election Day.” The ban was interpreted to cover a variety of attire, such as t-shirts, buttons, and hats, and versions of the law had been in place for over a century. In a 7-2 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, the Court ruled that the Minnesota political attire ban was unconstitutional.

Federal Court Ruling Creates Chaos for North Carolina Primaries But There May Be a Solution

Election Law Society · January 18, 2017 ·

By: Blake Willis

Election litigation has experienced a new spike in recent years, with many states being involved with litigation over redistricting plans, Voter I.D. laws, and other ballot access issues. Since the inception of litigation under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), there has been a consistent concern that federal courts should not be involved in determining the policies of voting, re-districting, and other related issues. Cases such as plurality opinion Davis v. Bandemer express such concerns, stating that partisan gerrymandering concerns are not justiciable, and that opening the door for federal courts to examine similar claims may set a dangerous precedent. In Veith v. Jubelirer, Justice Scalia echoed this sentiment, arguing that it is an increasingly difficult task for courts to determine what the predominant factor for drawing a district line may be. The expanding jurisprudence from both partisan and racial gerrymandering cases proves this argument may hold some validity, as evidenced by courts’ disagreement over the correct standard to apply, what the evidentiary standard should be, and who the burden of proof rests upon, as just a few examples. Although this litigation has been ongoing for decades, it is by no means near reaching an end.