Supreme Court
Roll Call: Ted Cruz: Litigious hot coffee spiller or civil rights champion?
By Todd Ruger
The Supreme Court heard two different portrayals of Sen. Ted Cruz in his campaign finance lawsuit on Wednesday: similar to a civil rights activist, or more like someone who bought hot coffee just to pour it on himself.
The oral argument focused on Cruz’s challenge to an obscure provision of a 2002 campaign finance law that he says violates the constitutional free speech rights of candidates.
The Courts
Courthouse News: ‘No-trick-or-treat’ warning signs violate sex offenders’ rights, 11th Circuit rules
By Kayla Goggin
A Georgia sheriff’s office violated the rights of a group of registered sex offenders when deputies put warning signs in front of their homes before Halloween, an 11th Circuit panel ruled Wednesday…
[A] three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court found that the warning signs are “a classic example” of compelled government speech and their placement violates homeowners’ First Amendment rights.
The ruling comes after a class of sex offenders led by Christopher Reed, Reginald Holden and Corey McClendon claimed in a lawsuit that they were unfairly required to appear to endorse the message on the signs.
Although the men won a court order in 2019 blocking deputies from putting out the signs that year, a Georgia federal judge ultimately ruled in favor of the sheriff in the case and refused to permanently block the policy.
U.S. Circuit Judge Marc Treadwell determined that the signs did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, finding that no reasonable observer could conclude that they agreed with the sign’s message.
But the 11th Circuit disagreed, ruling on Wednesday that Treadwell misinterpreted the law as requiring that those who see the sign believe that the homeowner has endorsed a government message that he is being forced to host.
Election Law Blog: Federal District Court Strikes Down Montana Law Requiring Disclosure of Last-Minute Campaign Advertisements Mentioning (But Not Endorsing) Candidates
By Rick Hasen
You can find the opinion of the Court here.
I think the Court was likely wrong to subject this to strict scrutiny and I was surprised there was no discussion of the AFPF v. Bonta decision of the Supreme Court. We will see what happens at the Ninth Circuit.
Congress
Washington Post: Why Democrats spent a year on a failed voting rights push
By Mike DeBonis
They can’t say they weren’t warned.
Months before Wednesday’s decisive Senate votes that put a stake in Democrats’ year-long push to pass federal voting rights legislation, [Senators Manchin and Sinema] set out firm positions in The Washington Post’s opinion pages…
Yet Democratic leaders continued their push for action for another six months, only to find out definitively Wednesday night that Manchin and Sinema, in fact, meant exactly what they had said all along.
The effort has amounted to a long journey into a political box canyon — one that has come with considerable costs: Advocacy groups spent tens of millions of dollars seeking to influence senators who could not be budged…Democratic leaders, including President Biden, expended significant political capital on a futile fight…
Tiffany Muller, executive director of End Citizens United, a PAC allied with Democrats that raised and spent tens of millions of the effort to pass elections bills, said there were no good alternatives to legislative action.
New York Times: On Voting Rights, Democrats Say They Had to Go Down Swinging
By Carl Hulse
In forcing a tense Senate showdown over voting rights, Senator Chuck Schumer violated a cardinal rule of congressional leadership: Don’t go to the floor unless you are certain you have the votes to win…
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Schumer, far from beaten down, expressed pride in the way Democrats had handled the fight…
Republicans remain mystified by Mr. Schumer’s strategy…
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, called the debate that ended with the filibuster intact perhaps the most important day in Senate history. He said the vote would haunt Democrats, even though they did not succeed…
Mr. Schumer said Democrats were still considering their future voting rights approach and could break out elements of the legislation for separate votes.
“While last night’s vote was disappointing, it will not deter Senate Democrats from continuing our fight against voter suppression, dark money, partisan gerrymandering,” he said on Thursday. “On an issue this important, not doing everything we could would have been unacceptable.’”
Washington Times: Congress Should Ban Foreigners From Interfering in Referenda
By Hans von Spakovsky
While federal law bars foreigners from participating in U.S. elections, it does not keep them from influencing referenda and issue-based ballot measures. That’s a problem Congress should fix.
The States
Seattle Times: WA Supreme Court upholds $18M campaign finance fine against grocery industry group
By Jim Brunner
The Washington state Supreme Court has upheld a record $18 million fine against a national grocery industry group for violating state campaign finance laws during a 2013 battle against a food-labeling initiative.
In a 5-4 ruling issued Thursday, the court majority upheld a 2020 appeals court decision that found the massive fine levied against the Grocery Manufacturers Association, or GMA, was not excessive.
Writing for the court majority, Chief Justice Steven González said the GMA’s efforts to conceal the identity of corporations bankrolling its 2013 campaign “struck at the core of open and transparent elections.” …
An attorney for the grocery group, which since has renamed itself the Consumer Brands Association, said it was disappointed in Thursday’s ruling and may take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The state’s legal process has been tainted by partisan politics, and the ruling in this case will chill core political speech by legitimate organizations based on their viewpoints. The only winner in this decision is politics — not the law, the facts or the American public,” Stacy Papadopoulos, Consumer Brands general counsel, said in a statement. “Consumer Brands will pursue all legal options, including petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, to receive a fair and impartial review of this decision.”
In a dissenting opinion, four justices, led by Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud, agreed with the industry group’s contention that the $18 million penalty was “grossly disproportionate” for a campaign finance violation that was ultimately corrected.
