New Fronts in the Fight for Democracy

Public attention has been fixed for some time now on the redistricting arms race, a key part of the president’s efforts to reshape the electorate. Trump is openly pressuring Republican legislatures to engage in mid-decade gerrymandering as a means of eliminating Democratic seats and helping Republicans hold onto the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. Achieving this goal means illegally marginalizing huge swaths of voters in different states by drawing them into new districts that artificially diminish their voting power.

Turning to a bright spot in this landscape, Campaign Legal Center is celebrating a tremendous redistricting victory in Utah that puts the needs of that state’s voters ahead of partisan goals. A state court judge has thrown out a gerrymander by the state Legislature and ordered a fair congressional map — submitted by our clients in this case — to be in place for the midterms. This momentous decision, along with an earlier ruling to reinstate a voter-passed initiative banning partisan gerrymandering in Utah, marks a high point in a years-long legal battle Campaign Legal Center has waged alongside our clients, the League of Women Voters of Utah, Mormon Women for Ethical Government and a number of individual voters.

Using gerrymandering to manufacture a desired electoral outcome is a tactic that sadly is nearly as old as our nation itself. But, since taking office in January, the Trump administration also has shown a willingness to exploit more novel methods of interfering in the electoral process and the freedom to vote — at the expense of the law and the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers.

One example is the president’s attempt to control our elections through executive orders. This effort has been largely blocked by the courts so far, including a permanent injunction Campaign Legal Center obtained for our clients in a lawsuit challenging an order issued in March.

Consider also Campaign Legal Center’s newest case, in which we are representing the national League of Women Voters (LWV) and a number of state and local Leagues. Since August, they have been barred from holding voter registration drives at administrative naturalization ceremonies conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and immigration judges.

You would be hard-pressed to think of a more wholesome act of civic engagement than offering America’s newest citizens the opportunity to register to vote after they have sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” Yet the administration has chosen to illegally target this work by nonpartisan groups, which is correctly understood to be protected under First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of association. They’ve also done this while violating the Administrative Procedure Act, which establishes processes agencies must follow when implementing new rules and regulations.

The League assists tens of thousands of newly naturalized citizens with voter registration every year. Campaign Legal Center is committed to using our legal resources to restore their ability to conduct this vital work in support of our democracy.

President Trump’s team is also preparing to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court for complete control over all independent agencies, including those that currently play a role in our elections. Trump v. Slaughter is nominally about the president’s decision to dismiss a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) despite a law passed by Congress that insulates FTC commissioners from being removed by the president without cause. A ruling sanctioning this executive power grab could have severe implications for other agencies, including the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

Congress intended and designated both the FEC and EAC to function as independent nonpartisan agencies to prevent campaign finance regulation and election administration from being used by partisan actors as political weapons. The president of the United States is the de facto leader of their political party and also is often a candidate running for reelection. For these reasons, a president must not be given authority over agencies responsible for interpreting and enforcing the rules governing our elections and campaigns — including races for the House, the Senate and the president’s own campaign.

A ruling that permits the president to fire commissioners of these agencies for partisan reasons (as Trump already has done this year at the FEC) would be a clear example of allowing the fox to guard the proverbial henhouse. Campaign Legal Center and I advanced this argument in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, which is set to hear oral arguments on December 8.

I founded Campaign Legal Center nearly 25 years ago on the premise that effective legal advocacy is a key component of a broad strategy for defending the pillars of our democracy. Over the years, our accomplished and dedicated attorneys have pursued that vision to great effect.

As we expand our work to meet one of the greatest challenges we have ever faced, I am more convinced than ever that Campaign Legal Center is well-positioned to capably and successfully meet this moment and win the necessary legal battles that are crucial to strengthening our elections, the freedom to vote and the rule of law. I invite all who want to support this vitally important cause to join us as we move forward with this critical work.