PILF Submitted Brief in
Support of Expedited Hearing
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – February 15, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) commended the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear the 2020 Census
citizenship question case ahead of critical deadlines and standard appellate
procedure.
“The Court absolutely made the right move,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “This decision could give the Justice Department and private parties the chance to enforce the protections of the Voting Rights Act.”
The district court
erred. This error, if not corrected by this Court before the deadline for the printing
of Census forms, will have long-lasting effects. The opportunity to collect the
data on the 2020 Census, once gone, cannot be reclaimed. This “case is of such
imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate
practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”
The Foundation offered two arguments in support of the
Government’s request for an expedited Supreme Court hearing.
The citizenship
question is plainly a matter of national importance.
Due to the simple facts that reliable citizenship data is
mission-critical for any party wishing to enforce provisions of the Voting
Rights Act and there are another four lawsuits not yet before the Supreme
Court, the circumstances have clearly crossed a threshold whereby the Court is
justified in bypassing typical appellate procedure.
Census deadlines
are approaching too quickly for standard appellate procedure.
The Government has notified the Court that it is against
a hard June 2019 deadline to finalize/print Census questionnaires. The brief
argues the nation will suffer an “uncorrectable ripple effect into the future
if this critical data … is not collected.”
The latest brief was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court
in In
Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-966. Related filings can be
found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to
enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity
of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list
maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal
courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also
works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of
elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity.
The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election
integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on
numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to
vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###
PILF Submits Brief in Support
of Expedited Hearing
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – February 11, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s
(PILF) filed
an amicus curiae brief in the
U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Department of Commerce’s request that the Court
hear its case ahead of critical 2020 Census deadlines.
The United States is currently defending the
reinstatement of a citizenship question on the general 2020 Census survey
against multiple lawsuits brought by the State of New York and others. The
questions now before the Court are whether the district court in New York erred
in enjoining the Government’s Census plans and if the plaintiffs can go outside
the administrative record to probe the intent behind the reinstatement of the
citizenship question.
“Time is running
out to correct the errors of the trial court,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “If
the Supreme Court doesn’t step in now, the Justice Department and untold scores
of private parties will be handicapped in enforcing the Voting Rights Act on a
national scale for at least a decade.”
The district court
erred. This error, if not corrected by this Court before the deadline for the
printing of Census forms, will have long-lasting effects. The opportunity to
collect the data on the 2020 Census, once gone, cannot be reclaimed. This “case
is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal
appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”
The Foundation offers two arguments in support of the
Government’s request for an expedited Supreme Court hearing.
The citizenship
question is plainly a matter of national importance.
Due to the simple facts that reliable citizenship data is
mission-critical for any party wishing to enforce provisions of the Voting
Rights Act and there are another four lawsuits not yet before the Supreme
Court, the circumstances have clearly crossed a threshold whereby the Court is
justified in bypassing typical appellate procedure.
Census deadlines
are approaching too quickly for standard appellate procedure.
The Government has notified the Court that it is against
a hard June 2019 deadline to finalize/print Census questionnaires. The brief
argues the nation will suffer an “uncorrectable ripple effect into the future
if this critical data … is not collected.”
The latest brief was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court
in In
Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-966. Related filings can be
found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to
enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity
of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list
maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal
courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also
works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of
elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity.
The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election
integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on
numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to
vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###
“[H.R. 1] would mark
the largest transfer of power over elections from the states to the federal
government in the history of the nation.”
Adamsargues that voter registration and access have never been easier—approaching the point
where it is almost harder to avoid the system.
“It has never been easier to
register to vote and to vote in America than it is in 2019.In fact, it
is difficult to avoid opportunities
to register to vote.”
Adamscautions the Committee about flaws in the voter registration records across the nation
being exacerbated by the effects of H.R. 1.:
“The voter rolls are currently full of ineligible voters who have died or moved out of the jurisdiction where they are registered. H.R.1 would make the problem worse by stripping the power of states to manage their own voter rolls to keep them clean using well-established best practices such as postal mailings and recurring inactivity of registrants in elections. H.R.1’s mandate that states stop using these tools is just bad public policy.”
Adamsreminds the Committee about how decentralized powers over elections promote “freedom:”
“There is a reason states were given power to run their own elections, namely, decentralization promotes freedom. The Constitution decentralized control over elections to the states because when power is centralized, a single malevolent actor can exert improper or dangerous control over the process. This is not wild speculation; this is a simple historical fact. Decentralized elections are more democratic because each state develops systems more suited the wishes of their own citizens.”
Before his testimony, Adams penned two op-eds in the Washington
Examiner and PJ
Media discussing additional issues surrounding the proposed
legislation. He warns that some of the high-profile failures witnessed in
California’s automatic voter registration system can become federalized under
H.R. 1.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation has issued reports since 2016 detailing how flaws within the existing Motor
Voter programs in Virginia, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, California,
Illinois, Georgia, New York, and Michigan are exposing ineligible noncitizens to the voter registration process—leading
some to vote. These actions often surface when legal permanent residence seek a
path to naturalization—only to risk rejection or deportation thereafter.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to
enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity
of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list
maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal
courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also
works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of
elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(ALEXANDRIA, VA.) – January 25, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commended the State of Texas for revealing nearly 100,000 noncitizens
registered to vote. A majority cast at least one ballot since 1996, according
to state officials.
“This shows why
Harris county must release the alien voting records we have sought for a year,” PILF President and General
Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “We all know they exist. We all know aliens are voting in our
elections. It’s time Harris and other states stop hiding the documents. Attorney
General Ken Paxton and Secretary David Whitley deserve full marks for pursuing
this matter and recognizing that Texas does not have a mechanism to protect
noncitizens from becoming registered to vote.”
The Foundation is currently involved in a federal
lawsuit against Harris County to access the records detailing the extent of
noncitizen voter registration and detection. For years, PILF touted the
benefits of comparing driver licensing data against voter registration records
to identify potential noncitizens.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to
enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity
of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list
maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal
courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also
works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of
elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(WEST PALM BEACH, FL.) – January 18, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commended Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ decision to
suspend Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher.
“Governor DeSantis
is absolutely right to suspend Supervisor Bucher,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said.
“Unlike the recently suspended supervisors in South Florida, the governor takes
election integrity seriously.”
During the 2016 federal election cycle, Palm Beach County, by its own admission, did not remove a single registrant due to inactivity and unresponsiveness, according to federal law.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to
enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity
of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list
maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal
courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also
works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of
elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(ALEXANDRIA, VA.) – December 13, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) placed the Virginia Department of Elections on notice that litigation will commence unless it corrects voter roll maintenance procedures involving “non-citizen” removals under federal law.
The Foundation warns that Commonwealth election officials are wrongfully removing actual U.S.citizen registrants while detecting and clearing foreign nationals from the rolls. As part of this troubled process, the Commonwealth regularly publishes maintenance reports titled “Declared Non-Citizen” which display the names,residential addresses, and other pertinent information belonging to each former registrant. Not only are otherwise eligible citizen registrants harmed by the process, but any party, the Public Interest Legal Foundation included, who relies on such maintenance reports for public communication and policy reform discussions do so at great risk.
“Despite reasonable intentions,something is broken in Virginia’s system to identify and remove ineligible noncitizens from its voter roll,” PILF Communications and Research Director Logan Churchwell said. “Virginia election officials fought transparency efforts surrounding their list maintenance process in previous years — we are now beginning to see why.”
The notice outlines three areas of concern or action.
Virginia’s maintenance program results in the removal of some otherwise eligible U.S.citizens.
Virginia law requires that election officials collect driver and immigration data from state and federal sources to generate maintenance leads related to potential noncitizen registrants. Based on claims made in separate litigation, several current and former Virginia residents attest to being U.S. citizens, despite being named in reports or records furnished by the Commonwealth regarding noncitizen cancellations.
Virginia’s maintenance program violates the National Voter Registration Act
Virginia’s procedure violates a core mandate of the NVRA, which was designed to “enhance the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office.” (emphasis added) Based on records collected in some jurisdictions, it also appears that communications designed to be sent to potential noncitizen registrants were transmitted in English only—even in areas where bilingual communications are federally required.
Additional document disclosures are required to identify procedural failures
The Foundation seeks a variety of records which Commonwealth and local officials relied upon to process registrants for removal as “declared non-citizens.” These include referral documents from driver’s license offices and records matched against the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Records indicating that the removal process was communicated in any other language than English are also needed.
PILF relied upon the Department’s list maintenance records to publish reports discussing Virginia’s compliance with state and federal voting rights laws and identifying potential voter fraud occurring in the Commonwealth. Before publishing these reports, PILF had no way of verifying the accuracy of the government-created list maintenance records provided by the Department and registrars of cities and counties across Virginia without contacting each of the voters named—conduct that likely would have been characterized as threatening and intimidating. PILF, like all members of the public, is entitled to rely on the presumption that the Department is actually complying with its obligation under the NVRA to conduct lawful voter-removal programs and to maintain records that accurately reflect the circumstances of each voter’s removal from the registry.
The Foundation earned access to the original reportedly problematic maintenance reports after multiple federal lawsuits were filed against local jurisdictions in early 2017.
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows individuals to request inspection or seek copies of “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.” Ninety days must be given to the noticed jurisdiction to cure the matters before litigation can commence.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation(PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(HOUSTON, TX.) – November 21, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) filed a motion for summary judgment, citing a variety of undisputed facts regarding Harris County’s possession and refusal to disclose noncitizen voter records as required by federal law.
“The facts in this case are clear-cut and lead us to seek summary judgment to hopefully end the matter,” PILF Communications Director Logan Churchwell said. “Harris County officials are wasting taxpayer resources by trying to flaunt federal law by keeping the public in the dark about how voter rolls are maintained.”
The brief outlines seven core facts underscoring the necessity for a summary judgment on the case.
Harris County admitted (in this case and in years prior) that it has records related to noncitizen voter registration.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“Motor Voter”) provides a freedom of information component that allows the public to physically inspect records held by officials regarding voter roll maintenance procedures and efforts. This mandatory public inspection right is designed to preserve the right to vote and ensure that election officials are complying with the law.
In December 2017, the PILF cited Motor Voter inspection rights to review Harris County’s records detailing how noncitizen registrations were identified and removed from the voter roll.
Harris County rejected PILF’s requests and even sought the help of the Texas Attorney General to block disclosures under state law.
Congress clearly stated that “all” records regarding list maintenance efforts are meant to be publicly accessible within a prescribed period of time.
Previous federal courts have ruled that “all records” means “all records.”
Harris County has staked its position against the text of federal law, Congressional intent, and every prior federal court case on the issue, including the most recent U.S. Supreme Court case related to Motor Voter.
The Foundation’s right to records is not a close call … To adopt [Harris County’s] interpretation of the Public Disclosure Provision would allow election officials to conceal records related to their decision to wipe the names of eligible voters from the rolls and declare them to be ineligible, unless the decision to cancel the registration related to death or residency. All of the other touchstones of eligibility would be hidden from disclosure under [Harris County’s] version of the NVRA.
The Foundation is currently engaged in federal and state lawsuits to seek the release of records belonging to former registrants who were officially discovered or self-reported their ineligible noncitizen statuses to the Harris County Voter Registrar. The PILF previously responded to claims suggesting that it had no right to data related to noncitizen voter registrants and that the federal case should be stayed pending a state court judgment in Austin, among other matters. The Foundation also further briefed the Court in support of its motion for preliminary injunction to gain access to records.
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows individuals to request inspection or seek copies of “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters,” the PILF noted in its original complaint.
The case is in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The case number is 4:18-cv-00981.
Attorneys for the Public Interest Legal Foundation are J. Christian Adams, Noel H. Johnson, and Joseph Vanderhulst. Brenham-based Andy Taylor of Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C. serves as local counsel.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
PILF Submits Lone Brief in Support of Government’s Position
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – November 19, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) filed the only amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Department of Commerce’s request that the Court hear its case. The high court agreed to review the case and set oral arguments for February 2019.
The United States is currently defending the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the general 2020 Census survey against multiple lawsuits brought by the State of New York and others. The question before the Court is whether the plaintiffs can go outside the administrative record to probe the intent behind the reinstatement of the citizenship question. The Foundation was previously granted entry before the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to share the value the citizenship data would have in federal voting rights law.
“The Supreme Court taking the Census citizenship question case is a good sign,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “It indicates that the plaintiffs have intruded too far into the Constitutional powers of the executive branch. Adding citizenship data will help Voting Rights Act enforcement.”
The Foundation’s initial brief notes:
Robust citizenship data from the Decennial Census has aided in the enforcement of federal law in the past and will do so again. The determination to gather such data during the 2020 Census is logical and appropriate.
The Foundation offers four arguments related to voting rights enforcement.
Disagreement between Executive Branch Officials and career bureaucrats cannot serve as evidence of discriminatory intent.
Plaintiffs are conjuring evidence of discriminatory intent due to administrative policy changes after an election. If such arguments are successful, core foundational concerns regarding the Executive Branch are endangered. The brief notes: “the Constitution of the United States makes plain that ‘executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America.’ As the Supreme Court stated, ‘The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known.’ The unitary Executive is essential for individual liberty.”
Previous Census citizenship data was critical in deciding a voting rights case in 2017
Citizenship data derived from the 1950 Census, the last Census where citizenship data was fully collected, helped a trial court in Guam determine in the 21st Century that a “Native Inhabitants” standard for voter registration was a race-based discriminatory measure against mainland American citizens. The DOJ currently promotes the use of the 1950 data as Guam appeals the summary judgment finding to the 9th Circuit.
Robust citizenship data is necessary to determine if redistricting maps properly protect minority voters
In the decades-long absence of general citizenship data provided by the Census, the DOJ had to selectively employ citizenship estimates – yet only in jurisdictions where such data were available. Without it, DOJ and others live in a statistical fog to determine whether a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to necessarily yield a single-member district. In one example, DOJ officials had difficulty discerning differences between eligible African-Americans and resident Caribbean noncitizens when assessing the fairness of city council boundaries. The Foundation notes seven additional cases where citizenship data was clearly used to make DOJ redistricting cases since 2001.
Citizenship data helps facilitate private efforts to enforcing voting laws
Census data are critical to determining which jurisdictions are falling behind federal mandates to maintain voter rolls free from bloat and corrupted entries. Courts have repeatedly relied on the ratio between registered voters and resident citizens in a locale as valuable insights—yet the citizenship data in its current form is not without flaws and can risk skewed interpretations. Improved data quality will also help empower private interests to ensure that federal law is being followed.
Certiorari was granted before the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-557. Related filings can be found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – November 13, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) requested leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Department of Commerce’s positions regarding the proposed citizenship question for the 2020 Census.
The United States is currently defending the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the general 2020 Census survey against multiple lawsuits brought by the State of New York and others. The Foundation was previously granted entry before the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to share the value the citizenship data would have in federal voting rights law.
“Collecting robust citizenship data in the 2020 Census is good government policy,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Citizenship data helps the Justice Department and private parties protect voting rights. The inclusion of the question will only further empower the Government to enforce voter protections in previously overlooked areas.”
The proposed brief notes:
Robust citizenship data from the Decennial Census has aided in the enforcement of federal law in the past and will do so again. The determination to gather such data during the 2020 Census is logical and appropriate.
The Foundation offers four arguments related to voting rights enforcement.
Disagreement between Executive Branch Officials and career bureaucrats cannot serve as evidence of discriminatory intent.
Plaintiffs are conjuring evidence of discriminatory intent due to administrative policy changes after an election. If such arguments are successful, core foundational concerns regarding the Executive Branch are endangered. The brief notes: “the Constitution of the United States makes plain that ‘executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America.’ As the Supreme Court stated, ‘The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known.’ The unitary Executive is essential for individual liberty.”
Previous Census citizenship data was critical in deciding a voting rights case in 2017
Citizenship data derived from the 1950 Census, the last Census where citizenship data was fully collected, helped a trial court in Guam determine in the 21st Century that a “Native Inhabitants” standard for voter registration was a race-based discriminatory measure against mainland American citizens. The DOJ currently promotes the use of the 1950 data as Guam appeals the summary judgment finding to the 9th Circuit.
Robust citizenship data is necessary to determine if redistricting maps properly protect minority voters
In the decades-long absence of general citizenship data provided by the Census, the DOJ had to selectively employ citizenship estimates – yet only in jurisdictions where such data were available. Without it, DOJ and others live in a statistical fog to determine whether a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to necessarily yield a single-member district. In one example, DOJ officials had difficulty discerning differences between eligible African-Americans and resident Caribbean noncitizens when assessing the fairness of city council boundaries. The Foundation notes seven additional cases where citizenship data was clearly used to make DOJ redistricting cases since 2001.
Citizenship data helps facilitate private efforts to enforcing voting laws
Census data are critical to determining which jurisdictions are falling behind federal mandates to maintain voter rolls free from bloat and corrupted entries. Courts have repeatedly relied on the ratio between registered voters and resident citizens in a locale as valuable insights—yet the citizenship data in its current form is not without flaws and can risk skewed interpretations. Improved data quality will also help empower private interests to ensure that federal law is being followed.
The brief was filed in support of the Government’s petition for a Writ of Mandamus before the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-557. Related filings can be found, here.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – November 7, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commented on the departure of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“Attorney General Sessions will hopefully leave a lasting legacy on the Department and law enforcement in general,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “During his tenure, he reversed a dangerous trend of selectively and often politically enforcing federal voter protections. He returned enforcement to equal aspects of the Voting Rights and National Voter Registration Acts for the benefit of all. He led the DOJ to course-correct multiple litigation positions ranging from voter ID, redistricting, voter list maintenance, and more–all to eventual success before the Supreme Court and Appellate Circuits. General Sessions has done more in two years than most can accomplish in four or more. I wish him only the best moving forward.”
The Foundation praised former General Sessions’ leadership leading up to the 2018 Midterms.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.
Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
Menu