J. Christian Adams joined the Frank Beckmann Show on WJR Detroit today to discuss the Southfield Clerk’s alleged attempts to invalidate 193 absentee votes in the 2018 midterm election.
https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/audio_00037819_20191001.mp3
“Why 193? Every vote counts.” Adams recalled the 537 vote win for Bush in Florida 2000.
12 Times Donors Were Targeted for Harassment or Worse
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – October 1, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s request to be heard regarding California’s donor disclosure laws.
In the brief, the Foundation cites 12 examples where donor disclosure laws or efforts were leveraged to fuel personal attacks against otherwise private individuals – even in some cases where privacy protections were officially violated to achieve the end result. Supporters of both charitable and political ventures have risked threats of violence (including their minor children), commercial boycotts, and personal ruin.
“Donor anonymity is a bedrock American value. Private associations deserve to have their donors remain private,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “This tradition led to the creation of civil society institutions that worked for the betterment of the country. Hopefully, the Court will find a way to uphold that tradition. This case is one way.”
The brief outlines 12 examples.
Texas Public Policy Foundation – According to the group, in 2012, an unredacted IRS Form 990 Schedule B was officially leaked and entered circulation among various news media outlets, despite it being confidential under federal law.
National Organization for Marriage – In March 2012, the organization learned its unredacted 2008 Schedule B was posted on an opposing group’s public website. The IRS later admitted to “improperly” releasing the document to a private individual contrary to federal law.
The IRS Targeting Scandal – Conservative groups targeted by the IRS during their application process were subjected to unnecessary questions including for names of donors.
Friends of Abe – Politically-conservative Hollywood figures seeking fellowship in an anonymous fashion faced a demand from the IRS to effectively reveal their member roster.
LULAC v. PILF – During discovery for a now-settled lawsuit, the progressive group committed extensive resources and attention to understating this Foundation’s fundraising and donor relations efforts. The federal court eventually indicated that the probes were irrelevant to the case.
Chick-fil-A – Agitation against America’s most profitable fast food chain’s charitable contributions and spiritual modus operandi is as notorious as the quality of their chicken sandwich. Some municipalities, like San Antonio, Texas, officially banned the franchise from operating in local government spaces.
Competitive Enterprise Institute/U.S. Virgin Islands – In April 2016, the CEI was subpoenaed by USVI Attorney General Claude Walker for a decade’s-worth of internal records, including donor information. The demand was eventually withdrawn.
California’s Prop 8 – Opponents of Prop 8 utilized public disclosures of supporters’ information to compile online maps detailing private homes and places of business.
Will & Grace – Cast members for the NBC comedy took to Twitter in August 2019 and demanded that lists of attendees to a President Donald Trump fundraiser be revealed due to the public’s “right to know” their identities.
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) – Shortly after the recent mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, the congressman published a list of San Antonio-area donors of the Trump re-election campaign, saying they “fuel” hatred to Hispanics, hinting to a shared causality with the tragic event.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce – A local organization executed an ad campaign featuring members of the MCC’s executive board, accusing them of running a “dark money” effort to prevent redistricting reform. Social media promoters and commenters opined about the need for a guillotine, firing squads, and the general sense how violence “can be used for good.”
SoulCycle – After a company investor hosted a fundraiser for President Trump, a boycott effort substantially drove down attendance to training sessions.
California law requires any IRS-designated 501(c)(3) charitable organization wishing to solicit donations in the state to annually file IRS Form 990s with unredacted Schedule Bs. These files list every donor giving at least $5,000 a year to the group in question. Petitioner AFP Foundation has refused to disclose the documents since 2001.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation also refuses to disclose its Schedule Bs—preventing any targeted fundraising in the state.
The Foundation’s brief, filed in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Foundation for Michigan Freedom, and Texas Public Policy Foundation urges the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as requested by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
A copy of the brief may be read, here.
Kaylan L. Phillips and J. Christian Adams serve as attorneys of record for PILF in this matter.
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. ###
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN) – September 30, 2019. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) initiated a private investigative effort into and around allegations of official election fraud reportedly perpetrated by Southfield City Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins during the Michigan’s November 2018 General Election.
“It is unacceptable in this political environment for an election official to allegedly attempt to alter or invalidate absentee ballots for any reason,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “It is equally troubling to see Michigan officials downplay the matter. Michiganders and the larger American electorate deserve another set of eyes to help explain—in plain language—the course of events, motivations, and trends as to why these particular 193 absentee voters were allegedly targeted by Hawkins for disenfranchisement. The inner workings of our elections are typically a mystery to the public even in the best of times. This demands complete transparency.”
Upon reviewing the Michigan felony complaint records regarding Southfield Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins, the Foundation opted to utilize several federal and state open records laws tailored to election administration and absentee balloting files.
Documents of particular interest relate to lists of all registered voters in Southfield who attempted to vote absentee for the 2018 midterm elections, in addition to detailed records exhibiting which voters were impacted by Clerk Hawkins alleged actions. Other records sought can help confirm that all eligible and properly submitted ballots were counted according to Michigan law.
PILF has also asked to inspect records held by the Elections Division in Oakland County, Michigan, the office that discovered the alleged alteration of voting records.
The Foundation intends to distribute a catalog of findings to better educate the general public on official election fraud risks ahead of the 2020 Elections—particularly in the area of absentee balloting, which has seen an increase in popularity with voters and fraudsters, alike.
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) empowers any party to physically inspect local election records related to voter list maintenance efforts. Michigan law grants similar access rights for voter registration records and records related to the application, mailing, return, and official handling for each absentee ballot in a given election.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is building a record of targeted research efforts that focus on particular elections and jurisdictions. In April 2019, the Foundation filed state and federal law enforcement complaints regarding apparent double voting efforts in Florida and New York. In October 2018, PILF helped trigger a Texas Attorney General investigation referral into apparently altered voter registration applications mailed to non-U.S. citizens in the Rio Grande Valley.
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. ###
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – September 9, 2019: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams will testify before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee regarding evidence of current and ongoing voting discrimination this Tuesday, September 10.
In advance of his prepared testimony, Adams stated the following:
“It has never been easier to vote in the United States than now. In some cases, voter access has broadened to the point that it lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure immigrants and felons don’t register before they are eligible. There is still work to be done, however.”
In prepared remarks, Adams explains how Guam attempted to discriminate against U.S. citizens wishing to participate in a recent plebiscite election:
“The legislature of Guam passed an election law confining the right to vote in a status plebiscite to a preferred racial group – so called ‘native inhabitants’ … Guam imposed voter qualifications based on blood ancestry much like the Oklahoma grandfather clauses struck down by the Supreme Court over a century ago … When [my client] sought to register to vote at the government office, his registration form was marked ‘VOID’ by election officials. Even in the Jim Crow south of the early 1960’s, southern registrars weren’t brazen enough to deny the right to vote explicitly on having the wrong racial blood.”
Adams adds that oft-described “civil rights” groups like those invited to testify alongside him are conspicuously missing from modern challenges.
Adams also explained how the Commonwealth of Virginia improperly removed U.S. citizen voter registrants after questioning their eligibility:
“Virginia has been cancelling the voter registrations of American citizens, mistakenly cancelling them as ‘declared non-citizens.’ This is happening because the Motor Voter law passed in 1993 is outdated … Yet as in Guam, the improper cancellation of American citizens on the voter rolls has not seemed to draw the attention of any of the traditional civil rights groups who so zealously catalog the latest threat to voting.”
The hearing is scheduled for 10am Tuesday, September 10, in the Rayburn HOB 2141.
Read a copy of Adams’ testimony, here. You can watch at the House Judiciary Committee 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, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###
29 States and D.C. Show Bloated Voter Rolls
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN.) – August 19, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is spotlighting jurisdictions across 29 states for in-depth inspections of voter registration records and local list maintenance practices in preparation for the 2020 presidential election. At least 244 counties across 28 states plus Alaska and D.C. report bloated voter rolls to federal officials. In response, public records research, voter roll audits, and various litigation activities are now underway.
“One of the most effective strategies for protecting the integrity of American elections is keeping voter rolls clean,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Carefully maintained records will better prepare state and local governments to quickly recover from any future cyber-attacks. In addition to fraud concerns, unkempt rolls can serve as a warning signal to future corruption and failures in local governments.”
The Foundation created an infographic to depict where the hotspots for potential voter list maintenance failures currently stand. In addition to the 244 counties exceeding 100% voter registration, another 279 counties across 31 states exhibit implausibly high registration rates of 95 to 99 percent.
Registrants in highlighted jurisdictions can expect a variety of research techniques and legal actions from the Foundation in preparation for the 2020 Election, such as full battery voter registration records request letters and comprehensive voter list audits. Based on these efforts, the Foundation will opt for formal agreements addressing corrective strategies where possible or, federal litigation under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993.
The NVRA (also known as “Motor Voter”) requires state and local election officials to properly maintain voter rolls and ensure that only eligible voters are registered. Holding more registrants than living adults indicates that election officials have failed to properly maintain voter rolls.
States with counties of concern are (# of counties): Kentucky (58), Michigan (29), South Carolina (25), Mississippi (22), Colorado (19), Alabama (14), Illinois (13), South Dakota (11), Kansas (8), Texas (8), Nebraska (6), Georgia (5), West Virginia (4), Iowa (3), Montana (3), Missouri (2), Washington state (2), Louisiana (2), Florida (1), New Mexico (1), Arizona (1), Arkansas (1), California (1), Indiana (1), New York (1), North Carolina (1), Virginia (1), and Wyoming (1). Alaska and Washington, D.C. also join the list.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation has a distinguished record of bringing litigation against counties and locales with bloated voter rolls—yielding settlements and consent decrees that, if followed properly, will put jurisdictions on a path to more realistic voter registration rates. PILF has been involved in bringing nine separate lawsuits in the last two years to enforce list maintenance provisions of the NVRA, including in Texas, Mississippi, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Foundation works to ensure that voting records meant to be publicly available are disclosed according to federal law. In the past two years, PILF sued jurisdictions in Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina to enforce public inspection rights.
If a state or local official fails to respond to PILF’s correspondence or corrective findings, they risk a federal lawsuit.
A listing of all jurisdictions flagged for registration rates exceeding 100% 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, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – June 28, 2019: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) was invited to participate in a SCOTUSblog symposium on the Census case opinion released Thursday. Below are some excerpts from the submission:
In short, the court concluded that the secretary could reinstate the citizenship question and had good reason to reinstate the citizenship question, but the explanation he provided for why he did so was lacking, and that, in itself, is a fatal flaw worthy of sending the issue back to the Department of Commerce. Game over? Maybe not.
…
Not only is there disagreement among the justices regarding the court’s analysis, there is disagreement among commentators about the effect of the decision. There is a genuine question about whether the Commerce Department can satisfy the court’s concerns in time for the 2020 census and, if so, how.
…
Adding to the complication is that the Supreme Court decision only involved the challenges that were brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. There are separate challenges to the reinstatement of the citizenship question pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and 4th Circuits, and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Despite the New York court’s decision blocking the reinstatement of the question in mid-January and the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the case this term, the other lower courts proceeded with their own fact-finding and ruled against the government.
Read the entire article on SCOTUSblog here.
Read the Foundation’s prior case filings on the matter 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, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – June 27, 2019: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding the inclusion of a citizenship question on the upcoming 2020 Census.
“Chief Justice Roberts unfortunately was the deciding vote,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “He agreed with the arguments of the institutional Left that how the Census question was added was more important than the common sense of asking the question in the first place. This is an unfortunate victory for the Swamp that opposed collecting facts about how many aliens are in the United States.”
“It is a sign of our time that the inclusion of a question about citizenship on the census has become a subject of bitter public controversy and has led to today’s regrettable decision. While the decision to place such a question on the 2020 census questionnaire is attacked as racist, there is a broad international consensus that inquiring about citizenship on a census is not just appropriate but advisable.” — Justice Alito
Read the Foundation’s prior case filings on the matter here. The Foundation had made several arguments as an amicus party as this case developed.
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.
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.
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.”
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. ###
Partisan Gerrymandering Lawsuits are Dead Forever
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – June 27, 2019: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today regarding partisan gerrymandering claims (Rucho v. Common Cause 18-422).
“The Supreme Court wisely chose to reject federal overreach into the states’ constitutional authority to conduct redistricting,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Partisan foes of the federalist balance of power have yet again sunk millions of donor dollars. The 15th Amendment gives federal courts the power to stop racial discrimination. The Constitution doesn’t give federal courts the power to pick partisan outcomes.”
Read the Foundation’s prior case filings on the matter here. The Foundation made several arguments as an amicus party in recent months.
The original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support political gerrymandering causes of action. [The authors] were elected from districts with far greater disparity between statewide political preferences and the partisan composition of legislative delegations than those districts challenged [in the North Carolina action].
Allowing a federal cause of action for partisan gerrymandering upsets the Constitutional balance. States have the general power to manage their own elections subject to explicit and well-defined exceptions, like violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The lower court’s decision is an affront to the important federalist balance and should be rejected.
The Constitution grants States the power over elections. To the States, the Framers granted exclusively the authority to control who may vote in federal elections … Congress’s power to regulate how elections are held, however, is superior to the States’ power to do the same only when they differ.
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. ###
Foundation Alleges North Carolina Is Violating Motor Voter Law
(RALEIGH, NC.) – June 18, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed a lawsuit Monday against the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) for failing to disclose noncitizen registered voter records as required under federal law (Public Interest Legal Foundation v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections).
“The NCSBE is hiding records detailing their reported efforts to identify and remove noncitizens registered to vote,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “The disclosure of these records will better improve policymakers’ understanding of how to prevent future ineligible registrations—as opposed to constantly playing defense.”
The NCSBE denied access to several forms of documentation outlining how state and/or local officers identify and eventually remove registrants for citizenship-eligibility defects using immigration or driver licensing data. These refusals constitute a violation of the public inspection rights under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, as outlined in the complaint.
In 2018, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District indicted 19 foreign nationals for allegedly participating in the 2016 Election and others.
The new case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division. The case number is 5:19-cv-00248. Attorneys for the Public Interest Legal Foundation are J. Christian Adams and Noel H. Johnson. Benton Sawrey of Narron Wenzel, P.A. serves as local counsel.
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. ###
(FORT LAUDERDALE, FL.) – May 6, 2019: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) Communications and Research Director Logan C. Churchwell testified before the U.S. House Committee on Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections regarding the need for the return of the Voting Rights Act of 1965’s preclearance procedures.
In prepared remarks, Churchwell notes that:
Because of the Voting Rights Act, it has never been easier to register to vote and vote as it is in America in 2019 … 2019 is not 1965. The heavy hand of federal micromanagement of state election law was justified in 1965. It is not in 2019.
Churchwell argues that more modern uses of the preclearance power under the Clinton and Obama Justice Departments yielded abuses.
Unfortunately, the preclearance power became a power that was abused. From South Carolina voter ID to Georgia redistricting, Justice Department lawyers exercised powers that they did not possess by blocking states’ laws that were neither discriminatory in purpose or effect, and in some cases, courts handed down sanctions.
Churchwell reminds the Subcommittee that preclearance as a concept will again prove inefficient if reconstituted.
Whether or not the old preclearance regime can be fully credited for the actual progress made in creating a more just voting system – history will show that the program had a proper time and place – and that time has passed. I contend to this body and the general public that trying to resuscitate the concept of 20th Century-style preclearance will prove an inefficient use of federal resources and will always be at least one step behind emerging population and demographic trends.
Read a copy of Churchwell’s testimony, 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, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###
Menu