Tag: election law

Navigating Politics in the Workplace

In this election year, employees inevitably will engage in discussions of the impactful and divisive political issues that are at the forefront of our national discourse. Employers must be aware of the ways in which political discussions in the workplace have intensified and be prepared to navigate the legal and other challenges posed by these interactions. This checklist provides employers with an overview of key topics to consider when addressing issues related to political speech in the workplace.

1. First Amendment Protection. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it generally applies only to governmental action. Private employers generally have latitude to restrict political speech in the workplace unless it implicates other legal protections.

2. National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 7 of the NLRA protects non-supervisory employees in the private sector, regardless of whether they are members of a union. Employers generally cannot restrict covered employees’ discussions related to the terms and conditions of their employment, i.e., “protected concerted activity.” Political speech that also falls under NLRA protection must be considered carefully.

3. Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies. Political speech may implicate discrimination or harassment concerns when it includes topics related to protected categories or characteristics, e.g., race, gender, religion. Employers should have robust anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies that cover these issues.

4. State Laws Protecting Political Speech. State laws may protect employees’ political activity, expression or affiliation. These laws include prohibitions against initimdation, threats, or adverse actions based on employee voting, political activities, or candidate endorsements. Employers must assess their policies and practices in each state where they have employees because the scope of these laws varies by jurisdiction.

5. Respectful Workplace and Other Policies. Employers should consider adopting policies that promote respectful behavior and prevent political discussions from escalating into conflicts. Employers also should consider dress code and other workplace policies concerning political attire or messages, and ensure consistent, content-neutral enforcement of those policies. When reports of potential policy violations are made, employers should respond promptly.

6. Train Employees. Employees should receive regular training on company policies and their rights, including the boundaries of political speech in the workplace.

Employers should tailor their policies to address political speech while respecting employees’ rights and maintaining a positive work environment. Each workplace is unique, however, and issues often require context and fact-specific solutions with the assistance of counsel.

2024 Goulston & Storrs PC.
For more news on Navigating Political Discussions in the Workplace, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Supreme Court Upholds State Courts’ Power of Judicial Review Over Election Matters

On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court upheld a decision by North Carolina’s highest court holding that the North Carolina legislature went too far in gerrymandering voting district maps. The Court affirmed the authority of state courts to review the decisions of state legislatures on election matters, rejecting the “independent state legislature theory.” The theory, taken to its extreme, is that no branch of state government can question a state legislature’s decision regarding any federal election.  The ruling is an encouraging sign for states like Arizona, Illinois, and Michigan, where independent redistricting commissions have created, or are creating, new maps intended to represent non-partisan, or less partisan, boundary drawing and citizen-driven ballot initiatives to protect voters’ rights.

The plaintiffs in Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), were groups and individuals challenging North Carolina’s 2021 congressional districting map, which they viewed as unacceptable gerrymandering, created to favor Republican candidates. The legislative defendants asserted that in creating the new map, they had exercised the authority established by the “Elections Clause” in Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution that provides that state legislatures shall prescribe, “the Times, Places and Manner of” federal elections. Although North Carolina judges had found the new map to be “a partisan outlier intentionally and carefully designed to maximize Republican advantage in North Carolina’s Congressional delegation,” the legislative defendants argued the map was beyond the reach of judicial review. The Supreme Court had to decide whether “the Elections Clause insulates state legislatures from review by state courts for compliance with state law.” Moore, slip opinion at p 11.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts began the analysis by citing our country’s long-standing legal tradition of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislative acts. The majority opinion noted the 1787 decision in Bayard v Singleton, where the North Carolina Supreme Court found a law banning British loyalists from challenging property seizures was unconstitutional. The opinion goes on to review many decades of decisions where courts have considered the “interplay between state constitutional provisions and a state legislature’s exercise of authority under the Elections Clause.” Moore, slip opinion at p 15.

Looking at the other side of the case, the Court examined the legislative defendants’ arguments about the impact of the Election Clause. Rejecting Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent, Roberts addressed the concept known as “independent state legislature theory” which contends that, “because the Federal Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate congressional elections, only [the Federal] Constitution can restrain the exercise of that power.” Id at 18. The historical references supporting this theory are debunked in the Moore decision, and many commentators have stated the decision in Moore slams the door on the extreme view that state legislative acts around federal elections are not subject to review by state courts.

The Moore decision, however, refers to a need to balance competing interests: “Although we conclude that the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, state courts do not have free rein.” Moore, slip opinion at p 26.  The opinion goes on to note:

We do not adopt these or any other test by which we can measure state court interpretations of state law in cases implicating the Elections Clause… We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.

Id. p 28-29. It therefore remains to be seen how difficult it will be to challenge state legislatures in their future attempts at partisan district drawing in state courts.  Paying homage to the Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore, it also leaves open the question of when federal courts may find that a state court has transgressed the “ordinary bounds of judicial review.” And, Moore leaves the Court’s holding in Rucho v Common Cause, 139 S Ct 2484 (2019) that partisan gerrymandering claims brought in federal court are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond their reach.

Nevertheless, taken in the context of other decisions reached this term, such as the Alabama districting case implicating the Voting Rights Act (Allen v Milligan), the recent decision in Moore gives comfort to many traditionalists who have been increasingly fearful of sudden and/or extreme changes to norms in American jurisprudence.

Click Here for More Election Law News at the National Law Review.

© 2023 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

2022 Midterm Election Guide

The 2022 midterm elections produced modest, but perhaps still significant, changes to Congress. Democrats outperformed in many parts of the country, significantly stemming the tide of the “red wave” many analysts were expecting.

The results for partisan control of Congress remain in doubt.

The power balance in the U.S. Senate may not be known until next month, but the Democrats are seemingly poised to retain control. The Pennsylvania Senate seat flipped to the Democrats while Nevada could flip Republican with the Democratic incumbent currently behind. Three other Senate contests remain uncalled, with the incumbent party narrowly positioned to win all three. That would leave the Senate tied, waiting for the results of a Georgia run-off in December to determine which party controls the Senate.

The House of Representatives appears likely to shift to Republican control, but by the slimmest of margins. The final outcome and margins in the House will not be known until more votes are counted and several very close races are called. If Republicans win control of the House, as seems likely, it is unclear if their razor-thin majority—which could be between two and twelve seats—will allow their leaders to govern effectively.

To help assess the 2022 midterm election, we have prepared a comprehensive guide that summarizes the results and their impact on the 118th Congress, which convenes in January. The Election Guide lists all new members elected to Congress, updates the congressional delegations for each state, and provides a starting point for analyzing the coming changes to House and Senate committees, including potential new chairs and ranking members.

Our committee analysis assumes that the Democrats retain control in the Senate, but Republicans flip the House and chair committees.

Please click here to download the most up-to-date version of this Election Guide, which will be updated on an ongoing basis as more of the close races are called and committees are finalized.

Article By Tim L. Peckinpaugh of K&L Gates

For more election law and legislative news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

“Key Legislative Limits to Nuisance-Based Attacks on the Right to Farm Live on.”

The North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, through its “Ag Allies: Landscape-Shifting Legal Developments” webinar on August 18, 2021, featured North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act (the “Act”), and appropriately so, as it has been at the forefront of North Carolina law and politics over the past few years.

Agribusiness is the backbone of the North Carolina economy, accounting for 17.5 percent of total jobs and having a total estimated economic impact of over 95 billion dollars in 2019 alone.  The evidence suggests that this impact has, despite recent challenges, only grown since then.  However, the agricultural operations that make up this market have a unique impact on the land and on their neighbors as noise, odor, storage, and dangerous equipment and structures are all unavoidable parts of agriculture.  These effects are compounded by the fact that many agricultural operations are located in rural areas in close proximity to residential zones.  This mix has long resulted in tensions, and those tensions can come to a head in lawsuits for nuisance.  “Nuisance” is a legal claim that allows for the recovery of damages for unreasonable interference with the use of one’s land.

This presented a particular problem for North Carolina agricultural operations, especially meat production.  These and other agricultural operations were deemed too valuable to be left subject to nuisance actions without some protections, and the North Carolina General Assembly sought to help by passing the Act in 1979.  Its stated objective was to decrease losses to the State of its agricultural and forestry resources by curtailing the situations in which agricultural and forestry operations could be deemed a nuisance.  The Act featured prominently in the recent mass nuisance litigation brought by over 500 plaintiffs against Murphy-Brown/Smithfield and the threat that future litigation like it presented for the State’s agribusiness industry.  Ultimately, the Act did not serve to protect the defendants from substantial jury verdicts, prompting the General Assembly to revisit and strengthen its protections.

The Act received boosts from the General Assembly through amendments in 2017 (capped recoverable damages to the fair market value of a plaintiff’s property) and in 2018 (narrowed who can bring a nuisance lawsuit against a farm and the time in which they can bring a nuisance suit).  But these boosts were not without opposition.  In 2019, three non-profit organizations filed suit challenging the 2017 and 2018 amendments.  The organizations argued that the amendments, on their face, violated North Carolina’s Constitution.  Facial constitutional challenges require proof that the law in question is unconstitutional in all of its applications.  A court cannot strike down the law if there is any “reasonable ground” to uphold it.  Finding the organizations had failed to state a claim, the trial court dismissed the organizations’ suit.  After their challenge was dismissed, the organizations appealed their case to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  In upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the organizations’ suit, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs’ had failed to state a legal claim and that the amendments in question do not violate North Carolina’s Constitution on their face.

Here are the highlights of the arguments presented in the appeal:

  • The organizations argued on appeal that the amendments violated private property rights under the Law of the Land Clause contained in the State’s Constitution, which prohibits a person from being deprived of life, liberty, or property except as allowed “by the law of the land.”  The Court disagreed.  It found the amendments to be reasonably necessary to promote a public benefit (through limiting nuisance claims against the State’s agricultural and forestry operations).  It also determined that the amendments’ interference on property use rights to be reasonable.
  • In response to the organizations’ argument that the amendments exceeded the authority of the State’s police power, the Court pointed to North Carolina’s historied interest in preserving and promoting agricultural and agricultural-related industries and found the amendments to be within the scope of the State’s police power.
  • The organizations also argued that the amendments violated the fundamental right to enjoy property.  In disposing of that argument, the Court noted the organizations had not alleged a taking by the government and reiterated its conclusions regarding the facial constitutionality of the amendments.
  • Another provision of the State’s Constitution at issue in the appeal was the prohibition on the General Assembly from enacting local, private, or special acts (as opposed to generally applicable laws) concerning the abatement of nuisances.  The organizations took the position that the amendments provide private protections to the hog industry.  The Court disagreed, noting that the amendments generally apply to the agricultural and forestry industries and are not limited to a particular subset of those industries or groups within them.
  • Finally, the organizations asserted that the 2017 amendment, which capped recoverable damages, violates the constitutional right to a trial by jury.  In rejecting their position, the Court cited the General Assembly’s power to modify the State’s common law by statute to define what remedies are recognized by law.  The Court then pointed to statutory caps on recoverable damages that the General Assembly had enacted for other civil torts.

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the organizations’ lawsuit, the Court delivered a “win” to the State’s agricultural and forestry industries by upholding the amendments’ limitations on nuisance claims.  Only time will tell whether the win it delivered will stay on the books.  The Court’s ruling was limited to considering the facial challenges the organizations had presented in attacking the amendments.  The Court was not tasked with evaluating whether the amendments would withstand an-as applied constitutional challenge, and it remains to be seen how the Court would rule if asked to consider an as-applied challenge.  Still, the ruling is an encouraging nod to the important role the agricultural and forestry industries play in North Carolina and the State’s interest in protecting those industries.

© 2022 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.
For more about North Carolina law, visit the NLR North Carolina jurisdiction page.

The 2020 Election: Previewing the Potential for Shifts in Labor & Employment Law

As Election Day approaches, employers nationwide consider the changes that may come with a victory by Senator Joseph Biden in the Presidential race and/or shift in representation in the U.S. Senate.  While we cannot be certain of what the future holds—either in the election or the subsequent legal landscape—the Bracewell Labor & Employment team has prepared the following information in an effort to highlight areas of employment law that may transform, in both the near and far term, in the event of such changes in the country’s elected officials.

Labor Relations, Collective Bargaining and Union Organizing

  • Senator Biden strongly supports unions, stating that “Everything that defines what it means to live a good life and know you can take care of your family  . . . is because of workers who organized unions and fought for worker protections.”
  • Specifically, he supports:
    • Provisions of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) – which would institute financial penalties on companies that interfere with union organizing – and supports legislation that would hold company executives personally liable for such interference.
    • Funding a “dramatic increase” in the number of investigators at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
    • Shorter timelines for union election campaigns and bans on mandatory employer meetings with employees during union organizing campaign.
    • Creating a federal right to union organizing and collective bargaining for all public sector employees.
    • Creating a cabinet-level working group that will “solely focus on promoting union organizing and collective bargaining.”
    • Extending the right to organize and bargain collectively to independent contractors.
  • While recent prior Democrat administrations were not able to strengthen organized labor in the way Senator Biden’s platform hopes to achieve, at a minimum, if Senator Biden were to become President, his appointments to the NLRB would return a pro labor union majority to the agency.  In that case, the NRLB decisions and rule making would strengthen union organizing and limits on workplace rules.

Workplace Rules

  • President Donald Trump shifted the limits of employer workplace policies by undoing pro-union rulings the NLRB made under former President Barack Obama.  A Biden Presidency would likely swing such rulings back to where they were in the Obama era.
  • Employees should look for potential changes in the following areas:
    • Facially neutral workplace rules:  The Trump NLRB, in its Boeing Company decision, ruled that an employer does not necessarily violate the NLRA by maintaining a facially neutral work rule, policy or handbook provision that could be reasonably construed to interfere with union or other protected concerted activity protected under Section 7.  This overruled Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, which under the Obama administration, was frequently applied to invalidate facially neutral employer rules adopted and applied for legitimate business reasons unrelated to an employee’s Section 7 activity. Examples of Section 7 activity include the right discuss wages and working conditions and the right to organize.
    • Workplace investigations: In its 2015 Banner Health decision, the NLRB prohibited employers from requiring employees to keep workplace investigations confidential.  Last December, the Trump NLRB, in Apogee Retail, reversed the Banner Health decision, finding that employer policies that require confidentiality during internal investigations are per se lawful.
    • Employer e-mail: As a result of the NLRB’s 2014 Purple Communications decision, employers could not prohibit employees from accessing company email for union-related communications.  The Trump NLRB, in its Caesar’s Entertainment decision, restored employer rights to prohibit use of its email systems for non-business purposes.

Employment Law Developments and Enforcement

Senator Biden supports the following legislation:

  • The Equality Act
    • A proposed law that would codify anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals in employment as well as other contexts, including housing.
    • Ensure protection from associational discrimination – discrimination on the basis of a person’s association with an individual in a protected class.
    • The Equality Act passed the House of Representatives but has not come to a vote in the Senate.
  • Paycheck Fairness Act
    • A proposed law that addresses wage discrimination on the basis of sex.
    • Amends equal pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to restrict use of the bona fide factor defense to wage discrimination claims, enhance non-retaliation provisions, make it unlawful to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver prohibiting the employee from disclosing information about the employee’s wages and increase civil penalties for violations of equal pay provisions.
    • Prohibits employers from screening job applicants based on their salary history or requiring salary history during the interview or hiring process.
    • Requires EEOC to issue regulations for collecting compensation and other employment data from employers according to the sex, race, and ethnic identity of employees for use in enforcing laws prohibiting pay discrimination.
    • The Paycheck Fairness Act passed the House of Representatives but has not come to a vote in the Senate.

Department of Labor: Independent Contractors, Wage Changes and Federal Contractors

  • As stated above, Senator Biden supports the PRO Act:

    • Increasing the standard to classify workers as independent contractors
    • Expanding the definition of “joint employer”
    • Criminal liability for employer interference with organizing efforts
  • DOL, Wage & Hour/FLSA:  Recent Rules & Potential Changes
    • (Existing) Final Rule increasing the salary threshold to $684/week
      • If the minimum wage is increased to $15/hr, then the salary threshold would likely increase to retain a sufficient gap between exempt and non-exempt employees under the FLSA ($15/hr = $600/wk)
    • (Existing) Final Rule expanded Section 7(i) overtime exemption for retail and service industries by withdrawing the dated list of businesses with “no retail concept.”
      • Likely not affected
    • (Existing) Final Rule allows bonuses or other incentives to salaried, nonexempt employees without defeating the fluctuating workweek” method described in 29 CFR 778.114.
      • Likely not affected
    • (Existing) Final Rule on joint employer describing “vertical” and “horizontal” joint employer scenarios (enjoined by federal district court) to the extent the DOL too narrowly defined joint employment)
      • This may be challenged.
    • Proposed rule adopting the “economic realities” test for  independent contractors and emphasizing the factors of control and opportunity for profit and loss.
      • This may be challenged.
  • Senator Biden’s general proposals:
    • Increased penalties (in addition to current FLSA remedies and liquidated damages) for worker misclassification.
    • Senator Biden proposes to increase DOL/FLSA enforcement effort.
    • Senator Biden proposes to increase staffing of agencies.
    • Senator Biden proposes  greater collaborative enforcement efforts between various labor agencies (NLRB, EEOC, IRS, State unemployment and labor agencies).
  • Executive Orders & the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
    • Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” prohibiting federal contractors from instilling race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in workplace diversity and inclusion training
      • Likely withdrawn by Senator Biden administration
  • Notably, the OFCCP under the Trump Administration collected greater enforcement fines than expected –  e.g., OFCCP collected more than $21 Million from Dell Technologies, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America primarily relating to gender/race wage disparity claims.

COVID Response – Economic and Public Health Policies Affecting Employers

  • From “Unemployment” to “Employment Insurance”:
    • Focus on maintaining employment at reduced hours, with federal government supplementing worker wages
    • 100% federal financing for short-time compensation plan that is “automatically extended based on economic and health conditions” (without the vote of Congress)
    • Tax credit for employer’s extra health care costs
  • COVID:
    • Create Pandemic Testing Board to “guarantee regular, reliable and free access to testing for all, including every worker called back to the job”
    • Hire 100,000 Americans to conduct contact tracing
    • Ensure emergency paid leave for all who contract COVID-19 or need to care for a loved one with COVID-19
    • “Ensure worker protection and accountability” including tasking OSHA with “setting and enforcing a rigorous emergency temporary standard”
    • Equip small business with a “restart package” to retain and rehire workers
  • Schools – Issuing “basic, objective criteria” at the federal level to guide school reopening and passing significant emergency federal funding for school.

OSHA and Workplace Safety

  • Senator Biden has committed to reinstating a variety workplace safety and health regulations altered during the Trump administration, such as regulations requiring companies to report their workplace injuries.
  • He also has promised to increase the number of investigators in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety Health and Administration (MSHA) and to direct OSHA to substantially expand its enforcement efforts.

Employment Agreement Restrictions

  • Senator Biden has promised to will work with Congress to eliminate all non-compete agreements, except the very few that are absolutely necessary to protect a narrowly defined category of trade secrets, and outright ban all no-poaching agreements.
© 2020 Bracewell LLP
For more articles on the election, visit the National Law Review Election Law / Legislative News section.

Senate Election Preview

Control of the US Senate is never inconsequential. However, control of the Senate at the end of this election cycle seems to be significantly more consequential than previous cycles. If former Vice President Joe Biden is elected president, his ability to deliver on the Democratic agenda will depend on Democrats taking control of the Senate, and the margin by which they do so. If President Trump is reelected, his administration’s ability to function normally in a second term would improve if Republicans maintain control of the Senate and are able to approve his nominees.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Every Senate election cycle, and every individual election within an election cycle, is what academics would refer to as an independent event. Every six years for a given Senate seat, each campaign and its outcome is a function of the individual candidates, the actions of their campaigns, and the current circumstances surrounding those candidates and campaigns. History is important to provide context, but the outcomes are independent from the history.

Nonetheless, history tells us something about odds, and historic experience is illuminating as we look to predict potential 2020 Senate outcomes, because presidential victories, driven by state-specific Electoral College results, tend to align with Senate results too. For example, if a presidential candidate carries Nebraska, chances are high that the Senate candidate of the same party also will win in Nebraska. Going back through election history, four specific trends are valuable for considering the Senate outcome in this election cycle. This is not to say these trends predict the outcome in any specific race, but rather each example speaks to how each outcome would fit, or not, within trends over the last two decades or longer.

  1. If Biden wins the presidential election, the White House would change party ownership. The last time the White House changed party ownership and the new owners didn’t also control the Senate was the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. If Biden wins and the Senate is not also under Democratic control, it would be the first time in more than 50 years that an election produces a split White House and Senate.
  2. A president that wins reelection does not lose the Senate. This is not to say that a president winning reelection must flip the Senate. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton won reelection while the Senate remained under control of the opposition party. Since the Civil War, how many times has a president running for reelection lost control of the Senate in the same election? Never. Trump winning reelection and Republicans losing control of the Senate would be a first.
  3. In 2016, Republican Senate candidates won every state that President Trump won. Where Trump lost, the Republican candidate lost. The last Republican to win a Senate race when the Democratic candidate for president won that same state was Susan Collins in Maine in 2008. The last Republican to defeat a Democratic incumbent in a presidential election year was John Thune over Tom Daschle in 2004. No Republican Senate candidate has defeated a Democratic incumbent while the Democratic presidential candidate won the same state in the last 20 years. If Biden wins a state, history favors the Democrats holding or flipping the Senate seat.
  4. In 2012, four Democratic Senate candidates won states that Mitt Romney won, although none of them defeated an incumbent Republican senator. The last time a Democratic defeated an incumbent Republican senator while the Republican presidential candidate won the state was Mark Begich over Ted Stevens in 2008, and prior to that Mel Carnahan over John Ashcroft in 2000. For Democrats to take decisive control of the Senate (a margin of two or more seats), they will need to win seats that run counter to outcomes over the last 20 years.

With this historical context in mind, below we provide additional context for the Senate seats that could decide how the politics in the Senate will function in 2021.

LIKELY REPUBLICAN

Democrat Doug Jones won election to the Senate from Alabama with a surprising special election victory over the highly controversial Republican candidate Roy Moore. In a presidential election year, with Republicans fielding a significantly less controversial candidate, Tommy Tuberville, Alabama is the Senate seat most likely to change parties in the 2020 election. Count this as a likely Republican pick-up.

LEANING DEMOCRATIC

The three most endangered Republicans in the Senate are Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner (Colorado) and Martha McSally (Arizona). Biden is highly likely to win Colorado and Maine. Thus, for Gardner and Collins to survive will require significant ticket splitting. While McSally has the advantage of Trump being the favorite in Arizona, she is running for election as an appointed incumbent who has consistently polled behind throughout the race. If Republicans win any of these three Senate seats and pick up Alabama, Democrats gaining control of the Senate is unlikely.

THE ONES THAT DECIDE THE MARGIN

If Biden wins the White House and Democrats win the three toss-up races while simultaneously losing Jones in Alabama, one of the following seats must go to the Democrats for them to take functional control of the Senate : Iowa, Montana or North Carolina. These three states are all considered highly competitive. Accordingly, for Democrats to take control of the Senate and expand their working margin for 2021, they will have to defeat Republican incumbents in three states that President Trump won in 2016. At the presidential level, Iowa and North Carolina are toss-ups. The better Biden does in those two states, the more plausible it is for the Democrats to upset the Republican incumbent. For the Democrats to defeat Republican incumbent Steve Daines in Montana in a presidential year would be something atypical in the last generation, as Montana has consistently voted Republican in presidential elections.

THE LANDSLIDE

What does the bottom falling out look like for Republicans in the Senate? If Biden clearly wins the White House, taking as many electoral votes as Obama did in 2008 (somewhere around 365), and is competitive in close races in typically red states, other Republican incumbents could be in danger. John Cornyn (Texas), David Perdue (Georgia) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) are all in potential jeopardy in this scenario. But it is worth remembering that, as discussed previously, in the last 20 years only two Republican senators have lost reelection in a presidential election year in which the Republican presidential candidate wins their state, and both of those instances occurred under unusual circumstances.

NOT COMPLETELY OFF THE TABLE

There are two races on each side that at least warrant a passing comment because the outcome is not the certainty that we see in other Senate races that are considered safe seats. On the Republican side, the open seat in Kansas and, of course, Mitch McConnell’s seat in Kentucky are seats Democrats dream of carrying on November 3. While not impossible, those Senate seats changing hands seems improbable. Alternatively, in a world where Republicans have a better day than conventional wisdom might expect, Democrats would be concerned about Gary Peters (Michigan) and Tina Smith (Minnesota). Of the four mentioned here, Peters is the most plausible upset because of the potential that Trump could win Michigan.

A RUNOFF TO WATCH

It is highly unlikely that the winner of the Georgia special Senate election will be decided on November 3. Absent the unlikely occurrence that one of the six candidates wins a majority, it will necessitate a runoff election. The outcome of that runoff will determine the final Senate margin and will occur in the aftermath of the general election, which will make the politics of that vote an event unto itself.

© 2020 McDermott Will & Emery
For more articles on the election, visit the National Law Review Election Law / Legislative News section.

Watchdog: ‘Reason To Believe’ Trump And Super PAC Violated Election Law

Donald Trump Campaign finance election lawA campaign finance watchdog said Wednesday that chief White House strategist Steve Bannon may have illegally benefited from spending by a pro-Trump super PAC while he led Trump’s presidential campaign.

The Campaign Legal Center believes Make America Number 1, a super PAC that backed Trump, may have improperly subsidized Bannon’s salary. In a letter to regulators on Wednesday, the Campaign Legal Center argued that details in Bannon’s recent financial disclosure give “reason to believe” the Trump campaign and the super PAC may have violated federal election rules.

While Trump initially criticized his Republican opponents for their close ties to super PACs and disavowed outside groups that sought to support his bid, his team embraced outside help during his general election race against Hillary Clinton and pushed the boundaries of federal election rules as much as any other 2016 candidate, testing regulations meant to ensure super PACs operate independently from campaigns.

Bannon’s disclosure, filed March 31, confirmed his financial connection to Glittering Steel, a film production company that was involved with Bannon’s “Clinton Cash” documentary about the Clinton family and “Torchbearer,” which starred Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson.

Make America Number 1 paid the film production company nearly $1 million during the 2016 election cycle, with payments starting in July 2015 and continuing after Bannon became the Trump campaign’s CEO. The Trump campaign never paid Bannon, who previously was the executive chairman of Breitbart News, a right-wing news site.

The filing says Bannon resigned from Glittering Steel and stopped receiving monthly consulting payments from the company in August 2016, when he joined the Trump campaign. But the form indicates Bannon kept an ownership interest in Glittering Steel, worth at least $100,000. Bannon’s report says he’s trying to sell his stake in the company.

“As a result, as Bannon worked for the Trump campaign without pay, he continued to benefit, directly or indirectly, from the estimated $267,500 in payments that Make America Number 1 made to Glittering Steel LLC after or around his officially joining the campaign,” wrote the Campaign Legal Center’s general counsel, Larry Noble.

The Campaign Legal Center first filed its complaint with the Federal Election Commission in October. It’s unclear if the agency has decided to investigate, as the FEC doesn’t disclose investigations until they’re completed. Its commissioners have frequently deadlocked on whether to pursue apparent election law violations.

Overall, the FEC has done little to ensure that super PACs remain independent from candidates in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed companies and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

Super PACs and politically active nonprofits spent almost $1.5 billion during the last election cycle, with much of the money coming from ultra-wealthy individuals like billionaire Robert Mercer, the conservative hedge fund executive who financed Make America Number 1. His daughter, Rebekah, led the super PAC, which originally backed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the Republican primary race.

The Mercers pressed Trump to hire Bannon to lead his campaign, according to the Washington Post. Over the years, the Mercer family has funded Breitbart News, as well as the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative investigative nonprofit led by Bannon. Bannon and the Mercers founded Glittering Steel together, the Post reported.

The Mercers are also major investors in Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked for both Make America Number 1 and the Trump campaign. Bannon received monthly consulting payments from Cambridge Analytica and served on its board. Though Bannon’s financial disclosure says he resigned from the firm when he started working for Trump, he still has a stake in the company, worth over $1 million, that he’s planning to sell.

The Campaign Legal Center said that there’s reason to question whether Bannon did in fact resign from Glittering Steel and Cambridge Analytica in August.

Bannon’s financial disclosure says he resigned from Breitbart News then, but Breitbart’s CEO Larry Solov recently told the Senate Press Gallery that Bannon resigned from Breitbart in November, days after Trump’s victory.

The relationship between Bannon and Breitbart News, which gave Trump favorable coverage throughout the campaign, has generated controversy in recent weeks. Bannon has reportedly maintained contact with Breitbart editors about the site’s coverage. That news prompted a liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, to request an investigation into whether Bannon has violated his White House ethics pledge.

News reports suggested last week that there’s a growing rivalry between Bannon and Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, and that Bannon could be on his way out the door, after Trump removed Bannon from a position on his National Security Council.

Trump did little to quiet talk of a shake-up on Tuesday when the New York Post asked him if he still has confidence in Bannon. “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” he said. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”

*This article was produced by MapLight in partnership with Fast Company.

ARTICLE BY MapLight

© Copyright MapLight

Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland (7th Cir. May 14, 2014)

Godfrey Kahn

On May 14, 2014 the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals released its long-awaited decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland. Click here to read a copy of the court’s decision.

The opinion is authored by Judge Diane Sykes who was a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court before being nominated by President Bush and then appointed to the federal Court of Appeals in 2004. The matter had been fully briefed, argued and pending since January 2013.

In 2010, the Government Accountability Board (the G.A.B.) adopted an administrative rule, GAB 1.28. In short, this rule greatly expanded the scope of communications subject to regulation as independent expenditures. As a result, issue advocacy communications in the 30/60 days before an election that identified a candidate would be presumed to be independent expenditures and subject to full PAC regulation under state campaign finance law, including donor disclosure.

In response to the G.A.B.’s adoption of this highly controversial rule, three lawsuits were filed almost immediately after the rule took effect. One of those lawsuits was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by attorney James Bopp on behalf of Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL). However, WRTL not only sued the G.A.B. about administrative rule GAB 1.28, it also challenged a multitude of other Wisconsin campaign finance laws. Today’s decision is essentially a resolution of WRTL’s lawsuit and all of those legal challenges.

WRTL prevailed in virtually all of its arguments, including:

  • Wisconsin’s ban on corporate political spending is unconstitutional under Citizens United;
  • GAB 1.28 which treats issue advocacy during the 30/60 day preelection period as fully regulable express advocacy/independent expenditures is unconstitutional; and,
  • GAB 1.91 which imposes PAC-like registration and reporting requirements on all organizations that sponsor independent expenditures is unconstitutional as applied to sponsors who are not superPACs (such as 501(c)(4) organizations and other non-committee sponsors).

The Court of Appeals reached its conclusions using very strong and clear language on government’s limited ability to regulate political speech:

  • “The effect of [Buckley] was to place issue advocacy—political ads and other communications that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate—beyond the reach of the regulatory scheme.” (p. 20)
  • “As applied to political speakers other than candidates, their committees, and political parties, the statutory definition of ‘political purposes’ in section 11.01(16) and the regulatory definition of ‘political committee’ in GAB 1.28(1)(a) are limited to express advocacy and its functional equivalent as those terms were explained in Buckley and Wisconsin Right to Life II.” (p. 62)
  • The G.A.B.’s administrative rule “sweeps a far wider universe of political speech into [state campaign finance laws], introducing confusion for ordinary political speakers who lack the background or assistance of a campaign finance lawyer.” (p. 64)
  • “Regulations on speech, however, must meet a higher standard of clarity and precision. In the First Amendment context, ‘rigorous adherence to [these] requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.’ Vague or overbroad speech regulations carry an unacceptable risk that speakers will self-censor, so the First Amendment requires more vigorous judicial scrutiny.” (p. 65)

The WRTL decision also highlights the confusing nature of Wisconsin’s campaign finance statutes and the burdens these laws place on those organizations desiring to participate in the process:

Like other campaign-finance systems, Wisconsin’s is labyrinthian and difficult to decipher without a background in this area of the law; in certain critical respects, it violates the constitutional limits on the government’s power to regulate independent political speech. Part of the problem is that the state’s basic campaign-finance law—Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes—has not been updated to keep pace with the evolution in Supreme Court doctrine marking the boundaries on the government’s authority to regulate election-related speech. In addition, key administrative rules do not cohere well with the statutes, introducing a patchwork of new and different terms, definitions, and burdens on independent political speakers, the intent and cumulative effect of which is to enlarge the reach of the statutory scheme. Finally, the state elections agency has given conflicting signals about its intent to enforce some aspects of the regulatory mélange. (pp. 3-4)

The WRTL decision also is an excellent summary of the history of campaign finance regulation and litigation in Wisconsin during the last 20 years. It covers in detail successful legal challenges brought against the Elections Board / Government Accountability Board (the G.A.B) by our law firm on behalf of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (Wis. Supreme Court 1999); Wisconsin Realtors Association (W.D. Wis. 2002); and, Wisconsin Club for Growth / One Wisconsin Now (W.D. Wis. 2010). And, it discusses how despite losing in each of these instances, the G.A.B. continued to push for greater regulation—not less—of political speech.

Bottom line, the WRTL decision makes clear that the government’s authority to regulate political speech extends only to money raised and spent for speech that is express advocacy and that “ordinary political speech about issues, policy, and public officials must remain unencumbered.” (p. 9) Hopefully, with the strong language in this opinion, the G.A.B. will now understand the statutory and First Amendment limitations on its ability to regulate political speech. And, hopefully, the State Legislature will now understand that “Wisconsin’s foundational campaign finance law is in serious need of legislative attention to account for developments in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence protecting political speech.” (p. 80)

Article By:

Mike B. Wittenwyler
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.