Preliminary Injunction Against Maine Foreign Influence Initiative Upheld By First Circuit

campaign finance, court decisions, First Amendment theory, political equality, referendum

A panel of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s preliminary injunction against a Maine ballot initiative that prohibited “foreign governments and ‘foreign government-influenced entit[ies] from contributing or otherwise influencing candidate elections and ballot initiatives.” The district court granted the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on the ground that a substantial application of the statute was unconstitutional and that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. In a 47-page opinion, Judge Lara Montecalvo upheld the lower court’s decision.

According to the Court:

The Act states that “[a] foreign government-influenced entity may not make, directly or indirectly, a contribution, expenditure, independent expenditure, electioneering communication or any other donation or disbursement of funds to influence the nomination or election of a candidate or the initiation or approval of a referendum.” Tit. 21-A, § 1064(2).

The district court upheld the Act’s ban on political spending by foreign corporations. But the court concluded that a substantial number of the Act’s application was likely unconstitutional. From the opinion:

In the end, because the district court determined that a substantial number of the Act’s applications likely violated the First Amendment, and the remaining factors favored a preliminary injunction, it enjoined the Act in its entirety. Id. at 55-56. In doing so, the district court expressly noted Maine severability law but declined to sever given the expedited and preliminary nature of the proceeding; instead, the court reserved the issue for later consideration. Id. at 55.

Maine timely appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion as to its holdings regarding preemption, the applicable level of scrutiny, the state’s compelling interest, and whether the Act was narrowly tailored. Maine also argued that the Act was not facially invalid, the injunction was overly broad, and the district court abused its discretion in reserving its decision on severability. Since March 21, 2024, the proceedings have been stayed pending appeal.

This case raises a number of interesting issues including the level of scrutiny applicable to political spending by foreign citizens and whether one can distinguish the speech of a domestic subsidiary from the speech of its foreign parent company.

Share this:

Could the Texas Mid-Decade Redistricting Scheme Backfire?

redistricting, Voting Rights Act

This article from Politico, quoting Democratic lawmakers, makes the case.

From the article:

A Donald Trump-backed effort to gerrymander Texas would boost the GOP’s attempts to cling to its razor-thin House majority in next year’s midterms — but it also runs a serious risk of backfiring.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott asked the state legislature to redraw the map during its special session this summer, following a push from the White House and the Justice Department. Ohio is also required by state law to redraw its lines before next year’s midterms. Taken together, Republicans see an opportunity to potentially create more GOP seats, guarding against the possibility of a blue wave in 2026.

But in Texas, Republicans are in danger of creating a so-called dummymander, whereby an attempt to draw more seats for one party accidentally benefits the other. Texas’ congressional map already heavily favors the GOP, so any changes to further benefit the party would have to walk a careful line. Adding Republican voters to blue districts to reduce Democrats’ margins means taking those same voters out of the red districts where they reside. The result is more competitive districts across the board — ones Democrats hope to take advantage of as they harness anti-Trump energy in the midterms.

Share this:

Former NJ Governors, Whitman and Corzine, Urge New Jersey Supreme Court to Lead the Way

political parties, political polarization, third parties,

Christine Whitman (R) and Jon Corzine (D) urge the New Jersey Supreme Court to lead the way in reducing the cycle of polarization. In an opinion piece, the two former Governors of New Jersey explain how recognizing the constitutional burdens anti-fusion laws place on minor parties is a meaningful path to undoing the pathologies of hyperpolarization and undercutting the appeal of authoritarianism. They write:

“Governance is failing because politics is failing, and politics is failing because our two major parties are no longer the ‘big tents’ they once were. There used to be liberal, moderate and conservative factions in both the Democratic and Republican parties, but now those are long gone. We have sorted ourselves into two distinct tribes, and, for too many Americans, the rival camp is seen as an existential threat that must be degraded and destroyed. Negotiation is for weaklings; compromise is surrender. Nothing but domination is acceptable, and that cuts at the very heart of this wondrous but fragile system known as democracy.

Litigation in New Jersey challenging the state’s anti-fusion laws could–if the Court accepts the case–help break the cycle.

By definition, fusion encourages inter-party coalitions to form, which adds stability and legitimacy to governance. It also punishes extremism, because it allows major party voters who are dismayed by the direction of their traditional party — and may currently feel they have nowhere to go — to build a new one. 

. . . .

It gives us pride to imagine that the Garden State might lead the way to a better political party system and a more representative and effective government. 

Theoretically, the New Jersey state legislature could solve the problem by simply repealing the ban. Still, as these two savvy politicians understand, self-interest makes “[d]ominant parties… generally unwilling to change the rules in order to allow new centers of power to breathe.”

Share this:

Two Events Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Section 203 (the Language Provisions) of the Voting Rights Act

Voting Rights Act

Announcement via email:

The ACLU SoCal, ALC, CA Common Cause, and PANA are excited to share that registration is now open for “More Voices, Stronger Democracy: The 50th Anniversary of Section 203,” a statewide summit on language access and voting rights in California.

First up: The Pre-Summit Webinar (virtual)

Get grounded in the history, impact, and future of Section 203 before the Summit begins. This virtual event will feature reflections from leaders who helped secure the original passage and reauthorizations of this landmark provision of the Voting Rights Act. Panelists will offer unique perspectives on the law’s implementation, enforcement, and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for building a truly multilingual democracy.

Panelists: 

  • Henry Der, former Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action
  • Karen Narasaki, former Commissioner, US Commission on Civil Rights
  • Rosalind Gold, Chief Public Policy Officer with NALEO Educational Fund
  • Jim Tucker, Section 203 Enforcement Attorney
  • Angelo Ancheta, Senior Research and Policy Counsel with Demos

Webinar Date: August 6, 2025

Register Here: https://tinyurl.com/203-webinar

More Voices, Stronger Democracy: The 50th Anniversary of Section 203 (in person)

We’ll be bringing together advocates, organizers, elections officials, and community leaders to reflect on 50 years of Section 203, elevate the voices of limited-English proficient voters, and strategize for the future of multilingual democracy. Panels will cover implementation, new research, advocacy, and organizing efforts from across the state.  

  • Opening Remarks: Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., California Secretary of State
  • Keynote: Xavier Becerra, Former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services; Former California Attorney General

Summit Date: August 26, 2025

Location: The California Endowment, Sacramento

Event Info & Registration: https://tinyurl.com/Section-203

Share this:

Two members of ABA Task Force highlight fusion’s potential to break political polarization and empower the center, as New Jersey Supreme Court considers the state’s ban on fusion

political parties, political polarization, third parties,
In an exceptionally clear piece in Newsweek, William Kristol and Tom Rogers, members of the ABA cross-partisan Task Force for American democracy, explain fusion voting and how relegalizing it could “break political polarization and empower the center.” The authors… Continue reading