In CEC’s latest SCOTUS amicus brief, noted advocate and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement urges the Court to grant review in PILF v. Nago, a case concerning the NVRA’s public-inspection requirement. The 9th Circuit’s decision excludes statewide voter-registration lists from the NVRA’s transparency mandate. CEC explains why public access to voter rolls is essential to the NVRA’s purposes and why SCOTUS review is important for confidence in elections for voters across the political spectrum.
Tag: amicus brief
At CEC’s Urging, Kansas Court of Appeals Upholds Fusion Voting Ban
The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the state’s longstanding prohibition on “fusion voting”, as CEC urged in its amicus brief. The Court rejected a constitutional challenge brought by United Kansas that sought to allow a single candidate to appear on the general-election ballot as the nominee of multiple parties. United Kansas has been seen widely as a test case for a broad effort to challenge fusion-voting bans nationwide.
SCOTUS Adopts Key CEC Arguments in Landmark VRA Decision
CEC is pleased that SCOTUS’s 6-3 landmark decision in Louisiana v. Callais adopts several key lines of argument from CEC’s amicus brief, protecting equal voting rights in redistricting.
Justices Adopt CEC’s Arguments in Questions to Watson Counsel
In February, CEC and its partner organizations, ALEC, HEP, and RITE, filed a SCOTUS brief in Watson v. RNC. Today, the Court heard oral argument, with Justices adopting lines of argument from the brief CEC filed with its partners.
CEC Urges Wisconsin Federal Court to Uphold Enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1960
CEC has filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. This case considers whether DOJ may compel Wisconsin to provide an unreacted copy of its voter registration list for inspection in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the Voting Rights Amendments.
Attorneys, Judges Rely on CEC Arguments in Fusion Voting Test Case
The Kansas Court of Appeals heard oral argument in United Kansas v. Schwab (No. 128896), a key test case in a renewed push for an expansion of fusion voting nationwide. The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) submitted an amicus brief in support of appellee Kansas Secretary of State, Scott Schwab, arguing in favor of upholding the state’s longstanding anti-fusion voting law. Numerous arguments from CEC’s brief were discussed at length during Tuesday’s oral arguments.
CEC in the News: Election integrity groups press Supreme Court to require ballots by Election Day
Fox News reports “FIRST ON FOX” on the latest efforts at the Supreme Court to protect Election Day by Center for Election Confidence (CEC), Honest Elections Project (HEP), Restoring Trust and Integrity in Elections (RITE) and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
CEC SCOTUS Brief: Election Day Means Election Day
CEC joined with partners Honest Elections Project (HEP), Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to file an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court as it considers the merits of Watson v. RNC (No. 24-1260), an important election integrity case.
CEC Urges SCOTUS to Protect the VRA and Fundamental Fairness in California Redistricting
The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) filed an amicus brief in Tangipa v. Newsom (No. 25-839), urging the Supreme Court to “grant the application for an injunction [of California’s new congressional maps] pending appeal and prohibit California continued reliance “on the VRA to justify [unlawful] race-based districting.”
SCOTUS Adopts CEC’s Position in Key Election Integrity Case
The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) applauds the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision today in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections to overturn the Seventh Circuit, preserving equal access to courts for candidates. The Court adopted CEC’s stated positions on candidate standing.
In 2024 and 2025, CEC submitted amicus curiae briefs at both the certiorari and merits stages in support of the Bost Plaintiffs, arguing that the Seventh Circuit’s standing analysis improperly treated candidates differently from any other plaintiff, severely restricting their access to the courts.