Arguments Heard in Albuquerque

On July 10, 2003, NVRI attorneys Brenda Wright and Lisa Danetz presented argument to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, sitting in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in two appeals addressing the constitutionality of Albuquerque’s mandatory campaign spending limits. The cases provide an opportunity to revisit the Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo which struck down limits on congressional campaign spending. Despite the Buckley decision, Albuquerque had maintained caps on campaign spending in municipal elections since 1974, facing court challenges to the limits for the first time in 1997. Albuquerque’s quarter-century experience with spending limits shows that the limits have fostered citizen confidence in government, competitive elections, and healthy voter turnout, directly refuting those who claim that limits on spending will stifle political debate. NVRI is serving as special counsel to the City of Albuquerque in defense of the limits.

Although U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez found in August 2002 that Albuquerque’s mayoral campaign spending limits "preserve the public faith in democracy" and "reduce the appearance of corruption," she felt constrained to invalidate the limits under an earlier 10th Circuit order granting temporary injunctive relief to the plaintiff in the case. Another judge then struck down the city council spending limits, again without disputing the factual record showing that the limits served compelling governmental interests. At the July argument, the Court actively questioned both sides and noted the importance of the issues presented. A ruling is expected later this year.

Arguments Made in Aguirrel et al. v. Phillips

Readers of this newsletter know that NVRI represents plaintiffs seeking an end to the Texas Supreme Court’s practice of taking secret votes on which cases to accept for review. In deciding which cases they will take, Texas’ elected justices vote on petitions submitted by their largest campaign donors, as well as non-donors, with no public accountability. Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), a plaintiff in the suit, found in a 2001 study that the largest donors – those law firms and businesses whose members contributed over $250,000 – were about ten times more likely to get their cases accepted for review than non-donors. The lawsuit argues that First Amendment and federal common law give the public the right to know how each justice has voted.

The first substantive argument in the case, Aguirre et al. v. Phillips et al., was held on October 3, in front of Federal District Judge Orlando Garcia in San Antonio Texas. At issue was the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in which they must show that even accepting all of the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any legal remedy. Such motions are often decided based on legal briefs without oral argument, but Judge Garcia used the opportunity to explore the basis for the plaintiffs’ claim and the defendants’ rationale for keeping the votes secret.

Representing TPJ, the League of United Latin American Citizens-Texas, Common Cause, the Texas Civil Rights Project, the Texas Observer, voters, lawyers and Supreme Court candidates, NVRI argued that disclosure is essential in order to preserve public confidence in the judiciary and to enable accountability at the voting booth. Judge Garcia ordered both sides to provide more information on those states that do disclose the case review votes of their highest courts. The filings in the case are available at www.nvri.org.

National Voting Rights Institute, 27 School Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 624-3900  ¤  Fax: (617) 624-3911  ¤  www.nvri.org  ¤  nvri@nvri.org