Summary
Elections are a public job, and public money should pay for them. This project would bring federal and state constitutional litigation in jurisdictions that lack a statutory prohibition on private donations and grants to local election offices.
Private foundations have paid for election operations in some counties and not others. The planned complaint would assert that private underwriting of core administrative functions creates unequal resources across county lines, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (Bush v. Gore) and the private nondelegation doctrine. The planned suit would ask the courts to stop private financing where legislatures have not. It would seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction requiring state and local election officials to rely on public appropriations, and to stop accepting private third-party funding, equipment, and staff subsidies.
No complaint has been filed.
Overview
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (Bush v. Gore). The planned complaint would argue that when private third parties distribute grants unequally, funding some municipal offices and omitting neighboring counties, the state creates geographic disparities in voter resources, equipment, and administration.
Private nondelegation doctrine. The planned complaint would argue that election administration is a sovereign government power, and that letting private donors and non-governmental entities set grant criteria, provide operational staffing, or steer resources delegates public administrative functions to private hands without statutory standards or legislative oversight.
Local government authority. The planned complaint would argue that, without express authorization from the state legislature, local election clerks and county boards exceed their statutory powers when they accept third-party financial gifts for core operations.
Due process and public confidence. The planned complaint would argue that public-private financing of election offices introduces conflicts of interest and the appearance of undue
influence and partisan favoritism in ballot handling and voter processing.
The gap in states without a ban
The planned suit would address the statutory gap through judicial precedent. Where legislative bans have failed or been vetoed, the planned suit would use constitutional litigation as the pathway to challenge private financing. The planned relief would be a federal ruling that applies equal-protection standards to municipal election funding in the remaining states that have no ban.
Constitutional boundaries. The planned complaint would argue that private funding leaves metropolitan areas with third-party operational support while rural or less populated jurisdictions operate on strained municipal budgets. The equal-protection claim would ask whether a state may permit disparate private financing of a uniform public process.
Public oversight. The planned suit would ask the court to hold that election-related expenditures come from public appropriations, so legislative oversight, public budgeting rules, and uniform administrative procedures apply.
Planned work
This would include:
Auditing public-records requests across target municipal election boards to confirm open grant agreements, reporting requirements, and vendor contracts.
Reviewing jurisdictional splits and prior federal dismissals in order to refine standing declarations for voter and county-commissioner plaintiffs.
Drafting state-specific statutory preemption arguments against local acceptance of private funds under general county fiscal codes.
Milestones
The planned milestones would be:
Federal complaint filing and standing briefing. Drafting and filing the verified Section 1983 complaint in U.S. District Court, and developing factual declarations for the plaintiffs to establish TransUnion and equal-protection standing against local and state election authorities. $90,000.
Preliminary injunction and evidentiary discovery. Deposing grant-administrator intermediaries, mapping geographic and financial disparities in grant allocations across counties, and briefing motions for a preliminary injunction. $120,000.
Summary judgment and appellate review. Briefing dispositive cross-motions for summary judgment, and preparing appellate review in the U.S. Court of Appeals on the constitutional limits the suit would ask the court to apply to private funding of this government function. $150,000.
A gift may be designated to this project's fund or to Five Stones Legal Defense Fund as a whole. A designation is not a stake in any case.