Page protected with pending changes

Marc Elias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marc Elias
Born
Marc Erik Elias

(1969-02-01) February 1, 1969 (age 52)
New York City, U.S.
EducationHamilton College (BA)
Duke University (MA, JD)
EmployerElias Law Group
Political partyDemocratic

Marc Erik Elias (born February 1, 1969)[1] is an American attorney specializing in election law, voting rights and redistricting.[2] He is the founding partner of Elias Law Group. Elias was previously a partner at Perkins Coie and head of the firm's political law practice.[3][4]

Elias served as general counsel for the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign and John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign. In 2020 and 2021, on behalf of the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee, Elias oversaw the state-by-state response to lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign contesting the election results.[5] In 2020, he founded Democracy Docket, a website focused on voting rights and election litigation in the United States.

Biography[]

Early life and education[]

Born to a Jewish family in New York City, Elias was raised in Suffern, New York.[6] He earned a Bachelor of Arts in government from Hamilton College in 1990. He then earned both a master's degree in political science from Duke University and a Juris Doctor from Duke University School of Law.[7][8][1]

Bar Associations[]

Career[]

In 2004 served as general counsel to John Kerry's presidential campaign.[10]

Prior to creating Elias Law Group, Elias was the head of the Political Law practice at Perkins Coie, a large Seattle-based law firm with many political clients.[11] He represents the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, and many Democratic members of Congress.[7] He has represented the leadership of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate.

He served as lead counsel for Senator Al Franken in the 2008 United States Senate election in Minnesota recount and contest, the longest recount and contest in American history.[1] Elias has testified on campaign finance before committees in both houses of Congress and before the Federal Election Commission.[12] Elias has worked on voting rights and redistricting lawsuits in more than 25 states, including Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.[13]

In April 2015, Hillary Clinton engaged Elias as attorney of record and general counsel for her 2016 presidential campaign.[14] According to The Washington Post, in April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to create the research that resulted in the Steele dossier.[15] On October 24, 2017, Perkins Coie released Fusion GPS from its client confidentiality obligation.[15]

Elias serves on the Board of Advisors of Let America Vote, an organization founded by former Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander that aims to end voter suppression.[16]

Elias served as the attorney for Dan McCready during the investigation of fraud allegations in the 2018 election in North Carolina's 9th congressional district.[17] In January 2019, Elias became general counsel of the Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign.[18]

Following the 2020 presidential election, Elias supervised the response to dozens of lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign seeking to overturn Biden's win.[5] Out of 65 such court cases, Elias prevailed in 64.[19] In 2021, as several Republican-dominated state legislatures passed laws to tighten election procedures and voting requirements, Elias filed suits challenging the new laws, often within hours of the bills being signed.[19] Writing in The Hill, Reid Wilson described Elias as "the most prominent Democratic attorney in America" and "the Democrats' last best hope of preserving a House majority".[20]

On March 12, 2021, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued sanctions on Elias and other Perkins Coie attorneys for "redundant and misleading" motions related to a case in which Marc Elias and his legal team argued that the elimination of straight-ticket voting in Texas disproportionately affected minorities. In the ruling, the court stated that Elias and his team "did not notify the court that their latest motion to supplement the record filed on February 10, 2021 was nearly identical to the motion to supplement the record filed several months ago by the same attorneys, on September 29, 2020."[21] After the ruling, Perkins Coie released a statement saying "We do not normally respond to requests for comment on pending litigation, but the firm and the attorneys involved in this matter strongly disagree with the appellate court’s ruling and its order of sanctions in this case. The firm fully and completely supports our attorneys in this case.”[22]

United States Supreme Court Cases[]

United States District Court Cases[]

District of Arizona[]

  • Brnovich v. DNC[28] Lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and others against Arizona challenging two provisions of law that criminalized ballot collection and required ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be rejected. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the law discriminated against minority voters and struck down both practices. The Arizona Republican Attorney General appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which held 6-3 that neither law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and both laws could remain in place.[29]

Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division[]

  • Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill[30] Lawsuit filed on behalf of 12 individual Virginia voters challenging the Virginia House of Delegates’ 2011 redistricting map on the basis that 12 House of Delegates districts were drawn as racial gerrymanders in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The district court held that 11 of the House districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.[31]

Middle District of Louisiana[]

  • Johnson v. Ardoin[32] Lawsuit filed by individual voters challenging Louisiana’s 2011 congressional map for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs allege that the map packs African American voters into a single congressional district and spreads cohesive African American communities among surrounding districts, effectively preventing African American voters from forming a majority in two districts. The district court denied the Louisiana Secretary of State’s motions to dismiss. The Secretary then filed a third-party complaint against the Attorney General and Department of Justice asking the court to hold they erred in their preclearance approvals of Louisiana’s maps. The district court stayed the case pending resolution of a similar gerrymandering case involving Mississippi. The stay was lifted after that decision, but the parties entered a joint stipulation of dismissal.[33]

Middle District of North Carolina Durham Division[]

  • Cooper v. Harris[34] Lawsuit filed on behalf of individual voters seeking to invalidate North Carolina’s First and 12th Congressional Districts for being racially gerrymandered in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan, upheld the district court’s judgment that the North Carolina General Assembly had unlawfully used race to draw congressional districts.[35]

Northern District of Alabama Southern Division[]

  • Chesnut v. Merrill[36] Lawsuit filed by individual voters challenging Alabama’s 2011 congressional map. The complaint alleges that the maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by packing African American voters into one majority-minority district out of seven total districts, despite the fact that the number of African American residents in the south-central region of Alabama can form a majority in at least two congressional districts. Plaintiffs argue that this congressional map dilutes the votes of African Americans in the state. The court ruled in March 2019 that the plaintiffs could not stop the use of the current map or ask for a new map, but could still seek a declaration that the maps violated Section 2. In March 2020, the court dismissed the case, finding it moot.[37]

Northern District of Florida Tallahassee Division[]

  • Link v. Corcoran[38]
  • League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee[39] Lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters of Florida, the Andrew Goodman Foundation and individual college students challenging the Florida Secretary of State’s restrictive interpretation of the state’s early voting statute to prohibit the placement of early voting sites on college campuses. The district court found that the Secretary’s interpretation violated the First, 14th and 26h Amendments and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Secretary from enforcing the statute consistent with that interpretation. A settlement was reached in 2020 after the Secretary agreed to issue updated guidance allowing early voting sites on college campuses.[40]

Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division[]

  • Dwight v. Raffensperger[41] Lawsuit filed on behalf of individual voters challenging Georgia’s 2011 congressional map for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint alleges that the map dilutes the votes of African American communities from the 12th Congressional District in central-southeast Georgia — where African Americans had previously elected their preferred candidates — and submerges them in surrounding majority-white districts where they can no longer elect their candidates of choice. The parties entered a stipulation of dismissal.[42]

Northern District of Georgia Gainesville Division[]

  • THE NEW GEORGIA PROJECT, BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND, and RISE, INC vs Brad Raffensperger, in his official capacity as the Georgia Secretary of State; REBECCA SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as the Vice Chair of the Georgia State Election Board; DAVID WORLEY, in his official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board; MATTHEW MASHBURN, in his official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board; and ANH LE, in her official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board[43]
  • FAIR FIGHT, INC vs True the Vote, CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT, DEREK SOMERVILLE, MARK DAVIS, MARK WILLIAMS, RON JOHNSON, JAMES COOPER[44]
  • Jacobson v. Lee[45] Lawsuit filed by individual voters, Priorities USA, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Democratic Governors Association (DGA) and Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) challenging Florida’s ballot order statute, which requires that candidates of the political party of the Governor be listed first on the ballot in all elections. The complaint alleges that this statute treats similarly situated candidates differently without sufficient justification and violates the First and 14th Amendments. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the ballot order statute violates the First and 14th Amendments by taking “a side in partisan elections.” Republican intervenor-defendants appealed the decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.[46]

Northern District of Indiana Hammond Division[]

  • Indiana State Conference of NAACP v. Lawson[47] Lawsuit filed on behalf of the Indiana State Conference of the NAACP and individual voters challenging Indiana Senate Bill 220, which mandated the consolidation of all precincts in Lake County, Indiana with fewer than 600 active voters, which would have required the County to close most of the precincts in several majority-minority cities. The entities charged with the task of adopting a precinct consolidation plan under the law did not adopt or implement a plan by the statutory deadlines. In addition, as a result of this litigation, the state legislature passed a law providing that any precinct consolidation plan adopted pursuant to the law would not take effect until 2019. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit as a result.[48]

Southern District of Mississippi Northern Division[]

Western District of Texas San Antonio Divison[]

  • Sylvia Bruni, Texas Democratic Party, DSCC, and DCCC, vs Ruth R. Hughs, in her official capacity as the Texas Secretary of State[50]
  • LINDA JANN LEWIS, MADISON LEE, LINDA SWEETS, BENNY ALEXANDER, GEORGE MORGAN, VOTO LATINO, TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, and TEXAS ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS vs Ruth R. Hughs, as Texas Secretary of State[51]
  • LULAC TEXAS; VOTO LATINO; TEXAS ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS; TEXAS AFT vs JOSE ESPARZA, in his official capacity as the Texas Deputy Secretary of State; Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as the Texas Attorney General; JACQUELYN CALLANEN, in her official capacity as the Bexar County Elections Administrator; DANA DeBEAUVOIR, in her official capacity as the Travis County Clerk; ISABEL LONGORIA, in her official capacity as the Harris County Elections Administrator; YVONNE RAMÓN, in her official capacity as the Hidalgo County Elections Administrator; MICHAEL SCARPELLO, in his official capacity as the Dallas County Elections Administrator; LISA WISE, in her official capacity as the El Paso County Elections Administrator[52]

Western District of Wisconsin[]

  • One Wisconsin v. Thomsen[53] Lawsuit filed on behalf of One Wisconsin and others challenging multiple provisions of Wisconsin election laws, including limited early voting locations and times, strict registration requirements, the ID petition process of Wisconsin’s strict voter ID law and more. The court held that the state’s enforcement of these provisions conflicted with previous injunctions regarding these laws. The case was consolidated with a similar one in order for the court to address the ID petition process. The court ordered the state to modify its policy on temporary IDs for voters to minimize the risk that voters will not have valid IDs to vote.[54]

State Court Cases[]

Iowa[]

District Court[]

Polk County[]
  • League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate[55] State constitutional challenge filed on behalf of League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa (LULAC) and a college-aged voter to a 2017 Iowa law that instituted a voter identification requirement for in-person voting starting in 2019. In 2018, the trial court granted a motion for temporary injunction and enjoined the enforcement of the absentee ballot-related restrictions during the 2018 general election. The court then prohibited Iowa from rejecting absentee applications and ballots based on a purported signature mismatch and also prohibited the state from instructing voters that they were “required” to include an identification number on absentee ballot requests. The court further ordered Iowa to issue all voters a free voter identification card upon request.[56]

New Hampshire[]

Superior Court[]

Hillsborough, SS. Southern District[]
  • League of Women Voters of New Hampshire v. Gardner[57] Lawsuit filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire and individual college-aged voters challenging New Hampshire’s proof of domicile law S.B. 3. The law requires all individuals registering to vote to submit proof of a “verifiable act of domicile”, eliminates the option to submit an affidavit establishing domicile and imposes criminal penalties on those who register within 30 days of an election without proof of domicile if they fail to later present valid documentation. The New Hampshire Superior Court found that S.B. 3 violated the New Hampshire Constitution and struck it down. The state appealed the decision to the state supreme court, which found that the law “imposes unreasonable burdens on the right to vote” and violates the state constitution, affirming the lower court’s decision.[58]

Writing[]

Wrote a paper with Jonathan S. Berkon for the Harvard Law Review "After McCutcheon" about the Supreme Court of the United States ruling on McCutcheon v. FEC[59]

"Political Regulation: Justified Reform or a Burden on Free Speech"[60] an article about the increase in political spending since 2000 due to changes in campaign finance law.

"Even Judges Can’t Follow Campaign Finance Laws"[61] an assessment on the trial for David Rosen (politics) where Elias asserted that "The Rosen trial confirmed one of the dirty little secrets of the campaign finance laws — they are so complicated that virtually no one in politics fully understands them."

References[]

  1. ^ a b c Weiner, Jay. This Is Not Florida: How Al Franken Won the Minnesota Senate Recount. U of Minnesota Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-4529-1544-9.
  2. ^ "Marc E. Elias". Perkins Coie. Retrieved November 23, 2020.
  3. ^ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/democrat-elections-lawyer-elias-leaves-perkins-coie-starts-firm
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/elias-departs-perkins-coie-firm-says-will-continue-political-law-practice-2021-08-23/[bare URL]
  5. ^ a b Goldmacher, Shane (September 14, 2020). "Biden Creates Legal War Room, Preparing for a Big Fight Over Voting". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved November 23, 2020.
  6. ^ October 31; 2014 (October 31, 2014). "Marc Elias Represents Nearly Every Dem. Senator". Jewish Insider. Retrieved March 21, 2020.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ a b "Perkins Coie Homepage". Retrieved April 3, 2015.
  8. ^ "Hillary Clinton Quietly Hires Jewish Campaign Finance Lawyer". Jewish Political News and Updates. via Wayback Machine. March 5, 2015. Archived from the original on April 20, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2017.CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  9. ^ a b "Marc E Elias". Retrieved September 6, 2021.
  10. ^ "MARC ELIAS – general counsel for Hillary Clinton". Retrieved September 6, 2021.
  11. ^ "Political Parties, Campaigns and Committees". Perkins Coie. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  12. ^ "Arena Profile: Marc Elias". Politico. Retrieved April 3, 2015.
  13. ^ Trygstad, Kyle (October 31, 2014). "Senate Democrats' Super Lawyer Preps for Overtime". Roll Call. Retrieved April 3, 2015.
  14. ^ Haberman, Maggie (March 4, 2015). "Clinton Hires Campaign Lawyer Ahead of Likely Run". The New York Times. Retrieved April 3, 2015.
  15. ^ a b Entous, Adam; Barrett, Devlin; Helderman, Rosalind S. (October 25, 2017). "Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier". The Washington Post. p. A1. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
  16. ^ "Advisors". Let America Vote. Retrieved May 1, 2018.
  17. ^ Long, Travis (February 21, 2019). "McCready attorney talks with reporters after Mark Harris calls for new election". The News & Observer.
  18. ^ Cadelago, Christopher (January 21, 2019). "Kamala Harris launches campaign for president". Politico. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  19. ^ a b Abramson, Alana (April 6, 2021). "Marc Elias Fought Trump's 2020 Election Lawsuits. Can He Win The Battle Over Voting Rights?". Time. Retrieved May 7, 2021.
  20. ^ Conradis, Brandon (December 17, 2021). "Meet the Democrats' last best hope of preserving a House majority". TheHill. Retrieved December 23, 2021.
  21. ^ "Court Sanctions against Marc Elias and Perkins Coie lawyers" (PDF).
  22. ^ Journal, A. B. A. "5th Circuit sanctions Marc Elias and other Perkins Coie lawyers for 'redundant and misleading' motion". ABA Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
  23. ^ "COOPER, GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. v. HARRIS et al". Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  24. ^ "WITTMAN ET AL. v. PERSONHUBALLAH ET AL" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  25. ^ "BETHUNE-HILL et al. v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al". Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  26. ^ "Appearances as counsel by Marc Erik Elias". Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  27. ^ "oral arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  28. ^ "Brnovich v. DNC Complaint" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  29. ^ "Arizona Ballot Collection". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  30. ^ "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill Amended Complaint" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  31. ^ "Virginia House of Delegates Racial Gerrymandering". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  32. ^ "Johnson v. Ardoin Amended Complaint" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  33. ^ "Louisiana Congressional Redistricting (2011 Map)". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  34. ^ "Cooper v. Harris Complaint" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  35. ^ "North Carolina Racial Gerrymandering". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  36. ^ "Chesnut v. Merrill" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  37. ^ "Alabama Congressional Redistricting (2011 Map)". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  38. ^ "Link v. Corcoran" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  39. ^ "League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee Amended Complaint" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  40. ^ "Florida Early Vote". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  41. ^ "Dwight v. Raffensperger Amended Complaint" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  42. ^ "Georgia Congressional Redistricting (2011 Map)". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  43. ^ "New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  44. ^ "Fair Fight v. True the Vote" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  45. ^ "Jacobson v. Lee" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  46. ^ "Florida Ballot Order". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  47. ^ "Indiana State Conference of NAACP v. Lawson" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  48. ^ "Indiana Precinct Consolidation". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  49. ^ "McLemore v. Hosemann" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  50. ^ "Texas Alliance for Retired Americans v. Hughs" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  51. ^ "Lewis v. Hughs" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  52. ^ "LULAC Texas v. Esparza" (PDF). Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  53. ^ "One Wisconsin v. Thomsen Complaint" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  54. ^ "Wisconsin Temporary Voter ID". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  55. ^ "League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  56. ^ "Iowa Voter ID". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  57. ^ "League of Women Voters of New Hampshire v. Gardner" (PDF). Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  58. ^ "New Hampshire Student Voting". Retrieved September 8, 2021.
  59. ^ "After McCutcheon". Retrieved September 6, 2021.
  60. ^ "Political Regulation: Justified Reform or a Burden on Free Speech". American University Washington College of Law Administrative Law Review. 56 (3): 799–879. February 20, 2004. JSTOR 40712214. Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  61. ^ "Even Judges Can't follow Campaign Finance Laws". Retrieved September 7, 2021.
Retrieved from ""