Mallof v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

In August 2008, several voters filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance, alleging that D.C. Councilmember Jack Evans had made unlawful use of government resources in his campaign for reelection. After investigating, the Office concluded that there had been no violation. The voters then sought review of that decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, but the Board ruled (at Councilmember Evans’ urging) that the voters were not “adversely affected” by the OCF order, and thus lacked standing to seek Board review. We agreed to represent the voters in appealing that decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals, but the court rejected our arguments, finding that it was required to “defer to the Board’s interpretation of the regulation it has promulgated . . . even where the petitioner advances a more plausible reading of the regulations than that offered by the agency, it is the agency’s choice that receives substantial deference.”