Giuliani Should Comply with Federal Ethics Laws Due to Assigned Role in U.S.-Ukraine Diplomacy

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Rudy Giuliani has been tasked with conducting U.S. foreign policy while retaining unknown private clients, and should be subject to the conflict of interest and other ethics laws that apply to federal employees. A new letter sent by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) to the State Department’s Inspector General requests an investigation into Giuliani and his potential violations of ethics laws.

According to the letter, Giuliani’s assigned role and diplomatic responsibilities rendered him an employee for purposes of federal ethics laws. President Donald Trump identified Giuliani as an official envoy to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Senior State Department officials understood that the president had given Giuliani formal responsibilities on U.S.-Ukraine relations, and deferred to him on substantial diplomatic matters. And Giuliani himself stated publicly that he acted with the support of the president and State Department.

“Giuliani has been afforded the privilege and power of federal public service, but he has not been subject to the vital oversight and accountability provided by federal ethics laws,” said Delaney Marsco, ethics counsel at CLC. “Rudy Giuliani has asserted that his Ukraine work was done solely as a defense attorney for his client, Donald Trump, but the facts – and Giuliani’s own statements – show otherwise.”

“President Trump assigned Giuliani a substantial foreign policy role, but at the same time, Giuliani continued to represent private clients, many of whom are not publicly known,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “Giuliani’s prominent role on U.S-Ukraine policy issues means that he cannot sidestep the ethics obligations that require transparency behind the wealthy foreign or domestic interests that are paying him. We expect the agency Inspector General to take this matter seriously.”

Giuliani was assigned a central role in pushing Ukraine to publicly commit to investigations into Joe Biden and Burisma, a Ukrainian firm that employed Biden’s son Hunter – and into matters pertaining to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) – which were understood to be necessary preconditions for the release of U.S. taxpayer-funded security aid to Ukraine and for President Zelensky receiving the in-person White House meeting that he sought. These facts are central to this week’s public impeachment hearings.

Issues
Ethics

Ohio Judge Rules In Favor of Late-Jailed Voters

Date
Body

COLUMBUS, OH – Today, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a summary judgment ordering Ohio to discontinue its practice of disenfranchising eligible voters arrested and held in pre-trial detention in the final days preceding an election. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Dēmos and the MacArthur Justice Center successfully demonstrated that Ohio’s system was denying eligible voters their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

“Eligible voters who are arrested and detained pre-trial by the state in the days leading up to an election deserve equal protection from the U.S. Constitution,” said Jonathan Diaz, legal counsel, voting rights at CLC. “A person’s ability to cast a ballot should not be determined by the date of their arrest or their ability to pay bail. Secretary of State Frank LaRose should ensure that all of Ohio’s 88 county boards of elections are prepared to assist all eligible voters who are arrested and held in pretrial detention prior to Election Day to ensure that they can cast a ballot.”

"A person does not lose the right to vote simply by being arrested, and the Court's decision recognizes that a voter in jail receives the same protections as every other voter, and must be treated just like any other voter," said Laura Bishop, voting rights project attorney at MacArthur Justice Center.

“This is a landmark ruling both for voting rights and fairness in the criminal legal system,” said Chiraag Bains, Director of Legal Strategies at Demos. "The court held that our clients and the roughly one thousand eligible voters detained pretrial every election in Ohio cannot be denied their fundamental right to be heard in this democracy. This is a nationwide problem that disproportionately hurts voters of color and low-income voters, who are disproportionately policed, prosecuted, and detained. Every state should take heed of today’s order.”

In October 2018, CLC sent a demand letter to then-Secretary of State Jon Husted informing him of Ohio’s lack of policy concerning late-jailed voters and outlined options the state could pursue to rectify the situation.

After no action was taken by the Secretary of State’s office, CLC and its partners filed suit on behalf of Tommy Ray Mays II, Quinton Nelson, Sr., and all late-jailed voters in Ohio seeking access to the ballot and the ability to exercise their right to vote. In conjunction with the complaint, CLC and its partners also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to allow individuals who were held in pretrial detention in county jails to exercise their fundamental right to vote by casting an absentee ballot in the 2018 midterm election. That motion was granted and the court issued a temporary restraining order allowing Mays and Nelson to vote on Election Day in 2018.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Assisting Voters in Jail

At a Glance

About 750,000 people are incarcerated in jails across the United States every day, most of whom retain their right to vote. Casting a ballot, though, can be impossible for these eligible voters simply because they are incarcerated. CLC has launched a program to fight jail-based disenfranchisement using advocacy and litigation to ensure eligible voters in jails have the ballot access they need to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

Although most people who are incarcerated in jails across the county retain their right to vote, few actually cast ballots. This is not because they lack the urge to vote; it is because they often can’t.

Casting a ballot from jail is enormously difficult. Election infrastructure is not built to serve incarcerated voters. In some states, this lack of access is obvious, for example if states do not consider incarceration a valid excuse to use absentee or emergency voting mechanisms to cast ballots from jail. Even if jailed voters are permitted to use these systems on paper, as a practical matter, it is often not possible for them to do so. Jailed voters are isolated and cannot independently access the information they need not only to understand how absentee or emergency voting works, but also to determine whether they are eligible, when elections are being held, and what will be on the ballot. Also, because voters in jails often must rely on vote by mail systems or assistance from third parties to cast their ballots, they are at risk of being disenfranchised by delays in the jail mail system, visitation restrictions, and the difficulties of navigating complicated jail bureaucracies. 

This problem is particularly urgent because of who it impacts. Jails disproportionately incarcerate voters of color, low income voters, homeless voters, and voters with disabilities, so jail-based disenfranchisement disproportionately deprives those who have been historically marginalized of their political voices.

Although the Supreme Court affirmed that eligible voters in jails could not be deprived of their right to vote almost 50 years ago, eligible incarcerated voters continue to confront barriers to ballot access that make voting difficult or impossible. CLC, though, is working to change that by combating the causes of jail-based disenfranchisement and putting ballots into the hands of eligible, incarcerated voters across the county.

 

CLC’s Role

CLC seeks to challenge jail-based disenfranchisement using a comprehensive strategy of litigation and policy advocacy. CLC works with partners on the ground to provide legal support and guidance on projects to fight jail-based disenfranchisement. CLC has also consulted directly with states and localities to provide technical assistance in crafting and implementing measures to expand ballot access in jails. Finally, when advocacy fails, CLC litigates claims to vindicate the rights of jailed voters who are disenfranchised and challenge unconstitutional state laws that prevent these eligible voters from casting their ballots.  

Associated Cases & Actions

Tommy Ray Mays II, et al. v. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose
Subscribe to