Rounds is the right pick to lead OGE during time of ‘historic challenges’

Walter Shaub, senior director, ethics, at CLC, released the following statement:

“Emory Rounds is the right pick to lead the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). Through the confirmation process, Rounds has demonstrated an appreciation for the responsibility to preserve the government ethics program in this time of ethical crisis. He is also acutely aware of the significant limitations on the director’s authority, and I believe he will do his utmost within existing parameters to confront the historic challenges OGE faces. Now that he has cleared the committee, I hope the full Senate will confirm him. Rounds has shown that he values OGE’s independence from the White House. I was particularly impressed that he committed during his confirmation hearing to review OGE’s inappropriate blessing of the Patriot Legal Expense Fund Trust, LLC, an unethical legal defense fund constructed in a way that potentially gives the president’s allies power to influence witness testimony in the Russia investigation. The challenge of reviewing – and hopefully reversing – OGE’s previous action on that fund may be one of the greatest challenges he will face while in office if he is confirmed. I anticipate that the Senate would follow up to learn the outcome of his review.”

WASHINGTON – In a 5-4 ruling in Husted v. APRI, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld an Ohio voter purge practice that removes infrequent voters from the registration rolls. The decision creates a danger that other states will pursue extreme purging practices to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters across the country.

In APRI, Ohio asked the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court decision that found an Ohio practice of targeting registrants who have not voted in a two-year period for removal from the voter rolls — when there is no evidence that the voter has become ineligible — violates a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The Court assented to Ohio’s request, holding that the state’s process does not violate the NVRA’s prohibition on using non-voting as a basis for canceling registrations because, although the state indeed targets eligible voters who have not voted recently, the non-voting is not “the sole criterion” for removing a registrant.  

In 2015 alone, hundreds of thousands of infrequent voters were purged from Ohio’s voter rolls. Over 40,600 registrants in the state’s largest county, Cuyahoga, were removed under the process allowed by the Supreme Court today. The majority of these registrants lived in low-income communities and communities of color.

“The Supreme Court decision to allow Ohio to purge its citizens from the rolls is a setback for voting rights nationwide,” said Paul Smith, vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “Our democracy weakens when states are permitted to take actions that discourage voter participation. By constructing obstacles that make voting more difficult, Ohio is sending the wrong message to its citizens.”

Dēmos and the ACLU of Ohio first filed suit on behalf of Ohio APRI, NEOCH, and Ohio resident Larry Harmon in 2016, prevailing in the circuit court and securing relief that protected the right to vote for purged Ohio voters in November 2016 and every other election in the state to date.

CLC requests investigation by EPA Inspector General about new revelations that fit ‘pattern of misconduct distinguishing Administrator Pruitt’s time at head of EPA’

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a legal complaint with the Inspector General at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking for an ethics investigation into Administrator Scott Pruitt’s abuse of his official position. Emails obtained by The Washington Post indicate that Pruitt leveraged his authority as a cabinet-level official and used governmental resources to secure a Chick-fil-A business opportunity for his wife. His actions appear to violate the ban on the use of official authority for the private financial gain of a relative.

“Beyond the legal concerns raised by Pruitt’s actions, Pruitt seems to ignore basic ethical principles about public service. Executive branch employees should use their government position and authority for the benefit of the public, rather than to benefit close family members,” said Delaney Marsco, legal counsel, ethics, at CLC. “Pruitt’s actions fit into a pattern of misconduct distinguishing his time at the head of the EPA.”