CLC Urges Court to Proceed with Hearing on SB 14 as scheduled on February 28

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center filed a motion today with our private plaintiffs, opposing Texas’ and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempt to delay a court hearing on the state’s discriminatory voter ID law, SB 14, which is currently scheduled in U.S. District Court for Feb. 28. CLC is litigating the case, Veasey v. Abbott, on behalf of Texas voters. 

Texas and the United States have asked the Court to delay a hearing about Texas’s discriminatory purpose in enacting its law in the hopes that Texas will pass a new law that addresses the Fifth Circuit’s concerns. This is nothing more than an attempt by Texas to avoid court scrutiny of its discriminatory motives. 

The DOJ's sudden support of Texas’ delay tactics is a complete reversal of its past position in this case. When Texas made the same argument for delay to the Court last August, the DOJ strongly opposed. 

The DOJ stated then that “in the interest of justice,” the court should decide on the question of discriminatory purpose at the earliest opportunity. For years, the DOJ has argued that the evidence shows that Texas’ strict voter ID law was motivated by discriminatory intent. In November, it submitted over a hundred pages of facts supporting this conclusion. Now however, the DOJ is standing by Texas and in opposition to private plaintiffs, joining in their motion to delay hearings on SB 14. The hearing was already delayed one month after the DOJ filed for a continuance on Inauguration Day in order to brief the new administration prior to the previously scheduled January 24 hearing.

“Texas is trying to evade justice through continual delay,” said Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center. “This law not only harms minorities, it was designed to do so. The DOJ’s retreat is shameful and shows where the department stands on protecting voting rights.”

The joint motion is based on Texas legislators’ introduction of SB 5, a law that would amend the strict voter ID law. Proposed changes include some positive steps to protect voters such as allowances to use secondary forms of identification or recently expired IDs. However, the new bill has obvious flaws that perhaps could have been addressed if the plaintiffs were consulted. For example, the bill proposes a harsh criminal penalty, prominently advertised, for misuse of the declaration. This is an entirely unnecessary addition to the state’s perjury laws and appears designed to intimidate voters.

“The discriminatory facts of SB 14 have not changed,” said Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center. “The court must hear the facts of this case at the earliest opportunity. The choice to exclude forms of ID that students and minorities are more likely to bring to the polls was not done by accident. It was done to make it more difficult for these groups to vote. The court should not allow any further delay."

WASHINGTON – A state judge in Oklahoma ordered the release of thousands of illegally withheld records pertaining to Pruitt’s ties to fossil fuel interests. The records will not be available until Tuesday, after the Senate is scheduled to vote on Pruitt’s nomination to be EPA Administrator later today.

In light of this new information, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) calls on the Senate to delay the vote. The emails are important to determine the extent of Pruitt’s conflicts of interest with oil and gas companies. He initiated or filed briefs in at least 26 lawsuits against the EPA, nine of which are ongoing.

“In the interest of transparency, the public has a right to know the extent of Pruitt’s conflicts of interest,” said Larry Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “These emails will help determine if Pruitt can impartially rule as Administrator on lawsuits he brought as Attorney General of Oklahoma. The withheld emails may shine additional light on ethical conflicts facing Pruitt and his role in the lawsuits against the agency he now seeks to lead. The Senate should have a chance to review these emails before confirming him to assess whether Pruitt can be an impartial EPA Administrator in suits that he spearheaded.”

In January, CLC filed a letter calling on Pruitt to recuse himself from the multiple lawsuits he brought against the agency as Attorney General of Oklahoma due to the serious conflicts of interest posed by playing both sides of a legal case.

Read our letter

WASHINGTON – Today, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) for documents containing communications to and from Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch during his tenure at the Department of Justice when several attorneys were improperly fired due to political reasons, which threatened the independence of the agency. Reports make clear that the George W. Bush administration’s undue pressure on U.S. attorneys to find and prosecute voter fraud had a role in the firings.

Gorsuch served as Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General from July 2005 to June 2006, and had oversight over civil litigation issues, including civil rights.

“Judge Gorsuch should be held to the highest standard as the nominee for the high court,” said Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center. “Maintaining an independent judiciary has never been more important. It’s the public’s right to scrutinize Gorsuch’s record, particularly since he held a high-ranking position at DOJ with authority in its civil rights division – at a time when his colleagues were engaged in politically motivated activities that compromised the independence of the DOJ. As the Trump administration signals its plans to embark on part two of the voter fraud witch hunt, we must know whether Judge Gorsuch had a role in part one.”

The Bush DOJ found “virtually no evidence” of organized voter fraud despite a five-year effort to “crackdown” on the alleged problem.

CLC has requested expedited processing due to the urgent need for information prior to Judge Gorsuch’s nomination hearing and the public’s interest in disclosure. Under the regular timeline, DOJ is required to respond within 20 working days.

Read our FOIA request

WASHINGTON – Thursday morning, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview in the White House and in her official public role as White House Counselor, went on TV to tell the American people to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff.” By encouraging the audience to buy products sold by Ivanka Trump, the adult daughter of President Donald Trump, appears to have violated the ban on federal employees using their public office to endorse products, and an investigation is needed to determine the seriousness of the violation and what action should be taken.  Violations of this rule can result in disciplinary action such as reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal.

“This ethics violation is clear,” said Larry Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “It’s a total misuse of taxpayer funds and her federal office to have the White House Counselor going on television to ‘give a free commercial’ – in her own words – and encourage people to buy Trump-affiliated products. When you decide to work in government, you are promising the American people that you are there to serve the public. Conway broke that promise.” Now, apparently in response to the public’s reaction, the White House said that Ms. Conway had been “counseled” about her actions, but refused to elaborate on what that meant.  “This is not an acceptable resolution of the matter,” Noble said. “The public has a right to know what action has been taken and what she was told.”

Given the failure of the White House to take forceful action, Noble added, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) should take action to see that the law designed to ensure the proper use of government resources and separate government policy decisions from private dealings is enforced. Ultimately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) or Office of Inspector General (OIG) could be called upon to take action. However, with Jeff Sessions at the helm of the DOJ, it’s unclear whether there is a reliable enforcement mechanism that exists in the government with its myriad conflicts.

Still, there are avenues available to address this problem. For example, the Chairman and Ranking Member or the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent a letter Thursday asking the OGE to investigate the matter and recommend disciplinary action against Conway.

“However, we have to recognize,” Noble said, “that Kellyanne Conway is just the tip of the iceberg. This administration has shown a dangerous disregard for the ethics laws and norms that are necessary for the people to have faith in their democracy. It is time for Congress to investigate the broader issues related to the real and apparent conflicts of interest that are resulting from President Trump's continued involvement with his and his family’s businesses.”

Today, Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement on the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as attorney general of the United States: 

“The U.S. Senate has failed us today,” said Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center. “The confirmation of Jeff Sessions as attorney general is a direct threat to voting and civil rights. Sessions has perpetuated the myth of massive voter fraud, claims that undermine our democratic institutions. That he will oversee President Trump’s call for plans to ‘investigate’ non-existent voter fraud is surely an effort to prevent minorities from participating in future elections and to purge them from the voting rolls. Unfortunately, even though Sessions has prosecuted black citizens on phony charges of voter fraud in the past, the Senate failed to question Sessions on the role he has played, or the role he plans to play, in Trump’s voting rights witch hunt.”

“It’s clear that during this new era at the U.S. Department of Justice, we will have to be vigilant, especially those of us who used to work there and treasure it as a place where justice is done. Civil rights litigators and advocates will now have to bear the burden of fighting for justice, because a Justice Department headed by Jeff Sessions can no longer be relied upon to enforce and protect our civil rights.”

On Jan. 9, Mr. Hebert submitted written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about racial insensitivity he personally witnessed by Sessions, and later submitted supplemental testimony to respond to inaccuracies about his testimony by Senator Cruz and Senator Sessions himself. The testimony flagged inaccuracies in Sessions’ questionnaire, in which Sessions falsely claimed he litigated four civil rights cases in Alabama, apparently in an effort to bolster his non-existent record of voting rights enforcement.