The Washington Post quotes Mike Carvin as saying the civil servants in
the Civil Rights Division had a liberal orientation. The Reagan-Bush I
administration, of course, had a much different orientation. So policy
differences naturally arose. If that were all that was happening under
the current administration, it would be nothing new. However, I gather
that the claim of the former DOJ lawyers is that political agendas,
rather than policy agendas, have driven some decisions by political
appointees. A law enforcement agency could legitimately follow policy
preferences relating to busing, race-based drawing of district lines,
and the like. However, it would be illegitimate to clear or object to a
submitted change in order to favor one political party or the other. No
one -- not even Mike Carvin -- has suggested that the career lawyers
have engaged in that type of political bias.
"Matt Johnston" <mjohnston@vocus.com> 1/27/2006 11:59:24 AM >>>
I find the commentary about the Lonely Centrist's comments regarding
the
bias of the Voting Right Section attorneys interesting, but somewhat
off
of LC's point. While LC may be guilty of inductive reasoning
regarding
the political leanings of the various attorneys who have work for DOJ
Voting Rights, I think his general point is accurate. It is not just
political appointees who have political outlooks and desire certain
outcomes, career and rank and file employees have political outlooks
and
desired outcomes as well.
The history of the Voting Rights Section is one that should be
honored.
These civil servants have done well by the law and by the country.
But
we should not blind ourselves to the fact that these men and women
have
policy preferences that, as can be expected, creeps into their
thinking.
I am not suggesting, as LC seems to imply, that their personal views
so
affected their reasoning as to lead to an improper result--which is
difficult at best to do in a group working environment. Rather, I
believe that you cannot completely divorce personal political views
from
one's politically involved work.
Finally, I find the attacks on LC's anonymity to be somewhat
disingenuous. Simply put, attack the message, not the messenger.
Matthew S. Johnston
PAC Management Consultant
Vocus, Inc.
4296 Forbes Blvd.
Lanham, MD 20706
301-731-6588
Fax: 301-459-1531
Mobile: 240-426-0468
www.mattjohnston.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Mark &
Franca Posner
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Rick Hasen; election-law
Subject: Re: Electionlawblog news and commentary 1/27/06
All,
As one of the named members of the alleged liberal "cabal" that once
held
sway at DOJ, I find the comments submitted by the Lonely Centrist
pretty
unpersuasive. I am especially tickled by the fact that he or she
found
it
necessary to reach way back to a job I had my second year out of law
school
("when I was young and didn't know any better"), back in the 1970s
(!).
Seriously though, three points .... First, I'm not troubled by the
anonymity; this is an issue that should be discussed on its merits.
In
that
regard, secondly, if the folks in the Voting Section have secretly
been
on a
crusade to make Section 5 decisions that favor the Democrats, how do
you
square that with the fact that the career staff were the originators of
numerous objection recommendations in the early 1990s to redistricting
plans
when, it has been alleged by some, the Republican Assistant Attorney
General's decisions to interpose those same objections were motivated
by
partisan political interests? (I don't agree that that was his
motivation,
but that doesn't alter my point.) Thirdly, I agree with the LC that
the
career staff generally has been partial and interested (i.e., not
impartial
and disinterested) -- partial and interested in enforcing the Voting
Rights
Act and other civil rights laws in the manner we, in good faith,
believed
was intended by Congress (one could, also in good faith, disagree with
our
interpretations, but that would not make our interpretations somehow
illegitimate).
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hasen" <Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>
To: "election-law" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 1/27/06
AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project; Kickoff Event with Sen. Obama
AEI and Brookings have teamed for a new election reform project.
Among
the
project's goals are to:
Establish links among voting research projects, synthesize
findings,
and
make findings accessible to the broad policy community
Ensure that research and policy recommendations are fed into the
policy
process in a timely and productive fashion
Assemble a working group of experts to think through the substance
and
politics of a practical policy agenda
Develop a bipartisan, practical national policy agenda for election
reform and monitor the implementation of HAVA and its proposed
amendments
See also this press release.
The Center has set up what looks to be a very useful website. The
kickoff
event (details here) will feature a keynote address by Senator Barack
Obama, and two panels (I'll be on the second panel).
This project should be very useful in bringing together academics and
policymakers who are serious about real election reform.
"Politicizing Justice"
The Lonely Centrist has this provocative post responding to the
latest
Washington Post article on politics in the voting rights section of
the
Justice Department. After discussing the careers of many of the
former
DOJ
lawyers who have left and now criticized the department, the Lonely
Centrist concludes: "None of this is to say that these folks are
wrong
on
the merits in the current dispute. But let's not have a bunch of
dewey-eyed odes to the impartial civil servants of the Voting Rights
Section." It would be nice to be able to look at the career path of
the
Lonely Centrist as well to ferret out any potential bias. But we
can't,
because he or she chooses to blog anonymously. To paraphrase Justice
Scalia from his dissent in McIntyre, "I can imagine no reason why an
anonymous [blog post] is any more honorable, as a general matter,
than
an
anonymous phone call or an anonymous letter. It facilitates wrong by
eliminating accountability, which is ordinarily the very purpose of
the
anonymity."
"Governor should hold to promise of reform"
Mike Alvarez, Caltech professor and contributor to the Election
Updates
blog, has this column in the Pasadena Star News.
"Dan Walters: Political reform again in vogue, but history bodes ill
for
'clean money'"
Dan Walters writes this Sacramento Bee column. [Disclosure: I have
been
working as a consultant for the California Nurses Association in
relation
to the proposed initiative discussed in this column.]
"Growing Role for Lobbyists:Raising Funds for Lawmakers"
The Wall Street Journal offers this front page report. Thanks to
Steven
Sholk for the pointer. The article includes a very interesting
graphic
on
campaign contributions given by lobbyists to lawmakers, based on
data
from
the Center for Responsive Politics. See also this Washington Post
report
and this Bob Bauer commentary.
"The Voting Rights Act and the Future of California Democracy"
This event will be held at the University of Southern California on
February 4. See also this agenda.
"The people's choice: 17th Amendment was not a mistake"
The Salt Lake City Tribune offers this editorial.
"Ariz. Supreme Court tells Smith to vacate office; Representative
says
it's 'unlikely' he'll appeal to U.S. Supreme Court"
The Arizona Republic offers this report, which begins: "State Rep.
David
Burnell Smith's tumultuous year in the Legislature came to an abrupt
end
Thursday when the Arizona Supreme Court upheld his removal from
office
for
violating spending limits in his publicly funded election campaign.
The
high court's action leaves Smith, R-Carefree, as the first lawmaker
in
the
nation removed from office for violating a public campaign funding
system.
He also becomes the first state lawmaker in the nation to be tossed
out
through a procedure other than recall, impeachment or a criminal
conviction."
"Voter ID bill approved; Opponents vow to continue fight"
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution offers this report. Expect a motion
to
dismiss the pending voter id case in the federal courts on mootness
gounds
soon. Voter i.d. laws are also now on the agenda in Minnesota.
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org