ADMINISTRATION
Justice Denied
The Washington Post reveals today that the Texas congressional map drawn by Rep.
Tom DeLay (R-TX), which helped him gain five seats in the 2004 House elections,
was unanimously opposed by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division
because it was deemed to illegally dilute black and Hispanic voting power. The
case is the second major example in the past few weeks of political appointees
at the Justice Department overruling civil rights professionals on
implementation of the Voting Rights Act. In mid-November, the Post reported that
a Georgia voter-identification program was deemed by the Civil Rights Division
to be discriminatory against black voters, yet their judgment was overruled.
These most recent examples highlight a pattern of conduct by the Justice
Department political appointees; they have repeatedly sought to advance a
right-wing ideological agenda at the expense of traditional and
broadly-supported civil rights protections.
HOW THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WORKS: Through the 15th Amendment, the Constitution
guaranteed the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude." By 1965, Congress had determined
that existing anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient in overcoming the
resistance of certain state officials to this constitutional guarantee. Congress
thus enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Under Section 5 of the VRA, certain
covered jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination -- including Texas
-- had to seek preclearance from the Justice Department before they instituted
any voting changes. The provision's main goal was to ensure that state officials
would not pass voting changes that might have a retrogressive effect on the
right to vote, particularly of those historically-disenfranchised populations.
According to the Department of Justice website, the VRA "is generally considered
the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United
States Congress."
HOW THE DOJ SUBVERTED VOTING RIGHTS IN TEXAS: The political leadership of the
Justice Department overruled a unanimous rejection of the Texas congressional
map. Six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section concluded
in their memo, "The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the
proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory
effect." Mark Posner, a former Justice Department lawyer who now teaches law at
American University, remarked, "The fact that everybody agreed that there were
reductions in minority voting strength, and that they were significant, raises a
lot of questions as to why it was" approved. The memo indicates that Texas state
officials were aware their map posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory.
Gerry Hebert, a lawyer currently arguing the illegality of the Texas map, said,
"We always felt that the process... wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. ... The
staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This
should have been a very clear-cut case." One effect of the new congressional map
was to dilute the voting influence of Hispanics. The map eliminated a district
represented by a former congressman who "commanded great support from minority
constituents" and replaced it with a district that had fewer Hispanics and is
represented by a congressman who garners little support from Hispanics.
HOW THE DOJ SUBVERTED VOTING RIGHTS IN GEORGIA: Georgia's voter identification
law requires people without driver's licenses to pay $20 or more for state ID
card. This law affects "a group that is disproportionately poor, black and
elderly" and was compared to a "Jim Crow-era poll tax" by a U.S. District Court
judge who blocked the measure on constitutional grounds. (His ruling was upheld
by a three-judge appellate panel.) The Washington Post reported the Civil Rights
Division recommended rejecting the voting change before it became law given its
potential to discriminate against black voters. Just as in the Texas case, they
were overruled by higher-ranking political officials at Justice. The team of
lawyers found that the law would be "retrogressive" reducing blacks' access to
the polls and that Georgia "lawmakers and state officials made little effort to
research the possible racial impact of the proposed program."
BUSH SEEMINGLY IN THE DARK ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON: Although the voting
protections set out in other sections of the VRA are permanent, the federal
preclearance protection under Section 5 (the provision at issue in both the
Texas and Georgia cases) remains in effect only through 2007, unless it is
renewed. In a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus in January 2005,
President Bush was asked by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) whether he would
"support in extending and strengthening the 1965 Voting Rights Act when it comes
up for renewal in 2007." According to Jackson, Bush said, "[W]hen the
legislation comes before me, I'll take a look at it, but I don't know about it
to comment any more than that, but we will look at it when it comes to us." Rep.
Bobby Rush (D-IL), who also attended the meeting, confirmed that Bush said he
was "unfamiliar" with the Act. In celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the
Civil Rights Act in August, Bush proclaimed, "America is a stronger and better
Nation because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965." The actions of his
administration, however, indicate they see the civil rights protections, like
the Voting Rights Act, as a hindrance to their political agenda.
OTHER EXAMPLES OF THE DOJ'S RIGHT-WING ACTIVIST AGENDA: Under former Attorney
General John Ashcroft, and continuing through the tenure of current AG Alberto
Gonzales, the Department has been staffed with right-wing activists who have
been seen as "guiding lights of the modern conservative movement." Beyond
limiting the influence of the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ's political agenda has
sought to subpoena the medial records of women who have received abortions,
expand the government's ability to monitor online web traffic, prioritize
pornography over terrorism, disregarded discrimination against federal employees
based on sexual orientation, and use the expanded powers of the Patriot Act to
pursue garden-variety crimes. The effect has been to drive qualified career
lawyers out of the Justice Department. The Washington Post reported nearly 20
percent of the Civil Rights Division's lawyers left in 2005, "in part because of
a buyout program that some lawyers believe was aimed at pushing out those who
did not share the administration's conservative views on civil rights laws." |
