Maybe it's just me, but criticizing DOJ for not putting out a press release struck me as pretty strange. I mean, maybe von Spakovsky has a good case that DOJ line lawyers acted poorly in the case, based (I assume) on what he knows from being a political there. But to complain about lack of a press release only undercuts that case.

If the notorious HVS (recall his live on camera perjury) can get a job at Heritage, why can't Addington and Gonzalez? This guy is probably the worst possible source for any commentary ("left-wing" vs "the hard-working") on voting rights law or litigation. Truly bad.

It was alleged by the left - I will not suggest I know whether it is true - that the Voting Rights Section under Bush was disproportionately interested in pursuing cases of reverse discrimination, to the point of ignoring meritorious cases of discrimination against minorities.

Although this particular case appears to have been well-founded in light of the result, it nevertheless became a political football because of that alleged shift in emphasis by the Bush DOJ. So if the lack of a press release is, in fact, a calculated decision, I'd think it has more to do with embarrassment regarding the priorities of the last administration.

Part of a newspaper's job is to determine which news events are part of a trend, and which are clear outliers.

That strikes me as the opposite of news. News is the unusual and notable. "Dog bites man" definitely represents the trend, but it is not news. "Man bites dog" is news.

A note about the credibility of the notorious Mr. von Spakovsky. He writes:

The silence from the nation’s leading news outlets was also deafening: Not a word was published about the case by the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any other major publication. Why? Because the offensive conduct at issue did not conveniently track with the Left’s view of race discrimination.

But the New York Times and the Washington Post did report extensively on the case.

The Justice Department’s main focus is Ike Brown, a local power broker whose imaginative electoral tactics have for 20 years caused whisperings from here to the state capital in Jackson, 100 miles to the southwest. Mr. Brown, tall, thin, a twice-convicted felon, the chairman of the Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee and its undisputed political boss, is accused by the federal government of orchestrating — with the help of others — “relentless voting-related racial discrimination” against whites, whom blacks outnumber by more than 3 to 1 in the county.

Today, though, Brown, who is African American, is scheduled to go on trial in federal court in Jackson, where he will face charges from the Justice Department that he violated the political rights of Noxubee's white minority. It is the first time that the 1965 Voting Rights Act has been used to ensure white rights. About two-thirds of the 8,700 adults in Noxubee County are black, and Brown, the local Democratic committee chief, has been criticized for urging people to "vote black" while engaging in an array of electoral shenanigans.

U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee ruled that Ike Brown, chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee of Noxubee County, violated the Voting Rights Act by issuing different procedures for collecting and counting absentee ballots from white and black voters. The executive committee, also found liable in the case, is responsible for administering Democratic primaries in the county.

I guess von Spakovsky was alluding to the lack of news reports regarding the latest appellate decision, but really, is it credible to suggest a conspiracy of silence when there was already much ink spilled concerning the filing of the case, the trial, and the district court's ruling? I think most people would read his opinion piece and get the impression that the media swept this case under the rug when they clearly did not.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits a state or political subdivision from employing any “standard, practice, or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

So a law that says only property owners, or residents who have resided within the county for 2 years can vote would violate federal law?

I hope the Supreme Court never reads the debates of the 15th Amendment or the many proposed versions and the reasons they were rejected!

These is not one shred of evidence that Hans Von Spakovsky engaged in any kind of perjury.

In this very blog, I have often criticized bad lawyering in the Bush Administration (such as the "torture memos").

Von Spakovsky was a good lawyer who had nothing to do with any of that. There is no evidence that he lied or violated any civil-service laws. He did his job well.

By the way, as commenters have noted in past threads on this very blog, the IG report that came out regarding Schlozman (issued by an IG who was appointed by Clinton, Glenn Fine), was deeply flawed and misleading.

As one commenter noted in response to Orin's January 13 post,

"I don't think it's fair to put much stock in the IG's statistics or conclusions. He doesn't fully explain either. I state my reasons below.

—The IG doesn't compare the grades of the hires with the grades of the non-hired applicants. The grades of the hires may have been better than those of the non-hired.

—The IG doesn't compare the number of "Republican or conservative" applicants with the number of "Democratic or liberal" applicants. The former may have been significantly higher than the latter—thereby explaining the alleged discrepancy in the hiring statistics. (Note that a career who was interviewed stated that the number of Republicans and conservatives applying to the Civil Rights Division significantly increased with the change in Administrations. By the same token, the number of Democrats and liberals applying may have decreased.

—The IG's list of "Democrat or liberal" credentials does not include the American Constitution Society—even though Dummermuth testified that membership in the Society was viewed negatively and even though the IG considered the Society to be "liberal" in the IG's Honors Program report. That testimony means that there were applicants with Society membership, but where are those applicants? It would seem that those applicants must be included in the "neutral" category (at least applicants who didn't also have one the "Democrat or liberal" qualifications included in the IG's list). If so, the numbers of "liberals" that Schlozman hired would increase if Society members were hired but included in the IG's "neutral" category. (The fact that the IG considered the Society to be "liberal" for purposes of his Honors Program report but not for the Civil Rights report suggests that the IG is not applying criteria impartially but rather is applying criteria in the manner that will support the IG's conclusion of Schlozman's guilt.)

—The IG doesn't explain in detail the facts supporting his conclusion that there was no discrimination in favor of Democrats and liberals in the non-Schlozman hires.

—The IG accepts all evidence against Schlozman and discounts or doesn't mention any evidence for Schlozman. For example, the IG fails to mention that (at least according to Schlozman's attorney), Schlozman provided the IG with more than 2 dozen names of individuals Schlozman hired, knowing them to be Democrats or political liberals. See Statement by Schlozman's attorney. The IG also fails to mention that (again at least according to Schlozman's attorney) Schlozman took a polygraph, the results of which showed that Schlozman did not lie to the Hill. See Statement by Schlozman's attorney. Finally, the IG accepts testimony against Schlozman from a witness but discounts testimony for Schlozman from the same witness. It's one thing to entirely discount a witness's testimony as uncredible; it's another thing to find a witness credible when his testimony helps your case but uncredible when his testimony hurts your case. These facts suggest that the IG was not acting as an impartial investigator (as he's supposed to be); instead, the facts suggest that the IG trying to find evidence to support his preconceived conclusion that Schlozman was guilty.

—The IG often states that witnesses said X (with X always being damning evidence against the subjects of the report) without actually quoting the witnesses. Thus, the readers can have no assurance that the witnesses actually said X. In fact, such action suggests that the witnesses didn't actually say what the IG said they said (at least not as strongly). Otherwise the IG would have quoted the witnesses directly. For example, if a witness actually said "Schlozman refused to hire Democrats," why wouldn't the IG put the witnesses exact quote in the report? He did so with Shanetta Cutlar's statements (but she has her own problems—problems that arguably bear on her credibility but that the IG never mentioned). So why not do so with all of the witnesses.

—According to Schlozman's attorney, the IG "allowed former Civil Rights Division attorneys, at least one of whom Mr. Schlozman hired, to conduct the inquiry" into the propriety of Schlozman's conduct. See Statement by Schlozman's attorney. (I have no knowledge of whether the assertions—mentioned in this paragraph and earlier paragraphs—made by Schlozman's attorney are true. But the assertions seem like things that should be mentioned in an impartial report.)

—For both the Schlozman report and the Honors Program report, the IG apparently refused (in violation of IG policy) to allow the subjects of the report to respond to the report. (The IG's policy is, before releasing a report, to provide the report to the subjects and provide them the opportunity to provide the IG with a letter responding to the IG's conclusions. Any response letter is then appended to the end of the report. Look at other reports (such as reports about DOJ components, such as OJP or FBI) for examples of these letters.)

—The IG doesn't break the numbers down by politics versus ideology. As you noted, the IG's conclusion that consideration of ideology is inappropriate is not supported in the law, as shown by the IG's failure to cite any legal authority—in either the Civil Rights report or the Honors Program report—for his conclusion that consideration of ideology is prohibited by law. It may be that there is no statistical disparity on politics between the Schlozman and non-Schlozman hires.

As a side note, consider that every single circuit court to consider the issue has held that consideration of political affiliation when hiring for attorney positions does not violate the Constitution because such positions are confidential and/or policy-making positions. The only exception is for hiring of public defenders (because those attorneys represent the individual defendant rather than the government). If consideration of political affiliation doesn't violate the Constitution, then consideration of ideology doesn't either.

I recognize that the consideration of political affiliation is prohibited by the CSRA, but there is no similar statute prohibiting consideration of ideological affiliation. For that reason, my comments focus on the whether the Constitution prohibits ideological considerations. (It's questionable though whether the CSRA is constitutional to the extent, if any, that it hampers the President's ability to execute the law (e.g., by preventing him from hiring people who will zealously execute his policies).)

Although the IG argues that use of ideology as a proxy for political affiliation is inappropriate, he also makes the separate argument, in both the Civil Rights and Honors Program reports, that unadulterated consideration of ideology alone (i.e., not as a proxy) is unlawful. Despite that argument, he does not recommend that DOJ prohibit consideration of ideology; he only recommends that DOJ prohibit consideration of ideology as a proxy for political affiliation. This recommendation implies that the IG recognizes the fallacy of his argument on ideology (not as a proxy)—leaving one to wonder why he makes the argument in the first place.

Plus, it strains credulity to argue that it is unlawful to consider whether an individual will zealously enforce the policies of an Administration. Consider an Administration (such as this one) that supports the death penalty and is looking to hire an attorney for DOJ's Capital Case Unit. It is arguably frivolous (if not indisputably frivolous) to argue, for example, that DOJ cannot refuse to hire an applicant who states that he is opposed to (or lukewarm toward) the death penalty and could not argue in support of (or strongly in support of) the death penalty. In contrast, consider an Administration that believes that the Constitution forbids hiring practices that have a disparate impact and is looking to fill a position in the Employment Section of the Civil Rights Division. It cannot be unlawful for that Administration to refuse to hire an attorney who states that he does not believe (or is not sure) that the Constitution forbids such practices and could not argue (or strongly argue) that such practices are unconstitutional.

I suspect that the IG recognizes the fallacy of his argument on ideology but makes the argument anyway because he does not have sufficient evidence to make the case a discrimination based on political affiliation (or based on ideology as a proxy for political affiliation). Thus, I suspect the IG needs to argue about ideology to conflate and obfuscate the issues. This tactic allows him to imply—without evidence—that an individual violated the CSRA without ever offering any evidence supporting his implication.

Consider the IG's Honors Program report. That report was widely reported—by mainstream media as well as conservative bloggers (including, I believe, VC bloggers)—as concluding that the two political appointees on the screening committee violated federal law by considering political affiliation. But the IG makes no such conclusion. Rather, the report states again and again that the individuals considered "political OR ideological affiliation." Moreover, the report cites no evidence whatsoever that the individuals considered political affiliation (or proxies). (One should not mistake his assertion that individuals considered political affiliation (or proxies) as evidence supporting that assertion.)

Despite using a highly significant "or" and citing no evidence whatsoever of discrimination based on political affiliation, the IG's report was widely reported as concluding that such discrimination occurred. The fact that this "conclusion" was erroneously reported by conservative bloggers, who are typically better at fact-checking, shows the incredible success of the IG's language choices and strongly suggests that such choices were intentional.

These facts (in addition to others) suggest that the IG's statistics and conclusions should be viewed with skepticism. (Further reasons supporting skepticism of his statistics are apparent upon careful analysis of extensive stastical analyses in the Honors Program report. Such analysis reveals multiple problems with those statistics (e.g., sample size).)

(*This comment is not a comment on the propriety of Schlozman's actions and should not be taken as such. The comment is simply a comment on the propriety of the IG's actions and the credence, if any, to be given to his reports.)"

By the way, the case we are discussing in this blog thread is the Feb. 27 decision in United States v. Brown, 2009 WL 485709 (5th Cir. 2009).

Did von Spakowsky champion any other Voting Rights case? Did he even acknowledge any merit in any other Voting Rights case? Not that I am aware, but I didn't search hard.

Jackie Mason claimed last week to be a victim of racism because despite his self-claimed talents his career has not been as successful as Oprah Winfrey's.

The belief that discrimination has disappeared, except for Affirmative Action and the rare man-bites-dog story (like this case), explains a lot about the racial breakdown of Republican support.

Is a call for 'more diversity in hiring' a plea for the return of Monica Goodling and Bradley Schlozman?

I imagine they're available.

RPT:
If you can earn seven figures as a Covington &Burling partner with a raft of corporate clients and still be called "left wing" then the term no longer has meaning.

what is the meaning of "left wing"? that they don't earn much or they don't have corporate clients?

corneille1640 said: "Doesn't the 24th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (re: poll taxes and voting rights) forbid, forbid, by implication, any state from using property requirements for voting rights?"

A poll tax was never viewed as a voter qualification but as a tax burden to the poor who otherwise were qualified. The 24th Amendment did not outlaw voter qualifications such as property, residency or other proofs of attachment to the community.