Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hans Von Spakovsky 101: How To Suppress The Vote Like A Pro

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:41 AM
Original message
Hans Von Spakovsky 101: How To Suppress The Vote Like A Pro
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/spakovsky-primer/

Hans Von Spakovsky 101: How To Suppress The Vote Like A Pro

Today, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee will vote on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. In June, the Rules Committee held a confirmation hearing on four nominees to the FEC. But much of the hearing focused on Spakovsky, who has become a lighting rod for criticism over his controversial tenure in the Justice Department.

The committee did not vote on von Spakovsky at the time because chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wanted to give Spakovsky “a chance to respond in writing to a letter, submitted by six former career staffers at the Justice Department, opposing his nomination.”

Spakovsky, a former political appointee in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division whom President Bush temporarily placed on the FEC using a recess appointment, is said to have “used every opportunity he had over four years in the Justice Department to make it difficult for voters — poor, minority and Democratic — to go to the polls.”

Here’s an overview of his record of disenfranchising voters:

Spakovsky stalled ruling on Mississippi redistricting, effecting electoral outcomes: In 2002, under Spakovsky’s leadership, the DoJ stalled making a determination under the Voting Rights Act on a conservative-drawn redistricting plan, approving it by default. The plan influenced the outcome of a key House race.

Spakovsky pushed through Texas re-districting that violated the Voting Rights Act: In 2003, “led the battle within Civil Rights Division to approve the Texas redistricting.” In 2006, the Supreme Court held that parts of the plan violated provisions of Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voting strength.

Spakovsky urged Maryland officials to reject voter registration forms of lawful voters: In 2003, Spakovsky told a Maryland election official to deny voter registration applications if any of the information on the application failed to match what is in the DMV and Social Security databases. The move exceeded federal law and was found to needlessly reject thousands of applications to vote that were lawful.

Spakovsky blocked an investigation into voter discrimination against Native Americans: In 2004, then-Minnesota U.S. Attrorney Thomas Heffelfinger believed a state voter ID ruling would disenfranchise Indian voters, but when the DoJ’s voting rights section sought to open an investigation, Spakovsky directed attorneys not to contact county officials, which “effectively ended any department inquiry.”

Spakovsky approved “modern day poll tax” over objections of career staff: In 2005, a team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters. But the law was approved the next day by political appointees, including Spakovsky. When the law was eventually overturned, a federal judge compared it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.

In June, five House Democrats from Georgia, including civil rights veteran John Lewis of Atlanta, wrote a letter cautioning senators against confirming Spakovsky, saying his appointment “could potentially turn back the clock on 50 years of progress” in voting rights.

As the six former Justice Department officials wrote in June, because of his “dubious stewardship” of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the Senate Rules Committee should “refuse to reward” him with a seat on the Federal Election Commission.

The Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights has more on Spakovsky here and here. Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker has more as well.

UPDATE: Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has more on why Spakovsky shouldn’t be confirmed here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2174680/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Reported on ER list serv
w/o link (I'll look for one):

The Senate Rules Committee voted this morning to send to the full Senate WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION all four nominees to the Federal Election Commission (FEC): Steven T. Walther of Nevada, David M. Mason of Virginia, Robert D. Lenhard of Maryland, and Hans von Spakovsky of Georgia. It appeared that a majority of committee members would agree to recommend the first three, and R’s on the committee did not want von Spakovsky to be the only nominee NOT RECOMMENDED, thus the compromise: all nominees go to the floor without recommendation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. So he's just going forward for 'show'? I can deal with that, as long
as he's not confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. with link:
Senate Rules panel moves controversial FEC pick
By Susan Crabtree
September 26, 2007
The Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday voted to report out all four Federal Election Commission nominations without recommendation, an unprecedented maneuver aimed at accommodating Chairman Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) objections to Hans von Spakovsky’s nomination.




Von Spakovsky’s nomination became controversial earlier this year during the Democrats’ investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys and whether the Justice Department had been improperly politicized during President Bush’s tenure. Former top officials of the civil rights division, where von Spakovsky held the position of counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights, have sent letters to members of the Rules Committee accusing him of politicizing the voting rights section and arguing against his confirmation.

Von Spakovsky was installed on the FEC as a recess appointment in early January 2006, but the Senate has not confirmed him. Feinstein has repeatedly voiced serious concerns about his nomination, warning that she would oppose it.

During the Rule Committee’s executive meeting Wednesday, Feinstein originally said she wanted to vote on each nominee separately, as opposed to considering all four nominees together in one vote, as the committee has done in the past. Republicans on the panel objected, arguing that the move breaks all known committee precedent on moving FEC nominations.

-snip
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-rules-panel-moves-controversial-fec-pick-2007-09-26.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Are they just passing this off to the Senate? It's still kept as a foursome deal instead
of breaking up the individual nominees. With the vote close (and isn't Reid and Shumer said to be interested in having the other nominees appointed?) will they let it slip by?

Why isn't this man being held accountable for his past actions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spotbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. The no recommendation
move is just cover. They may think that anyone paying attention will believe it means something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 13th 2024, 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC