by emptywheel
The LAT expounds on something we talked about a week ago--the likelihood that Tom Heffelfinger was targeted because he fought for Native Americans' voting rights. Thanks to Tom Hamburger for noticing the important details from the Goodling testimony that the rest of the media seems to have missed.
As I explained last week, at issue is whether Minnesota's Native Americans were to be allowed to use their tribal ID to vote.
The LAT article is most valuable for the way it captures the veritable Hall of Fame of Voter Suppression specialists involved in this issue.
It was in this environment, [former head of the Voting Rights section of DOJ Joseph] Rich says, that he got an Oct. 19, 2004, e-mail from an assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota named Rob Lewis, informing him about possible voter discrimination against Indians.
Described as a matter of "deep concern" to Heffelfinger, the issue arose from Kiffmeyer's directive in the fall of 2004 that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification off reservations
About 32,000 Indians live off-reservation in Minnesota, mostly in the Twin Cities.
In the e-mail — which Rich described to The Times — Lewis wrote that Kiffmeyer's memo had sparked "concerns regarding possible disparate impact among the state's substantial Indian population."
"Disparate impact" is a term used in civil rights litigation to describe a circumstantial case of discrimination.
After reviewing the matter, Rich recommended opening an investigation.
In response, he said, Bradley Schlozman, a political appointee in the department, told Rich "not to do anything without his approval" because of the "special sensitivity of this matter."
Rich responded by suggesting that more information be gathered from voting officials in the Twin Cities area, which includes Minnesota's two most populous counties.
A message came back from another Republican official in the department, Hans von Spakovsky, saying Rich should not contact the county officials but should instead deal only with the secretary of state's office.
Von Spakovsky indicated, Rich said, that working with Kiffmeyer's office reduced the likelihood of a leak to the news media.
The orders from Schlozman and Von Spakovsky, who wielded unusual power in the civil rights division, effectively ended any department inquiry, Rich said.
[snip]
One of Paulose's first acts [after she replaced Heffelfinger as USA] was to remove Lewis, who had written the 2004 e-mails to Washington expressing concern about Native American voting rights in Minnesota, from overseeing voting rights cases.
The story provides a critical map of the way the Republicans deliberately worked to disenfranchise Native Americans. First, the head of Voting Rights Joseph Rich (who has since left) finds the complaint has merit. But Brad Schlozman, the guy who sued Missouri's Democratic Secretary of State frivolously, told Rich that the issue had "special sensitivity." And then Hans von Spakovsky instructed Rich to work exclusively with the shillicious Kiffmeyer. So they get rid of Heffelfinger, bring in Paulose, and she immediately reassigns the guy who first filed the complaint.
Very deliberate, these Republicans, in their efforts to disenfranchise brown people.
Pretty productive couple of days for you.
Do you ever sleep?
Posted by: egregious | May 31, 2007 at 14:18
"Very deliberate, these Republicans, in their efforts to disenfranchise brown people."
Now isn't Rachel Paulose also a brown person? Interesting - using a Federalist society brown person to prevent a white person from investigating the disenfranchisement of brown voters. Only in Rethug land!
Posted by: ab initio | May 31, 2007 at 14:19
TPM has a story pointing to 'voter fraud' in the Graves firing, also. Apparently one of the GOP's tame 'voter fraud' experts complained to someone in the DOJ or the WH (the guy boasted about it afterward, the $%^&*).
Posted by: P J Evans | May 31, 2007 at 14:22
It's still all about the NAIS -- or at least the Pearl Harbor Massacre was heavily weighted towards NAIS, with Lam thrown in on merits of her own district. "I told you so" feels awful, knowing they have been working on this since South Dakota and Thune/Daschle.
Were there any other ways in which the Native American population could have been disenfranchised? I'm having a hard time believing it was as simple as voter ID's; Michigan, for example, doesn't seem to follow that mold. Or least nothing has emerged in this respect. The Kiffemeyer role certainly makes it worth looking more closely at the SOS of each of the Gonzales 8 states; were they only doing what Terri Lynn Land was trying, or were they combining that with the voter ID's issue?
Posted by: Rayne | May 31, 2007 at 14:22
The story provides a critical map of the way the Republicans deliberately worked to disenfranchise Native Americans.
Very true. Though we already had this map.
Posted by: Kagro X | May 31, 2007 at 14:44
ab initio, Rachel Palouse is not the firt Clarence Thomas and Clarence is not the first Tom.
Posted by: greenhouse | May 31, 2007 at 14:53
ab initio, Rachel Palouse is not the first Clarence Thomas and Clarence is not the first Tom.
Posted by: greenhouse | May 31, 2007 at 14:53
Depending on whther the transfer of Lewis was a demotion or not.
I wonder if Lewis does not have a valid reatliation claim against Paulose and DOJ.
You are not "supposed" to get punished for actually doing your job.
When I was doing public corruption cases, the rule of thumb was to amass and lock down as much ahrd evidence as you could before anybody powrful "caught you" doing your job. Then it was too late to stop you without the risk of a retaliation suit.
It was apain in the ass to have live so defensively, but it worked.
Posted by: looseheadprop | May 31, 2007 at 15:06
I'm starting to believe that the only way to clean out this Augean stable of voting rights is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote federally. May I suggest the following wording from our Charter of Rights in Canada, Section 3?
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
After all who could object to that? It would be as easy as an amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women, how could that ever fail to pass? Right?
Posted by: Ishmael | May 31, 2007 at 16:10
Ishmael -- We have the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution:
Fifteenth Amendment - Right of Citizens to Vote
Section. 1. 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.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
But like all other laws, there's always somebody trying to break or skirt them. Believe there is adequate precedent that supports Native Americans (as non-whites being disenfranchised), but there has to be a concrete case first. We're still looking for an indisputable "smoking gun".
Posted by: Rayne | May 31, 2007 at 21:05