DOJ Weirdness in Missouri and Elsewhere

Several generations of the Carnahans of Missouri have been involved in public service. (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia....) Currently Robin Carnahan is serving as Missouri Secretary of State.

On a side note, Robin's mother, former Senator Jean Carnahan, is an active writer on a Missouri blog FiredUp! Missouri. 

On November 22, 2005 the Justice Department sued Missouri and Robin Carnahan for alleged violations of voter rights. Here's the complaint: http://www.usdoj.gov...

And here's the press release: http://www.usdoj.gov...

Signatories to the complaint included Alberto Gonzalez, Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Todd P. Graves, U.S. Attorney and John K. Tanner, Chief, Voting Section. Here's a youthful Graves in 2004 - http://www.usdoj.gov...  He was confirmed by the Senate on October 12, 2001. (ref: http://www.whitehous... )

On Friday U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey ruled that Carnahan as Missouri's chief election officer had fulfilled her legal obligations toward keeping local election authorities' voter registration rolls up to date.  But that's not all.

[Update]: Robin is Secy of State, not Atty General.  Many thanks to commenters ---- ! I'll revisit tonight.
From Saturday's Columbia Tribune
http://www.columbiat...

While some counties did have more registered voters than voting-age population, Laughrey said, Carnahan's office found that some county clerks had simply counted inactive voters twice or made similar errors.

Laughrey said it was difficult to gauge the scope of the problem "because the United States has not presented the actual voter registration lists and shown who should have been included or excluded and why."

"It is also telling that the United States has not shown that any Missouri resident was denied his or her right to vote as a result of deficiencies alleged by the United States," Laughrey wrote. "Nor has the United States shown that any voter fraud has occurred."

Yesterday in a statement, Carnahan said the ruling "concluded that my office not only complied with federal law but also went beyond its requirements through our many efforts to assist the county clerks and election boards with their responsibilities. The ruling also confirmed that there is no evidence of voter fraud in Missouri.

"This is the culmination of 18 months of an unnecessary, unwise and costly lawsuit by the Department of Justice," Carnahan added, "and I am glad my office can now direct all of its attention on continuing to ensure fair and accurate elections in Missouri."

How embarassing.  And that's our tax dollars at work.

In a March 2006 article on the FiredUp! blog the retirement of Todd Graves, U.S. Attorney General to this case is discussed

Graves has been no stranger to controversy during his tenure as U.S. Attorney. Last year, Graves was criticized for accepting a lucrative no-bid contract from the administration of Governor Matt Blunt, a politician whose actions are subject to scrutiny by Graves' office. The contract is worth several million dollars to Graves and his wife.

By tradition, senior U.S. Senator Kit Bond would play a key role in the selection of Graves replacement.

However, given the ongoing feud between the Graves family, Senator Bond, and GOP House Speaker Rod Jetton, the selection process in this situation might be quite complex.

Graves resigned March 24, 2006, and is working for Bartle & Marcus

The Irony
Skimming the surface of the story without context, one could conclude that DOJ was erring on the side of legal diligence in the Missouri case.  But as for John K. Tanner, the Votings Rights Chief who signed off on the DOJ complaint against Carnahan, he is embroiled in a controversy of a different sort. 

The Missouri complaint was brought November 22, 2005. Simultaneously, a major policy shift in the Voting Rights section muffling staff attorneys was implemented by Tanner.

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 they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.

The Justice Department has characterized the "pre-clearance" of the controversial Georgia voter-identification program as a joint decision by career and political appointees in the Civil Rights Division. Republican proponents in Georgia have cited federal approval of the program as evidence that it would not discriminate against African Americans and other minorities.
...
The memo, endorsed by four of the team's five members, also said the state had provided flawed and incomplete data. The team found significant evidence that the plan would be "retrogressive," meaning that it would reduce blacks' access to the polls.

A day later, on Aug. 26, the chief of the department's voting rights section, John Tanner, told Georgia officials that the program could go forward. "The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the specified changes," he said in a letter to them.

http://www.washingto...

It appears John K. Tanner, chief of the Justice Department's voting section, was a bit miffed about the recent leak of an internal document that showed most of the section's lawyers who had reviewed a controversial Georgia voting law felt it would discriminate against black voters. The lawyers were overruled by higher-ups, Washington Post colleague Dan Eggen reported Nov. 17.

Staff Opinions Banned In Voting Rights Cases

The Justice Department has barred staff attorneys from offering recommendations in major Voting Rights Act cases, marking a significant change in the procedures meant to insulate such decisions from politics, congressional aides and current and former employees familiar with the issue said.

Disclosure of the change comes amid growing public criticism of Justice Department decisions to approve Republican-engineered plans in Texas and Georgia that were found to hurt minority voters by career staff attorneys who analyzed the plans. Political appointees overruled staff findings in both cases.

The policy was implemented in the Georgia case, said a Justice employee who, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation. A staff memo urged rejecting the state's plan to require photo identification at the polls because it would harm black voters.

The policy shift's outlines were first reported by the Dallas Morning News. Sources familiar with the change said it was implemented by John K. Tanner, the voting section chief, who is a career employee.

In response to a request to comment yesterday, Justice Department spokesman Eric Holland wrote in an e-mail: "The opinions and expertise of the career lawyers are valued and respected and continue to be an integral part of the internal deliberation process upon which the department heavily relies when making litigation decisions." He declined to elaborate.

Tensions within the voting section have been rising dramatically, culminating in an emotionally charged meeting last week in which Tanner criticized the quality of work done by staff members analyzing voting rights cases, numerous sources inside and outside the section said. Many employees were so angered that they boycotted the staff holiday party later in the week, the sources said.

Missouri does appear to have a problem with the voter registration rolls, and it does seem to be carelessness.  This is something that needs to be taken care of that's for sure. And that has to happen at the local level. But this complaint relies on newspaper articles for support. Is that "normal" evidentiary material in the legal domain? 

To summarize, this is just such bullshit.  Attorneys are fired for doing a good job and retained for citing newspaper articles. Frivolous crap is brought against Democrats and Republican special interests override traditional procedures to political ends.  The problems go much deeper than a few firings.

Comments