Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect
for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed.

Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the
advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that
clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.


From The Los Angeles Times, 3/29/07:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Bush's long history of tilting Justice

The administration began skewing federal law enforcement before the
current U.S. attorney scandal, says a former Department of Justice
lawyer.

By Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in
the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He
now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.


THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys
compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded
loyalty over all else.

A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice
Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us
who worked in its civil rights division can attest.

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil
rights laws - particularly voting rights.

Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with
dramatically different political philosophies - from John Mitchell to
Ed Meese to Janet Reno.

Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect
for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed.

Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the
advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that
clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting
rights.

From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on
behalf of African American or Native American voters.

U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud
cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws,
indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor
communities.

At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in
Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely
because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated
Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.

This pattern also extended to hiring.

In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney
in Kansas City, Mo.

Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to
make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation.

That was too bad:

A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in
politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.

Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees
that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's plan to redraw
congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number
of Republicans elected to the House.

Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge
of the division when the Justice Department OKd a Georgia law
requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls.

These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who
asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters.

The warnings were prescient:

Both proposals were struck down by federal courts.

Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim U.S.
attorney.

Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last
November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter
fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor
and minority people.

This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to
wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a
federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote.

The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the
administration's aims more transparent.

This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the
Justice Department.

Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the
political appointees was evident early on.

Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division.

I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several
attorneys under my supervision.

I was told to include critical comments about those whose
recommendations ran counter to the political will of the
administration and to improve evaluations of those who were
politically favored.

Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys.
In the last two years, 55% to 60% of attorneys in the voting section
have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department
entirely.

At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of
hiring lawyers.

Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's
fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most
important factor in hiring decisions.

For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had
successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions.

Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of
restoring dignity and nonpartisanship to federal law enforcement.

As the 2008 elections approach, it is critical to have a Justice
Department that approaches its responsibility to all eligible voters
without favor.

__________________________________________________

And you thought it couldn't happen here. Shame on you.

Harry