« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Under Bush, Civil Rights Division Works to Protect... Whites
The U.S. attorney firings scandal has laid bare the administration's -- and particularly Karl Rove's -- preoccupation with prosecuting voter fraud. But there's a flip side to this coin. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has virtually abandoned its traditional role, undertaken since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, of actively protecting African American voters from discrimination.
There's no greater demonstration of that fact than this simple fact: During the first five years of the Bush administration, the Justice Department's voting section only filed a single case alleging voting discrimination on behalf of African American voters. That's despite the fact that the section, part of the Civil Rights Division, was created mainly to protect African American voters from discrimination.
But during that same time period, the section managed to file the first ever "reverse" discrimination case under the Voting Rights Act.
That case, United States v. Ike Brown and Noxubee County, alleges that Brown, the chairman of Noxubee County's Democratic Executive Committee in Mississippi, has been trying to limit whites' participation in local elections. The case, filed in 2005, is currently being tried, and is likely to reach its conclusion later this month.
Joseph Rich, the chief of the voting section until he resigned in 2005, signed the complaint against Brown and told me that he thought that the case did have merit. But he said that it was "really a question of priority" for a section with limited resources. The political appointees in the section aggressively promoted the case, he said: "clearly they were very interested in this particular matter when it came up." Rich, who worked for the department enforcing civil rights laws for more than 35 years, has very publicly criticized the section he left.*
Democrats are clearly animated about the issue. A House Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on the voting section, during which Rich testified, last month, and chairman Jerold Nadler (D-NY) has vowed to press on with further investigation, saying "I realize the president has gotten a free ride for the last six years, but that is over."
Consider some numbers. The single case filed on behalf of African American voters in the first five years of the Bush administration was actually a case that had been initiated during the Clinton administration; the complaint was finally filed in 2001. The section did not file its second complaint on behalf of African American voters until July, 2006. And that only happened after The Washington Post went front page earlier that year with the turmoil in the voting section. By comparison, the voting section filed eight cases alleging discrimination against African American voters in the last six years of the Clinton administration.
The voting section has filed ten total cases so far during the Bush administration; seven were on behalf of Hispanics.
"The Civil Rights Division's core mission is to fight racial discrimination," Rich told me. "That doesn't seem to be happening in this administration."
A similar shift has occurred in the division's employment litigation section, which is tasked with preventing discrimination in employment. That section has managed to file two "reverse" discrimination cases alleging discrimination against whites under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, while filing only one alleging discrimination against African Americans in the past six years.
The shift in priorities is no accident. As the Post and others have reported, career staff like Rich have left the division in droves after being marginalized by political appointees, a house cleaning far more comprehensive than the recent firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
*Update: Joe Rich wanted to make a clarification here: "my criticism has been of those political appointees who supervised the Voting Section, not the Section itself."
Comments (47)
klyde wrote on April 6, 2007 12:27 PM:I know no one is suprised by this
parrot wrote on April 6, 2007 12:30 PM:So, the question is...did the US DOJ and its employees actively move to quash investigation of valid cases? That should keep some of us up late at night pondering...and also be good for the defense lawyers of this country who, although they don't work at the DOJ, certainly are making big bucks off of the Administration as it comes to its ignominious close.
MG wrote on April 6, 2007 12:31 PM:Surprised no but strangely disappointed. Some issues of justice, considering our history, should be sacred.
jfaberuiuc wrote on April 6, 2007 12:32 PM:To steal a line from the Daily Show: Speaking as a white voter, I can only hope my voting rights are respected enough that we can elect a white president....43 consecutive times...
Hmmmmmm wrote on April 6, 2007 12:42 PM:WHEN will Congress take away OMB's budget along with the budget of all of Bush's other playthings? Bush can be controlled when he is the entire Executive branch all by himself, with Dickie storming around giving orders to the ghosts.
melair wrote on April 6, 2007 12:48 PM:At Southern Illinois University, where I work, they targeted scholarships that had been in place for years, established to foster campus diversity. You'll all be glad to know that whites are no longer discriminated against here in Carbondale.
Wanderer wrote on April 6, 2007 12:48 PM:I'm shocked at this. Ralph Nader assured us that there was no difference between the two parties. I guess African Americans mean little Ralphie.
terry hallinan wrote on April 6, 2007 12:50 PM:I am so glad somebody finally is standing up for all those of us who have passed.
I inform those who want to have some kind of European pride group that most of their ancestors were illegals.
Best, Terry
m wrote on April 6, 2007 12:51 PM:Just for the sake of comparison, any idea on what the rate was under Clinton and/or Bush I?
Princess Sparkle Pony wrote on April 6, 2007 12:57 PM:I can't stand the term "reverse discrimination" and I'm really surprised to hear you guys using it.
bcf wrote on April 6, 2007 12:58 PM:Similarly, it was sadly ironic that the only equal protection claim Rehnquist ever supported in a case before him was Bush's, in 2000...
Anonymous wrote on April 6, 2007 12:59 PM:And of course don't forget that the NAACP sued Katherine Harris and friends over voting rights, and eventually settled the lawsuit after assumedly getting some concessions.
Sachi wrote on April 6, 2007 1:08 PM:Melair, I was an attorney for a university for many years. It's been very clear for years that scholarships limited to minorities violate the Civil Rights laws. My university refused to accept such proposed scholarships and had to amend the terms of existing endowments. Diversity is a serious issue and colleges rightfully can make concerted efforts to attract minorities, but they cannot legally do it by offering scholarships limited to minorities. The Civil Rights laws and the constitution require color-blindness in much of what government does.
For the same reason, it does not upset me simply because the Justice Department would bring a "reverse discrimination" case. There really is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination -- discrimination against caucasians on the basis of race or ethnicity is just as illegal, and for the same reasons, as discrimination against African Americans or Hispanics or any other racial or ethnic group.
So if there is a problem, it is in the political interference and the push to focus on whites as opposed to other cases -- not the simple fact that the Justice Department brought a case on behalf of a white person.
davcbr wrote on April 6, 2007 1:08 PM:Just to help tie a few things together, this relates to the Minneapolis USA:
"Paulose previously served in the Justice Department as an Attorney General’s Honors Program trial attorney for the Civil Rights Division."
dc
Anthony wrote on April 6, 2007 1:14 PM:The South rises again!
Not all, just the racist part.
StlInquirer wrote on April 6, 2007 1:20 PM:Here's a different take - it seems to me that they're really not doing much of anything - they've ostracized or booted the people who were actually good at this and new something about it and replaced them (likely) with people with no skills, no background, and even less motivation to do anything. So my bet is that they really have all mostly just been sitting around collecting their checks so that they can argue that the government can't get anything done because of how inefficient it is once they're back in the private sector.
Mike wrote on April 6, 2007 1:26 PM:I too hate the term reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination. Adding reverse to it makes it seem like only "white" people can be discriminatory.
Anthony wrote on April 6, 2007 1:31 PM:StlInquirer: I think your arguement would hold more weight had it been closer to 0 cases filed. Although a comparision of cases filed over that past few decades vs. the "Bush years" might lend support to your arguement. 18 cases for whites and Bush's hispanic voters and 1( under duress) for AA. I think 18-1 greatly diminshes your arguement.
Julie Keller wrote on April 6, 2007 1:31 PM:Career professionals being driven away by shrill partisan loyalists. Multiply that by every cabinet agency in the Executive branch, and you see the depth and magnitude of the problem.
StlInquirer wrote: So my bet is that they really have all mostly just been sitting around collecting their checks so that they can argue that the government can't get anything done because of how inefficient it is once they're back in the private sector.
Agreed.
Problem is, impeachment alone won't solve this; neither will a clean sweep by Democrats in '08, not completely anyway. It's going to take a loooong time to repair this damage, and if these people and their allies are ever again allowed to assume power, they will merely continue to appoint and reappoint the Goodlings and Pauloses and Lurita Doans and who knows who else and build on what they've "accomplished" in the last 6 years.
Thomas wrote on April 6, 2007 1:32 PM:The Justice Department isn't alleging "reverse" discrimination, whatever that might be, in the Mississippi case, but is alleging illegal racial discrimination. According to press reports, the claim is very strong.
But it does sound like someone doesn't like the Justice Department to protect the "wrong" victims--whites and hispanics. I don't know why one would advertise that kind of bigotry, but I confess I often don't understand the peculiar attitudes I see expressed here.
Anthony wrote on April 6, 2007 1:34 PM:Correction: That's 10-1.
Anonymous wrote on April 6, 2007 1:39 PM:That "house cleaning" has taken place at virtually every federal agency in Washington. Their version of cleaning is to take the doors and windows, every other stud and rafter, and all the pipes and wires. They did give the old house a paint job, and left a new getaway car in the garage.
Democrats will have to find top political appointess for their new administration. They will have to rebuild posts and working groups left vacant or disbanded. Rebuild broken networks. Ironically, they will also have to scrutinize the skills and work product of union-protected career appointments of junior versions of Monica Goodling and Rachel Paulouse.
Instead of starving the government "beast", this administration has fattened it up and barbecued it on the front lawn of corporate America, which is gorging on the ribs and sauce.
Anthony wrote on April 6, 2007 2:02 PM:Julie Keller: Problem is, impeachment alone won't solve this; neither will a clean sweep by Democrats in '08, not completely anyway. It's going to take a loooong time to repair this damage ... Perhaps, not as long as you think. A Democratic adminstration can remove unqualified people from positions they currently occupy. In fact, I don't think a Democratic administration could tolerate leaving these partisans in jobd that were formerly held by career professionals. I'm not sure how eager these professionals would be to enter these posts since they might be targeted again by a future wingnut administration.
Stop the Lies!! wrote on April 6, 2007 2:15 PM:Those damn evil Republicans!!
http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html
Kevin wrote on April 6, 2007 2:28 PM:Thomas... "But it does sound like someone doesn't like the Justice Department to protect the "wrong" victims--whites and hispanics." that's just ridiculous... thanx for the laughs though
Mark D'Amico wrote on April 6, 2007 2:38 PM:Somehow the right will profess that this shows that discrimination towards African-Americans is a thing of the past, right?
melair wrote on April 6, 2007 2:38 PM:Sachi,
"So if there is a problem, it is in the political interference and the push to focus on whites as opposed to other cases -- not the simple fact that the Justice Department brought a case on behalf of a white person."
There is a problem.
ahem wrote on April 6, 2007 2:42 PM:Bush Family 'civil rights' = making sure that brown citizens don't vote.
feckless wrote on April 6, 2007 2:54 PM:Thomas, as to the "wrong victims", it isn't about ideological absolutes, every incident of discrimination is wrong.
Its about priorities with limited resources. If your'e in a leaky boat you plug the big holes first. All historical trends (including previous republican presidents) show that the biggest hole in voting rights in this country pertains to african americans. And given the demographics of the last few decades has accurately come to include discrimination against the expanding hispanic population.
Thomas, do you question whether your own preconception that an opinion is crypto-racist blinds you to logical reasons you hadn't considered?
jdw wrote on April 6, 2007 4:02 PM:Good piece, Paul. As I've posted before - the Civil Rights Division is just the tip of the iceberg. Every division and agency in the Administration into which they see the chance to inject "policy", the Rove Shop has. The Civil Right Division stands out because (a) a career man like Rich has come forward, and (b) the numbers are so ridiculous that they can't be justified. But it's hardly the only one, or one of ten. There are more than a thousand big and large fiefdoms in the Administration that have gotten infected, both in setting policy and in using litmus tests to plant long term "loyal Bushies" in positions. It will take years to clean them all out.
The only positives is that the loyal Bushies being planted won't stick around long term in government jobs when they can go soft land with bigger bucks outside of the government. Especially if a new Admin comes in and doesn't let them continue to run wild in their current agendas. There simply aren't that many of them who would stick around like Rich for five years with things aren't going their way. Rich was dedicated to the higher concept of the Civil Rights Division. The Bushies are dedicated to the high concepts of their agenda, not the purporse of the offices they hold. Unable to control or push forward the agendas, they'll flee like rats when the lights get turned on in the room.
Midwest wrote on April 6, 2007 4:20 PM:You all are just so cynical...surely the reason there haven't been more prosecutions is because there are no longer efforts to supress the minority vote. /Sarcasm
DC Pol Sci wrote on April 6, 2007 5:34 PM:Feckless, the Civil Rights Division in general and the Voting Section in particular stand out not only because Joe Rich has come forward, and not only because the numbers are so ridiculous that they can't be justified but because the Voting Section plays a key role in stopping efforts to suppress and dilute the minority vote.
Quite simply, minorities, particularly African-Americans, are the Democrats' most loyal voters. Crack minority districts (as in Texas and Mississippi), suppress minority vote with photo ID laws (as in Georgia), and don't bring any suits to create new African-American districts, and you increase Republican representation at every level from the county commission to the Congress.
In so doing, you also roll back the major gains that minorities have made in 40 years under the Voting Rights Act.
bcg wrote on April 6, 2007 5:41 PM:Is there any way to bring a RICO indictment against the non-career section of the executive branch without going through the DoJ? From here, it looks like there's enough cause for the investigation; but, it's hardly worth it if it's going to be snuffed "on its merits" by some apparatchik.
rmrd0000 wrote on April 6, 2007 6:39 PM:I think that (unqualified) Conservatives have done well in the current era as the country strives for diversity.
GW Bush-POTUS
Rice-SOS
Gonzales-USAG
Chertoff-Homeland Security
Brown-FEMA
Paulouse-Minneapolis AG
MSM has also opened it's doors to employ unqualified Consevatives in it's push for diversity.
Beck-CNNHNN
Carlson-MSNBC
If you are a Conservative, no expertise is needed. If you've got an opinion and it's Conservative, you're hired. Conservatives-a truly protected group.
makesenseofit wrote on April 6, 2007 8:02 PM:THis is a commentary on the Bushevicks revolution.
Robin L. Boerner wrote on April 6, 2007 8:09 PM:Discrimination is the element the least talked about but the most abused.
What about the other non whites from other countries coming into this country illegally.
Not much is done about that.. for sake of political ramification from the origin countrys
political regime..
Bush hasn't been wasting DOJ resources on protecting 100% disabled veterans Civil Rights either:
MakeTheArmyHonest.Com
Even white ones.
steve veerhoff wrote on April 6, 2007 10:16 PM:Speaking of Civil Rights, the Center for American Progress did an excellent report of the "breaking" of the Civil Rights division of Justice. Quoting from their web site:
"The report, “The Erosion of Rights: Declining Civil Rights Enforcement Under the Bush Administration,” found that civil rights protections have been undermined over the past six years by calculated federal judicial appointments and neglect of the historical tools designed to carry out civil rights enforcement."
“As the Division approaches its 50th anniversary, it is in deep trouble because the Bush administration has used it as a vessel for its own political objectives, often disregarding the law and sullying the group’s reputation for professionalism and integrity,” ... This is supported by accounts from six former attorneys of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice featured in the CAP/CCCR report."
Link here:
steve veerhoff wrote on April 6, 2007 10:18 PM:OK, so the link didn't get included. Here is the link to the CAP report:
Justice wrote on April 6, 2007 10:44 PM:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/deterioration_rights.html
An oldie but a goodie....
Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election is the riveting story about the battle for the Presidency in Florida and the undermining of democracy in America. Filmmakers Richard Ray Pérez and Joan Sekler examine modern America's most controversial political contest: the election of George W. Bush. What emerges is a disturbing picture of an election marred by suspicious irregularities, electoral injustices, and sinister voter purges in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother. George W. Bush stole the presidency of the United States… and got away with it. " …the movie highlights those on the front lines —from the African-Americans who were turned away from the polling booths for assorted reasons. In one memorable scene the filmmakers freeze-frame a 'protest' against the ballot recount, identifying participants as staff members of Republican elected officials." --Elaine Dutka, Los Angeles Times
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266005172448029956&q=unprecedented
addledwits wrote on April 7, 2007 1:15 AM:These Bushies are just beyond filthy. Impeach the lot of them!
liz wrote on April 7, 2007 7:23 AM:The Office of Civil Rights ignores WHITE disabled people. You see, I got discriminated against in a court of law in South Carolina two years ago. Now, two attorneys in Baltimore have stepped in front of the bus for an old administrative law judge who does not follow the rule of law or honor other judge's court orders! Hipaa violations occurred since the discrimination attorneys LOST all my medical information. I bet they didn't bank on the fact I am an RN and I am sick not stupid, and many of my friends have gotten embroiled in Hipaa scandals at work legitly taking care of patients. These gentlemen will go to jail for maliciously destroying my record because I complained with a Section 504 discrimination complaint. To top it all off, since I have Late Stage Lyme Disease And* America lies about that..... did my record disappear to persecute my doctor now?????? ANYONE OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP THIS AMERICAN CITIZEN>>>>>> obviously no one at the Bush Justice Department..... More discrimination for me~~~
melior wrote on April 7, 2007 6:17 PM:Kanye West nailed it!
JC wrote on April 8, 2007 3:22 AM:might be worth checking out turnover rates in civil rights division, i have been hearing about a spate of resignations by career doj people
Phoenix Woman wrote on April 8, 2007 5:23 PM:Let's hope that Clinton hired enough good people and that they learned the institutional memory from the Carter folk before THEY retired or were forced out so that we can survive to January 2009.
Theodore G. Fletcher wrote on April 9, 2007 1:33 PM:There is much more to this story: Yesterday's Boston Globe article on Regent Law School placement at DOJ suggests that most of the graduates were going to the Civil Rights Division.
Wayne Smyer wrote on April 12, 2007 11:36 AM:Monica Goodling: "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to inseminate me"
Nancy Irving wrote on June 17, 2007 12:27 AM:Newt Gingrich tried to shut down the government; that failed.
Bush has succeeded where Newt failed, and nobody noticed it until now.