Is it the end for Hans von Spakovsky?

From what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the Senate floor last night, it appears so. Given the ongoing opposition to Spakovsky by Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), Reid called for a vote on the individual nominees to the Federal Election Commission. But the Republican leadership, as they have from the beginning, insisted on voting on the four nominees, both Democratic and Republican, together, thus protecting Spakovsky from being voted down, but also preventing the confirmation of any of the other nominees.

At the end of the year, von Spakovsky's recess appointment to the commission will expire. Of course, that could lead to other problems, but our favorite vote-suppression guru wouldn't be one of them.

Reid's remarks are below.

Mr. von Spakovsky has been controversial since the President recess appointed him almost two years ago.

That controversy stems from his now well-documented work as a Justice Department lawyer in the voting rights section.

My colleagues on the other side say that Mr. von Spakovsky's work on matters that suppress minority voting such as voter photo ID and the Texas redistricting issue have nothing to do with his responsibilities on the FEC.

I take issue with that argument. The problem I and many of my colleagues have with Mr. von Spakovsky is that his prior work demonstrates that he is - at the least - a partisan manipulator of our federal election laws.

That, it seems to me, is highly relevant to the advise and consent duty the Constitution puts in our care as Senators.

But that is a decision each Senator in this body should be permitted to make. The Republican action today prevents us from making it.

It's important to note how we got here and the concessions that have been made on our side.

Mr. von Spakovsky's history not surprisingly led a number of Senators on our side to demand that we impose a 60-vote threshold on the nomination.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans demanded that the Senate only consider the nominations of the remaining 3 non-controversial nominees if Mr. von Spakovsky was confirmed by the Senate.

These two positions, Mr. President, could not be further apart.

In view of that impasse, I have long suggested that the White House withdraw Mr. von Spakovsky's nomination and substitute a new name of the President's choosing.

Despite this, Mr. von Spakovsky's nomination has endured.

As the days ran short in this session, my Democratic colleagues indicated to me they would consider allowing for a majority vote for each of the nominees.

That resulted in my ability to make this unanimous consent request here today and I thank my colleagues for their work with me in that regard.

That work should have meant that the FEC would continue to function.

It should have meant that campaign finance laws will be enforced in the next election.

It should have meant that the FEC would be able to complete its new bundling rules.

But it won't, because Republicans will obstruct a vote on these nominees – including their own.

My colleagues seek Mr. von Spakovsky's confirmation even though a majority of senators may not support that nomination.

That, it seems to me, is truly extraordinary.

Mr. President, a lot has been said about the precedents on FEC appointments. Those arguments are essentially that FEC nominations always move as a package together.

That, of course, can mean different things to different people. It is true that FEC nominees have usually moved as pairs together by unanimous consent.

I would say that the pairing of nominees is generally the rule on all board and commission nominations.

That is a fact not by reason of precedent as much as by reason of necessity.

Nomination pairings occur because it gives both sides the reason to come to the table and confirm nominees.

There are also cases of FEC nominees not moving together by unanimous consent. One recent case is that of former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith.

Mr. Smith was very controversial on our side of the aisle and required a roll call vote, which he got; he succeeded in winning confirmation.

There are also cases I would note where a Republican president did not respect the Democratic selection of a FEC nominee.

President Reagan, for example, refused to send up the Democratic selection of Tom Harris because the Republicans objected to his nomination.

These different examples do show there is no single precedent about how nominations are handled.

As is so often in the case in nominations, a lot depends – as it should – on the actual identity of the nominee in question.

I do think, however, that as a rule, the offer of a majority vote on a nominee is presumptively fair.

If a nominee is so controversial that he cannot win the support of a majority of senators, the Constitution and the rules of this body dictate the appropriate outcome for that nominee.

It is my hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their position. It is my hope that the White House will reconsider its support for this controversial nominee.

If they do not, the responsibility for a defunct FEC rests on their shoulders.