 |
|
|
 Editorials | Issues | November 2006 
US Democrats Pledge to Scrutinize Justice's Civil Rights Arm
 Charlie Savage - Boston Globe
| | The above graphic is from a wall on the Department of Justice. |
Washington - Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee last week vowed to impose intense oversight on the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division next year, telling a Bush administration official in charge of the agency that the next Congress will scrutinize whether civil rights laws are being properly enforced.
Speaking at the first Civil Rights Division oversight hearing since May 2002, the Democrats cited several newspaper articles about the agency over the past year - including a Globe analysis of changes in the hiring process for lawyers in the division - and said they would investigate the administration's stewardship of the agency after they regain power in January.
"There are disturbing reports that career lawyers have been shut out of the division's decision-making process, that the division's civil rights enforcement on behalf of racial minorities has sharply declined, and that the department has packed the division with attorneys who have no background in civil rights litigation," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who will become committee chairman in January.
Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said he wanted to know whether the Bush administration was exerting political interference on the division's decisions about when to file cases. The agency has long been a source of political tension because it is charged with enforcing antidiscrimination laws and reviewing changes to state voting rules.
"For the separation of powers designed by the Framers to work, we in the legislative branch need to take our oversight authority seriously," Feingold said. "While this hearing is the first good step, it is just a first step. It is clear that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice requires our attention and that one hearing will not suffice."
Wan Kim, assistant attorney general for civil rights, said he welcomed congressional attention.
"I certainly share your ... interest in oversight," Kim said, adding that he has "a deep and abiding respect for this committee and the work that it does in making sure that all branches of government are operating consistent with the law."
One major focus by the lawmakers was a change in hiring procedures. In July, the Globe reported that in late 2002, the Bush administration disbanded a longstanding hiring committee of veteran career lawyers. Political appointees took over screening résumés, interviewing applicants, and deciding who should fill vacancies in the permanent civil service ranks.
After the change, successful applicants were significantly less likely to have civil rights backgrounds, according to a Globe analysis of résumés obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. New hires were also more likely to have conservative credentials, such as membership in the Federalist Society, a group that takes a skeptical view of aggressive civil rights enforcement.
Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, each raised the Globe article as an example of mounting "concerns" over the division's direction. Also, Leahy read a summary of the Globe's findings, then pressed Kim on whether ideology had become a factor in the hiring process.
Kim acknowledged that the hiring committees had been disbanded by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. But he said "ideology is not a factor in my hiring process." He pledged that he would hire only "talented lawyers" who "share a commitment for the work that we do in the division."
Leahy accepted Kim's answer, but told the assistant attorney general that "I suspect during the coming year ... we'll probably chat some more."
Specter then observed to laughter: "Sounds like a well-founded suspicion to me."
The senators also pressed Kim about several voting-rights decisions in which the division's leadership overruled career staff recommendations. In several cases, courts later rejected the division's conclusion that redistricting plans or laws were lawful.
One case involved a Georgia law that required voters without driver's licenses to buy an ID card for $20. A federal judge later blocked the law, comparing it to a Jim Crow-era "poll tax." Kim defended the Justice Department's decision to sign off on the new requirement, saying it was consistent with all relevant statutes.
Lawmakers also raised concerns about the division's process of deciding whether to bring discrimination cases. The number of cases alleging systematic discrimination against blacks has declined from previous administrations. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us