« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
New DoJ Manual Adopts Administration's Voter Fraud Focus
Not to worry, America. The continued menace of voter fraud will remain a focus of your Justice Department.
It went overlooked amid the other problems with Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) questioned the attorney general about changes recently made to the Justice Department's election crimes manual. The new version (pdf), which replaced the 1995 manual, lowers the bar in terms of voter fraud prosecutions -- no longer cautioning against pursuing isolated, individual cases of fraud and softening language that had all but prohibited pursuing such cases before an election. "Two and possibly three of the fired U.S. attorneys were fired because they didn't bring those small cases that might affect an election," she observed. "Something's rotten in Denmark."
Feinstein, was referring, of course, to former U.S. attorneys David Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay of Seattle -- both of whom investigated alleged Democratic instances of voter fraud and chose not to prosecute. Todd Graves of Kansas City, who was replaced by Bradley Schlozman, would be the possible third addition.
You can watch the clip below (a transcript is appended). Gonzales, characteristically, didn't know anything about the change.
There are a couple things to be said about this.
First, the new manual does indeed omit crucial language from the 1995 manual, which said:
"The Justice Department generally does not favor prosecution of isolated fraudulent voting transactions. This is based in part on constitutional issues that arise when federal jurisdiction is asserted in matters having only a minimal impact on the integrity of the voting process."
But this is not a new development. The Justice Department under John Ashcroft began pursuing individual cases of fraud in 2002 on the theory that that such cases would deter more fraud. Five years later, there's no evidence that's the case -- instead, as The New York Times documented in the landmark piece on the subject, prosecutors have pursued cases of ex-convicts voting, people on probation voting, etc. The prior policy meant that cases were "only brought against conspiracies to corrupt the process," Craig Donsanto, the chief of the Department's Election Crimes Branch, told (pdf) the Election Assistance Commission. "For deterrence purposes," Donsanto said, "the Attorney General decided [in 2002] to add the pursuit of individuals who vote when not eligible to vote (noncitizens, felons) or who vote more than once." As the Times showed, such an aggressive policy has failed to uncover corruption of the election process, but has triumphed in prosecuting several individuals who seem to have been simply confused about whether they could vote or not. Despite such dubious results, the Justice Department has enshrined the policy in its new manual.
The new manual has also removed language from the 1995 version about investigating voter fraud shortly before the election. The past version was crystal clear, saying that the Department "must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself," that investigators should be "extremely careful" about it, and that "most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates." The new version does not supplant that policy, but certainly softens it. It reads:
Election fraud cases often depend on the testimony of individual voters whose votes were co-opted in one way or another. But in most cases voters should not be interviewed, or other voter-related investigation done, until after the election is over. Such overt investigative steps may chill legitimate voting activities. They are also likely to be perceived by voters and candidates as an intrusion into the election. Indeed, the fact of a federal criminal investigation may itself become an issue in the election.
Readers will remember that this precise passage from the 1995 manual proved a giant headache for former U.S. attorney Bradley Schlozman, who brought four indictments against voter registration workers for ACORN just before the 2006 election. The indictments, of course, were widely reported. The new, less forcefully worded, manual wouldn't have caused him so much trouble.
Here's the transcript from the hearing:
FEINSTEIN: All right. Let me go to something else. You, of course, recognize these books, "The Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses." In prior hearings, we had the 1995 edition.FEINSTEIN: Since May of this year, there is now a new edition. I'd like to read to you what has been dropped from the earlier edition.
The first thing that's been removed is this: "The Justice Department generally does not favor prosecution of isolated fraudulent voting transactions. This is based in part on constitutional issues that arise when federal jurisdiction is asserted in matters having only a minimal impact on the integrity of the voting process." This was removed in this new edition.
The second thing: "The Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself." This is weakened on page 92. This language is removed. "Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful to not conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period of while the election is under way." Removed.
Then a sentence that's underlined in the '95 edition, which states thus: "Most, if not all, investigations of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates." It was removed in this new edition.
Weakened was this language: "It should also be kept in mind that any investigation undertaken during the final stages of a political contest may cause the investigation itself to become a campaign issue."
Why was it necessary to remove this language in this new edition in the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses rules?
GONZALES: Senator, I don't -- sitting here today, I don't know the answer to that question. I would like to find out, because I am certainly committed to ensuring that we're smart in the way that we do investigations and prosecutions and we do in a way that doesn't intimidate voters, that doesn't chill potential voters from coming out and voting on Election Day.
So I would like the opportunity to look into this and respond back to you.FEINSTEIN: Appreciate it. It becomes more relevant because two and possibly three of the fired U.S. attorneys were fired because they didn't bring those small cases that might affect an election.
And therefore, when one looks at this book now, sees a new book coming out in May '07 that deletes the very things that these U.S. attorneys were told to follow, something's rotten in Denmark.
GONZALES: Thank you for the opportunity for me to look into that.
FEINSTEIN: I appreciate that.
Thank you very much. My time is up.
Comments (31)
JMOHR wrote on July 27, 2007 2:04 PM:This will provide a clear indication of what will happen during the 2008 elections. We will see numerous cases brought against individuals who typically lean Democratic in order to intimidate voters. Legitimate registration drives will be hounded with any insignificant issue rising to a well publicized investigation. There will be no complimentary attention paid to the Republicans; who will, as usual, attempt to get away with murder. I would expect Republican candidates to decry a massive "liberal" conspiracy to sabatoge the election.
DT wrote on July 27, 2007 2:10 PM:OK -- here's a practical question: what the hell does Gonzo do all day?? Cause he ain't reviewing anything that DOJ does.
Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 2:10 PM:Is there anything Gonzalez DOES know about?
Slim Pickin's wrote on July 27, 2007 2:26 PM:Guitar hero... lots and lots of guitar hero.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/121636/772
njdem wrote on July 27, 2007 2:39 PM:http://tinyurl.com/28oevn
Hmmm and he's up for reelection in November. NJ politics are admittedly a swamp but the dirty dealings in the DoJ cast doubt on this case even if it is valid.
fresh wrote on July 27, 2007 3:00 PM:Well, hopefully, if it is meant to be an advantage to republicans, it is as shortsighted as all of the other moves this administration has made. One would have to assume that this goes both ways, and that a democratically appointed AG would be free to investigate and prosecute allegations of voter fraud, including jamming phone lines, intimidating minority voters, and all the other accusations toward republicans that surfaced after the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Apparently, this administration hasn't learned after the 2006 elections that this is a democracy, and the pendulum tends to swing back the other way now and then.
tulip wrote on July 27, 2007 3:00 PM:I'm very grateful to you for bringing this up-- at last! I noticed it during the hearing (watched much too much of it)& it was driving me kee-razy that the MSM overlooked it again.
How are we going to stop them from stealing the election? How much mony, how many volunteers or lawyers or blogs will it take? Because they're going to go all out to steal. Stole '00. Stole '04. Now, gunning for 08. It's going to get bloody
fresh wrote on July 27, 2007 3:10 PM:Shortsighted again. Don't they realize that this frees up a democratically appointed AG to investigate jamming phone lines, minority voter intimidation, and the other accusations towards republicans during elections?
Apparently this administration (sad, but I now have to lump DOJ in with the administration) did not learn from the 2006 elections. This is a democracy, and the pendulum does tend to swing back the other way now and then. This reminds me of when the republican majority tried to do away with the filibuster, and then lost the majority less than a year later. There are safeguards in place to ensure 'fairness,' and the more that the republicans remove, the more they will have to deal with when they are on the other side.
It is terrifying that the people with such an alarming lack of foresight are making the most significant decisions in the world today.
AKnutson wrote on July 27, 2007 3:13 PM:fresh:
That was Rove's plan for the past 6 years, there would never be a Democrat in the WH again, he and other Republi.... were trying to pervert the process and insure there was a one party state.
fresh wrote on July 27, 2007 3:13 PM:oops. apologize for double post, thought first one didn't go through. how shortsighted of me.
jacqueline grant wrote on July 27, 2007 3:53 PM:No by me it didnt . I called a few senators including Senator Feinstein the next day.
Joe wrote on July 27, 2007 4:36 PM:I told them that Gonzales is still an arm of the republican party and Rove 's main water boy.
This change was made this year . May 2007!!!!!
I also said he has to go . If in 2007 their still trying to disenfranchise minorities after we tell them we know what your doing (Griffin and caging)
and they still continue to do it and still think they can get away with it, Someone should lose their job(s)!!!!!!!
I also ask the center for american progress to
bring attention to this matter.
So i'm glad to see you guys have finally caught on!!!!!!!!
The Bush Administration will do all it can to keep the "nasty poor people" from voting. It's hard being an elitist upper class guy trying to steal an election fair and square with all of those poor people and minorities running around. If you can't afford to take time off from work or get a babysitter, or you're in too poor health to vote, then you really have no business voting.
anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 4:44 PM:LOYAL BUSHIES ONLY!
"OK -- here's a practical question: what the hell does Gonzo do all day??"
Here's a practical answer: he polishes W's shoes, cleans his toilet, "waxes" his rod, and then begs for other subservient and belittling chores that will demonstrate his abject loyalty and obeisance.
There just is no time left for AG work.
Gonzo wrote on July 27, 2007 6:30 PM:It's curious to note Gonzales denial of knowledge as to why the language was removed or altered in the new book. He very cuiously states to Senator Feinstein the following...
"I am certainly committed to ensuring that we're smart in the way that we do investigations and prosecutions and we do in a way that doesn't intimidate voters, that doesn't chill potential voters from coming out and voting on Election Day."
He uses the word "chill" which if you look at the lanugage in the article from the new manual it infact uses Gonzales own strange words. It states "But in most cases voters should not be interviewed, or other voter-related investigation done, until after the election is over. Such overt investigative steps may chill legitimate voting activities."
Seems strange he would use that very word to deny knowledge of these changes when in fact we know he was in the middle of changing the DOJ's new manual to fit whatever political nonsense his boss is giving him.
Steve5117 wrote on July 27, 2007 6:33 PM:The PBS program NOW will be about vote caging tonight.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/index.html
BimBeau wrote on July 27, 2007 8:30 PM:If memory serves ... Isn't Anne Coulter the only demonstrated case of voter fraud, so far, uncovered? Has the Republican administration of either the United States or Florida, either one, initiated proceedings?
PurpleAvenger wrote on July 27, 2007 9:28 PM:Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Prima racism for the primadonna racist of all!
One of the most appalling things about this is the use of the Voting Rights Act - yup, the law designed to protect minority voters from intimidation - to prosecute isolated instances of, say, felons voting. That's for sure the statute used against Kimberly Prude (Wisconsin). Along the theory of, a vote by a single person who shouldn't be voting is a corruption of the voting process . .. which would be bad enough on its own, but when used over and over again while the true systemic voter intimidation is being ignored, is truly a perversion of the law.
PJ White wrote on July 28, 2007 12:02 AM:I find this chillingly interesting. That is, it makes my blood run cold. The Repugs have a two-pronged plan and they are entirely interdependent. One: unitary executive; Two: permanent Repug majority. They are going to go all out to ensure the majority and rigging the elections is a cog in that wheel. They sure don't want the Dems to have a unitary executive and they are going to steal yet another election to ensure that that doesn't happen. Karl Rasputin has a plan. And the two things go hand in GLOVE (SC).
FRP wrote on July 28, 2007 7:46 AM:Gonzalez
The Skeptical Cynic wrote on July 28, 2007 9:29 PM:One word
Oxymoron
Lesson to be learned by America's youth from 7 years and counting of the Bush Administration in its entirety.
If I don't remember it,it never happened.
modmom wrote on July 28, 2007 11:20 PM:What's the next question?
One just has to look at all these new executive powers * is signing and knowing the ground swell of anger against the Republicans (and the likelihood of a Dem President) you have to assume they are either planning to steal ANOTHER election or have some event resulting in martial law prevent the election. Why else would he be building power for a branch of government they are likely to lose?
Josh wrote on July 28, 2007 11:41 PM:Okay... so that's it?
Gonzo is the key to the stolen elections... hence his teflon?
Rewritten election manual reflects the reasons behind US Atty firing scandal. The DoJ fired US-A's that refused to challenge single instance voters... ala the swing state RNC caging tactics. Then there's Diebold.
code: snake
Robert Benjamin wrote on July 29, 2007 6:19 AM:Section 241 of Title 18 is mentioned on pages 61 and 62 of the Guide. The Guide describes the kind of criminal conspiracy that seems to be involved here, and the hard time that conviction can bring. I would expect that this, not just the possibility of perjury indictments, is what Gonzales, Schlozman, et al are really afraid of.
Here is what the DoJ itself has to say:
"Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
Looks like a lot of potential 10-year sentences in Federal Prisons are on the table.
Al in Austex wrote on July 29, 2007 9:06 AM:We need to remember that my once Grand Old Party has sold its soul to the NeoCons and the right wing neo fascist that call themselves Christians .The historical event that started this demise of the GOP can be traced back to the parties emebrace of the Dixiecrats ie (Strom Thurmond) .The paty the GOP has morphed into is very dangeroues to our democracy -a direct threat make no mistake- a clear & present danger. We need to slow walk the investigations into 2009 -so we can get criminal convictions for many of these Brooks Brothers Brownshirts - meanwhile we need to start Impeachment proceedings immediately against Cheney -pick any one of Bruce Fein's charges -come Sept -we might even have enough Senate Republicans worried about re-election to have enough votes to Convict the VEEP .
Louise wrote on July 29, 2007 10:54 AM:But make no mistake- TurdBlossom et al want to subvert our democratic way of life -all of the crimes they have committed are to further their goal of One Party Rule . They are soul less & and again a clear & present . Don't believe me go ask JAG David Iglesias -fired by Rove as the USA in New Mexico.
"That was Rove's plan for the past 6 years, there would never be a Democrat in the WH again, he and other Republi..."
That has been Rove's plan since high school. (Hell, he was writing mash notes to Richard Nixon back then.) He couldn't stand those cool hippy Democratic kids who got all the chicks and seemed so confident and were always making fun of the President. Well HAHA. He'd show them.
He's been working on this for 40 years. He stuck with Shrub because he appreciated Bush's inate scorn and cruelty and he saw the perfect vehicle to ride to the plan's completion.
Questions: When did Rove start consolidating groups of like-minded faux-aristocracy to assist him? He's obviously got a very complicated plan-book, with a lot of wargaming that's been done. What is his analysis of the course we are on, and how is he planning to steer it in his direction?
eric wrote on July 29, 2007 4:31 PM:Congadulations to Rove and Norquist for their successful drive to "Kill the beast". where Bin Laden united Americans, they have deliberately through incompetent political appointments destroyed the integrity of our government. My question is why aren't they considered terrorists?
Blue Patriot wrote on July 29, 2007 9:55 PM:Do they still hang traitors?
Awe hell. Let's start the proceedings, and get these quislings in leg irons. That'll take the swagger out of Cheney and his mongols.
Bush will get by without a scratch. He'll be hosting "The Price is Right" in 10 years.
Justice, where is your sword?
myiq2xu wrote on July 30, 2007 1:53 PM:We know that no one in the Bush administration would do anything improper - BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICANS!
Only members of the Democrat party ever do anything like that.
If we don't stamp out voter fraud by minorities and liberals - THE TERRORISTS WIN!!
AL QUEDA! WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! GAY MARRIAGE!
Nick wrote on July 30, 2007 5:23 PM:Ms. Kiel,
Are the fired US attorneys, alleged Democratic party voter fraud, and illegal wiretapping–the details of which are still "secret"–connected?
Say, for example, the FBI–at the behest of Karl Rove or some other Republican Party operative–used the illegal wiretapping program to pry into Democratic Party officials communications in tight congressional races, somehow trying to find evidence of voter fraud. They would then put this evidence in front of the US Attorneys, who would then have to test the legality of the evidence in court.
Or something like that. Is this too conspiracy-minded? Is there a plausible master narrative that connects all three elements (voter fraud, fired USAs, illegal wiretapping)?
Because it looks, to me, like this is the road Sen Leahy is going down.
Matthew Holden, Jr. wrote on July 31, 2007 12:44 PM:This is not directly responsive to the preceding series of comments. I have been following U. S. v. Ike Brown, a case involving Noxubee County, Miss., under Section 2 of the VRA. The Goverment has prevailed in the trial court, in an action claiming black officials discriminated against white voters. The Government proposed to have a court appointed administrator take over the elections for the next four years. I would appreciate comment on the precedent for this recommentation.
azbill wrote on July 31, 2007 9:23 PM:The only voter fraud I know of is mAnn Coulter in Florida. She registered under penalty of perjury that her address was really where her realtor lived. Beside that mAnn voted in yet another district. She is a criminal and broke the law. Why was she not brought up under charges??
I guess the same reason Lush Limpballs was not persecuted for his criminal behavior concerning a federally controlled substance, Oxycontin. AKA as prescription herion. Both are walking free just because they are ignorant loud mouths.