Notes compiled by P. Keeshan
This investigation into the extent of Acosta’s involvement in the theft of the 2004 election was prompted by the Washington Post report that the Justice Department approved the Texas Redistricting plan in defiance of the unanimous conclusion, issued by the attorneys in the Voting Rights section, that the plan violated the Voting Rights Act.
Note: The leak of the report that Bush appointees at Justice overruled the unanimous opinion of career lawyers was probably an MLH (a modified, limited, hang out) – an attempt to soften things up for the day SCOTUS declares the map unconstitutional. (You know. It’s old news. Was upheld. No reason to question why SCOTUS didn’t overturn the map BEFORE the election. Nothing to see here.)
The Texas case was not alone. The chief of the department's voting rights section, John Tanner, overruled staff on Georgia's ID req and Republican-backed redistricting in Mississippi too.
During the election, Tanner's recommendations went to R. Alexander Acosta Assistant Atty Gen Civil Rights Division who issued (if the change benefited repubs) or denied (if the change benefited dems) preclearnce.
The timeline of preclearance and other department actions is very telling.
June 20, 2003. Ashcroft announces New Leadership in Civil Rights division. Boyd out heading out, Acosta nominated.
Who are these guys? See Who’s who in the right-wing conspiracy. Not surprising, both Boyd and Acosta are members of the Federalist society. Acosta’s bio on WH site.
Something the bio fails to mention: Acosta clerked for Alito 1994-1995
Acosta was apparently put in place to do the dirty work and then later sent down to Florida (see June 10, 2005 entry below) to make sure the he couldn’t become the personification of the insupportable actions. Perhaps they anticipated the need for damage control in the Abramoff scandal. Or they sent him down to corrupt the upcoming Florida elections. Or maybe they sent him to FL to reward the guy with a job back home. (Acosta is a Cuban from Miami.) Or all of the above!
In any case, it appears they didn’t trust Acosta’s predecessor, Ralph Boyd to do the dirty work (being black and all, Federalist Society member or not). See Misc on Boyd.
August 2003. Acosta is confirmed by Senate.
December 20, 2003. Acosta approves Texas remap.
December 23, 2003. Members of congress seek recommendation memo from career staff in Voting section.
January 6, 2004. Three judge panel upholds Texas remap.
September 23, 2004 (per October 29, 2004 report) – Hoyer writes Acosta on September 23. Never hears back. “It has been reported to me that one or more representatives of the Civil Rights Division have told state election officials that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) precludes a state from processing a voter registration form on which the voter fails to check the citizenship box even if the voter has expressly attested on the form to his or her citizenship,” Hoyer wrote Acosta on Sept. 23. "As the principal sponsor of HAVA in the U.S. House of Representatives, I can assure you that is not what HAVA requires. In fact, it is contrary to the letter and the spirit of HAVA and the National Voter Registration Act."
October 19, 2004. SCOTUS tells three judge panel to take a second look at decision to uphold Texas redistricting plan. Of course “The court's action will not affect the 2004 elections in Texas.”
From Justices Order New Look At Tex. Redistricting Case
But exactly how Veith would change the result is unclear. In that case, which was argued and decided at a time when the court was fully aware of the Texas situation, four justices -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- ruled that redistricting is so entwined with partisan politics that no court could objectively decide how much political gerrymandering is too much.Four other justices -- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- would have struck down the Pennsylvania plan. They said that an objective constitutional standard could be developed to judge partisan gerrymandering. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy straddled the issue, agreeing that no objective standard had been found that would invalidate the Pennsylvania plan but insisting a court might still find such a standard in a different case.
"It's somewhat surprising, because Veith was a monumental non-decision, a case in which five justices said partisan gerrymandering cases can go forward, but also said there is no standard by which to judge them," said Richard Hasen, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "It's a way of delaying things. Maybe it makes sense in an election year, and maybe it makes sense where Justice Kennedy doesn't know what he wants to do."
May 20, 2005. Jiménez announces resignation as US Atty for Florida Southern District [link]
June 10, 2005. Acosta resigns. Appointed interim US Atty for Southern district of Florida.
August 15, 2005 (per November 17 report). Aug 15th memo obtained. Justice staff recommends rejection of ID requirement. Overruled. “…In the voting rights section, which handles election-related issues such as the Georgia plan, political appointees also overruled career lawyers in approving GOP-backed redistricting maps in Mississippi and Texas in recent years, current and former employees have said."
November 12, 2005. Washington post reports on exodus from, and low moral at the Civil Rights Division. [link]
Notable: Although Acosta led the division until recently his name is not even mentioned.
August 30, 2005. Acosta’s top priority as US Attorney: Terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Public corruption? Naaahh. His top priority is Porn. [link]
December 2, 2005. Memo leaked. White House non-denial denial (see last paragraph).
December 2, 2005. Texas redistricting case (Henderson v. Perry). Supreme Court Jurisdictional Statement set for 12/2/2005 conference. [link]
May 21, 2002, Boyd at Justice to file Voting Rights Lawsuits. "My hope, my aspiration and my expectation is that in each of those we'll reach an enforceable agreement prior to the filing of the lawsuit," Boyd said. Even so, he indicated the suits still would be filed.” – which of course is what happened. Wimpy agreements. No accountability.
According to November 13, 2005 Post article The Bush administration has filed only three lawsuits -- all of them this year -- under the section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits discrimination against minority voters, and none of them involves discrimination against blacks. The initial case was the Justice Department's first reverse-discrimination lawsuit, accusing a majority-black county in Mississippi of discriminating against white voters."
Where is Boyd now? Since February 2005, at FREDDIE MAC [link]
On the Florida Recount.
Judges have great discretion over the remedies in election cases, but many observers see few options other than a new vote in the area in question. A judge could move to limit the scope of the vote to only those who went to the polls on Nov. 7.A re-vote could take weeks to carry out, on top of the weeks if could take a court to reach such a decision.
"The bottom line is good lawyers can often drag things out, and there are plenty of good lawyers in Florida," said Alex Acosta of Washington's Center of Ethics and Public Policy, a group focusing on constitutional issues.
What a guy. Cynical misuse of the courts to thwart the will of the people is just Okie Dokie with him.
More state specific actions from Redistricting in the News
April 24, 2004 -- Coalition of minorities sue to approve legal may for 2004 elections>.
May 28, 2004 -- Arizona to use 2002 district map despite unconstitutionality.
June 2 -- New, legal map, could have gone into effect if Justice moved quickly.
18-7 Republican congressional delegation; a 84-36 Republican State House; and a 26-14 Republican State Senate. In a state that's pretty much 50-50.
November 11, 2005 -- Independent Commission Initiative challenged. Committee for Fair Elections submits responses to Florida Supreme Court.
February 26th, 2004 -- The Supreme Court refused to grant a stay of the decision prior to the 2004 elections. COX, GA SEC. OF STATE V. LARIOS, SARA, ET AL. The application for a stay of judgment pending the disposition of the appeal presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied.
Georgia, February 16th, 2004 -- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned redistricting maps for Georgia’s state House and Senate. A three-judge federal panel in Atlanta ruled Tuesday that statehouse Democrats tried to gain advantage. . .