Was the leak of Justice staff rejection of Texas redistricting an MLH?

Was the leak of the staff memo rejecting the Texas redistricting plan an MLH (modified, limited, hang-out)?

I poked around a bit. Looks me like they could be softening things up, fearing SCOTUS is going to rule the map unconstitutional. (You know: It's old news. Was upheld. It's debatable. No reason to question why SCOTUS didn’t overturn BEFORE the election. Nothing to see here.)

------ Timeline of Preclearance and Other Actions is VERY Telling -----

The Texas case is 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.

I have no doubt that we are going to find out they did the same in a host of key decisions that affected the 2004 decisions. During the election, Tanner's recommendations went to R. Alexander Acosta Assistant Atty Gen Civil Rights Division who issued (if change benefited repubs) or denied (if the change benefited dems) preclearnce.

June 20, 2003 Ashcroft announces New Leadership in Civil Rights division. Boyd out heading out, Acosta nominated. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/03_ag_374.htm

Who are these guys? Who’s who in the right-wing conspiracy http://www.mediatransparency.com/story.php?storyID=20 Not surprising, both Boyd and Acosta are members of the Federalist society. Acosta bio on WH site. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/racosta-bio.html

The bio fails to mention he clerked for Alito 1994-1995

Looks to me like Acosta was put in place to do the dirty work and then moved out to make sure the he couldn’t become the personification of the insupportable actions. Or perhaps just to reward the guy with a job back home. (Acosta is a Cuban from Miami.). Or they need him in place to help corrupt the upcoming Florida elections.

In any case, it appears they didn’t trust Acosta’s predecessor, Ralph Boyd (being black and all, Federalist Society member or not).

August 2003 -- Acosta is confirmed by Senate.

December 20, 2003 -- Acosta approves Texas remap. http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/002761.html

December 23, 2003 -- Members of congress seek recommendation memo from career staff in Voting section. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/agvotememoreqstltr122303.pdf

January 6, 2004 -- Three judge panel upholds Texas remap. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/06/texas.redistricting.ap/index.html

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.” http://www.southernstudies.org/reports/IncompleteHTML.htm

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.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41782-2004Oct18.html

From the Post article:

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."

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.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602504.html

November 12, 2005 – Washington post reports on exodus from, and low moral at the Civil Rights Division. Notable: Although he led the division until recently Acosta’s name is not even mentioned. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/12/AR2005111201200_pf.html

May 20, 2005 - Jiménez announces resignation as US Atty for Florida Southern District http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/050520-03.html

August 30, 2005 – Acosta’s top priority as US Attorney: Terrorism? Organized crime? Narcotics trafficking? Immigration? Public corruption? Naaahh. His top priority is Porn http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

December 2, 2005, Memo leaked. White House non-denial denial (see last paragraph). http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13315168.htm

December 2, 2005, Texas redistricting case (Henderson v. Perry). Supreme Court Jurisdictional Statement set for 12/2/2005 conference http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/index.php

------- Misc. On Boyd -------------------

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.. http://swdb.berkeley.edu/News_Info/Jusdep.htm

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 http://www.freddiemac.com/bios/exec/boyd.html

---------- Misc. on Acosta -----------

On 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.

Sounds like cynical misuse of the courts to violate voting rights is AOK by him. Great pick for Civil Rights Division.

References from http://swdb.berkeley.edu/News_Info/news_otherstates.html

---------------- Arizona -----------------

April 24, 2004 – Coalition of minorities sue to approve legal may for 2004 elections. http://swdb.berkeley.edu/News_Info/News_articles/2004-2005/arizona%20group%20sues.doc

May 28, 2004, Arizona – Arizona to use 2002 district map despite unconstitutionality. http://swdb.berkeley.edu/News_Info/News_articles/Arizona/Arizona%20to%20use%202002%20districts.doc

June 2 – New, legal map, could have gone into effect if Justice moved quickly. http://swdb.berkeley.edu/News_Info/News_articles/Arizona/Voting%20map%20fight%20over.doc

------------- Florida --------------
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. http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/13133204.htm

-------- Georgia ------------------------

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. . . http://swdb.berkeley.edu/News_Info/News_articles/Georgia/Redistrict%20decision%20expected%20to%20ripple.doc