|
 nybody
who wants to read the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights analysis of
the Florida election can do it on the commission's
web page. What you won't find there, however, is the dissent
released last month by the panel's two GOP-appointed members, Russell
G. Redenbaugh and Abigail Thernstrom. There's no reference to it
at all; it's as though it doesn't exist. In fact, the dissent will
never appear on the commission's web page if commission liberals
have their way.
At the commission's
monthly meeting last Friday, Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso announced
that the dissent — which criticizes the majority report as "dangerous
and divisive" — was a pack of lies. He merely asserted this,
without bothering to refute any of the specific claims made by Redenbaugh
and Thernstrom. Next he demanded that the commission vote to suppress
the dissent ( by depriving it of official standing). Commission
chairman Mary Frances Berry saw the peril in proceeding down that
path and warned Reynoso, but the commission went forward with the
motion anyway. It failed, although three commissioners actually
voted to censor the work of their colleagues in the minority. (They
were Reynoso, Yvonne Lee, and Victoria Wilson.)
Reynoso may
yet have his way. He also argued that the dissent is illegal, on
the ridiculous grounds that Redenbaugh and Thernstrom consulted
with Yale researcher John Lott for their detailed statistical analysis
of the ballots. Because Lott volunteered his time, said Reynoso,
his labors violate the requirement that nobody can do work for the
federal government without compensation.
This is a silly
point — there's no law saying commissioners can't seek input from
people outside the commission. It's also an affront to the idea
of scholarly inquiry. The search for truth should not be compromised
by payroll questions.
The commission
nevertheless passed a motion saying Redenbaugh and Thernstrom must
meet with the commission's general counsel, Edward Hailes, to determine
the legality of their dissent. Hailes is a Clinton-administration
holdover and was deeply involved in the majority report, which Redenbaugh
and Thernstrom labeled "a partisan document that has little
basis in fact."
This closed-door
tactic comes as no surprise. Freedom withers in darkness. The good
news, however, is that the dissent already has seen the light of
day; it
is available to anyone via NRO.
On the Site
Melissa
Seckora: Where does the ABA stand on judicial independence now?
|
