Quashing Dissent
The civil-rights commission tries to silence its critics.

By NR’s John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru
July 17, 2001 12:30 p.m.

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?