More on Hans von Spakovsky

by Joe Rich

Over the past few months there has been a lot of debate and discussion concerning the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Elections Commission.  The National Campaign for Fair Elections and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law strongly opposes his nomination because of the key role he played in the politicization of voting rights in the Department of Justice.  Today, the Washington Post published a letter by Gerry Hebert of the Campaign Legal Center and me about von Spakovsky.

The letter, titled "The Wrong Choice for the FEC," stated:

The editorial noted that one of the nominees, Hans A. von Spakovsky, was a central player in the politicization of the Justice Department who took a series of actions over several years to undermine the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Even George F. Will, in his Dec. 11 column supporting Mr. von Spakovsky ["Paralyze the FEC? Splendid."], had to resort to unwarranted attacks on the nominee’s detractors, including both of us.

The Post urged senators to hold their noses and confirm Mr. von Spakovsky and the other nominees. That would be wrong. We were career Justice Department employees, and, between us, we have over 55 years of experience working in the Civil Rights Division—under mostly Republican administrations. The level of politicization under the Bush administration, consistently reported on and criticized by The Post, is unprecedented and has undermined the department’s credibility. To urge that a central player in this politicization be rewarded with confirmation to the FEC disregards the serious damage he caused to the department.

There are two possible solutions: The president could find an acceptable nominee to replace Mr. von Spakovsky or the Senate could confirm two commissioners, one Democrat and one Republican. That would give the FEC four commissioners to conduct its business. Either solution is preferable to rewarding someone who has both shown a disdain for campaign finance laws and amassed a disgraceful record of vote suppression.

The letter was in response to a December 7, 2008 Washington Post editorial, "The Missing Referee."  The editorial accurately pointed out several of the issues with von Spakovsky’s record:

Mr. von Spakovsky is not the FEC commissioner we would have chosen—not by a long shot. At Justice, he overruled career staff members who urged that the department block enforcement of a Georgia voter identification law; the requirement was ultimately found unconstitutional. Similarly, he blocked career staffers who wanted to stop a Texas congressional redistricting plan; a divided Supreme Court later rejected part of the plan. Six former voting section employees asserted that Mr. von Spakovsky participated in politicizing the Civil Rights Division.

During his tenure at the FEC, Mr. von Spakovsky has at times sarcastically referred to campaign finance reform advocates as the "IPL," or "Incumbency Protection League." He has compared some campaign finance rules to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Over the top, yes, but Mr. von Spakovsky has not demonstrated the utter hostility to campaign finance laws that led us to oppose, unsuccessfully, the confirmation of former FEC member Bradley Smith.

Unfortunately, the Post ultimately decided paralyzing the FEC was far worse than allowing a person with such a terrible track record to be rewarded for his efforts to neuter our government’s voting rights enforcement.  The Lawyers’ Committee and I respectfully disagree.