The Office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today released a letter she sent to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), requesting a hearing on the apparent the manipulation of the bipartisan nature of the nonpartisan U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Norton is particularly concerned about a 2004 opinion of the Commission's Legal Counsel that found that sitting Commissioners could switch their party affiliations after joining the Commission in order to allow the President to appoint a member of that party. Norton, a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said, "In our country, people, of course, can and do change their party identification, and most do so during voting registration periods. However, close observers of the Commission have found that party changes have been significant and have appeared strategic in order to allow the appointment of a member of a particular party who otherwise could not have been appointed to the bipartisan Commission." Norton said she was requesting "an investigation of the legal validity of the Legal Counsel's opinion and testimony concerning the facts about party changes." The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and several organizations asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to do an investigation in January.
The full text of Norton's letter follows:
The Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chair
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
B353 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Nadler:
I am writing to ask for your help in resolving what I believe are serious problems that persist at the United States Commission on Civil Rights ("Commission"). I believe that fact finding through a hearing that explores the issues would make a very important beginning. Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights ("LCCR") wrote to Attorney General Mukasey on January 29, 2008 to inform him of the apparent manipulation of the bipartisan nature of the Commission, resulting in degradation of nonpartisan investigations against minorities and others.
The LCCR letter asked that the Attorney General review a 2004 decision of the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"). LCCR clearly stated the controversy that the OLC "issued an opinion that construes the statutory requirement that [n]ot more than 4 of the members [of the Commission] shall at any one time be of the same political party,' as requiring that the president assess the party affiliation of sitting Commission members and potential Commission appointees only at the time any new member is appointed. This interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1975 allows the president to appoint as many commissioners to the Civil Rights Commission of the same political party as he chooses, as long as a sufficient number of sitting commissioners switch political party affiliations prior to individual presidential appointments, thus undermining the statutory bipartisan requirement." We know of no action that has been taken.
Moreover, I believe that the OLC opinion undermines the original intent of Congress when it created the Civil Rights Commission in 1957 as part of the Civil Rights Act, and Congress' intent in 1983 when the Commission was expanded to eight members. In 1957 and 1983, Congress preserved the bipartisan composition of the Commission in an effort to allow the Commission to deliver opinions that were not subject to the pressures of partisan politics.
The 2004 opinion by the OLC has undermined the bipartisan composition of the Commission by allowing for a member's party affiliation to be determined each time a new member joins the Commission. This abuse has permitted members to switch their affiliation after joining the Commission, resulting in the possibility of stacking the Commission with members from the same political party. The LCCR letter explained that there already have been several occasions where members of the Commission switched their political affiliation in order to make room for another member of their original party to be appointed.
It occurred to me that a hearing in your subcommittee on this matter would start the process of once again ensuring that the Commission is a nonpartisan agency that operates without any appearance of partisan politics.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Holmes Norton