Last spring, former Justice Department lawyer Hans von Spakovsky wrote an article – published anonymously under the name of Publius – regarding Voter ID laws for the Texas Review of Law & Politics. The article, published while von Spakosky was counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights, came as the department was considering Georgia’s Voter ID law, cited data that showed that such laws do not disenfranchise voters, despite anecdotal claims to the contrary.

Now the ACLU is up in arms over the article, demanding that von SpakoskyÂ’s views not even be considered as a new Georgia law, which was passed to meet concerns expressed by liberal groups and a federal court, is evaluated by the Justice Department.

ACLU lawyer [Neil] Bradley believes von Spakovsky's involvement in clearing the previous law could taint consideration of the current law. Bradley has asked Wan J. Kim, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, to take steps to ensure von Spakovsky's views are not considered as part of the review of Georgia's new law.

In other words, the views of someone with expertise in election laws and who has reviewed the evidence rather than repeated the scare-stories should be excluded from consideration when laws are evaluated for discriminatory effect. Rather than attack the argument made by von Spakovsky, the ACLU lawyer attacks the man who holds them.

But more shocking is this inane quote from the ACLUÂ’s Bradley.

Neil Bradley, a lawyer for the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said the anonymous nature of von Spakovsky's writing is particularly alarming.

"Here's a man who had strong enough views that he published it, but then wanted to hide the fact he had the views," Bradley said. "Either he should have the views and stand up straight and admit them or he shouldn't be involved in the process."

Let's ignore the fact that such a statement is contrary to the official position of the ACLU on anonymous political speech -- a position taken repeatedly over the years.

It also ignores the history of political speech in America, in which pseudonymous and allonymous writings date back to before the American Revolution. That tradition includes the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to justify the aadoption of the US Constitution. Would Bradley like to argue that these men should not have been involved in the ratification process?

Oh, and by the way -- like von Spakovsky's article, the Federalist Papers were originally published under the name "Publius".

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.