Issa: Holder being partisan

Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Wednesday that partisan leanings were behind Attorney General Eric Holder’s move to seek a second legal opinion on the D.C.
Voting Rights Act.

Holder asked lawyers from the Solicitor General’s Office to review the measure, which would grant the District a congressional vote, after Justice Department lawyers — charged with determining questions of constitutionality — found the bill to be unconstitutional earlier this year.

{mosads}The lawyers with the Solicitor General’s Office — the office that would argue for the government in support of the bill if it was questioned before the Supreme Court — found the legislation to be constitutionally defendable in the event of a legal challenge.

“Your willingness to shop for the legal opinion you desire demonstrates questionable judgment and partisan political motivations,” said Issa (R-Calif.), who is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, in a letter to Holder on Wednesday.

“More concerning, however, is your willingness to unilaterally make constitutional determinations that are adverse to the Justice Department lawyers charged with analyzing such questions. Your decision places partisan political motivations over the professional legal judgment of Justice Department lawyers.”

The bill, which would also add a congressional seat for Utah, passed the Senate earlier this year for the first time in more than 30 years. But the measure has stalled in the House after Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) attached an amendment to the Senate-passed bill that would loosen D.C.’s gun laws and lessen penalties for people found in possession of illegal firearms.

Supporters of the voting rights measure have expressed concerns that if lawyers determined the measure to be unconstitutional — as lawyers with the Bush administration did — it could complicate the House vote and make a stronger case for a legal challenge.

Issa blasted Holder in his letter, saying that by not being satisfied with the opinion of the department’s lawyers he was failing to fulfill his pledge to bring change to the office of the attorney general.

“At your confirmation hearing … in your opening statement you pledged, ‘I will work to restore the credibility of a department badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference,’” said Issa in his letter.

“It is the (Office of Legal Counsel’s) opinion that the D.C. voting rights bill is unconstitutional and yet you have ignored their legal reasoning and judgment. You have taken the first step down the slippery slope of politicization.”

Issa asked Holder to produce any material related to the question of the measure’s constitutionality.

“In order to better understand your decision, and the legal reasoning behind your seemingly haphazard decision to reject the Office of Legal Counsel’s reasoning that the D.C. voting rights is unconstitutional, please produce any memoranda prepared by OLC and the Solicitor General regarding the constitutionality of the D.C. voting rights bill. If you refuse to provide their opinions, please provide us with a detailed explanation for your decision.”

The Justice Department has defended its position of seeking another legal opinion on the measure.

“The attorney general weighed the advice of different people inside the department as well as the opinions of legal scholars, and made his own determination that the D.C. voting rights bill is constitutional,” said a department spokesman earlier this month.

The department did not return immediate calls for comment.