Press Releases

Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a full committee hearing entitled, “Mismanagement at the Civil Right Division of the Department of Justice.” During his opening remarks, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:

“Mr. Chairman, once again, I must object to the title of this hearing:  ‘Mismanagement at the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.’ Unnecessarily provocative language demeans the seriousness of the work we do in this committee.  Our job is to uncover the facts, and then draw conclusions—not the other way around.

“In this case, the title is also misleading.  It is designed to obscure the facts, rather than to make them clear to the public.  And it is intended to harm the reputation of a champion for civil rights and a decent public servant.

“Two days from now, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez will sit before the Senate as the president’s nominee to lead the Department of Labor.  His tenure as head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has been successful by any measure.  To suggest otherwise is both inaccurate and unfair.  Let us look carefully at the record. 

“The recent report of the Office of the Inspector General, titled ‘A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division,’ does, in fact, suggest that there has been mismanagement at the Civil Rights Division.  But that mismanagement did not occur under today’s leadership.

“Under the Bush administration, the Civil Rights Division was an agency in crisis.  Political appointees marginalized the voices of career attorneys.  Those attorneys abandoned the Voting Section at an alarming rate.  The perception in the civil rights community, and often within the Division, was that the political preferences of the administration had taken precedent over the impartial enforcement of civil rights law.  That suspicion was confirmed in 2008 in a series of three reports issued jointly by the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility.  Those reports concluded that the political leadership of the Division had violated federal law by politicizing the hiring process and other personnel decisions. 

“The recent inspector general’s report paints a similar picture of that time.  From 2003 to 2007, the report notes, ‘polarization and suspicion’ in the Voting Section became ‘particularly acute’ as Bush appointees ‘illegally recruited new attorneys into the voting section and other parts of the Division, based on their conservative affiliations.’ The report also finds that Division leadership ‘acted at times inappropriate or unfairly’ with career attorneys.   Changes to longstanding Division policy that appeared designed to shield conservative attorneys from criticism only further undermined morale.

“That, Mr. Chairman, is true ‘mismanagement’:  marginalizing the career experts, politicizing the decision-making process, and ultimately breaking the law.  If the purpose of this hearing was to look back at conditions in the Division between 2001 and 2008, then today’s title would be appropriate. But the timing and title of this hearing are no coincidence. They are intended to disparage the reputation of the associate attorney general as he stands for confirmation. 

“Fortunately, his record can withstand this partisan attack.  Although he inherited a division in disarray, Mr. Perez has righted the ship.  In fact, to the extent the inspector general’s report mentions Mr. Perez at all, it clears him of wrongdoing and credits him for his management practices.  Moreover, under his leadership: The Division has obtained $660 million in lending settlements, including the three largest lending discrimination settlements in the Department’s history. The Division obtained $128 million in the largest recovery ever awarded in an employment discrimination case.  The Division secured $16 million as part of a settlement to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act at more than 10,000 banks and other financial retail offices across the country.  And in the last year alone, the Division has opened 43 new voting rights cases—more than twice the number than in any previous year—and filed 13 additional objections to discriminatory voting practices under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Mr. Perez has accomplished these tasks and more, and he has restored the confidence and effectiveness of his career staff.  There may be some who disagree with Mr. Perez’s policy objectives, but even his political opponents should be impressed by his achievements.

“I have, over the course of the past two years, made several requests for hearings on matters including the wave of changes in state voting law, various Voting Rights Act preclearance cases, and the Division’s enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act.  To date, we have not held a single substantive hearing on any of those topics.  My colleagues and I have held forums on these issues across the country—the public’s interest in these matters is overwhelming.

“Unfortunately, I suspect that much of today’s discussion will cover long-discredited accusations of wrongdoing at the Justice Department.  Instead of attacking Mr. Perez, we ought to get back to the work of strengthening civil rights and voting rights laws in this country.  How many times will we discuss the New Black Panthers case, or the theoretical possibility of voter fraud, or the idea that the Civil Rights Division responds selectively to records requests, before we hold a hearing about making it easier for citizens to vote?   

“Before any of my colleagues accuse the assistant attorney general for civil rights of injecting politics where politics do not belong, I urge them to think hard about the evidence, about the conclusions of the inspector general, and about the context for this hearing today.

“I hope my colleagues will put aside this partisan rhetoric and return to the people’s business.”

###

Statement as prepared for delivery.