Letter to United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

Schumer Urges DOJ To Reconsider Decision To Not Investigate Maryland GOP Flyer

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for further explanation and a reconsideration of the Department's decision to not investigate Maryland Republican candidates' distribution of misleading literature. The full text of Senator Schumer's letter is below.

November 29, 2006

The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales

Attorney General of the United States

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Room 5111

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

I am extremely disappointed in the Department of Justice's decision not to pursue a formal investigation of Maryland Republican candidates' distribution of misleading literature. I write to ask for further information about how this decision was reached, and to respectfully request that you review the Department's decision-making process in this instance to ensure that all possible legal bases for an investigation were considered. The right to vote is perhaps our most essential civil right, the wellspring of our democracy. Unfortunately, the mid-term elections held on November 7, 2006, were tarnished by countless dirty tricks and ugly tactics. The ploy used in Maryland stands out for its sheer cynicism and brazenness.

According to press accounts of the repugnant scheme in Maryland, the senatorial campaign of Michael Steele and the gubernatorial campaign of Robert L. Ehrlich joined forces to bring some 300 African Americans in buses from Philadelphia. These out-of-state visitors were promised $100 plus meals to spend the day distributing fliers at Maryland polling places on Election Day. Deployed to central Baltimore and to Prince George's County, they handed out highly misleading fliers that contain the prominent headings: "Ehrlich-Steele Democrats" and "Democratic Sample Ballot." Inside the fliers, the names of Republican candidates Ehrlich and Steele were listed without their party affiliation and alongside Democratic candidates for Maryland office. The fliers were clearly designed to imply that Ehrlich and Steele are members of, or were endorsed by members of, the Democratic Party. The fliers stated that they were "paid and authorized by" the Ehrlich and Steele campaign organizations.

I am concerned that your response to the Ehrlich-Steele scheme in Maryland was not commensurate with the seriousness of this incident. The Department of Justice, in a letter to me dated November 16, 2006, stated that your Department "looked into" the Maryland scheme and "concluded, based on what we know, that there is an insufficient legal basis to initiate a formal investigation." The Department did not provide any further information about the nature of its initial investigation or the basis for its legal conclusion. I am astonished by this outcome, and troubled by the prospect of this egregious conduct going unpunished.

I request that you answer the following questions, with regard to the deceptive scheme in Maryland:

1. Did the Department undertake any preliminary factual investigation whatsoever to reach the conclusion that there is an insufficient legal basis for a formal investigation? If so, please describe the nature, extent, and results of that factual investigation.

2. Please describe the legal sources and analysis underlying the Department's conclusion that there is insufficient legal basis for a formal investigation.

3. When the Department "looked into" this incident, what indication, if any, did the Department find that this tactic was targeted at African American voters?

4. Which Division of the Department of Justice was responsible for the decision not to pursue a formal investigation of this incident? Please describe any consultation between the responsible Division and any other Division(s) in reaching the decision not to investigate formally.

As you are well aware, federal law prohibits voter intimidation, threats and coercion by individuals or state actors; the use of the mails or an interstate carrier to further a scheme to defraud voters; conspiring to injure or oppress individuals for exercising a constitutional right; and state action that denies or abridges the right to vote on account of race, color, or minority language membership. Therefore, I ask that you also respond to the following questions about what, if anything, the Department did to rule out these possible legal bases for a formal investigation into the Maryland scheme.

5. Please describe the Department's preliminary investigation, if any, into whether the Maryland scheme involved coercion, force, intimidation, or threats of force. What were the results of that investigation?

6. Please describe the Department's preliminary investigation, if any, into whether the Maryland scheme involved the use of the mail or an interstate carrier to defraud voters by depriving them of their right to a fair and honest election. What were the results of that investigation?

7. Please describe the Department's preliminary investigation, if any, into whether the Maryland scheme involved a conspiracy to injury or oppress voters by obstructing their right to vote. What were the results of that investigation?

8. Please describe the Department's preliminary investigation, if any, into whether the Maryland scheme involved state action by Ehrlich, Steele or their agents. What were the results of that investigation?

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer

United States Senator

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=266190&&year=2006&