Acquitted Voting Rights Activist: 'Why Would You Promote Sessions?'
Back in the spring of 1986, after having successfully appointed scores and scores of conservative judges to serve on courts across the country, President Ronald Reagan went too far. He picked a federal prosecutor to a fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in Alabama whose nomination was so controversial that it got quashed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.
That prosecutor was Jeff Sessions, the senator who, in all likelihood will serve as that committee's most powerful Republican for the next year and a half.
But back to 1986. During the debate over his nomination, committee Democrats questioned Sessions' prosecutorial discretion, focusing in particular on a case he pursued against three Marion, AL civil rights workers--Albert Turner, Turner's wife Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue, Jr.--whom he accused of voter fraud. Sessions was unconcerned with claims of fraud outside the so-called Black Belt, but he alleged that the trio had falsified absentee ballots in Perry County during the 1984 election. After conducting an exhaustive investigation, though, he was able to account for only a small handful of questionable examples, and even those he couldn't pin on his defendants, who were acquitted after only a few hours' deliberation.
Albert Turner--who was an adviser to Martin Luther King, Jr.--passed away in 2000, and his wife could not be immediately located, but Hogue still lives in Marion, and by phone today he expressed his displeasure with the news that Sessions is, in effect, getting a promotion.
"I don't know why he'd be promoted," Hogue said. "It will give him more power to do things he shouldn't."
"We were trying to get the right to vote," Hogue said. "He tried to persecute us."
Sessions has tried to reduce the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, which mandates a five-year minimum term in prison for trafficking either 500 grams of powder or 5 grams of crack. Sessions says that the 100-fold disparity should be made a 20-fold disparity by lowering the cocaine threshold to 400 grams and increasing the crack threshold to 20 grams.
This wasn't always his position. "I, as a prosecutor, agreed with many in the law enforcement community in 1986 to support a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for 5 grams of crack and for 500 grams of powder," Sessions said in May, 2002. "The purpose of supporting the same 5-year sentence for such different amounts of essentially the same drug was based in large part on an effort to stop the rapid spread of crack into African-American neighborhoods. It was also based on the fear that pregnant women on crack would make their babies addicts - this was the "crack baby" phenomenon."
(The Clinton administration tried to reduce the 100-fold disparity into a 10-fold disparity, but Sessions found that formulation too fair to crack-users).
Throughout his Senate career, Sessions has argued--and still argues--that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires southern jurisdictions to obtain approval from the Justice Department before making changes to their electoral processes, should be scrapped. This is a standard position among Southern Republicans, who say that the South has come a long way since the 1960s and that there will be no risk of disenfranchisement to minority communities if states and districts could alter their voting procedures on their own.
They may get their wish--the Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to Section 5 and many observers expect that the right-leaning court will, in the coming days, rule its provisions unconstitutional.
An email to Sessions' press secretary asking whether the senator still believes the case against Hogue was properly litigated--and whether the elimination of Section 5 of the VRA might make organizers more susceptible to unfair prosecution--was not immediately returned.




















Acquitted?
May 4, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy is as crooked as they come. He will not enjoy the spotlight very much. He'll spend more time defending his many sins than attacking Obama's selections.
May 4, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Alabama keep convicted felons from ever voting again?
That seemed to be the driving motivation behind the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity. While Ollie North and friends were shipping drugs to the USA to pay for their wars in Central America and doing their best to flood minority areas with them the GOP was setting the end users up for felony raps while wealthier coke snorters like a certain former president from TX who shall remain nameless could always lawyer their way out to misdemeanor community service.
The GOP at work: if there's too many poor folks voting then flood their neighborhoods with cheap drugs, bust 'em for 'em, lock 'em up for a decade or two and then deprive 'em of their right to vote for life.
May 4, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well they had to keep this country from being an actual Democracy! Every rich and powerful person knows that you have to screw a LOT of little people to hoard money that naturally would be more evenly distributed in a Democracy. What is amazing is that the PR con job for the conservative mafia has worked as well and as long as it has.
I think someone should drive a voting rights case to the Supremes that overturns this banned for life felony voting bullshit. If you commit a crime and serve your sentence then you should be a citizen with full rights just like everyone else. America has the hightest rate of incarceration of any country by a mile. What kind of people are we anyway?
May 4, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans really are a circular firing squad these days. What issue do they put front and center to rally around for Obama's first SCOTUS pick? Their staunch opposition to civil rights.
If Sessions appointment doesn't make this confirmation both a pleasure and a breeze for the Dems, then they need new PR help. But I suspect this one largely writes itself. Hell just put Sessions on tv and the Dems job is done.
May 4, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This racist won't care what he says no matter how bigoted. His constituency will still elect him. That is the reason for this appointment. He will enable the other Republicans on the comittee and Senate keep their hands clean. Sessions will do all the name calling innuendoing and bring up nothing but bullshit to muddy the debate. It will be easy for the Republicans to scream about what Sessions says even if is is unadulterated crap. They will have every argument they have used in the past; communist, pro-gay, pro-abortion pro-taxes, anti-religion. And many more wedge issues they are fixated on. Pitiful. Especially with the mild mannered wimps the Democrats have leading this Senate. If they once took the gloves off and said this is how it is going to be and used the reconciliation ploy as the Republicans did and only needed 51 votes I would croak! Especially for SCOTUS justice nominees.
May 4, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, putting their number one racist up front Republicans make it clearer yet just who they are and who they represent. Maybe they can drop another 5% in the polls.
May 4, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why stop at 5%?
May 4, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
kinda shoe-horned the crack/powder disparity and section 5 bits into this post. makes the post read like it'd be deserving of the 'hit piece' epithet republicans are so fond of. pretty shabby.
May 5, 2009 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Repubs may be hoist on their own petard if Obama chooses a Hispanic or Af-Am nominee. Media questioning of the motive for Sessions opposition may not be the type of exposure the GOP wants to invite, and could force other Repubs on the committee to show their 'non-racism' by voting for the nominee.
I hope Obama has some Machiavellian advisors. I would shove this nomination right into Jefferson Beauregard Sessions' snout.
May 5, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the same Senator Jeff Sessions that thought the Ku Klux Klan was not so bad until he found out that some of them smoked marijuana? Why a finer choice to be ranking member of the Judiciary committee could not be made.
May 5, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink