Must See TV Tonight on NOW: Repub Plan to Disqualify Dem Voters in NM, Other Battleground States

Tonight, July 27, 2007 at 8:00 PM Mountain Time on PBS' NOW on KNME: How Secure Is Your Right to Vote? Those interviewed include investigative journalist Greg Palast, who has done extensive work on the issue in New Mexico and elsewhere. (Check local listings.) NOW investigates a secret Republican plan designed to disqualify voters by various means including voter caging:

Was there a White House plot to illegally suppress votes in 2004? Is there a similar plan for the upcoming elections? NOW examines documents and evidence pointing to a Republican Party plan designed to keep Democrats from voting, by targeting people based on their race and ethnicity. Congress is investigating, and so are we. NOW speaks with David Iglesias, one of eight fired US attorneys, who says he lost his job because he refused to go along with the White House plan to suppress votes.

Was the White House involved? David Iglesias, one of the fired U.S. Attorneys, thinks so: "It's reprehensible. It's unethical, it's unlawful. It may very well be criminal." Iglesias told NOW he was repeatedly urged by his superiors at the Justice Department to investigate allegations of false voter registrations. After his investigations came up short, Iglesias said Republican officials got angry, complained to White House aide Karl Rove. Soon after Iglesias lost his job. As a result of allegations by Iglesias and others, Congress is investigating whether the White House acted unlawfully.

The NOW website also reveals key emails and documents covered in their investigation and also features an extended interview with David Iglesias, as well as one with another fired U.S. Attorney, Bud Collins. Excerpts of Iglesias interview:

NOW: It wasn't only officials at the Department of Justice who were expressing an interest in pursuing such [voter fraud] cases. You were getting requests from other individuals, correct?

DI: That's correct. In fact, there was a Republican attorney, Pat Rogers, who was a prominent local attorney who tried to pressure me to come up with cases. He would send emails to my assistant, who I had tasked with running this election fraud taskforce ... And I had lunch with Mr. Rogers last fall and he expressed his concern about what he believed to be this systemic, ongoing election fraud. I did not know at the time that he belonged to an organization called the American Center for Voting Rights. He did not disclose to me that he was representing any other interest. And I've also found out that the Republican Party was very interested in stamping out what it believed to be instances of voter fraud.

NOW: The State Republican Party or the National Republican Party?

DI: Both. But who contacted me or some of my assistants was the State Republican Party.

... NOW: In one press account you're quoted as characterizing Mr. Rogers' interest in this issue as "obsessive."

DI: Yes. I was aware of grumbling within the State Republican Party. I had friends of mine who were attorneys. One was a former federal prosecutor himself and he would tell me during the course of early 2005 through mid-2006 ... "The Republicans are still upset with you. They still expect you to prosecute cases."

So I knew there was this belief that was I intentionally not prosecuting prosecutable cases. And I knew Rogers, as a prominent Republican, who had actually represented the State Republican Party in some civil litigation related to the voter ID issue ... I knew he was interested in the issue. And then I was also aware of the emails and phone calls he had been leaving with my assistant, who I had tasked with prosecuting this. So I knew there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction of me not prosecuting any cases.

What I believed, however, was consistent with historic practice—that the Justice Department would insulate me from any partisan political pressure. As it turns out, they didn't do that. And that was one of the bases for forcing my resignation.

... NOW: Trying to use the office of a U.S. Attorney for partisan political purposes is unethical. But you're saying it is actually illegal?

DI: Right. That's why there has been such a circling of the wagons around Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. I believe there to be incriminating, possibly criminally incriminating evidence contained in those e-mails and other memoranda. That's why the White House doesn't want to produce it to Congress.