GalesburgPlanet.com

Eric Holder

The House Judi­ciary Committee has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to outline any plans for changes to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the wake of a ProP­ublica inves­ti­gation that found white appli­cants were nearly four times as likely to receive a pres­i­dential pardon as minorities.

The committee’s inquiries into the Justice Department office were included at the top of a long list of ques­tions from Repub­lican and Demo­c­ratic members following Holder’s appearance before the panel in December to testify on other matters.

The pardon-related ques­tions were written by Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., who serves as ranking member of the House Subcom­mittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and repre­sents a district where African-Americans make up more than half the popu­lation. “I am troubled by recent reports outlining persistent and signif­icant problems at the Office of the Pardons (sic) Attorney,” Scott said in a statement to ProP­ublica. Scott said he is “awaiting a response” from Holder.

Each year, the pardon office sifts through hundreds of requests for pres­i­dential pardons, selecting a few for the president’s signature. The vast majority of appli­ca­tions are discarded by the pardon attorney and never seen by the White House.

At his confir­mation hearing in January 2009, Holder spoke at length about pres­i­dential pardons and lessons he had learned while serving as deputy attorney general during the pres­i­dency of Bill Clinton. “I think we have to work to improve the pardon process within the Department of Justice,” Holder told members of the Senate Judi­ciary Committee.

In his ques­tions to Holder, Scott wrote that ProPublica’s stories on pardons, co-published with The Wash­ington Post, showed “signif­icant and persistent problems within the Office of the Pardon Attorney. You testified when you were confirmed that you would study the problems with the clemency advisory process and fix them. Please let us know what you have found and what changes you have made or plan to make,” Scott wrote.

Holder, who became embroiled in the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich at the end of the Clinton admin­is­tration, declined repeated requests from ProP­ublica to be inter­viewed about the pardons process. His deputy, James Cole, has also declined interview requests.

Justice Department spokes­woman Laura Sweeney said the agency has received the ques­tions “and will respond accord­ingly.” Sweeney said the department is continuing to evaluate ProPublica’s statis­tical analysis showing a racial disparity in pardons. During his two-term pres­i­dency, George W. Bush pardoned 189 people, including seven African-Americans. Pres­ident Obama has pardoned 22 people, including two minorities.

ProPublica’s analysis also showed that married appli­cants were twice as likely as single appli­cants to be pardoned and that an applicant with congres­sional support was three times as likely to succeed. Scott specif­i­cally inquired about the effect of political support on pardons.

Known as “Ques­tions For Response,” the committee’s lengthy list of inquiries, which included ques­tions on a variety of Justice Department issues and programs, was sent to Holder on Jan. 20. The ques­tions will be made public and entered into the committee record along with Holder’s answers once they are received.

Scott provided his ques­tions regarding pardons to ProPublica.

Ques­tions for Attorney General Eric Holder

Following are ques­tions about the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by the House Judi­ciary Committee:

• On December 3, the Wash­ington Post printed an article that reported signif­icant and persistent problems within the Office of the Pardon Attorney. You testified when you were confirmed that you would study the problems with the clemency advisory process and fix them. Please let us know what you have found and what changes you have made or plan to make.
• It has been reported that the pardon attorney no longer assigns commu­tation cases to staff attorneys, and does not write a recom­men­dation in the large majority of these cases.
• How does this fulfill the Department’s respon­si­bility to advise the pres­ident about the merits of each case?
• Doesn’t this make the commu­tation process mean­ingless for most applicants?
• How can the pardon attorney himself conduct a mean­ingful review of thou­sands of commu­tation petitions?
• Even if most of these should be denied, if no one is really looking at them, how do you know each one is without merit?
• We can all agree that no system is perfect. The legal system is no exception. There are mistakes. The Consti­tution gives the pres­ident a role in fixing such mistakes. How does this procedure help the pres­ident do that?
• How does the pardon office identify the rare exception that deserves a closer look? Political support? Media attention? If so, is that the best way — the most fair way — to make these decisions?