Full transcript of phone interview with former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who served from 2001 to 2006 before he was dismissed by the Bush administration. He was fired in part because of dissatisfaction about his failure to prosecute voter fraud. Iglesias spoke with News21 on July 11, 2008.
Why did you feel the need to write "In Justice" and what do you hope it sheds light on?
I wanted the public to understand why this is such a big deal because sometimes you hear that ... well this is no big deal, you know Bill Clinton fired all 93 attorneys and nobody said anything about it. The distinction to make though, Clinton was firing the prior Administration's U.S. attorneys...we were all political appointees and we knew we typically served as long as the Administration at the point of this was in power. What makes this so different is that there's lots of circumstantial evidence showing a politicization, not only in the Justice Department in Washington but an attempt to politicize U.S. attorneys out in the field. And no president has ever forced out 9 U.S. attorneys in the same year, much less 7 in the same day like this Administration did. I wanted to write the book to just get the point across, you want U.S. Attorneys to be independent and immune from political pressure, and unfortunately, that did not happen during this Administration.
Was voter fraud a major problem in New Mexico?
You have to understand there are about 4000 or so federal criminal laws that U.S. Attorneys are obligated to enforce, obviously you can't enforce every one of them, you know you have to make wise choices in terms of what you want to look at. The Justice Department has prosecuted only a handful of voter fraud cases in this Administration. I'm aware of there being seven in Milwaukee, four in Kansas City, Missouri, one in Colorado... and based on the direction I got from the Justice Department, I was very interested in prosecuting voter fraud cases in New Mexico which has been a swing state and battle ground state for many years. There was a belief that there's been a long history of voter fraud and there had not been any voter fraud prosecutions filed by the U.S. attorney since 1992. There were two cases prosecuted back then which I had reviewed... I was convinced based on local media coverage that there was a significant problem back in 2004, that I needed to do something to stop it and prosecute it, so I setup only one of two election fraud task forces in the country, the other one was setup in Milwaukee. I worked closely with state and local and federal partners such as the FBI, the Justice Department's Public Integrity section, the State police of New Mexico, the Secretary of State's office in Sante Fe and the County Clerk's office. We setup a toll free number, set that up for two months beginning mid-September of 2004 and shut it down mid-November, so about two weeks after the election in 2004. We got somewhere around 110-120 or so complaints, we investigated them and after about two years of investigation, I couldn't find one case to prosecute federally and there were no state prosecutions filed either. That led me to believe, in New Mexico at least, voter fraud was not a significant problem, it's not a systemic problem. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but during that window of time, I very much wanted to find a good prosecutable case but did not.
What was the nature of voter fraud you investigated in New Mexico?
We had a woman that worked for ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] and I don't remember what that acronym stands for, but it's some kind of association. They have been accused over the years to helping to facilitate voter fraud in terms of registering people who didn't have the right to vote, such as underage people. We had two examples of that in Albuquerque. We had a 13 year old and 15 year old boy who received voter registration forms. I investigated that... unfortunately how the law is written... the government, the prosecutor has to prove that the fraud was committed with the intent to skew the election, skew the results of the election. The evidence we had was a very poor woman who was signing up people who didn't have the right to vote for money. She was paid on a peace-meal basis. I felt along with the career prosecutor that I assigned to assist me with it as well as the main attorney at the Public Integrity section, that this was not a provable case, so I did not file it. And I'm aware that the local Republicans here in NM was upset with me for not filing any voter fraud cases. They believed based on reviewing the media coverage that there was a tremendous problem and it was my job to stop it. You know I can understand that, but they never had the opportunity to talk to the FBI agent like I did or review his reports like I did. I wouldn't change anything. Again that one case had possibility, but a prosecutor has to prove every element of the crime, and I couldn't prove th at last element. Therefore, I did not authorize any indictment or prosecution.
Why do you think you were encouraged to find voter fraud cases? Other than the DOJ, who was pressuring you to find such cases?
Well, I can tell nationally that every U.S. attorney receives the same e-mail that I did in the late summer of the election cycle years, so '02, '04, '06. We received an email from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney in Washington to work with election officials to stop voter fraud. There was that generalized notice, we were all put on notice. In my home state, and I can't speak for any other U.S. Attorney but in my home state, I was aware through a friend of mine, he was active in partisan politics, that they were very much interested in prosecuting voter fraud cases. And what I told him, it's what I told anybody, on or off the record, which is, that if I had a provable case I will file it, if I don't, I won't. It was really that simple. As the months drudged on, I was aware that the Republicans were angrier and angrier that I did not file any voter fraud case. I was prohibited by Justice Department rules from picking up the phone and explaining why I couldn't. I mean our system does not work that way. Investigations are confidential and the only people I give a report, regarding the status of an ongoing investigation, are my superiors at Justice in Washington - no one else.
What do you hope your book says to those in DOJ & Republicans who pushed the issue of voter fraud, the American people?
Well I hope what it says is... want U.S. Attorneys who are invested with tremendous power to do the right thing and the legal thing - that is only file cases with merit and to ensure future U.S. Attorneys don't have to worry about being pressured by political parties or by members of Congress like I was, like John McKay was, and like Paul Charlton was in Arizona, that politics has to stay out of the prosecutive process. we need prosecutors that file prosecutions on the basis of the law and the evidence and nothing else. I mean that's at the heart of my book. You have to have independent prosecutors that do the right thing and do the legal thing and we have to resist any attempts politicize. And I'm sure you saw the report of the Honor's program that the Inspector General's office released a couple of weeks ago showing in fact that there was politicization in the hiring process of these young law grads - that kind of thing has to stop. We can't have people that are entrusted enforcing our federal laws, do it on a partisan basis, it has to be done right.
If the requirement for the proof of citizenship to register to vote was passed into law in other states besides Arizona, do you think it would be effective in stopping voter fraud by undocumented immigrants?
Well, it may be a solution to a problem that exists or at least a problem that doesn't exist to a magnitude that people think. I mean I had heard rumors going back my years that prior to my tenure as U.S. Attorney that there were lots of illegal immigrants voting. I didn't see any evidence of that. Remember, I set up a task force that was taking referrals for a two month period including a period right before the election in 2004 and I didn't get one allegation of groups of illegal aliens voting. So, I'm not sure if that is a systemic problem. I mean I do know that Arizona has worse illegal problem that New Mexico, a lot more jobs there, much bigger urban centers, but I would need to see the evidence first, you know before commenting on that with finality.
But do you think such a requirement would be effective in stopping voter fraud?
Probably...but again the foundational question is, "is there a problem that needs to be addressed?" And I know from my experience here in New Mexico, that problem did not exist, that's to not say it doesn't in parts of Arizona, California and Texas or other urban areas, but in my view, based on my experience and looking at my evidence, it's not a problem. Clearly voter id laws are now legal because of the recent Supreme Court ruling but that being said, I'm not sure it's a solution to a problem that didn't really exist.
As I am talking to you Renee, I do recall I did have one allegation of an illegal foreign national voting in a state election, and we looked into it and we couldn't prove the case. I think we couldn't prove the case because we couldn't find her, I mean she vanished after somebody made the allegations. The thing to keep in mind is the fact you may have a theory of prosecution and you may have some evidence, doesn't mean you can prove it in court. The government has a high standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt and that's for a reason. And that's because of the founders of the constitution wanted to ensure that residents and citizens of this country weren't convicted using a low standard, that there was a tremendously high standard to prove that someone violated criminal laws.
Print
Email
Bookmark
