Feds Open Criminal Probe into Massachusetts Redistricting

By Denise Lavoie
AP Legal Affairs Writer
April 15, 2004

BOSTON (AP) - Federal prosecutors have begun a criminal investigation into a House redistricting plan that was sharply criticized by appellate judges who openly challenged House Speaker Thomas Finneran's sworn denial of his involvement in redrawing the controversial voting map.

A spokesman for Finneran said Thursday that House lawmakers have hired an attorney to handle a grand jury subpoena, March 10 to the chairman of the committee that drafted the map, Rep. Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow.

The map was used in the 2002 election. But in February, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred the state from holding elections this fall in 17 Boston House districts as currently drawn. The court found that House lawmakers sacrificed "racial fairness" to protect incumbents and ordered them to redraw their district map.

Some of the districts impacted by the ruling are held by top House leaders, including Finneran and House Majority Leader Salvatore DiMasi, both Democrats.

Common Cause Massachusetts, a nonpartisan group for effective government, had asked federal prosecutors last month to investigate whether Finneran committed perjury in his testimony before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

Finneran told the three-judge panel that he was not involved in drawing the controversial map, but the judges said his statement was not credible.

"Although Speaker Finneran denied any involvement in the redistricting process, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the opposite conclusion," the judges said in their written ruling.

Common Cause executive director Pam Wilmot said the group met with U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan on March 8 to ask him to investigate whether Finneran committed perjury. The next day, Common Cause held a news conference to make a public call for the investigation. On March 10, the grand jury subpoena was sent to the chairman of the redistricting committee.

Wilmot said she believes Sullivan's office had already begun to investigate even before meeting with members of her group.

Wilmot said she later provided Sullivan with a list of legislators who may be able to provide evidence contradicting Finneran's testimony. She said the names were passed on to her by members of the public, legislative staffers and others.

"We were getting calls from members of the public saying `What's going on here? Why is this just passing and nothing is happening?' " Wilmot said.

Samantha Martin, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, would not comment, saying federal law prohibits prosecutors from confirming or denying the existence of a grand jury investigation.

People familiar with the U.S. Attorney's Office said the investigation is likely focused on perjury and not civil rights violations.

"If it's been accurately reported that there is an open criminal investigation, I would expect that they are looking at something other than the mere fact that the court found the redistricting plan improper," said former U.S. Attorney Donald Stern.

Jeanne Kempthorne, legal counsel for Common Cause and former head of the public corruption unit in the U.S. Attorney's office, said proving a perjury allegation can be difficult.

"You have to prove a statement was made that was knowingly false. Sometimes that's easy because people make contradictory statements within a short period of time. Other times, you're doing more of a circumstantial analysis based on the position they're in, what they should have been privy to or would have been privy to," Kempthorne said.

The House redistricting committee has hired a lawyer, Thomas H. Hoops, to handle the grand jury's demand for documents, Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen said Thursday.

Rasmussen declined to say what kind of information the grand jury was seeking, referring comment to Hoops, who released a brief statement.

"The committee will cooperate fully with that request (for documents). There will be no further comment of any kind with regard to that matter," Hoops said.

Finneran declined to comment further when asked by reporters.

In rejecting the legislative map, the three-judge panel said the plan provided white voters with a number of majority white districts, but failed "to provide African-American voters with a proportional number of majority black districts."

David Zlotnick, an associate professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, said the appellate court was obviously trying to call attention to Finneran's testimony by noting it in such a strongly worded way.

"It's pretty rare for an appellate court to go in that direction, to actually assess the credibility of a witness," he said. "That I think is reaching out. I think they're trying to make a point."

The judges will hold a hearing Friday to consider six alternative plans that have been drawn by plaintiffs and the House leadership.

Editor's Note: Denise Lavoie is a Boston-based reporter covering the courts and legal issues.