Arguing the Roberts’ case

Re “Bush Order Lets Him Control Roberts’ Memos,” Aug. 11

I’m not being facetious: I really don’t understand. Please write an editorial and explain to me why, unless it’s truly a matter of national security, should any president be allowed to control access to a former president’s documents that were discharged as part of his official duties? Even the claim of lawyerclient privilege is specious unless it is from consultations with the president’s private, non-taxpayer-paid attorney. Otherwise, the public has retained the legal representatives, so any citizen should be allowed -- in fact, have a right -- to see the lawyers’ notes.

TOM OGDEN

Hollywood

*

Re “Roberts, misjudged,” Opinion, Aug. 11

Defending John Roberts’ 1980s position on the Voting Rights Act, Abigail Thernstrom argues that race should not be an issue in political districting. She quotes Roberts’ claim that we stand before the law “only as Americans” and Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch’s claim that officials should “represent individual citizens” and not blocs. The sentiments are sure uplifting but ingenuous.

Citizens should stand before laws they have had some effect in creating and be represented by officials they have had some effect in electing. To prevent tyranny by the majority, minority interests should be represented in office, and not only racial interests, but also economic and demographic ones.

A wag in The Times’ Opinion section recently proposed that all political districting be based entirely on income levels, not geography. The proposal is amusing, but not entirely wrong.

DAVID EGGENSCHWILER

Los Angeles