Print
E-mail
Civil Rights Commission Demands Voter Intimidation Answers
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE, For The Bulletin
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter in August to Attorney General Eric Holder, issuing a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration's Department of Justice (DOJ).
A footnote in the letter criticized the DOJ's dismissal of a Philadelphia voter intimidation case against a group called the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP). The footnote called the DOJ's voluntary dismissal of the case “even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last election day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were standing at a polling location wearing a military-style NBP uniform while Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”
The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Mr. Shabazz and Mr. Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a routine default judgment, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit for two of the defendants – including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
The DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.
As noted in the letter from the Commission on Civil Rights, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. The Commission thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case only would prohibit something so specific, and limit it to a specific area.
The Commission’s six-page letter was sent following two inquiries sent in June to Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the “unusual dismissal of the government’s case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.” Commission chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair Abigail Thernstrom signed the letter.
The Commission also noted that an earlier reply from Portia Robertson, director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was “non-responsive to our questions,” adding that “to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light.”
The Commission said that the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the “vague conclusions sent to members of Congress.”
“These conclusions are more than weak,” stated a footnote in the letter. “We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The letter also notes that media reports have questioned Ms. King’s involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees – specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this the Commission wants Mr. Holder personally to direct responses to inquiries or appoint someone from the DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.
The Commission believes that since it is obliged to investigate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, it is entitled to know the justification for the dismissal. It is seeking the “evidentiary and legal standards” for the CRD’s actions.
It also wants to compare the actions in this case with other voter intimidation investigations to determine if there was anything unusual about the treatment of this investigation by the CRD.
According to Mrs. Thernstrom’s office, the Commission has considered making this incident part of its annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. Last year’s addressed civil rights issues raised by the mortgage crisis.
Other government officials are also demanding answers about this case and speculating that the DOJ has been politicized.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R–Virginia, said in a July 31 letter to Holder that he could only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys in the CRD and DOJ who argued in favor of continuing the case was “politically motivated.”
A footnote in the letter criticized the DOJ's dismissal of a Philadelphia voter intimidation case against a group called the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP). The footnote called the DOJ's voluntary dismissal of the case “even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last election day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were standing at a polling location wearing a military-style NBP uniform while Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”
The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Mr. Shabazz and Mr. Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a routine default judgment, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit for two of the defendants – including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
The DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.
As noted in the letter from the Commission on Civil Rights, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. The Commission thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case only would prohibit something so specific, and limit it to a specific area.
The Commission’s six-page letter was sent following two inquiries sent in June to Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the “unusual dismissal of the government’s case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.” Commission chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair Abigail Thernstrom signed the letter.
The Commission also noted that an earlier reply from Portia Robertson, director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was “non-responsive to our questions,” adding that “to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light.”
The Commission said that the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the “vague conclusions sent to members of Congress.”
“These conclusions are more than weak,” stated a footnote in the letter. “We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The letter also notes that media reports have questioned Ms. King’s involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees – specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this the Commission wants Mr. Holder personally to direct responses to inquiries or appoint someone from the DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.
The Commission believes that since it is obliged to investigate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, it is entitled to know the justification for the dismissal. It is seeking the “evidentiary and legal standards” for the CRD’s actions.
It also wants to compare the actions in this case with other voter intimidation investigations to determine if there was anything unusual about the treatment of this investigation by the CRD.
According to Mrs. Thernstrom’s office, the Commission has considered making this incident part of its annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. Last year’s addressed civil rights issues raised by the mortgage crisis.
Other government officials are also demanding answers about this case and speculating that the DOJ has been politicized.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R–Virginia, said in a July 31 letter to Holder that he could only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys in the CRD and DOJ who argued in favor of continuing the case was “politically motivated.”
 |
 |
|
| White House Drops Plea For Students To Help Obama | Foes of Campaign Finance Rules Urge Court to Overturn Precedent |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
