Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli overruled career lawyers at the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division to drop a complaint against three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election — including one member Samir Shabazz who brandished a nightstick.
Career lawyers wanted sanctions against the Black Panthers who showed and had already won a default judgment against the men.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King reportedly recommended dropping the case to Mr. Perrelli who is third in command at the DOJ.
This has become a major story for conservative commentators — some of whom have taken it to an absurd degree to suggest that the Obama Administration is in league with the New Black Panthers. There may indeed to legitimate legal reasons for the decision, but on its face it is hard to discern why career staff would be overruled on this point. It is perfectly appropriate for political appointees to make decisions based on the policy priorities of the Administration. However, this is a straight-forward question under a federal statute. I do not know of any specific Obama policy that would undermine enforcement. This was a limited occurrence. However, the Justice Department seems to suggest this is not actionable conduct. At a minimum, there should be a fuller explanation of why this is not a violation and what are the limits for paramilitary groups parading in front of polling places.
Under the circumstances, the complaint seemed reasonable when it was brought in January, here. Under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against “any person for voting or attempting to vote.” The Department simply sought an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations. By dropping the complaint, the Obama Administration suggests that other groups could show up at polling places with such weapons and military-style uniforms. What if this were the Aryan Nation or Soldiers of God? Doesn’t brandishing a weapon have an intimidating effect on voters? I understand that the case was weakened by the fact that a police officer allowed at least one man to remain. However, it seems that the section was seeking a modest sanction to keep this group (or other groups) from showing up in paramilitary outfits and weapons.
Here’s the original DOJ claim below. Mike S., I’m not certain how anyone would find a man in a military-type uniform holding a club acceptable at a polling place. If you watch the video the man with the club is acting as if he has a right to act similarly to (bad) law enforcement officers. If he is just there to provide “justice” then what is his objection to being filmed? I worked to prevent voter fraud. I did not need a military-type uniform or a club to accomplish this aim. We used phones, lawyers, drivers and photographers to keep people from being intimidated or given incorrect information, or if this occurred, we were ready to file an immediate complaint and get them to the correct polling place to vote.
“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
http://WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRT
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
Justice Department Seeks Injunction Against New Black Panther Party
Lawsuit Seeks to Prohibit Voter Intimidation in Future Elections
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and three of its members alleging that the defendants intimidated voters and those aiding them during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.
The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleges that, during the election, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were deployed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and that Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.
“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.”
According to the complaint, party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Samir Shabazz and Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day. The complaint alleges a violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against “any person for voting or attempting to vote.” The Department seeks an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations.
The New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, which claims active chapters nationwide, is distinct from the Black Panther Party founded by Bobby Seale in the 1960s.
The Civil Rights Division enforces the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To file complaints about discriminatory voting practices, including acts of harassment or intimidation, voters may call the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931. More information about the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws is available on the Department of Justice’s web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/index.htm.”
Besides, its scary to think that you presumably think its okay for black panther thugs to bring weapons to the polling places, and have all charges dropped by O’bumbles’ homies.
Really, Senator? I have a CCW, so I’m legal to do so if I wish. Besides, who started this? Who gains from the intimidation? Why the very same administration. These two bit thugs will only back down when they understand that their intimidation tactics 3ill be met with legal force. I know that I was a bit over the top, but please, we’re talking about the integrity of the voting process.
It is really scary to think that any of you would post about being able to now bring weapons to the door of a polling place. PLEASE. Stop.IT. All this shows is that the Obama administration is not at all scared of backing a black nationalist intimidation, on video, and doing nothing about it. It continues to be the case that police may arrest you for video taping their interactions with the public in some areas. This is government approval of the right to video anything including the passing of people into the voting booth. USE IT wisely in catalogin all the actions of government starting…NOW! Cam badge (“communicator”) for all!
Wow, Professor Turley, did you really just make the argument; “What if this were the Aryan Nation or Soilders of God”???? Why was a similar argument considered so reactionary a month ago when people asked what if a white male had said he hoped his status as a white male would lead to wiser decisions??
Don’t members of “suspect classes” automatically get a pass?
Leave it to Socky the “progressive” to leave out the Second Amendment.
A reminder to so-called “liberals”… there is nothing liberal about depriving citizens of their inherent right to self-defense, real liberals don’t cherry-pick the bill of rights.
Oh btw, this blog is fantastic. Can it be I’ve encountered a big-city liberal with integrity who’s actually liberal (classical) rather than a warmed-over marxist?
Bookmarked and moved to the top.
Thank you very much.
I’m with you Matt…except I’ll be toting my Ruger .357, and I think the ghetto rats they round up here in Denver and pay with crack to keep whitey away from the voting booths will have to choose between their crack and their life.
does this mean I can carry a Glock when I go to vote next time?
It was heartening to see that this was a long story in that fair and balanced newspaper “The Washington Times,” who as we all know is owned by in his own words the Second Coming of Jesus. Any relationship between that right wing propaganda rag and a real newspaper is completely coincidental.
Some times when there are axes to grind and the wielders identities are unknown, you can’t win. For instance who are these “career” Justice Department lawyers from the Civil Rights Division? We know that during the time of GW Bush the JD’s CR division was run by conservative ideologues:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/cats/civil_rights_division/
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/civil_rights_division/
We also know for a fact that in the latter days of his administration Bush moved many political appointees into Civil Service status to protect their jobs and continue his ideology. We have no idea from the Washington Times “unbiased” article who the lawyers bringing this action were in a background sense and what their motivations are. Therefore we have no idea as to the merits, or lack of same of this case.
Haven’t we all realized by now that we can’t rely on the MSM for anything resembling reality in their stories? In the case of the Washington Times there is clear bias, in the case of others in the MSM it is merely that all the good reporters are now on the net. Now it’s possible that there is a real story underneath here, but as yet the sources haven’t shown it.
Myna then this should come as no suprise to you.
Illinois received a ZERO rating in a report released on Wednesday that concludes the state is worst in the nation when it comes to information available online about how federal stimulus money is being spent. The worst in the country.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/States-rate-poorly-on-apf-2683281390.html?x=0&.v=2
You mean Glenn Greenwald the sock puppet? Sorry but I’m not interested in anything he has to say. Integrity is a good thing and he has none.
This has become more and more the US a statist that certain thuggery allowed and endorsed by the Obama administration.
Thank you, Jill, for bringing Glenn Greenwald’s words to this thread. They are sobering, humbling, and a reminder of just how much is at stake.
Again, Jill says it better than I ever could. (Thank you.)
Jill’s right — this “should be scaring the shit out of every person.” Law enforcement officers are, at the very least, turning a blind eye to what I can only describe as vigilante groups involved in harassment campaigns against innocent citizens. They are quite literally terrorizing good people in our communities. Those involved act/participate with an air of impunity.
The stories are pretty unbelievable, even to me, and I know about these “campaigns of terror” firsthand. Some refer to the program/s as “organized stalking.” Whatever one wants to call the process, it’s sadistic and cruel. And it’s shameful that it’s happening in America.
I’m a registered nurse. One of my friends is an attorney and another a mortgage broker. We all live in different cities. The mortgage broker once said, “Meeting one of these groups, one realizes that the question of evil is not just a topic for theologians.”
Those who complain about these thugs are labeled “delusional”, but let’s not forget that Martha Mitchel was thought to be “crazy” when she spoke of corruption in the Nixon administration. I can’t even believe that this is going on in America, but it is. It must be exposed and stopped. If I fail to tell what will seem like a tall tale to some then I, too, am complicit.
Glenn Greenwald brings real clarity to the issue of rule of law in his column today. Here’s part of it:
“By the design of the Founders, most American political issues are driven by the vicissitudes of political realities, shaped by practicalities and resolved by horse-trading compromises among competing factions. But not all political questions were to be subject to that process. Some were intended to be immunized from those influences. Those were called “principles,” or “rights,” or “guarantees” — and what distinguishes them from garden-variety political disputes is precisely that they were intended to be both absolute and adhered to regardless of what Massing calls “the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.”
We don’t have to guess what those principles are. The Founders created documents — principally the Constitution — which had as their purpose enumerating the principles that were to be immunized from such “practical considerations.” All one has to do in order to understand their venerated status is to understand the core principle of Constitutional guarantees: no acts of Government can conflict with these principles or violate them for any reason. And all you have to do to appreciate their absolute, unyielding essence is to read how they’re written: The President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” “[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Even policies which enjoy majoritarian support and ample “practical” justification will be invalid — nullified — if they violate those guarantees.”
We are definitely in a police state. When the govt. is failing to prosecute those it favors, be they the police, private contractors, people in (or formerly in) high office, or vigilante groups, you no longer have a functional justice system. At the same time our govt. goes after the powerless based on race, gender, class, ethnicity, or disagreement and opposition to the powerful corporate and political elites. They cover up these crimes both here and abroad. They continue to engage in these crimes. They then use political intervention to negate our system of justice on behalf of cronies. This should be scaring the shit out of every person. It’s a system of patronage, not justice. A politicized DOJ isn’t a functioning DOJ, end of story.
i agree – if it was aryan nation waving batons it would be all over MSNBC for weeks.
heres an interesting case:
is it slander if you call your stepmom a murderous whore? what if you can prove shes a murderous whore? does it surprise anyone this happened in NASCAR?
http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=4364052
Outrageous decision. The justice department is as politicized as ever. Don Siegelman is still a political prisoner and the jd still apparently has no plans to review his case or Paul Minor’s. “Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss…”
By dropping the complaint, the Obama Administration suggests that other groups could show up with such weapons and military-style uniforms are perfectly permissible.
By dropping the case against Major Cook suggest that other military members can show up to court to have thier orders withdrawn.
Very dismissive