Bizarre, Congress, Criminal law, Politics, Society

DOJ Official: Black Panther Decision a “Travesty of Justice”

This week Congress held hearings on the controversial decision by the Obama Administration to drop charges against Black Panther members for voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008. I have previously criticized the decision since I fail to see how these pictures did not show intimidation and the Obama Administration has created a dangerous precedent (if not an invitation) for other groups to engage in the same practices at polling places. In the hearing, Christopher Coates, former voting chief for the department’s Civil Rights Division, called the decision a “travesty of justice” and deepened the controversy over the policies and practices in that division.

Coates testimony has long been resisted by the Administration, particularly after former Justice official J. Christian Adams came out in July with a stinging rebuke of the decision. Adams claimed that the Administration showed open hostility to cases where victims were white and defendants were black.

Coates seemed to back up such claims and said that the Obama Administration abandoned a “race-neutral” approach to enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

What was strange in this case is that the Justice Department had already secured a default victory but suddenly moved to dismiss the charges. In return, the Black Panthers reportedly agreed to not carry “weapon[s]” near a polling place until 2012 – a rather bizarre agreement.

I am a bit surprised by the relatively little media coverage given the testimony. One can disagree with the testimony, but it clearly raises substantial concerns and policy questions. This is clearly not a huge case and I would not think that it would normally generate a major sanction. Indeed, it was overblown when it occurred by conservative sites. Nevertheless, it was worthy of prosecution and the dismissal of the action magnified the controversy over the future standard for intimidation cases.

My concern remains the standard created for future cases. I would think that the decision would embolden other groups from skinheads to extreme religious groups in “policing” polling places. I can understand if this was viewed as simply a minor case, but it would seem to have warranted some formal sanction, even a small one.

In the very least, the Administration needs to give a more substantial account of the decision to drop the case. With Coates’ testimony, this controversy will only grow — particularly with the possible Republican takeover of the House.

Source: LA Times

Jonathan Turley

49 thoughts on “DOJ Official: Black Panther Decision a “Travesty of Justice””

  2. Preachers and the IRS … another teabagger diversion … they just keep churning them out …

  3. Obama is so weak that it is frightening. I’ve been trying to find the story of the 100 pastors who today were supposed to blatantly mix politics in with their sermons. I’ll almost bet Obama and the IRS will not respond by taking away their tax exempt status and you will find the movement growing so that all the churches will retain their tax status and politic like hell if I can use that expression in connection with the churches.

  4. Bdaman
    1, September 26, 2010 at 7:56 pm
    Service Employees International Union (SEIU) member Steve Caddle of Houston, Texas has been caught registering 23,207 fake voters in Harris County alone due to the hard detective work of Catherine Engelbrecht and her “True the Vote” project

    how many of the 23,207 fake voters actually voted?

  5. I think Bdaman gets side tracked a little to much. It happened one summer day when he fell out of that tree over looking the roadway near the Hwy. The branch broke and he fell, that was just fine until that semi came barreling down the road and hit him. He ain’t been the same since.

    Say that’s right Darryl.

  10. In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party colleagues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008. In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House.

    http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/09/24/which-malik-shabazz-visited-white-house-in-july-2009-mr-president/

  11. Mr Turley, I’m a long-time reader and you could call me a fan, so I am sincerely and respectfully scratching my head.

    What’s the intimidation here?

    Could you provide a link to an image showing the “intimidation”? From the images I’ve seen, including the image you’ve published here, the “intimidation” is … what? Maybe cuz I live in a big city, I’m just not terribly intimidated by seeing black people …

  12. Electronic voting (HAVA: the Help America Vote Act) is another faith based initiative from the Bush administration. You cast your vote and take it on faith that it isn’t flipped, is scanned properly if at all, is tabulated properly if at all… There is no certainty that any election outcome where the vote is made electronically is accurate.

  14. eniobob,

    Thanks

    Teabaggers love this stuff and there will be more coming … Fox knows its audience …

    Keep on shining the light … it saved Shirley Sherrod who I believe they planned to ride all the way into November … they’ve been forced to go to Plan B

  17. From Media Matters
    Fox News overlooked voter-intimidation allegations against Minutemen
    July 19, 2010

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201007190022

    In contrast to Fox News’ repeated hyping of voter-intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 election, a search of the Nexis database indicates that Fox News’ top shows did not report on similar allegations that members of the Minutemen harassed Hispanic voters at an Arizona polling center in 2006.

    Excerpt:
    Minutemen were involved in similar voter-intimidation case in 2006

    Armed Minutemen allegedly attempted to intimidate Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006. A November 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman article reported (from the Nexis database): “In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English.” The article continued: “Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons.”

    Civil rights attorney “said he reported the incident to the FBI.” A November 8, 2006, Tucson Citizen article (from Nexis) reported that Diego Bernal, a staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) “said he reported the incident to the FBI.” The article also reported that Pima County elections director Brad Nelson said: “If intimidation or coercion was going on out there, even though it might have been outside the 75-foot limit, it’s something we take very seriously, and we’ll be looking into it.”

    Perez testified that Bush-era DOJ “declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation” against Minutemen. As Media Matters noted, Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, cited the Minutemen case in his May 14 testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and said that “the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.” From Perez’s testimony:

    In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish.

    In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.

  18. Elaine M.
    1, September 26, 2010 at 12:21 p

    rafflaw,

    “I don’t mind if the Pastors go into partisan politics from the pulpit, but if they do, they should immediately lose their tax free status!”

    I’m in total agreement with that statement!

    ========================================================

    I concur

  20. rafflaw,

    “I don’t mind if the Pastors go into partisan politics from the pulpit, but if they do, they should immediately lose their tax free status!”

    I’m in total agreement with that statement!

    The pastors are doing this with the goal of fostering a lawsuit. They’re hoping the 1954 amendment will be found unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.