DOJ drops voter intimidation charge against "Black Panthers"

[Oblong]

Remember those two goons in Philadelphia on election day who were intimidating voters and brandishing nightsticks? The DOJ dropped the charges. Why? Who knows. Obama's administration just does whatever they want.

As a result the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent this letter to the DOJ.

June 16, 2009

Ms. Loretta King
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. King:

One of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ first official projects upon its establishment by the Civil Rights Act of 1957—the same act that created the Civil Rights Division—was to convene hearings in Alabama to look for evidence of racial discrimination in voting there. Witness after witness testified of efforts to interfere with their right to vote, whether by threats, intimidation, coercion, trickery or the erection of legal or other impediments. The data gathered by the Commission formed the basis for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is unequivocal in its command that “no person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person from voting or attempting to vote” or from aiding a voter. 42 U.S.C. § 1973i (2009). Investigating such claims and bringing them to the attention of enforcement entities such as the Department of Justice are a part of the Commission’s statutory mandate to this day. 42 U.S.C. § 1975a (2009).[1] Our mandate also includes investigating and reporting to the President and Congress on how well federal agencies are enforcing the nation’s civil rights laws.

So it is with great confusion that we[2] learn of the Civil Rights Division’s recent decision to dismiss a lawsuit against defendants who were caught engaging in attempted voter suppression the likes of which we haven’t witnessed in decades. Specifically, defendants were caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the November 4, 2008 general election. They wore uniforms bearing the insignia of the New Black Panther Party, described by the Division as a “black-supremacist organization,” and one of them actually brandished a nightstick in plain view of voters and poll observers. Complaint ¶¶ 9, 13. Furthermore, the Division’s own complaint alleges that defendants “made statements containing racial threats and racial insults.” Complaint ¶ 10. Their behavior was such that an experienced attorney and veteran of the civil rights movement, Bartle Bull, called it “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s.” Bull Aff. ¶ 6.

Though it had basically won the case and could have submitted a motion for default judgment against the Party and its members for failing to respond to the Division’s complaint, the Division took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges as against all but the defendant who waived the nightstick. Yet even as to that remaining defendant, the only relief the Division requested was weak—an injunction prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any polling place in Philadelphia. It has since been revealed that one of the defendants had been carrying credentials as a member of, and poll watcher for, the local Democratic committee.

In its notice of dismissal, the Division cites as its rationale only the fact that defendants failed to appear and respond. That makes no sense, for at least two reasons. First, the Division’s public rationale would send the wrong message entirely—that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them. Second, that rationale would equally support dismissal of all claims in this case, not just the dismissal against some defendants.

In its forthcoming report on Justice’s efforts to protect the voting rights of citizens in the 2008 election, the Commission commends the Department for its willingness, through the Voting Section, to play an aggressive and proactive role in preventing voting rights violations, including voter intimidation, and credits the Division for its expanded election-monitoring functions. But such efforts ring hollow if they are not accompanied by swift, decisive action to prosecute obvious violators, regardless of their race or political party (or that of their victims), to the fullest extent of the law. The vigorous defense of our democratic system demands no less.

Accordingly, as an initial matter, please advise the Commission of the Division's rationale for dismissing the charges against defendants and of its evidentiary and legal standards for dismissing certain charges in cases of alleged voter intimidation. Also, please advise us of any similar cases in which CRD has dismissed charges against a defendant.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter

[billms]

Actually, we do know. Interviews of people there showed a number of people who thought they were odd but nobody who felt intimidated.

You and I can show up at the poll and have the same effect.

[Oblong]

I'm sure that argument was used in the 30s and 40s in the South as well.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

It appears the sky is falling. Should I duck or dig a hole to crawl in?

[ewsieg]

I don't know how someone could defend what these black panthers did. Yet, every election you hear of the *intimidation* because a white republican monitor walks into an inner city election house and observes the polling process. To each their own I guess.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Oblong

I'm sure that argument was used in the 30s and 40s in the South as well.

but you don't disagree that your premise that we don't know why the charges were not pursued is wrong, yes?

[billms]

Originally Posted by ewsieg

I don't know how someone could defend what these black panthers did. Yet, every election you hear of the *intimidation* because a white republican monitor walks into an inner city election house and observes the polling process. To each their own I guess.

What are you suggesting? Intimidation never takes place? Or its always equal? Or odd guys standing in legal places in front of polling places are intimidating? What exactly are you suggesting?

It was investigated. Nobody claimed to feel intimidated. Reports were they were werid - not intimidating. Assuming those descriptions are accurate should they be arrested for being weird guys standing in legal places?

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by billms

but you don't disagree that your premise that we don't know why the charges were not pursued is wrong, yes?

I'm saying that I don't believe them when they said that's why.


Maybe certain people don't want to piss off certain people?

[billms]

anybody know if the video is around?

[Oblong]

YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly

[billms]

I don't see how anybody can not find those guys intimidating.

[ewsieg]

Originally Posted by billms

What are you suggesting? Intimidation never takes place? Or its always equal? Or odd guys standing in legal places in front of polling places are intimidating? What exactly are you suggesting?

It was investigated. Nobody claimed to feel intimidated. Reports were they were werid - not intimidating. Assuming those descriptions are accurate should they be arrested for being weird guys standing in legal places?

<fyi, i'm testing our 'your/our' side understanding>

Your side has spouted off that republican monitors are intimidating to voters. Monitors that walked in and just watched, no camera - no interference. If they even ask a question...whooooooo nelly.... they are suppressing the vote.

Your side says showing an ID, an ID each citizen of voting age is legally required to carry anyway, is voter intimidation.

Your side says a guy with a billy stick standing in front of a polling entrance is perfectly alright. Specifically a guy that says he is there to keep the peace, but gets all testy with a guy that has the proper credentials to help keep the peace.

You seriously don't understand why we might question this?

edit: just reread your comment...my apologies but i'll keep that up for anyone else that might disagree.

[Oblong]

So it was a political appointee (one who raised a half million bucks) that overruled the career DOJ lawyers. Good thing we got Obama elected to end "politicization" at the Department of Justice. Hope and Change baby!

Does this mean that showing up with weapons and military style uniforms and standing around the entrances is now acceptable at polling stations?

[eastside billee]

Yes it does Oblong. Add in a little Acorn (a lot of Acorn) and voila - welcome to Iran.

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by billms

I don't see how anybody can not find those guys intimidating.

Student on Video: I'm just wondering why you have a nightstick in your hand. That's a weapon, & you're a little intimidating.

Black Panther Dude: Yeah, well you got a camera.

Student: Yeah, but that's not a weapon.

I would like to have seen the guy try to walk inside, but I agree it's at least intimidating.