The Washington Times
By J. Christian Adams
On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a
weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the
Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New
Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys
diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the
defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered
in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the
corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the
case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not
to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I
resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial
equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from
the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in
1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote,
and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But
unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not
discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of
their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in
Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal
enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my
assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding
citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises
serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in
upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential
election.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to
testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly
placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the
actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard
to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the
polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome
through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even
read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and
investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted
that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it,
Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most
important department documents detailing the investigative facts and
applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the
former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of
responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the
meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The
department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and
sent him to South Carolina.
Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical
obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr.
Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five
attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case
were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter.
Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the
officials who ordered the dismissal.
Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a
nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that
polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008,
but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white
Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly
prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.
Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful
effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.
Read the rest here.
Replies