Get PJ Media on your Apple

Exclusive Excerpts From New Black Panther Case Investigation Report

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is set to consider a draft report of its investigation tomorrow. Some details of the report have been leaked to PJM.

by
Hans A. von Spakovsky

Bio

November 18, 2010 - 8:34 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case, which has rocked the Justice Department, will reach an important endpoint on November 19. At its regular business meeting tomorrow, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will consider a draft report on its investigation of the Department’s scandalously politicized handling of the case.

This case was unique in one vital aspect almost from its beginning — the existence of a visual recording of the New Black Panthers in their paramilitary, fascist-style uniforms, one holding a night stick, blocking the entrance to a polling place. That kind of direct evidence is very unusual in a voting rights case. It helped to graphically illustrate the preposterousness of the Obama administration’s dismissal of virtually the entire federal lawsuit the Civil Rights Division had commenced against the New Black Panther Party and several of its members. The feeble and completely non-credible explanations for the dismissal advanced by the Department’s political leadership only made the matter worse.

Most of the mainstream media initially ignored the lawsuit, despite all of the powerful evidence. That changed, however, with the dramatic and courageous testimony of former Voting Section lawyer Christian Adams (who resigned from Justice in disgust over its handling of the case) and former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates (who was removed from his post by the Obama administration). Coates testified in defiance of orders from the Department’s senior leadership, who in a brazen act of lawlessness directed him not to comply with the subpoena issued by the Civil Rights Commission.

The draft report of the Commission that was leaked is devastating in its portrayal of the deviousness and politicization of the Obama Justice Department. The Department has misled the public, Congress, and the Commission from the very beginning.

For example, the Department claimed that career lawyers made the decision to dismiss the voter-intimidation case. But the report notes:

[The] record of communications within the Department appears to indicate that senior political appointees played a significant role in the decision-making surrounding the lawsuit. … [The Department’s repeated attempts to hide the involvement of Obama political appointees] raise questions about what the Department is trying to hide.

The Commission’s report concludes:

There is currently a conscious policy within the Department that voting rights laws should not be enforced in a race-neutral fashion. … [The testimony of Adams and Coates provided] specific examples of open hostility and opposition to pursuing cases in which whites were the perceived victims and minorities the alleged wrongdoers.

Further, the dismissal of the Panthers case was “the result of anger on the part of acting political appointees and other attorneys.” That anger arose from a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities.” The testimony shows that Obama political appointee Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes specifically ordered a policy of ignoring violations of the voting rights laws. Efforts to obtain more evidence on this policy “have been met with extraordinary resistance by the Department.”

The report also summarizes the evidence on the refusal of the Justice Department to enforce important provisions of the National Voter Registration Act — provisions that require states to maintain and clean up their voter registration lists by removing ineligible voters. The Department has never specifically denied that Fernandes instituted such a policy. As the Commission says, the evidence raises “doubts as to whether officials within the current Civil Rights Division have unilaterally limited the types of cases the Division will enforce.”

Click here to view the 30 legacy comments

Comments are closed.