Get PJ Media on your Apple

J. Christian Adams

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His New York Times bestselling book is Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).  His website is Follow him on Twitter @electionlawctr.

Holder Decrees Crossdressing Protected Under Federal Law

Attorney General Eric Holder has issued an edict, through a memorandum, that cross dressing and transsexualism is now protected under federal civil rights laws which were designed to protect women from sex discrimination. Existing federal law provides no statutory support for treating cross-dressers and transsexuals as the law treats female victims of discrimination.

This means that the Justice Department could now, for example, consider the decision by a school or church to not hire a transvestite as a violation of federal law.

Holder ordered that the Department of Justice will stop making arguments in litigation suggesting that transgender people are not covered by Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment.

Holder’s memo says that “sex” under Title VII doesn’t only now pertain to sex discrimination. To Holder and his army of DOJ lawyers, federal law now prohibits discrimination based on transgender status, including discrimination “because an employee’s gender identification is of a particular sex, or because the employee is transitioning, or has transitioned to another sex.” The memo says that “the Department will no longer assert that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex does not encompass gender identity per se (including transgender discrimination).”

DOJ lawyers have enormous power to bring civil rights cases against entities ranging from local government to school districts. The DOJ must also defend the federal government against discrimination claims brought by federal employees. In lawsuits involving federal employees, DOJ has in the past advanced the sound legal axiom that Title VII does not provide protection for transgender workers.


Holder bases his edict on a federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that transvestites and transsexuals are protected by federal law from discrimination against their cross-dressing gender-switching behavior. A ruling from the EEOC has no jurisprudential effect and no binding authority on the Department of Justice. Had the case been decided by the Supreme Court or another federal court of appeals, Holder’s decision would have had more merit.

The EEOC is not entitled to deference, and certainly no deference on a ruling so far outside the law. The Holder Justice Department has bullied school districts that prohibited boys in high school from dressing in drag as part of a school dress code. In New York, one male student came to school dressed in a mini skirt, stilettos and a pink wig. As I described in Injustice, Holder’s DOJ took action:

The school district was forced to pay the transvestite-child $50,000, pay for counseling services with a psychiatrist specializing in “gay, bisexual and transgender youth issues,” hire an expert to review the school’s “gender expression” programs, and hire a second expert to conduct annual training on “gender identity and gender expression” discrimination. In short, the DOJ rolled the school district. Obviously, the school district’s lawyer, unlearned in the lawless proclivities of the Civil Rights Division, recommended this complete capitulation and settlement terms far beyond what the law required. The final consent decree appears to contain only one provision requested by the school district: an agreement not to mention any employee’s name. Then again, perhaps that’s the best that can be hoped for when the plaintiff is largely inventing the legal rules.

Over 200 Democrat legislators think it requires an act of Congress to change discrimination law so radically, and they are right. That’s why H.R. 1755 was introduced in Congress with scores of co-sponsors. That’s how our legal system works. The fact that this bill was introduced, and has not passed, highlights the lawlessness of Holder’s edict.  When someone wants to expand protected classes under civil rights laws, Congress passes a new law. That’s how it works in America. But in the age of Obama, lawlessness is the quicker, more expedient way to impose the views of the outvoted minority onto the rest of the country.

Posted at 6:11 am on December 19th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Shutdown Fairy Tales

With the passage of a $1.1 trillion spending bill that fails to defund President Obama’s immigration amnesty plan (as promised), it seems many Republicans still believe in Beltway fairy tales. If President Obama had shut down the government by vetoing an appropriations bill that didn’t fund the president’s amnesty plan, so the fairy tale goes, Republicans would be blamed and damaged politically.

There’s just one problem with this fairy tale: the 2014 election results.

Nobody blamed Republicans for a shutdown in 2013, and nobody cared. The Washington establishment fears big bad shutdowns because they illustrate to the rest of the country that they can get along just fine without Washington.

I never saw a United States Park Service vehicle until the day I saw federal employees putting up barricades to block parking spaces on the George Washington Parkway during the last government shutdown. It was shutdown theater. Nobody blamed Republicans. Nobody cared.

That’s the real reason the Washington establishment fears a shutdown. Government shutdowns illustrate how inessential Washington is to the lives of ordinary Americans.


As my former Justice Department colleague Hans von Spakovsky pointed out in August 2013 when a similar funding fight over Obamacare was looming, leaders in the House majority were misreading their own party’s political history:

Speaker John Boehner warned that a defunding amendment might lead to a government shutdown and then reportedly reminded the Republicans of the supposed political backlash over the government shutdowns in 1995-96.

Remember 1996? That was when four networks dominated the news cycle and almost nobody used the internet for information. Back then, Matt Drudge was bundling the latest headlines on Usenet to a whopping 50,000 readers.

Even in that obsolete media environment, the shutdown didn’t hurt Republicans, and helped the country. Those 1990s shutdowns resulted from budget fights between Pres. Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was trying to bring down the budget deficit, a noble and principled endeavor.

In fact, in the presidential election of 1996 in which voters rejected Republican Bob Dole and reelected Bill Clinton, Republicans only lost eight seats – the first time Republicans had maintained their majority control of the House of Representatives in almost 70 years. They actually gained two seats in the Senate in spite of a Democratic presidential incumbent. Better yet, the federal government was restrained by the GOP’s principled stand.

Out of these positive events, a dark fairy tale emerged, one that still haunts the GOP congressional leadership.

Posted at 9:57 am on December 15th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Media Silence on Lena Dunham Rape Questions

If you needed any more proof of media bias, Google Lena Dunham. About the only news hits you’ll see go to John Nolte’s blistering investigative reporting on dubious parts of Dunham’s allegations of rape published at Breitbart (Powerline also has this piece). Apart from a single Washington Post mention, Dunham’s dubious story of her rape at Oberlin College by a college Republican (naturally) is nowhere to be found in any legacy news outlet, particularly those that have spent the last few years fawning over her.

To recap: Dunham’s new book has a detailed story of date rape by one “Barry,” whom she identifies as a well-known college Republican on campus. Not only did this Barry purportedly rape her, but he also was a serial rapist, including gruesome scenes of bloody violence committed against other Oberlin College students.

He’s the kind of fellow who should be in prison. But Nolte reports that Dunham doesn’t seem too interested in putting him there.

John Nolte spent a great deal of time on Oberlin’s campus, reviewing records which would touch on the credibility of Dunham’s Barry account, and Nolte found enough holes in Dunham’s story to qualify her to write for Rolling Stone.

Of course, few reviewers of Dunham’s potentially libelous new bestseller have had much to say.

Katy Waldman, who told us at Slate of Dunham’s “not-entirely-consensual encounter in college,” has been silent. Michiko Kakutani reviewed Dunham’s tale for the New York Times, and said Dunham “has written a book that’s as acute and heartfelt as it is funny.”

Perhaps Dunham’s book is heartfelt and funny — unless you happen to be Barry, and Dunham’s rape story is entirely fabricated.


After Nolte began digging deeper into Dunham’s story some weeks ago, Barry-the-accused has powered up for possible libel litigation against Dunham. I won’t mention Barry’s full name anymore than I will provide a link to Dunham’s book, but anyone with a search engine can figure out who Barry is.

And that’s the problem for Dunham. Barry has set up a legal fund to pay for any action against Dunham.

The fact that Barry needs to ask for money exposes yet another irony of the entertainment/media/liberal alliance. Shirley Sherrod didn’t need to go hat-in-hand to scrounge up money to bring her libel case against Andrew Breitbart and Larry O’Connor, and now Andrew Breitbart’s widow. Oh no, that libel lawsuit is being handled by a big law firm, for free.

In some quarters it’s fashionable to run in the race-agitator crowd. It’s also fashionable to play in the fashionable feminist HBO scene, especially with Dunham’s innuendo-filled politics.

In Manhattan’s publishing industry, where magazines like Glamour, Vogue, and Marie Claire treat Dunham as some sickening combination of Madonna and Rosa Parks, there is probably hardly a soul aware that Nolte has wrecked Dunham’s story.

Even if a few are aware, truth and falsehood in those quarters comes by the identity of the speaker.  If conservative new media wrecks Dunham’s veracity, it will take weeks for the New York publishing world to acknowledge it, if then.

Posted at 8:52 am on December 8th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

James O’Keefe Files Bar Complaints Against DOJ Lawyers

James O’Keefe has filed an ethics complaint with various bar associations against Department of Justice Civil Rights attorney Karla Dobinski and three others arising out of a prosecution of police officers in New Orleans.

PJ Media has covered Karla Dobinski’s ethical misconduct here and here.

Dobinski was in charge of the taint team in the prosecution of New Orleans polices officers on civil rights charges in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The taint team was responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of the accused police officers. It was responsible for ensuring that evidence obtained in the local internal affairs investigation did not make its way into the criminal prosecution.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt called the DOJ attorney misconduct “grotesque.” Despite that, Dobinski is still employed by the Criminal Section in the Civil Rights Division, the same component which is investigating the police in Ferguson, Missouri.

Dobinski is also at the very top of the federal payscale, making in excess of $155,000 despite having engaged in grotesque misconduct.

Dobinski is a member of both the Wisconsin and District of Columbia bars. If either bar takes action against her, it is likely the other bar will follow. For example, if Dobinski were disbarred in Wisconsin for her behavior in the New Orleans police prosecution, she would likely be disbarred by the D.C. Bar.

An attorney general nominee will soon have to answer questions in confirmation hearings. One question that must be asked is whether it is wise to keep lawyers employed at the Justice Department who engaged in “grotesque” unethical conduct in the prosecution of police officers, especially when the nation is now alerted to pending matters in Ferguson and Staten Island.

Here is the new O’Keefe video describing the bar complaints against the DOJ lawyers:

YouTube Preview Image
Posted at 7:40 am on December 5th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Marching Down New Black Panther Memory Lane

The New Black Panthers can’t stay out of the news, mostly because the Obama administration continues to behave so strangely when they come calling. The latest example is the oddly thin indictment on federal gun charges against two members of the anti-Semitic and anti-white hate group, when so much more seemed possible. Let’s recap.

Local St. Louis media reported that St. Louis police were investigating two New Black Panthers who sought to assassinate law enforcement officials in Ferguson as well as the local district attorney. The reports also indicated that they sought to use explosive devices against the St. Louis Gateway Arch. After this story, I opined here that the charges should be federal domestic terrorism charges, not state-level charges.

And voila! We have a thin two-page indictment against them on basic illegal gun purchasing charges. As Bill Gertz’s piece points out:

The soft treatment for activities that normally would have brought federal terrorism charges appears to be part of efforts by Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department to “go soft” on the racist group, according to former Justice official J. Christian Adams.

That’s odd. But what is odder still is how it seems a local St. Louis police investigation has been smothered, overtaken, and downplayed. When Gertz called the local police for comment, they referred him to the U.S. attorney in St. Louis. Normally, local officials don’t punt to the feds on a local investigation.

Then, when Gertz called the U.S. attorney, he was told he had to call the Office of Public Affairs in Washington. These are the professional, politicized press flunkies for Holder. When Gertz asked if more charges would be issued, he got no answers.

Remember, when the same Justice Department indicted Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the indictment ran dozens and dozens of pages. The facts were laid bare. But McDonnell is a Republican, and the New Black Panthers, shall we say, are not.

Why did Washington absorb what started as a state case, and then downplay it?

Posted at 8:06 am on December 3rd, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Flames of Ferguson Illuminate Age of Obama

When history remembers the Obama administration, the flames of Ferguson will light up our memories. It wasn’t just an AutoZone and Jade Nails burning up in the fires of Ferguson, it was also the “Hope” of 2008 going up in smoke.

Instead of hope, the age of Obama has been characterized by racial division and discord.

Obama and Holder commanded the police to behave themselves. The police behaved, and look what happened.

Last week, members of the New Black Panther Party were arrested by state officials for plotting to use pipe bombs against the St. Louis Gateway Arch and for purchasing guns in a plot to kill as many policemen as possible.

Notice it was state officials who made the arrests. The Washington Times had a no-longer-surprising quote from an Obama administration official characterizing the plot to blow up the arch and kill (presumably) white police officers as “not a serious threat.”

Why do avoidable subplots involving the New Black Panthers keep shadowing this president? From the time he marched with them in Selma in 2007, to this past weekend, there has been a strange ambivalence toward their racially soaked radicalism.

Why would an administration official say anything to downplay a gun and bomb charge against New Black Panthers? Better yet, why didn’t the Justice Department bring their own domestic terrorism charges against these New Black Panthers?

Critics will say all these questions about the administration coddling the New Black Panther Party are getting old and tiresome, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Obama and Holder stoked division, strife and anger in Ferguson, culminating in last night’s violence.

Sure, President Obama called for calm in Ferguson. But that was after the damage was done. Calls for calm came after Attorney General Eric Holder tripped the time bomb during his visit to Ferguson by meeting with activists and agitators and assuring them the administration was on their side against the police.

When Holder complained about the police, when Obama talked about problems with policing in the United States, everyone understood the administration’s loyalties.

President Obama’s call for calm in Ferguson provided the administration deniability that the administration bore any responsibility for the riots, even after Holder flooded the zone with swarms of FBI agents and Civil Rights Division lawyers to investigate the police.

The Obama administration led their legions to believe that if Officer Wilson was not charged, it was due to racial injustice, racial injustice Obama would help remedy one way or another. Holder and Obama made the protesters think their cause was just and correct.

It was no accident that President Obama named Vanita Gupta acting head of the Civil Rights Division weeks ago. Gupta is beloved by the radical left for her militant hostility toward law enforcement officers. It’s why another Justice Department lawyer, Karla Dobinski, who illegally railroaded police officers in Louisiana, still hasn’t been fired.

Today, Holder announced that a federal criminal investigation will be ongoing. Holder is barely telling the truth.

Here’s some news that I suspect the mainstream media will ignore. My sources familiar with what is happening on the ground in Ferguson say DOJ Criminal Section lawyers have been encamped in Missouri. Nevertheless, sources familiar with the federal process say federal charges are very unlikely due to lack of evidence of a crime by Officer Darren Wilson.

Yet Holder will maintain the charade that federal civil rights charges might yet come.

Maintaining the pretense of an expensive investigation, too, is another dual message. Just like calling for calm while stoking the protests, prolonging the promise of a federal indictment against Officer Wilson keeps the folks energized on the side of the administration. Obama will use their anger, for example, to implement anti-police policies at the Justice Department while he outlasts the short memories of the protesters.

After all, the folks firebombing the AutoZone probably don’t spend much time watching cable news.


This is the same game Holder has played with George Zimmerman the last two years. Activists, like the New Black Panthers, hold out hope that Zimmerman will eventually face federal civil rights charges. Meanwhile, sources with direct knowledge have told me that FBI agents have repeatedly told FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Eric Holder that there is no federal civil rights case to be made against Zimmerman.

But the phony Zimmerman “investigation” rolls on. Karla Dobinski’s Criminal Section at DOJ is still trolling for tips at

So why doesn’t Holder announce the Zimmerman case is closed? The answer is obvious, and the same sick storyline may play out in Ferguson.

Posted at 8:13 am on November 25th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Obama, Our Modern John C. Calhoun

One of the ideas that plunged America into the bloody Civil War was the belief that federal laws could be nullified by those who disagree with them. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was a chief proponent of the doctrine that Southern states could nullify federal laws if states disagreed with them. In announcing a lawless amnesty edict tonight, President Obama is our modern John C. Calhoun.

Elementary school civics class has taught the same thing for two hundred years: Congress makes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws. The reason this is so is because individual liberty thrives when government is hobbled by division of power. People live better lives when federal power is stymied.

When President Obama announces that he will be suspending laws to bless the illegal presence of millions of foreigners in the United States, he will have adopted the most basic philosophy of John C. Calhoun: some laws can be tossed aside because his ends justify the lawlessness.

John C. Calhoun

John C. Calhoun

Make no mistake about why Obama wants millions of foreigners to remain in the United States. He told us exactly why in 2008: he aims to “fundamentally transform” America.

One way to transform America is to import populations with cultural and legal traditions foreign to American traditions. Central and South America has a cultural tradition of instability in government, of graft, corruption, and civil strife. People from those countries bring an expectation that the systems are rigged against them, because oftentimes they are.

Obama wants to transform America by transforming who Americans are. Even if these millions are not granted the right to vote (immediately), their children, yet unborn, will be granted it by virtue of being natural-born citizens. Obama is playing the long game.

Obama learned the history of the 20th century: when radical statists take power quickly, openly, and brazenly, Americans will stand in the breach. Whether on the blazing beaches of Saipan, in the Ardennes snow, or in dark alleys in Bucharest, Americans will risk it all. But Americans are less familiar with a slow-moving threat to American values. The long game isn’t as recognizable to us.

The long game is what Putin plays in Eastern Europe, what radical Islam plays everywhere, and what Obama now plays domestically with amnesty. Obama just had to reach back and borrow some ideas from one of the most vociferous defenders of Southern slavery, and nullify laws he took an oath to enforce.

Take some comfort in this: executives acting lawlessly is a transgression as old as human history.  Charles I similarly ignored the law when he went so far as to dissolve a Parliament with which he disagreed. When he started running out of money to conduct his wars with France and Spain, he violated Magna Carta by imposing a forced loan on the monarchs without the consent of Parliament.

Posted at 7:04 am on November 20th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Get Back, Loretta: Holder’s Successor Promises More of the Same

The nomination of Loretta Lynch to succeed Eric Holder as attorney general is a deft political decision by President Obama.  Lynch’s nomination satisfies the racial interest groups yet doesn’t carry the toxic record that other possible nominees carried.  Al Sharpton promised he would play a role in selecting Holder’s successor, and it appears he did.

Lynch promises to be Eric Holder’s sequel, particularly when it comes to federal enforcement of civil rights laws.  What she provides the White House is a clean slate.  She provides the false promise  of luring some Republicans into thinking the Justice Department may improve once Holder is gone.

That hope ignores the fact that Holder, while lawless as can be, was the symptom of an institutional problem when progressives wield power at the most powerful federal department.  Holder may go, but hundreds who think just like him will still be managing affairs – from the top political appointees to the lowest (and newly hired) line attorney.  Lynch will arrive to oversee a transformed culture at the Department of Justice.  And that’s just the beginning.

But first, it’s worth noting one good thing about Lynch.  She is coming from a United States attorney’s office.  Justice Department offices outside of Washington, D.C., are often reservoirs of professionalism compared to the progressive stranglehold the left has on Main Justice in Washington.  In fact, the Eastern District of New York is one of the more important districts in the nation, and Lynch will bring her experience managing career professionals rather than swarms of progressive crusaders who populate Main Justice.

Of course not every U.S. attorney’s office is pure, but generally speaking, Lynch’s most beneficial qualification is being an outsider in an era where the DOJ insiders have turned the department into a plaything to appease the most extreme elements of the Democratic Party. Her experience as a two-time U.S. attorney is the one bright spot in her nomination.

That’s where the good news about Lynch ends.

Most notably, she seems to be a devotee of the fable that Jim Crow is coming back, and that laws designed to ensure election integrity are really a plot to disenfranchise minorities.  She specifically attacked voter identification laws.  She called them an effort “to take back” what Martin Luther King had won.

Opposition to voter ID is designed to scare minority voters and help Democrats win turnout wars.

Her misplaced opposition to voter ID portends a broader problem.  The department under Holder has undertaken racially selective law enforcement.  While DOJ officials bluster about criminal civil rights cases that never happen, such as against George Zimmerman and in Ferguson, they brazenly refuse to prosecute civil rights cases when white victims are subject to racially motivated violence.  Incident after incident after incident has occurred in the last few years, and Matt Drudge routinely catalogs them at the Drudge Report.

A single prosecution of these cases, nay, even an investigation, would deflate Holder’s critics, myself included.  But these cases have not been prosecuted under Holder because the prosecutors oppose using civil rights laws to protect white victims of hate crimes.  Holder even said so himself in congressional testimony – saying that hate crime laws are designed to protect traditional racial minorities.

That’s code for, if you aren’t one of “his people” the law won’t protect you.  This is an issue that affects real Americans and the safety of real families.  Instead of flinching, senators should push.

Will Lynch commit to keeping quiet about DOJ investigations, or will she stoke racial division, as Eric Holder did in Ferguson?

The Senate should bore into Lynch’s views on the same, and hard.  There are plenty of skilled questioners on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Armed with the list of racially motivated attacks over the last few years, they should extract a commitment from her that she will break with Holder’s racially selective law enforcement.

Posted at 8:19 am on November 13th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Big Law’s Battle With Christians in Texas

Amongst the least recognized foes of constitutional conservatism are lawyers at giant law firms. Big Law lawyers have served as mercenaries for a wide spectrum of fringe causes. Unlike mercenaries, however, they are doing the left’s bidding for free. In Houston, they’re doing it to attack Christian pastors who speak on theological matters.

But it isn’t just attacks on Christians. These “pro bono” efforts by lawyers at large law firms have undermined America’s energy independence, the integrity of our elections, and the security of the nation.

And paying clients of the firms are unwittingly funding this political agenda.

Houston Mayor Annise D. Parker used pro bono lawyers from big law firms to attack religious freedom by issuing subpoenas to them. (Read one here.) One of the attorneys who issued the subpoenas is Kristen Schlemmer at Susman Godfrey, LLP. Her firm page is here.

Kristen Schlemmer

Kristen Schlemmer

Mayor Parker had been unapologetic about attempting to bully and intimidate local pastors by subpoenaing their sermons and communications with their church members. She finally has backed down after vigorous criticism, which included a call-to-arms from former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Houston has withdrawn its subpoenas after it was “deluged with telephone calls, letters, emails” and hundreds of Bibles and sermons according to Fox News. Texas Attorney General (and now governor-elect) Greg Abbott also criticized the city, calling the subpoenas a “direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor, has displayed both an astonishing ignorance of and an astounding contempt for the First Amendment in her quest.

But just as bad is the help she has received from three Houston law firms — Susman Godfrey, Fulbright & Jaworski, and Haynes & Boone — in attempting to subvert the most fundamental principles of religious freedom protected by the Bill of Rights.

This controversy arose after the city government passed an “Equal Rights Ordinance,” which among its effects would allow men who identify as women to use a women’s bathroom and vice versa. Denial of actual gender strikes at the heart of Judeo-Christian theology of God’s will. Thus, critics gathered more than 50,000 signatures to put the “bathroom ordinance” on the ballot so the residents of Houston could vote on it. A lawsuit was filed after Parker and her lawyers threw out the petitions claiming there were too many invalid signatures.

The only relevant issue in this type of election lawsuit is the validity of the signatures of the Houston residents who signed the petitions, and what standards the city used to determine their validity. Yet the mayor subpoenaed the sermons and communications of local pastors who weren’t even parties to the lawsuit, seeking anything that discussed the ordinance, the petition, and everything from “restroom access” to “the topics of equal rights, civil rights, homosexuality, or gender identity.”

As Peter Kirsanow, a commissioner on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said in a letter to Mayor Parker, “the pastors’ understanding of the ordinance and the petition is irrelevant to the litigation.” Their religious views on civil rights, equal rights, homosexuality, and gender identity also “have nothing to do with whether there are enough valid signatures to place a referendum on the ballot.” According to Kirsanow, these subpoenas were a “blatant attempt to punish these pastors for expressing their religiously-based political views.” It was an “abuse of government power” and Kirsanow found it troubling that “given the number of lawyers involved, someone did not raise the First Amendment implications.”

Posted at 2:45 pm on November 5th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams

Targeting Louisiana at the Justice Department

(Editor’s note: J. Christian Adams’ Crimes Against the Republic is available free for a limited time only, exclusively through the PJ Store.)

On the day that the Supreme Court struck down the part of the Voting Rights Act that required states to submit all election law changes to Justice Department employees for approval, possible attorney general nominee and current Secretary of Labor Tom Perez had soothing words.  Not to worry, Perez told these federal employees who no longer had anything to do after the Supreme Court’s holding in Shelby v. Holder striking down federal powers over state elections.  Louisiana, Perez told them, would be the full employment state, keeping them busy and employed because they would cook up ways to sue the Pelican State under civil rights laws.

If Perez is nominated to replace Eric Holder, he should have to explain his desire to target one state to keep federal employees busy.

Perez’s disgraceful comments reveal the moral bankruptcy of the modern civil rights movement, and particularly the abuses of power of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. Perez was then the assistant attorney general for civil rights, and telegraphing a desire on his part to see a series of lawsuits, voluminous enough to employ dozens of lawyers and staffers suddenly with nothing to do.  His remark revealed how this administration views the balance of power between the federal government and the states when it comes to civil rights.


During the Kennedy administration, Attorney General Robert Kennedy pursued civil rights cases in the south because it was the right thing to do.  In the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder has pursued civil rights cases to give federal employees something to do.

The other reason Holder has pursued voting cases against states like Texas, Louisiana and North Carolina is to help the Democratic Party.  Attacks on election integrity laws, such as voter ID, are crass political crusades to scare minority voters.  Lawsuits against voter ID and election integrity are efforts to scare minorities that Jim Crow is back.  Holder is trying to motivate minority voters through fear.

The Supreme Court this week allowed election integrity laws in North Carolina and Texas to remain in effect for the upcoming election.  This is bad news for Holder, and he knows it.  If elections take place with voter ID and other election integrity laws — and minority voters still manage to vote in regular numbers — then it will look like Holder has been crying wolf.  Justice Department lawyers hoped their theory of disenfranchisement would never be tested in the real world.

Posted at 11:44 am on October 19th, 2014 by J. Christian Adams