Fox/Beck/Limbaugh and Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

In an episode that raises interesting questions both about voting laws and the polarization of todays media,right wing commentators are up in arms about a presumed voter intimidation case from 2008 in which "armed Black Panthers" (BPs) with racist violence goals brandished "weapons" at a Philadelphia polling place; the Obama Department of Justice dropped charges against them in-- as the commentators see it--just another example of the "white-hating" radicalism of the Obama administration. That suspicion is supported by the resignation in protest from the Justice Department of a South Carolina Republican appointed by President Bush in 2005. 

The real story, of course, is much more complicated. The two BPs were not "armed" in the implied sense (one had a billy club), apparently did not directly threaten voters, were reported to police and charged by Justice Department officials, and one remains under court order. The reason more serious charges were dropped by the Justice Department apparently apparently has to do with the high thresholds of evidence in the law. 

A New York Times story on the incident and conservative reaction to it appeared on July 6. The author, Charlie Savage, writes that

"... the civil rights division [had] invoked a rarely used section of the Voting Rights Act to file a civil lawsuit alleging voter intimidation by both men, the [BP] party chairman and the party.
In April 2009, the division seemed to win the case by default because the New Black Panthers failed to show up in court. But the following month, a longtime Justice official, Loretta King — who was then the acting head of the division — decided to reduce the scope of the case.
The department dropped the charges against the party, its chairman and the man who was not carrying a club. It pressed forward with the lawsuit against the man with the club, obtaining an injunction that forbids him from carrying a weapon near an open polling place in Philadelphia through 2012.  

"The case became a cause célèbre in the conservative media world, and the Civil Rights Commission opened an investigation. The eight-member panel, which has the power to issue subpoenas and issue reports, is controlled by a six-member conservative bloc  appointed during the Bush administration.
In testimony before the panel in May, Tom Perez, who became the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in October 2009, said that “reasonable minds can differ” about the case, but that the acting supervisors had concluded that the case had been over-charged.
Mr. Perez said there was insufficient evidence that the [BP party itself] was responsible for the incident. He also noted that the voter intimidation provision is rarely used, and pointed to similar incidents during the Bush years in which minorities were the alleged victims but the division did not file such a lawsuit."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charlie_savage/index.html?inline=nyt-per). 

Abigail Thernstrom, conservative scholar and vice-chair of the Civil Rights Commission also responded to the media outcry, with an article in the National Review on July 6. She argued that the reaction was overblown and undermined conservative credibility. Thernstrom writes,

"Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high. 

In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.

A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.

The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns. 

A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered. 

Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting — like the Socialist Workers Party dreams of a national campaign to demonstrate its position as the vanguard of the proletariat. But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale. This case is a one-off."

http://article.nationalreview.com/437619/the-new-black-panther-casebr-a-conservative-dissent/abigail-thernstrom

Comments

[Nike Shox Turbo]

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing; the freedom to choose his attitude in any given set of circumstances.

[Nike Dunks]

People may not be smooth sailing life! There will always be things go wrong! Even if you do not like but can not escape it

[coach suitcase]

Poor edward has to do his work after dinner and he couldn’t go with us to play football. Because he dare not go against his mother’s orders. What a pity!

[Michael Perry]

Thanks, Elizabeth. And thanks very much for the post.

Michael

[Elizabeth Sanders]

The author is Elizabeth Sanders.

[Michael Perry]

Who is the author of this post?

Michael