Democrats and civil-rights advocates are slamming conservative members of a key federal voting-rights panel for a plan to hold hearings on the controversial "New Black Panthers" voter intimidation case, and are expressing intense concern that the commission is being shifted away from its traditional role as a protector of the rights of minority voters.
Yesterday, Main Justice reported that the commission, dominated by Bush appointees, planned to hold hearings on the New Black Panther case, which the Justice Department dismissed earlier this year. In a now-famous incident from Election Day 2008, a member of a group called the New Black Panther Party was caught on camera clad in combat boots and brandishing a night stick at a Philadelphia polling station.
Conservatives have charged that the decision to drop the case was a politically motivated effort to avoid antagonizing an ally and to tacitly encourage anti-white intimidation. Commissioner Todd Gaziano -- whose day job is with the conservative Heritage Foundation, and who last year brought in arch voting-rights foe Hans Von Spakovsky to work for the commission as a consultant -- told Main Justice in reference to the plan to hold hearings: "More oversight is a good thing."
In response, Michael Yaki, one of just two Democratic commissioners, told TPMmuckraker that Gaziano's desired hearings were intended "to embarrass the Attorney General and the President, by trying to revive this fiction that there's a double standard for justice in the Obama administration depending on if you're black and white."
Yaki described the Panther case as concerning "one isolated incident," rather than representing the kind of systemic problem that commission has traditionally focused on. He called the planned hearings "a misuse of what the commission is supposed to be about."
Gerald Hebert, a former acting head of the civil rights divisions voting section, agreed, telling TPMmuckraker: "There were a lot of problems with the case from an evidence standpoint." Hebert cited as an example the fact that not a single voter says they were intimidated by the display, which took place at an almost entirely African-American polling place in downtown Philadelphia.
The decision to drop the case was made by Loretta King, at the time the acting Civil Rights Division chief, and a career DOJer, not a political appointee. An injunction was issued against the man carrying the nightstick. Last month the department announced that it was investigating King's decision.
More broadly, both Yaki and Hebert lamented what they see as the effort by the commission's conservative members, under the chairmanship of Republican Gerald Reynolds, to steer the panel away from its traditional role as a defender of minority voting rights.
Many of the commissions Republicans recently went so far as to intervene in the debate over health-care reform, sending a letter to Congress arguing that a provision in the legislation that aimed to encourage more minority doctors was "racially discriminatory" and unconstitutional -- a claim that was quickly challenged by Democrats.
"It's gone from a watchdog on behalf of civil rights to an attack dog against civil rights," said Yaki. "It's regrettable."
Hebert was equally blunt, calling the commission "a shadow of its former self," and "kind of a joke in the civil-rights community."
Hebert cited several issues that the panel might focus on -- voter intimidation and caging, the purging of voter rolls, civil rights for institutionalized persons, and a recent Supreme Court decision, Northwest Austin MUD v. Holder, that appears to weaken the Voting Rights Act -- rather than the New Black Panther case.
And he slammed the efforts of GOP-appointed commissioners like Gaziano and Reynolds to move the panel away from its traditional focus on protecting the rights of minority voters.
"They really don't deserve a platform to speak on these issues, because they haven't done anything in the fight for civil rights their whole career," he said. "These people have no civil rights credentials."
Gaziano did not respond to a request for comment.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

LFC
October 22, 2009 5:14 PM
"I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find abuse of public position by Republicans to score political points."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
October 22, 2009 5:59 PM
So when does Obama get a chance to replace some of these Rethuglicans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EgregiousCharles
October 24, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to slb
I love the irony. In a scenario where one of the parties is swaggering around with a club, the group attempting a legal investigation is a "thug" group.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
luvamerica
October 22, 2009 7:41 PM
I saw the video and if you could not see the intimidation that the black panthers were showing you did not see the video. Imagine two white skinheads standing and doing the same things. Both of you would say they should be prosecuted. How quick we forget what the black panthers were all about. (kill Whitey]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mixelpixx
October 23, 2009 2:36 AM in reply to luvamerica
So how does a New Black Panther Party rep, at an almost all black polling station acting like a fool show a systemic problem?
They were unable to find anyone who was not able to vote, or felt they were being threatened to not vote.. so this requires a commission why?
Take your fake outrage elsewhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
October 23, 2009 10:49 AM in reply to luvamerica
Yes, the standard is not whether a person on the internet saw a possibly-edited video of the incident, and was intimidated.
You have to have been there, and intimidated at that time. After the fact pants-wetting does not count. To date, I haven't heard any reports of complaints from anyone who voted at, or tried to vote at, that location. And the Commission apparently has not had any.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of improperly disfranchised voters are still waiting for the organization created to protect their rights, to begin doing so.
Nazi skinheads have just as many First Amendment rights as New Black Panthers do, and they have just as many as you or I do. You or I might not like what they're saying, or how they're saying it, but that doesn't make it actionable.
The nightstick brandisher wasn't even charged - only made the target of an injunction, presumably one prohibiting the brandishing of a nightstick at a polling station while speaking as he did at the time.
That right there speaks volumes - whether you hear it or not - no police action was taken at that time. Just so you know, police in the USA have a long, storied, and often-ignored history of taking action pre-emptively against black men whether the arrest can be justified or not.
How quick we forget what the black panthers were all about. (kill Whitey]
Your lying about the Black Panthers is duly noted.
I should tell you, though, that such ignorance is easily remedied - you obviously have access to the Internet.
The Black Panthers were originally established to celebrate the
exercise of Second Amendment rights, to bear arms. They often did so in public, in locales where blacks had previously been subject to displays of armed whites whose entire purpose was to intimidate blacks.
That organization is sometimes confused with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic party due to the similarity in the emblem chosen to represent it. (A panther, black in color.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 23, 2009 10:55 AM in reply to luvamerica
Lying is your forte luvamerica. It seems like all you do here is peddle lies. I grew up in the age of the Black Panthers and they really came about to help their people who were struggling. They did a lot of good things for the community. If you really want to know about the Black Panthers, start here
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/index-be.html, but I doubt you want to know the truth. Lies are what you deal in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
October 22, 2009 7:54 PM
Haven't the New Black Panters learned anything after all those years of Republican dominance? If you want to intimidate a crowd, just bring an assortment of hand guns and assault rifles!
Geesh, it's like they're still stuck in the 50s and 60s. Civic discourse has risen to a whole new modern level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kirenos
October 23, 2009 6:26 AM in reply to Jaycal
Absolutely. The right to bare arms, er bear arms, er whatever - does that only apply to firearms?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
October 23, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to kirenos
It's not permitted to deprive another person(living or dead) of an arm, so that you can bear it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
October 23, 2009 10:35 AM in reply to Jaycal
Let's see if anyone accuses the right-wingers brandishing weapons at Obama's speeches of trying to intimidate him or liberals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EgregiousCharles
October 23, 2009 8:17 AM
1) This one incident is of a type that clearly cannot be allowed to continue due to risk of voter intimidation. The precedent set is extremely bad. (This is not a precedent in the special legal sense of a previous court decision establishing policy.)
2) One incident does not show a systemic problem, and I've heard of no similar incident; of course there hasn't been another presidential election since then.
3) The panel (http://www.usccr.gov/) may "traditionally" focus on systemic abuses but is not limited to them.
4) Not a good idea to dismiss intimidation cases because no one steps forward and complains. The problems with that are obvious. Should investigations into voter intimidation in the old South been dismissed because no one could be found to say the the guys in white hoods with axe handles standing outside the polling place were intimidating?
5) "And he slammed the efforts of GOP-appointed commissioners like Gaziano and Reynolds to move the panel away from its traditional focus on protecting the rights of minority voters."
Civil rights are for everyone, not just minorities, though minority civil rights have traditionally needed more protection.
Remember, every precedent this administration sets will be used by some future Republican administration for a different goal, same way Obama is using Bush-style signing statements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ibc
October 23, 2009 8:59 AM
"Civil rights are for everyone, not just minorities, though minority civil rights have traditionally needed more protection."
You concern trollery is duly noted.
In a similar vein, I heard a white kid was beat up on a bus a few months ago; certainly the USCCR should investigate. After all, civil rights are not just for minorities.
Sure, some would say that, in the absence of unlimited resources, only egregious cases merit investigation. Some would even go so far as to argue that chasing every right-wing trope that the fringe vomits up is counter-productive, and simply amplifies GOP propaganda efforts--but they simply don't care about Equal Justice For All.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EgregiousCharles
October 24, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to ibc
"You concern trollery is duly noted." That wasn't the sentence where I could be accused of concern trollery. The one open to that charge was "Remember, every precedent this administration sets will be used by some future Republican administration for a different goal, same way Obama is using Bush-style signing statements." The sentence you quoted, "Civil rights are for everyone, not just minorities, though minority civil rights have traditionally needed more protection.", was justice trollery.
"Sure, some would say that, in the absence of unlimited resources, only egregious cases merit investigation."
1) Some would be incorrect. In the absence of adequate resources, only the most egregious cases merit investigation.
2) Is there a more egregious or overt case of voter intimidation that was dismissed that I didn't hear about? Larger polling place, more or deadlier weapons on display? It's hard to find a more classic example of voter intimidation than guys from a one-race political organization standing outside a polling place with clubs. It's hard to find a more classic example of what a civil rights panel ought to investigate than when the administration the club-bearers promote has the charges dismissed.
"Some would even go so far as to argue that chasing every right-wing trope that the fringe vomits up is counter-productive, and simply amplifies GOP propaganda efforts--but they simply don't care about Equal Justice For All."
Well, yeah. If you pick and choose your cases with the goal of avoiding amplifying GOP propaganda efforts, you absolutely no longer care about Equal Justice For All. You have put your own politics above justice in those cases, presumably assuring yourself that it's for some greater justice.
If you come up with a current case where, for example, dozens of Klansmen were outside a polling place with shotguns, and voter intimidation charges were dismissed, I will absolutely agree that that should be a higher-priority use of the board's limited resources.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?