[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20207-20209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    THE NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY CASE

  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. As a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act, I've been 
deeply troubled by this Department of Justice's questionable dismissal 
of an important voter intimidation case in Philadelphia, where I grew 
up, and my dad was a policeman. My commitment to voting rights is 
unquestioned. In 1981 I was the only member, Republican or Democrat, of 
the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act, 
and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times 
Dispatch.
  And when I supported its reauthorization in 2006, I was again 
criticized by editorial pages. I have grave concerns about the 
Department's dismissal of this case. Congress must use its oversight to 
maintain the integrity of the voting system. Oversight is needed now 
more than ever given the disclosure today in the Washington Times that 
the Department's case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed 
over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team as well as 
the chief of the Department's Appellate Division.
  The politicization of the Justice Department by Eric Holder against 
career employees is absolutely wrong, and the Congress ought to get to 
the bottom of this.
  Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act, I have 
been deeply troubled by this Department of Justice's questionable 
dismissal of an important voter intimidation case in Philadelphia--
where I grew up and my father was a policeman.
  My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. In 1981, I was the 
only member--Republican or Democrat--of the Virginia delegation in the 
House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by 
the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, and when I supported 
its reauthorization in 2006, I was criticized again by editorial pages.

[[Page 20208]]

  I have grave concerns about the department's dismissal of this 
serious case. Above all, Congress must use its oversight to maintain 
the integrity of our voting system.
  All the documents surrounding this case need to be made public and 
all the questions asked in my July 22 letter to Attorney General Holder 
should be answered. The American people deserve nothing less than full 
transparency.
  Oversight is needed now more than ever given the disclosures in 
today's Washington Times that the department's voter intimidation case 
against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed over the objections 
of career attorneys on the trial team--as well as the chief of the 
department's Appellate Division.
  The politicization of the Justice Department by Eric Holder against 
career employees is absolutely wrong and the Congress ought to get to 
the bottom of this.
  Sources within the department stated that Associate Attorney General 
Thomas Perrelli, a political appointee, overruled career attorneys in 
dismissing the case.
  According to the Appellate Division memos first disclosed in the 
Times article, Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said that ``the 
appropriate action was to pursue the default judgment'' and that 
Justice had made a ``reasonable argument in favor of default relief 
against all defendants.''
  Flynn's opinion was shared by a second Appellate Division official, 
Marie K. McElderry, who stated, ``The government's predominant interest 
is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or 
persons urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote.''
  Given these troubling disclosures, I call on the attorney general to 
re-file this civil suit and allow a ruling from the judge based on the 
merits of the case--not political expediency.
  It is imperative that we protect all Americans' right to vote, which 
I consider a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy. The 
career attorneys and Appellate Division within the department sought to 
demonstrate the federal government's commitment to protecting this 
right by vigorously prosecuting any individual or group that seeks to 
undermine this right. I hope that the political leadership will follow 
their example and allow this case to go forward again.

    [From the Richmond Times Dispatch--Editorial, October 15, 1981]

                          A More Offensive Law

       A recent news story from Washington reported that Tenth 
     District Republican Rep. Frank Wolf ``didn't want to talk 
     about'' his vote in favor of extending the odious federal 
     Voting Rights Act. No wonder. There is absolutely no way that 
     he can justify his endorsement of a measure that officially 
     brands Virginia a second-class state and denies Virginians 
     some of their most precious political rights. Mr. Wolf was 
     the only Virginia congressman to support the bill when it 
     moved through the House of Representatives last week.
       Grossly unfair in its present form, the Voting Rights Act 
     would be made even more offensive by changes the House 
     approved. The despicable pre-clearance provision, which now 
     is subject to periodic reconsideration, would become a 
     permanent feature of the law. Under this provision, covered 
     states and localities must obtain federal approval of any 
     law, action or decision that might affect the voting rights 
     or strength of minorities, especially blacks. The House's new 
     version outlines a procedure by which a state might, 
     theoretically, purify itself and gain exemption from the act, 
     but the process is so cumbersome and vague that it is likely 
     to prove to be worthless. One important aspect of the act 
     that would remain unchanged in the House version is its 
     inequitable selectivity. The law's harsh impact would 
     continue to fall mainly on the South. Efforts to persuade the 
     House to apply the act uniformly throughout the nation were 
     unsuccessful.
       Indeed, the House was unwilling to make even the slightest 
     gesture toward fairness. As the bill had emerged from the 
     House Judiciary Committee, it provided that any state or 
     locality seeking to obtain exemption from its coverage would 
     have to get the approval of the United States District Court 
     in Washington. Sixth District Republican Rep. M. Caldwell 
     Butler, one of the principal leaders of the valiant but vain 
     fight against the act offered an eminently sensible amendment 
     that would have permitted states and localities to sue for 
     relief in a local federal district court. The necessity to go 
     to Washington, he argued, would be so costly and cumbersome 
     that many communities would be discouraged from even 
     attempting to qualify for exemption. But the House, unmoved, 
     rejected his proposal.
       Not in many years has Virginia followed the kinds of 
     restrictive voting practices that originally inspired the 
     Voting Rights Act. Not in many years has Virginia attempted 
     to abridge the right of its black citizens to vote. Yet if 
     the House bill prevails Virginia, and most of the South, will 
     continue to be treated as wards of the federal government and 
     denied political rights that the rest of the nation freely 
     exercises, and Mr. Wolf will be partly to blame. Fortunately, 
     the House bill faces considerable opposition in the Senate. 
     And Virginia's two representatives in that body--Senators 
     Harry F. Byrd Jr. and John Warner--can be counted on to 
     support, enthusiastically and aggressively, efforts to 
     transform the Voting Rights Act from a selectively punitive 
     measure into a fair and reasonable law.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, July 30, 2009]

  Justice Appointee OK'd Panther Reversal--Career Lawyers Pushed for 
                           Sanctions in Case

                            (By Jerry Seper)

       Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 
     official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and 
     ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and 
     drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New 
     Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia 
     during November's election, according to interviews.
       The department's career lawyers in the Voting Section of 
     the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five 
     months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against 
     the party and three of its members after the government had 
     already won a default judgment in federal court against the 
     men.
       Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing 
     that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors 
     in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between 
     political appointees and career supervisors, according to 
     federal records and interviews.
       The delay was ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney 
     General Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli 
     concerns about the case during one of their regular review 
     meetings, according to the interviews.
       Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had 
     been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill 
     the vacant political position of assistant attorney general 
     for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.
       She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended 
     dropping the case against two of the men and the party and 
     seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a 
     nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli 
     approved that plan, officials said.
       Questions about how high inside the department the decision 
     to drop the case went have persisted in Congress and in the 
     media for weeks.
       Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The 
     Washington Times that the department has an ``ongoing 
     obligation'' to be sure the claims it makes are supported by 
     the facts and the law. She said that after a ``thorough 
     review'' of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil 
     Rights Division determined the ``facts and the law did not 
     support pursuing the claims against three of the 
     defendants.''
       ``As a result, the department dismissed those claims,'' she 
     said. ``We are committed, to vigorous enforcement of the laws 
     protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote.''
       While the Obama administration has vowed a new era of 
     openness, department officials have refused to answer 
     questions from Republican members of Congress on why the case 
     was dismissed, claiming the information was ``privileged,'' 
     according to congressional correspondence with the 
     department.
       Rep. Frank R Wolf, Virginia Republican and a senior member 
     of the House Appropriations Committee who has raised 
     questions about the case, said he also was prevented from 
     interviewing the front-line lawyers who brought the charges.
       ``Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team 
     on this case?'' Mr. Wolf asked. ``There are many questions 
     that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to 
     high heaven.''
       Ms. Schmaler said the department has tried to cooperate 
     with Congress, ``The Department responded to an earlier 
     letter from Congressman Wolf in an effort to address his 
     questions. Following that letter, the Department agreed to a 
     meeting with Congressman Wolf and career attorneys, in which 
     they made a good-faith effort to respond to his inquiries 
     about this case. We will continue to try to clear up any 
     confusion Congressman Wolf has about this case.''
       Ms. King and a deputy are expected to travel to Capitol 
     Hill on Thursday to meet behind closed doors with House 
     Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan 
     Democrat, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican 
     on the panel, to discuss continuing concerns about the case.
       The department also has yet to provide any records sought 
     by The Times under a Freedom of Information Act request filed 
     in May seeking documents detailing the decision process. 
     Department officials also declined to answer whether any 
     outside groups had raised concerns about the case or 
     pressured the department to drop it.
       Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the 
     NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to 
     The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the 
     Justice Department and

[[Page 20209]]

     shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She 
     said, however, her organization was ``not involved in the 
     decision to dismiss the civil complaint.''
       She said the National Association for the Advancement of 
     Colored People has consistently argued that the department 
     should bring more voter intimidation cases, adding that it 
     was ``disconcerting'' that it did not do so.
       Mr. Perrelli, a prominent private practice attorney, served 
     previously as a counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno in the 
     Clinton administration and was an Obama supporter who raised 
     more than $500,000 for the Democrat candidate in the 2008 
     elections. He authorized a delay to give department officials 
     more time to decide what to do, said officials familiar with 
     the case but not authorized to discuss it publicly. He 
     eventually approved the decision to drop charges against 
     three of the four defendants, they said.
       At issue was what, if any, punishment to seek against the 
     New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) and three of 
     its members accused in a Jan. 7 civil complaint filed in U.S. 
     District Court in Philadelphia.
       Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, 
     black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style 
     markings, were charged in a civil complaint with intimidating 
     voters at a Philadelphia polling place, including brandishing 
     a 2-foot-long nightstick and issuing racial threats and 
     racial insults. Authorities said a third NBPP member 
     ``managed, directed and endorsed the behavior.''
       None of the NBPP members responded to the charges or made 
     any appearance in court.
       ``Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to 
     the democratic process,'' said Grace Chung Becker, a Bush 
     administration political appointee who was the acting 
     assistant attorney general for civil rights at the time the 
     case was filed. ``The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to 
     protect the fundamental right to vote and the department 
     takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously''
       Mrs. Becker, now on a leave of absence from government 
     work, said she personally reviewed the NBPP complaint and 
     approved its filing in federal court. She said the complaint 
     had been the subject of numerous reviews and discussions with 
     the career lawyers, and she agreed with their assessment to 
     file the case.
       Mrs. Becker said Ms. King was overseeing other cases at the 
     time and was not involved in the decision to file the 
     original complaint.
       A Justice Department memo shows that career lawyers in the 
     case decided as early as Dec. 22 to seek a complaint against 
     the NBPP; its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. 
     resident; Minister King Samir Shabazz, a resident of 
     Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter who 
     was accused of wielding the nightstick; and Jerry Jackson, a 
     resident of Philadelphia and a NBPP member.
       ``We believe the deployment of uniformed members of a well 
     known group with an extremely hostile racial agenda, combined 
     with the brandishing of a weapon at the entrance to a polling 
     place, constitutes a violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting 
     Rights Act which prohibits types of intimidation, threats and 
     coercion,'' the memo said.
       The memo, sent to Mrs. Becker, was signed by Christopher 
     Coates, chief of the Voting Section Robert Popper, deputy 
     chief of the section; J. Christian Adams, trial attorney and 
     lead lawyer in the case; and Spencer, R Fisher, law clerk. 
     None of the four has made themselves available for comment.
       Members of Congress continue to ask questions about the 
     case.
       ``If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and 
     wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station 
     doors does not constitutes voter intimidation, at what 
     threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable?'' Mr. 
     Wolf asked.
       Mr. Smith also complained that a July 13 response by 
     Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch to concerns the 
     congressman had about the Philadelphia incident did not 
     alleviate his concerns.
       ``The administration still has failed to explain why it did 
     not pursue an obvious case of voter intimidation. Refusal to 
     address these concerns only confirms politicization of the 
     issue and does not reflect well on the Justice Department,'' 
     Mr. Smith said.
       Mr. Smith asked the department's Office on Inspector 
     General to investigate the matter, and the request was 
     referred to the department's Office of Professional 
     Responsibility.
       Lawmakers aren't alone in the concerns.
       The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a June 16 
     letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused 
     it ``great confusion,'' since the NBPP members were ``caught 
     on video blocking access to the polls, and physically 
     threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 
     2008, general election.''
       ``Though it had basically won the case, the [Civil Rights 
     Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the 
     charges . . ., ``the letter said. ``The division's public 
     rationale would send the wrong message entirely--that 
     attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not 
     be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals 
     who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled 
     against them''
       The dispute over the case and the reversal of career line 
     attorneys highlights sensitivities that have remained inside 
     the department since Bush administration political appointees 
     ignored or reversed their career counterparts on some issues 
     and some U.S. attorneys were fired for what Congress 
     concluded were political reasons.
       Mr. Weich, in his letter to the congressman, sought to 
     dispel any notion that politics was involved. He argued that 
     the department dropped charges against three of the four 
     defendants ``because the facts and the law did not support 
     pursuing'' them. He said the decision was made after a 
     ``careful and through review of the matter'' by Ms. King.
       U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia entered 
     default judgments against the NBPP members April 2 after 
     ordering them to plead or otherwise defend themselves. They 
     refused to appear in court or file motions in answer to the 
     government's complaint. Two weeks later, the judge ordered 
     the Justice Department to file its motions for default 
     judgments by May 1--a ruling that showed the government had 
     won its case.
       The men also have not returned calls from The Times seeking 
     comment.
       On May 1, Justice sought an extension of time and during 
     the tumultuous two weeks that followed the career front-line 
     lawyers tried to persuade their bosses to proceed with the 
     case.
       The matter was even referred to the Appellate Division for 
     a second opinion, an unusual event for a case that hadn't 
     even reached the appeals process.
       Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn said in a May 13 memo 
     obtained by The Times that the appropriate action was to 
     pursue the default judgment unless the department had 
     evidence the court ruling was based on unethical conduct by 
     the government.
       She said the complaint was, aimed at preventing the ``para-
     military style intimidation of voters'' at polling places 
     elsewhere and Justice could make a ``reasonable argument in 
     favor of default relief against all defendants and probably 
     should'' She noted that the complaint's purpose was to 
     ``prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters'' 
     while leaving open ``ample opportunity for political 
     expression.''
       An accompanying memo by Appellate Section lawyer Marie K. 
     McElderry said the charges not only included bringing the 
     weapon to the polling place, but creating an intimidating 
     atmosphere by the uniforms, the military-type stance and the 
     threatening language used. She said the complaint appeared to 
     be ``sufficient to support'' the injunctions sought by the 
     career lawyers.
       ``The government's predominant interest . . . is preventing 
     intimidation, threats and coercion against voters or persons 
     urging or aiding persons to vote or attempt to vote,'' she 
     said.
       The front-line lawyers, however, lost the argument and were 
     ordered to drop the case.
       Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist who also was a poll 
     watcher in Philadelphia, said after the complaint was 
     dropped, he called Mr. Adams to find out why. He said he was 
     told the decision ``came as a surprise to all of us'' and 
     that the career lawyers working on the case feared that the 
     failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act ``would embolden 
     other abuses in the future.''

                          ____________________