[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23025-23026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             VOTING RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I have now written Attorney General Eric 
Holder on four occasions asking for an explanation of the dismissal of 
an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. 
To date, the answers provided are scant and, in at least one important 
regard, factually inaccurate.
  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 the act's reauthorization in 2006, I was 
again criticized by editorial pages. My commitment to voting rights is 
unquestioned. It is imperative that we protect all Americans' right to 
vote. This is a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy.
  This New Black Panther Party case was brought in January by career 
attorneys in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division against 
the party and several of its members for deploying uniformed men to a 
polling station in Philadelphia on Election Day last November to harass 
and intimidate voters, one of whom brandished a nightstick to voters. 
The public, and every Member, if they care, can view the video of the 
incident as well as other examples of the party's intimidation in a 
clip from the National Geographic Channel documentary entitled ``Coming 
to a Polling Place Near You'' posted on the Web. And it can be seen at 
www.electionjournal.org.
  One of the witnesses of the Election Day incident, Bartle Bull, a 
veteran civil rights activist who served as Bobby Kennedy's New York 
campaign manager in 1968, has publicly called this ``the most blatant 
form of voter intimidation'' he has ever seen. He also reminded us that 
``Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jackboots with billy 
clubs block the doors of polling places, and neither did Robert 
Kennedy. It's an absolute disgrace.''
  In July, The Washington Times reported that improper political 
influence by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli led to the 
dismissal of the case, a politicizing of career employees.
  This inexplicable dismissal came over the objections of the career 
attorneys on the trial team as well as the department's own appeal 
office, which advised that the complaint was ``sufficient to support 
the injunctions'' sought by the career lawyers, and that the 
``government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats 
and coercion against voters.''
  Despite this guidance urging that the department pursue a judgment in 
this case, it was dismissed in May over the career attorneys' 
objections. However, this unjustified dismissal has not gone unnoticed. 
I have worked with the Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith 
to demand answers from Attorney General Holder.
  I am pleased that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has also taken 
note of this case. The Commission has an important statutory 
responsibility to ``investigate voting rights deprivation and make 
appraisals of Federal policies to enforce Federal voting rights laws.''
  Congress instilled this independent oversight responsibility of the 
Commission in statute, and it says: ``All Federal agents shall fully 
cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry 
out its functions and duties.''
  The Commission wrote to Attorney General Holder on June 16, June 22 
and August 10 requesting answers on the dismissal of this case. It also 
voted at its September meeting to make its review of this case the 
primary focus of its 2009 independent report.
  Earlier today, the Commission sent a fourth letter to Attorney 
General Eric Holder, which I submit for the Record, reiterating its 
request for information and asking him to respond no later than October 
14 or it will proceed with an investigation using its statutory 
authorities.
  I applaud the Commission. I call on Attorney General Holder to answer 
the questions posed in my letters dated June 8, July 17, July 22 and 
July 31, as well as comply with the Commission's request for 
information so it may complete its report. I also urge the Attorney 
General to allow Members of Congress to meet with the career attorneys 
in the trial team and appeal the body so that they may answer 
legitimate questions.
  Again, if Members of Congress want to see the case that Eric Holder 
has dropped, just go to www.electionjournal.org. It's the National 
Geographic channel. And you will see Eric Holder has to start answering 
the letters that the Civil Rights Commission sends and Members have 
sent.
  Finally, the trial team should be allowed to bring the case again--
per the guidance I obtained from the Congressional Research Service's 
American Law Division in its July 30 memo--to allow our nation's 
justice system to work as it was intended: impartially and without 
bias.

                              U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 2009.
     Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
     Re: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Review and Report on the 
         Implications of Enforcement Actions in United States v. 
         New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Civ. No. 09-
         0065 SD (E.D. Pa.) (NBPP case)
       Dear Attorney General Holder: The Commission requests that 
     you instruct Department officials to fully cooperate, as 42 
     U.S.C. 1975b(e) requires, with our overdue information 
     requests in the above-referenced matter. To that end, we also 
     ask you to identify an individual who will exercise the 
     substantive authority to coordinate the Department's 
     responses to our current and future requests.
       Pursuant to formal proceedings, the Commission initiated an 
     inquiry into the implications of the Department's enforcement 
     actions in the NBPP case as reflected in our letters to DOJ 
     of June 16 and 22. We received a largely non-responsive 
     letter from Portia Roberson in late July and none of the 
     documents we requested. On August 7, the Commission voted 6-
     0, with two members abstaining, to expand its investigation 
     by sending a follow-up letter to the Department. On

[[Page 23026]]

     August 10, the Commission addressed its letter to you, 
     explaining our need for the information. For example, we 
     stressed our need for information on previous voter 
     intimidation investigations so that we could determine 
     whether the Department's action in the NBPP case constitutes 
     a change in policy and, if so, what the implications of that 
     change might be.
       At our most recent meeting on September 11, 2009, the 
     Commission voted to make its review of the implications of 
     the NBPP matter the subject of its annual enforcement report. 
     The Commission was aware that the Department's Office of 
     Professional Responsibility (OPR) had initiated an inquiry 
     into some aspects of the NBPP case to determine whether 
     further review is warranted. Although a letter from Ms. 
     Roberson of September 9 expresses the Department's desire to 
     delay any response to the Commission until the OPR 
     investigation is complete, you may rest assured that the 
     Commission will be sensitive to OPR's internal ethics review 
     as we move forward with our own inquiry. As the discussion at 
     our recent meeting indicates, the Commission will work to 
     accommodate any legitimate concerns the Department may have 
     regarding specific requests for information once the 
     Department begins its production.
       The Commission has a special statutory responsibility to 
     investigate voting rights deprivations and make appraisals of 
     federal policies to enforce federal voting rights laws. The 
     Commission must form an independent judgment regarding the 
     merits of the NBPP enforcement actions (regardless of how the 
     decisions were made) and the potential impact on future 
     voter-intimidation enforcement by the Department. 
     Accordingly, Congress has provided, in a provision with no 
     statutory exceptions, that, ``All Federal agencies shall 
     fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may 
     effectively carry out its functions and duties.'' 42 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1975b(e).
       It is important to note that many aspects of the 
     Commission's inquiry have no connection with the matters 
     subject to OPR's jurisdiction. As set forth in our August 10 
     letter, the Commission will seek to determine:
       1) the facts and the Department's actions regarding prior 
     voting intimidation investigations;
       2) the underlying conduct in Philadelphia giving rise to 
     the NBPP case;
       3) whether the decision in the NBPP case is consistent with 
     departmental policy or practice in prior cases or amounts to 
     a change in policy or practice;
       4) the extent to which current policy or practice as 
     reflected in the NBPP case may encourage voter intimidation; 
     and
       5) whether that policy or practice is consistent with 
     proper enforcement of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
       The Commission may also seek to determine whether any 
     decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper 
     influences. Thus, there may be some areas of potential 
     overlap with OPR's internal review, including an examination 
     of the decision-making process in the case. With regard to 
     these questions, if there are concerns as to the timing or 
     content of specific discovery requests, the Commission will 
     work with the Department to resolve them in a prompt and 
     satisfactory manner. In addition to my personal availability 
     to speak with your representatives, the Commission has 
     appointed a subcommittee of commissioners to focus on any 
     discovery issue that might arise in our investigation.
       Accordingly, please identify the individual with 
     substantive responsibility for the production of documents, 
     scheduling of interviews and any possible depositions. If you 
     have not done so by October 14th, however, it will be 
     necessary for us to propound our interrogatories and 
     interview requests directly on the affected Department 
     personnel.
       Thank you in advance for your cooperation and prompt reply 
     to these requests.
           Sincerely,
                                               Gerald A. Reynolds,
     Chairman.

                          ____________________