Hi, everyone. This is my first diary, so please let me know if it isn’t appropriate.
I haven’t seen any coverage here of the resolution of the case against the New Black Panther Party and two of its members for alleged voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Most of the coverage I’ve seen is in right-wing sources (see here for an article in The National Review), which makes me suspect that there may not be much to the story and that it’s being distorted and sensationalized for partisan reasons. However, the above-linked story is from cnn.com. I’m sure some of you know this story much better than I do. On the face of it, it seems somewhat bad. This is from the CNN story:
“On Election Day, two men in uniforms stood outside the polling station with one of them holding a police-style baton weapon and saying he was providing security there. Justice has alleged that person was Shabazz.”
No-one will serve any time or pay any fine. Is it sufficient to “[win] an injunction[…]against a third member, Samir Shabazz, that prevents him from ever brandishing a weapon outside a polling place again”?
I’m skeptical of relying on anything in the National Review article, which includes tendentious claims that Judge Sotomayor is a racist, so take it for what it’s worth, but here’s part of what it says:
“As a former DOJ alumnus, I have never, ever heard of the Division refusing to take a default judgment, especially in a situation where the defendants are basically admitting they violated the law. The facts indicting the DOJ seem damning, and no good explanation seems possible.”
The only reason I know about this story in the first place is that a right-wing friend of mine posted a link to the Washington Times (UGH!) story about this on his Facebook page. No matter what assurances you give me, there’s no way I could convince my right-wing friends that there isn’t some kind of left-wing conspiracy here, so that’s not the point. I’d just like my own reassurance as a liberal Democrat who believes in fair play and doesn’t believe in tolerating any voter intimidation. I feel like there should have at least been a fine, and I’d like to understand why the Justice Department might have decided against that. I look forward to your replies and hope this diary about a matter of voting mechanics and legalities is not too much of a tangent from the usual diaries about candidates.
By the way, I also realize that by posting this kind of diary as my first, I run the risk of seeming like a right-wing troll. My only defense is that you will know what I’m really like through my posts in the future.
If what they did cost McCain one vote, I’d be shocked. If I recall the precinct correctly, it was one that ran 100:1 Obama:McCain. Not unusual for North Philly.
the new black panther party was anything but pro-obama… and what they were yelling at people wasn’t ‘vote obama or we’ll mess you up’ so much as ‘obama is a tool of the white racist power structure and you’ve been hoodwinked’… so whatever electioneering rules they broke, they probably cost obama votes by driving people away form the polls in his base area.
Welcome to posting here.
As to the National Review story, the author is Hans von Spakovsky. He was appointed by Bush to the FEC but the Senate refused to confirm him because he was so partisan in running the Voting Rights section of the Justice Department. I would never trust a word he says. Even the one quote posted is misleading. You get a default judgment when the defendant doesn’t answer the complaint, not because the defendant is “basically admitting they violated the law.” Admitting guilt has nothing to do with a default judgment.
As to why no fine, the reports you link seem to indicate that the Justice Department never sought a fine against the guy who had a baton. Even Spakovsky doesn’t say there’s anything fishy about the way the case was handled against him. Since the Justice Department under Bush didn’t seek any fine and Spakovsky doesn’t complain about it, I would assume there’s no real controversy about how the case was handled with respect to him.
The apparent controversy is dropping the case against the other guy from the New Black Panthers who was in a sort of uniform and standing outside a polling place but not carrying any sort of weapon and it seems like Justice might have also sued the New Black Panther party as well. It does seem odd that Justice didn’t move forward with getting an injunction against them as well, but I’d want to hear why before jumping to any conclusion (did they conclude that the case should never have been brought against the other guy in the first place since he had no weapon? is that a violation of the VRA to stand outside a polling place? did he verbally threaten or intimidate any voters? to what extent were these guys acting on behalf of the New Black Panthers?).
Finally, the right-wing idea that this is some sort of racial preference by Holder seems far-fetched, to say the least. The New Black Panthers are way outside any politically connected black group. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies them as a hate group. I saw some internet comments that the guys who were charged were basically homeless guys. These guys are about as politically unconnected as I could imagine and I cannot fathom how giving them preferential treatment could be politically beneficial monetarily or vote wise for Obama.