- Obama takes aim at ‘corporate deserters’
- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
- Sierra Leone doctor fighting Ebola catches disease
- Iraq welcomes Russian fighter jets, helicopter gunships into ISIL fight
- John McCain laments: Obama’s ‘self-pity … is really kind of sad’
- GOP offer to fix VA gives $10 billion in emergency funds
- Paul Ryan offers to repair U.S. economic safety net with a single grant stream
- Kim Jong-un builds bond with Putin: $250M Russia-backed addition to key port opens
- Pope Francis meets Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death
Panthers deem flap over voting ‘error’
Question of the Day
In its first public comments about a controversial voter-intimidation case, the New Black Panther Party said it did not break any laws and praised a decision by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s Justice Department to dismiss a civil complaint in the matter.
A written statement by the party, issued Friday during a hearing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, conceded that one member — Minister King Samir Shabazz — should not have brought a nightstick to a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day in November 2008, but described it as “an honest error.”
“What these Republican witch hunters repeatedly fail to mention is that the individual member involved in the nightstick incident was in fact legally penalized, and prohibited by law by Eric Holders Justice Department from polling places through 2012,” said the statement from Minister Hashim Nzinga, chief of staff to party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz.
“What these complainers against Attorney General Eric Holder also consistently fail to mention is that this member, who we believe made an honest error but still deviated from organizational policy on that day, was actually suspended from the New Black Panther Party until January 2010 as a result of this mishap,” it said. “The New Black Panther Party made it clear then and now we dont support voter intimidation.”
The controversy stems from a civil complaint brought by the Justice Department’s voting rights section accusing Mr. Samir Shabazz, head of the Philadelphia chapter, and Jerry Jackson, a Philadelphia party member, of intimidating voters.
The two men were videotaped outside a polling place wearing the quasimilitary uniforms of the party, which included combat boots and black berets. While Mr. Samir Shabazz brandished a nightstick, Mr. Jackson, a certified Democratic poll watcher, was unarmed.
Mr. Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident, also was named in the complaint, being accused of directing and endorsing their behavior. The party itself also was included as a defendant.
None of the defendants answered the charges and the Justice Department won the case by default, but it ultimately chose to drop the cases against Mr. Jackson, Mr. Zulu Shabazz and the party as a whole. The department did obtain an injunction against Mr. Samir Shabazz prohibiting him from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place until 2012.
The controversy comes because the case was brought during the Bush administration, but dropped after President Obama took office. The civil rights commission is investigating whether political interference led to the downsizing of the case, but commissioners said it will be difficult to determine because of the scant cooperation they has received from the Justice Department.
“I remain skeptical that we are likely to get the evidence necessary to answer that question,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the committee.
The Justice Department steadfastly has maintained that it followed the law and evidence in the case and was not influenced by partisan politics.
But Gregory Katsas, a top Justice Department official during the Bush administration, testified Friday that he wasn’t sure about that.
Mr. Katsas, who at one point supervised the department’s civil rights division, also said the associate attorney general, the department’s No. 3 political appointee, would have almost certainly played a huge role in the decision to abandon much of the case.
He said such a move was extremely unusual.
“The complaint stated a strong case of voter intimidation against all the defendants,” said Mr. Katsas. “The decision to abandon most of the claims in the case and narrow the requested injunction was not justified.”
About the Author
Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association’s Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...
TWT Video Picks
The subsidies are a hit with patients who don't exist
- Evidence shows Russia firing artillery into Ukraine: Pentagon
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Algerian plane diverted due to storms, second aircraft: 116 missing
- House panel OKs resolution to sue president for Obamacare delays
- Obama's empty tough-talk: Gun prosecutions plummet on his watch
- Norway expects imminent 'concrete threat' from ISIL terrorists 'within days'
- Conservative groups decry Democrats' 'war on women' tactic
- Obama says public not familiar enough with issues
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq