Finis: The New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Affair

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, a careful, professional, non-partisan group charged with reviewing allegations of U.S. Government attorney misconduct, released the report on its investigation of the contentious Civil Rights Division handling of the case of two paramilitary-clad members of the New Black Panthers, one carrying a club, who appeared to be at a Philadelphia polling place in November 2008 for the purpose of intimidating voters. The men were videotaped, and the YouTube  video of them standing at the polling place was provocative, to say the least.

To briefly recap:  Voting Rights Act prosecution was initiated by the Bush Justice Department, and subsequently scaled down by the Obama Justice Department. Two career Civil Rights Division attorneys resigned over the handling of the incident, alleging that political appointees within the Obama Administration had pushed a policy of not prosecuting African-Americans under the Act—in other words, race-based enforcement.

The controversy, as has been the pattern with many stories having the potential of embarrassing the Obama Administration, was ignored by the mainstream media and hyped by the conservative blogosphere and media, especially Fox News. Ethics Alarms wrote about the story here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Yes, that’s a lot. One of the reasons the incident generated so many articles is that there were multiple ethical issues involved: the original decision, the media’s immediate reaction of assuming the critics were politically motivated, the intellectual dishonesty and deceit of some pro-Administration flacks in describing the incident as “trumped up,” the late coverage of the story by papers like the Washington Post, ultimately condemned by the paper’s own ombudsman, and more. In my view, the eagerness of the media to bury the story was more disturbing than the allegations themselves.

The OPM report, thorough as always,  reviews its investigation and concludes that there was not, in fact, a race-based decision made regarding the two men, and that whether or not the Justice Department made the right call, it was a good faith call that was defensible under the facts.

Case closed. I’ve read the report; you can too, if you like, here. Already, I have read accusations on various blogs that it is a whitewash: this is utter nonsense. OPM is independent, and exists to root out unethical attorney conduct in the U.S. Government, not to protect it. The report is thorough, covers all sides and allegations, and is scrupulously fair.

The fact that the allegations were shown to be unsupportable, however, does not in any way vindicate those who tried to ignore the seriousness of the allegations and pretend that there was nothing to investigate. There was a prima facie case of biased enforcement that, like many prima facie cases prosecuted every day, could not be proven with the available evidence. I continue to believe, having read the report, that while the handling of the case was not unethical and was in good faith, it was spectacularly stupid, and unnecessarily sowed distrust in the Obama Justice Department.

At least it is settled, almost two and a half years after the original incident.


Apologies: the original version of this article carelessly referenced the election in “1008.” That was an error. The 1008 New Black Panther controversy was entirely different…

4 thoughts on “Finis: The New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Affair

  1. I agree. From the details I learned of the case, and I really tried to research it from all sides, I couldn’t figure out why the Justice Department didn’t investigate and get it over with. Either way, the truth should have come out. This just makes the DOJ have the appearance of bias, if not the reality.

  2. Nope. When men armed with clubs stand outside a POLLS , accosting and intimidating voters with racial slurs, that’s a federal issue. It strikes at the very heart of the most precious freedom of a free society. The failure of DoJ to prosecute this or any such incident goes beyond mere stupidity. Holder’s personal track record aside; the obligation of the local police to protect polling areas from blatantly illegal intrusion and the failure to DoJ to prosecute constitutes a major dereliction of duty on both their parts. Had members of the Aryan Nations done likewise in a largely black precinct, I think we can safely predict that the response would have been both immediate and heavy.

  3. The problem with such reports is that unsupported is assumed to be the same as not true. In fact, it means not able to be substantiated to the government’s standards. This is true in any case that isn’t videotaped, on paper, or e-mailed. A senior administrative official could have stood up in a meeting and said something as outrageous as “Only minorities deserve protection, we don’t care if the Black Panthers were shooting people at the polls, as long as the dead were all white. That comes down from the top. Anyone who has a problem with that needs to leave”. Any government investigation would say that the allegation that it happened is unsupported because there is no recording of it, there is just a set of accusers who said it happened, and others who said it didn’t. Such reports don’t try to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth. If there isn’t clear-cut, undeniable evidence, it is unsupported. This doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.

    Look at the FBI whistleblower cases and the reports from that. You will see very quickly how ‘unsupported’ can be used as a weapon to destroy the credibility of a whistleblower.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.