Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee.

black panthers intimidating voters in ohio-76black panthers intimidating voters in ohio-38

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr.

Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort. Shabazz added that the Black Panther activities in Philadelphia were justified due to "an emergency situation." Mr.

Wolf's demands that Justice make the career attorneys on the case available for questions have been rebuffed. 7 to send a letter to Justice expanding its own investigation and demanding more complete answers.

President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia.

(Some of this behavior is on You Tube.) One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!" In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default.Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away.Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.