U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Steps up Pressure on DOJ Re: Black Panthers

An op-ed in today's Washington Times reports on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights continued dispute with the Department of Justice (DOJ) over DOJ's continued stonewalling in the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. The long simmering controversy centers around the decision by DOJ political appointees to drop a suit against New Black Panther Party members for voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008.

Last week, the Commission on Civil Rights finally resorted to a subpoena in its latest interrogatory and document requests to DOJ. Interestingly, DOJ has questioned the Commission's authority to issue subpoenas to the Department despite clear statutory authority and historical precedent stating otherwise. DOJ has also refused disclosure based on privilege. In the letter accompanying the subpoena, David Blackwood, General Counsel of the Commission, points out that DOJ "consulted with outside third parties, such as . . . the NAACP Legal Defense Fund," and that "[n]o privilege exists that would allow disclosure by the Department of information to an outside group, but prohibit same to an investigatory agency with a statutory mandate." Blackwood makes an excellent point: Why should the NAACP have access to this information, but not the Commission on Civil Rights, the non-partisan government organization charged by statute to investigate complaints of citizens being deprived of their right to vote?

The pressure is building on DOJ. It is one thing to ignore the calls for transparency by outside groups such as the RNLA; it is another to ignore the Commission on Civil Rights. It is unclear what the Commission's next step will be in the event DOJ refuses to release the requested information. Ironically, the statute giving the Commission subpoena power, 42 U.S.C. § 1975b(e)(2), authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the power in federal court. We will update you when we learn of DOJ's latest move and the legal implications should DOJ continue to stonewall.