The New Black Panther Case: A Conservative Dissent (A Must Read)

National Review ^ | July 6, 2010 | Abigail Thernstrom

[greyfoxx39]

Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high.

-SNIP-

 

Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance. It may dream of a large-scale effort to suppress voting — like the Socialist Workers Party dreams of a national campaign to demonstrate its position as the vanguard of the proletariat. But the Panthers have not realized their dream even on a small scale. This case is a one-off.

There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general — his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters — but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics. Those who are concerned about Justice Department enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should turn their attention to quite another matter, where the attorney general has been up to much more important mischief: his interpretation of the act’s core provisions.

The department has just proposed new guidelines intended to assist the “covered” jurisdictions in their efforts to comply with the demands of section 5, which forces “covered” states to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) for all proposed changes in voting procedure. All southern states are “covered”; so are Texas, Arizona, Alaska, and numerous scattered counties in New York, California, and elsewhere. Redrawn districting maps are changes that must be precleared.

Every state must draw new lines every ten years when the new census figures reveal demographic changes; the old districting maps seldom meet the “one person, one vote” standard.

Redistricting is always a delicate, politically charged process in which much is at stake. The DOJ under Holder will undoubtedly insist that states draw the maximum possible number of majority-minority districts — a reversion to old legal standards that were suspended after a 2000 Supreme Court decision. Those standards rest on a core conviction of the civil-rights community: In a nonracist society, minorities would be elected to political office in numbers proportional to the black and Hispanic populations.

Thus, race-conscious districts will have to be the top priority of legislative-redistricting committees. If they give greater weight to other considerations, they risk litigation and a consequent delay in their ability to hold elections. This distortion of the American political process can only be justified by a fear that blacks, left without extraordinary federal protection, will be excluded from public office. That fear does not reflect current reality.

 

The revised guidelines increase the authority of largely invisible and unaccountable career attorneys in the voting section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. The Voting Rights Act robs states of one of their most important constitutional prerogatives: setting the rules that govern elections. Southern black disfranchisement once justified a drastic change in the balance of power between the federal government and the states, but blacks throughout the nation are now important political players. Decisions to overrule districting and other policies made by democratically elected officials should not rest with low-level attorneys whose work is barely scrutinized and rarely challenged.

 

The proposed guidelines also redefine intentional electoral discrimination, putting meat on the bones of a congressional statutory amendment in 2006. The new regulations would allow voting-section attorneys to consider various kinds of circumstantial evidence as pertinent to finding discriminatory intent: the failure to draw the maximum number of majority-minority districts; deviation from “normal” practices; a sequence of events that might suggest something suspicious; a dubious legislative or administrative history; or a suspect racial record in the jurisdiction.

These guidelines provide inadequate guidance. They rest explicitly on a problematic 1977 Supreme Court decision that blurred the line between discriminatory intent and impact, and left too many terms undefined. States involved in politically difficult negotiations over redistricting have been left to guess what lines will be acceptable to the particular DOJ attorneys assigned to oversee their mapmaking.

Three suits are currently challenging the continuing constitutionality of preclearance. Arguably, the proposed new regulations, if instituted, will increase the odds that the Supreme Court will soon rule section 5 unconstitutional. And then perhaps Congress will fashion a Voting Rights Act that recognizes the political revolution in the South since 1965, one which responds to contemporary voting problems (the definition of which will need to be hammered out in the legislative process).

The new guidelines will not get much press. Neither the media nor the American public is likely to get exercised over regulations buried in the Federal Register implementing a statutory provision. “Yet students of public policy and public administration are increasingly aware that out of such bureaucratic boilerplate . . . can come fundamental shifts in public policy,” historian Hugh Davis Graham once wrote.

The proposed regulations will deeply affect the landscape of American politics for the decade to come, and perhaps beyond. The New Black Panther Party incident bears no resemblance to voter intimidation in the Jim Crow South. The DOJ’s decision to drop the case may have been wrong; so far, we have no hard evidence that can definitely settle the question. But we do know that, in 2008, it was a unique case. And there are much more important questions involving voting-rights enforcement upon which to focus.

— Abigail Thernstrom is the author, most recently, of Voting Rights — and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections. She is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

[greyfoxx39]

Mugabe will be proud.

[greyfoxx39]

POLITICAL PING

If you would like to be on my low volume ping list, please FReepmail me.

[greyfoxx39]

FYI, Jim.

[Marty62]

This is NOT about the NBPP. It is about the Current leadership of the Justice Department.

[greyfoxx39]

I didn’t invent the title. FR rules are that the original title be used. Clink on the source link.

[Yorlik803]

He hit it right. Why have the NBPP retrict voters with clubs when the Goverment can do it with laws?

[Ready4Freddy]

This is NOT about the NBPP.

That's probably why the title is "The New Black Panther Case...".

[RitaOK]

I am sure Abigail may have a point, but there is something to be addressed toward thugs in shades chest puffing voters at polling places.

If we can walk and chew gum, perhaps we could consider knocking out both the physical intimidation and the political threat. Do we teach what we tolerate, or not?

[Marty62]

I was responding to the author . Sorry if I offended you..Unintentional.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance."

Response: This author misses the major fact that the black run DOJ's refusal to prosecute clearly signals that radical black's may proceed against white voters. Large numbers are often of minor importance.

[greyfoxx39]

No problem. I’m not happy with the title, but unless the admin mod would like to add/subtract something, I couldn’t change it. Any edit that mentions the redestricting would be fine with me, AM

[greyfoxx39]

I agree with your points, both of you.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Maybe so. But if two white men in sheets and pillowcases did the same thing, what would the response be?

[C210N]

The NBPP case is a big deal in the sense that it is another front in the war against the usurping regime. To the point that it is a window to the marxist thinking behind it, it is illustrative as more and more people start waking up to what they are losing, and join the patriot cause. If this helps wake up a few people, then it should not be swept under any rug.

[greyfoxx39]

True, but....I haven't seen the information about the redistricting mentioned anywhere else...that's what caught my attention.

If Holder succeeds in this, perhaps there will be no need to send out the Panthers in November.

[C210N]

What redistricting are you referring to? Something specific to PA?

[13Sisters76]

While I completely agree with the point that this is just a piddling fringe group, I must take issue here: We have backed off, backed off, chose to “pick our fights” against one little piddling group and idea after another.

And here we are....Their process was that of water drops on stone. They took their time and wore us down, little piddling amounts at a time. Now, we stand where we stand simply because we never knew how to draw our OWN lines in the sand.

Small or large, it’s time to push back. I, for one, refuse to be polite about it.

[greyfoxx39]

It's in the article..."The department has just proposed new guidelines intended to assist the “covered” jurisdictions in their efforts to comply with the demands of section 5, which forces “covered” states to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) for all proposed changes in voting procedure.

All southern states are “covered”; so are Texas, Arizona, Alaska, and numerous scattered counties in New York, California, and elsewhere. Redrawn districting maps are changes that must be precleared.

The Voting Rights Act robs states of one of their most important constitutional prerogatives: setting the rules that govern elections.

Does not "redrawn districting maps" equate to redrestricting? Or am I misreading it?

[greyfoxx39]

redrestricting=redistricting?

[calex59]

What a dumb assed article. The author is so full of sh**.