Judicial Watch » NAACP

Judicial Watch Files Amicus Curiae Brief for State Legislators in Support of Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

admin- — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:56:43 +0000

‘In passing HB 934, the legislature did no more than exercise its sound discretion and create a commonsense regulatory scheme to secure free and equal elections.’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that on July 17, 2012, it filed an amicus curiae brief with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in support of HB 934, a voter identification measure signed into law by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett on March 14, 2012. The ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the law on behalf of various individuals, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and allied groups.

Judicial Watch jointly filed its brief with Pennsylvania attorney L. Theodore Hopp Jr. on behalf of Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalf and members of the Pennsylvania legislature who supported the bill. Rep. Metcalf was the author and driving force behind the bill. Nearly half of the members who supported the bill are signed on to the Judicial Watch amicus.

Pennsylvania House Bill 934 requires voters to produce a Pennsylvania driver’s license or another government-issued photo ID, such as a U.S. passport, military ID, or county/municipal employee ID when voting. The law requires the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to provide valid identification at no cost. The law further allows an individual without identification to cast a “provisional” ballot that will be counted if the identity of the voter can be indisputably ascertained within six business days of the election.

According to Judicial Watch’s amicus curiae brief:

In passing HB 934, the legislature did no more than exercise its sound discretion and create a commonsense regulatory scheme to secure free and equal elections. The legislature undoubtedly had such authority and used it accordingly.

In addition, because the legislature has the discretion to enact laws regulating elections, the courts must not overturn the policy choices of the legislative branch unless the legislature acts with gross abuse…In using its authority [the legislature] has not caused anyone to be disenfranchised, it has maintained and promoted free and equal elections, and it has not expanded upon the qualifications set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

A trial over the legal challenge to the voter ID law is scheduled to begin on July 25, 2012.

“Voter photo identification is a commonsense safeguard that will ensure that legitimately cast votes are not canceled out by the forces of corruption,” said Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe. “Implementation of HB 934 will restore integrity to Pennsylvania’s election process, because one fraudulently cast vote is one too many.”

“It is clear that leftist special interest groups are hostile to the idea of clean elections. To require a voter ID to vote is as sensible as requiring one to board an airplane, use a credit card, or open a Netflix account,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.”

NAACP Lawyer Alleges “Pattern Of Racketeering Activity”

akajas — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:19:28 +0000

An attorney at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which annually receives big chunks of taxpayer dollars, claims “a pattern of racketeering activity” prevails at the renowned civil rights group.The allegations, outlined in a federal lawsuit this week, come a year after an NAACP executive in Georgia got criminally charged with embezzling more than $275,000. In that case, the branch director and her top assistant used the nonprofit organization as their personal piggy bank for at least six years, according to authorities.Now come accusations that the longtime director at the NAACP’s Houston branch misused grant money so blatantly that it’s funding was cut off, according to the whistleblower’s complaint. Officials at the NAACP’s national office in Maryland ignored the wrongdoing and reinstated the director amid evidence that she was cooking the books, the complaint says.The corruption has spanned more than ten years, the former NAACP lawyer asserts, and seems to involve a major cover up. False financial reports were provided to grant agencies, a computer hard drive containing pertinent financial data was removed and subordinates were instructed to doctor financial reports. Additionally, grant money was not spent in accordance with the grant’s purpose.This is of concern because Uncle Sam is very generous when it comes to funding the NAACP’s causes, which aim to “improve the political educational, social and economic status of minority citizens.” As the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights group the influential NAACP also strives to eliminate racial prejudice and keep the public aware of the adverse effects of racial discrimination.These campaigns are costly and the politically-connected group is constantly seeking private and federal grants to fund them. Just take a look at NAACP allocations on the government’s spending website. NAACP branches throughout the nation have received tens of thousands of dollars for a variety or programs, including aeronautics and space minority outreach, housing assistance and alcohol abuse programs.

JW Sues DOJ for Records Detailing Contacts with NAACP about Dismissal of New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation Lawsuit

admin- — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:11:21 +0000

“Who is running the Justice Department?”

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — March 24, 2011Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit on March 9, 2011, against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records detailing contacts between DOJ and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) over a voter intimidation lawsuit filed against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (Case No. 11-500)). Kristen Clark, a representative of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, reportedly met with representatives from DOJ to discuss the lawsuit just prior to DOJ’s decision to drop the case.On November 2, 2010, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the following information:

Any and all records of communication between the Civil Rights Division and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund (including, but not limited to communications with Kristen Clarke, Director of Political Participation) concerning, regarding or relating to U.S. v. New Black Panther Party for Self Defense, et al. (09-CV-0065). The time frame for this request is November 4, 2008 to May 22, 2009.

By law, DOJ was required to respond to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request by December 3, 2010. However, to date, no documents have been produced. In fact, DOJ has failed to respond to Judicial Watch’s request in any manner.The issue at the center of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit is whether or not the NAACP improperly influenced the DOJ, an independent law enforcement agency, to drop a lawsuit against members of the Black Panthers who allegedly threatened and intimidated white voters outside a polling station during the 2008 election.

A DOJ official testified that the NAACP lobbied against using civil rights statutes to protect anyone who is not considered a traditional minority, a position that reportedly found favor inside the Justice Department.According to the October 22, 2010, edition of The Washington Post: “Interviews and government documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the [New Black Panther Party] case tapped into deep divisions within the Justice Department that persist today over whether the agency should focus on protecting historically oppressed minorities or enforce laws without regard to race.”This conclusion is consistent with testimony by another DOJ attorney, Christopher Coates, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which conducted a year-long investigation of the New Black Panther Party scandal, that there exists at the DOJ “a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against.”“Who is running the Justice Department? That is what we’re trying to find out with this lawsuit. I find it outrageous that leftist special interest groups seem to be directing the activities of the nation’s top law enforcement agency,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“The Obama Justice Department has made a mess of the Black Panther lawsuit.We already know the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case was tainted by politics and racism. There is something amiss in the Holder Justice Department. And its casual violations of the freedom of information law highlight this administration’s contempt for transparency and the rule of law.”The DOJ filed its lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and three of its members following an incident that took place outside of a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008. A video of the incident, showing a member of the New Black Panther Party brandishing a police-style baton weapon, was widely distributed on the Internet. According to multiple witnesses, members of the New Black Panther Party blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters and hurled racial epithets. Nonetheless, DOJ ultimately overruled the recommendations of its own staff and dismissed the majority of its charges.This latest FOIA lawsuit is part of Judicial Watch’s comprehensive investigation of the New Black Panther Party scandal. Judicial Watch previously uncovered evidence that top political appointees at DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. The documents directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision.On Thursday, March 31, Judicial will host a panel discussion at its Washington, DC, headquarters to discuss the New Black Panther Party litigation and other scandals that have plagued the Holder Justice Department. The panel is titled, “Politics and the Holder Justice Department: Rule of Law at Risk?”