89–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–404 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO 

TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ALL INFORMATION IN 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S POSSESSION RELATING TO THE DECISION 

TO DISMISS UNITED STATES V. NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY 

JANUARY 27, 2010.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 994] 

[Including Committee Cost Estimate] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 994) directing the Attorney General to transmit to 

the House of Representatives all information in the Attorney General’s possession relating to the decision to dismiss United States 

v. New Black Panther Party, having considered the same, reports 

unfavorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 

resolution not be agreed to. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background .............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 4 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 5 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 5 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 5 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 5 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 5 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 6 

Dissenting Views of Mr. Harper ............................................................................. 11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Christopher Davis, House Resolutions of Inquiry, CRS Report, November 25, 2008, at 1 

(quoting U.S. Congress, House, Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. 94–661, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, § 8). 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H. Res. 994, introduced by Representative Frank Wolf, directs 

the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives 

copies of any document, memo, or correspondence of the Department of Justice with regard to United States v. New Black Panther 

Party, or any portion of any such document, memo, or correspondence that refers or relates to— 

(1) any Department communications with regard to the case 

between November 5, 2008, and November 15, 2009; 

(2) any communication with the defendants or the defendants’ attorneys between November 5, 2008, and November 15, 

2009; 

(3) any communication with third-party organizations or individuals between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009; 

or 

(4) any evidence with regard to the dismissal of the case. 

BACKGROUND

Under the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives, 

a resolution of inquiry is one of the methods that the House can 

use to obtain information from the Executive Branch. 1 It ‘‘is a simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President 

or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of 

Representatives with specific factual information in the possession 

of the executive branch.’’ 2 The typical practice has been to use the 

verb ‘‘request’’ when asking for information from the President, and 

‘‘direct’’ when addressing Executive department heads. 3 Clause 7 of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides that 

if the committee to which the resolution is referred does not act on 

it within 14 legislative days, a privileged motion to discharge the 

resolution from the committee is in order on the House floor. 

While recognizing the importance of effective enforcement of the 

Voting Rights Act, the Committee believes that H. Res. 994 is unwarranted. The Department of Justice has provided and continues 

to provide relevant information on the subject and to respond to 

Congressional requests. 

First, on July 9, 2009, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, Representative Wolf, and several other House Members wrote to DOJ’s 

Inspector General requesting an investigation concerning the partial dismissal of the case. The request was referred to DOJ’s Office 

of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which informed Representative Smith and the other requesting Members that it had initiated 

an inquiry and would contact them with the results when complete. 

In response to a further inquiry by Representative Smith and Representative Wolf, OPR explained on November 24, 2009, that in accordance with standard Department procedures, a complete investigation would take more time, that the investigation was proceeding apace, and that OPR would inform them of the results ‘‘as 

soon as we are able to do so.’’ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Second, prior to the initiation of the OPR investigation, Representative Smith and Representative Wolf requested information 

and briefings from DOJ on the case. Chairman Conyers directed 

Committee staff to help facilitate such a briefing for all interested 

Committee Members. DOJ wrote separately to Representative 

Smith and Representative Wolf on July 13, 2009, providing a fourpage analysis of the legal and factual issues and DOJ’s actions in 

the case, enclosing to Representative Smith all non-privileged documents relating to the dismissal as he had requested, and noting to 

Representative Smith that DOJ had already contacted Committee 

staff about arranging a briefing. Copies were sent to Chairman 

Conyers, Chairman Nadler, and Representative Sensenbrenner. A 

briefing for Representative Wolf was held on July 20, 2009. As 

scheduling and other arrangements were underway with respect to 

Representative Smith, OPR initiated an inquiry, and DOJ determined to await the outcome of the OPR inquiry before responding 

further. DOJ wrote to Representative Smith on September 11, 

2009, providing some additional information and stating its plan to 

await the outcome of the OPR report. There has been no further 

correspondence relating to a DOJ briefing. 

Third, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. 

Perez has responded to questions by Committee Members about 

the case. During the December 3, 2009 hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, 

Mr. Perez explained that the decisions with respect to the disposition of the case were made by two career attorneys with over 60 

years of combined experience, including one who was serving as 

acting director of the Division earlier in 2009, prior to Mr. Perez’s 

confirmation. Mr. Perez discussed the significant injunctive relief 

that was obtained in the case, and stated that he was looking forward to the results of the OPR review. Written follow-up questions 

have been sent to Mr. Perez. 

Fourth, the Committee is already in receipt of documents requested by H. Res 994. On January 11, 2010, DOJ determined that 

a number of documents relating to the case could appropriately be 

released in response to requests by Congress, and accordingly sent 

more than 1,850 pages of documents concerning the case and related matters to Representatives Smith and Wolf, Chairman Conyers, and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, along with answers to 

written questions from the Commission. The documents produced 

include correspondence between the Department of Justice and 

each of the defendants in the case, as requested by H. Res. 994. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held in the Committee on H. Res. 994. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On January 13, 2010, the Committee met in open session and ordered H. Res. 994 adversely reported, without amendment, by a 

rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 14 nays, a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

rollcall vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H. 

Res. 994: 

H. Res. 994 was ordered reported unfavorably by a vote of 15 to 

14. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu .............................................................................................................

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 15 14 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this resolution does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that implementing the resolution would not result in any significant costs. 

The Congressional Budget Office did not provide a cost estimate for 

the resolution. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 994 does not authorize funding. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 994 is not a bill or a 

joint resolution that may be enacted into law. 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

Clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

is inapplicable, because H. Res. 994 is not a bill or a joint resolution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

H. Res. 994 directs the Attorney General to transmit to the 

House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of 

adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, memo, or correspondence of the Department of Justice with regard to United 

States v. New Black Panther Party, or any portion of any such document, memo, or correspondence that refers or relates to— 

(1) any Department communications with regard to the case 

between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009; 

(2) any communication with the defendants or defendants’ 

attorneys between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009; 

(3) any communication with third-party organizations or individuals between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009; 

or 

(4) any evidence with regard to the dismissal of the case. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

1 United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Civ. No. 09–0065 SD (E.D. Pa. 

filed Jan. 7, 2009) (Comp. ¶¶ 10–11). 

DISSENTING VIEWS

I. INTRODUCTION

We strongly support H. Res. 994 and oppose adversely reporting 

this resolution to the House of Representatives. H. Res. 994 directs 

the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives 

all information in the Attorney General’s possession relating to the 

decision to dismiss United States v. New Black Panther Party. 

On Election Day 2008, outside of a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

polling location, two men were dressed in paramilitary uniforms, 

one brandishing a baton in front of voters. The men cursed at voters, shouted racial obscenities at voters, and tried to block the 

entry of voters, and those assisting them, into the polling location. 

These men were members of The New Black Panther Party for 

Self-Defense, an organization so radical that the original Black 

Panther Party has found it necessary to denounce it. 

On January 7, 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice (the Department) filed a complaint against the New 

Black Panther Party, the Chairman of the organization, and the 

two members involved in the Philadelphia Election Day incident for 

violating the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any voter and those aiding voters. 

According to the Department’s complaint, the two individuals involved in the Philadelphia incident ‘‘made statements containing 

racial threats and racial insults to both black and white individuals,’’ and ‘‘made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, 

and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid 

voters.’’ 1

Neither the New Black Panther Party nor its members responded to the lawsuit. Thus, the Department was instructed by 

the Court to prepare a motion seeking a default judgment. Rather 

than seek this default judgment, however, and ensure that defendants could not participate in future voter intimidation tactics, the 

Department abruptly dropped charges against all but one of the defendants. With regard to that remaining defendant, the Department narrowed the scope of its proposed remedy. Rather than 

being permanently enjoined from engaging in such conduct at any 

polling location the remaining defendant was prohibited only from 

engaging in this behavior outside of polling locations in the city of 

Philadelphia, and only until mid-November of 2012. 

The Department’s actions in this case have led many to ask why 

the Obama Administration would suddenly drop most of the 

charges in a case it had effectively won. No facts had changed. No 

new evidence was uncovered. The law had remained unchanged. 

The only thing that did change is the political party in charge of 

the Department of Justice. Judiciary Committee Ranking Member 

Lamar Smith and Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Frank Wolf wrote the Department 

eight times since the case dismissal seeking the answer to one simple question: what changed between January 2009 and May 2009 

such that the law necessitated the dismissal of most of the DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:14 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 089008 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR404.XXX HR404

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

2Letter from Members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to the Honorable Eric Holder, 

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, (Aug. 10, 2009) (on file with minority staff of the 

Committee on the Judiciary). 3See Jerry Seper, Exclusive: No. 3 at Justice OK’d Panther Reversal, the WASH. TIMES, July 

30, 2009. 4See Id. 

5See Id. 

ment’s claims and the narrowing of the remedy for the remaining 

defendant? 

The Department’s inability or unwillingness to address this question leaves the minority members of this Committee with no other 

alternative but to conclude that improper—likely partisan political—motivations were behind the Department’s actions, that politics improperly played a role in its decision to enforce the Voting 

Rights Act. These concerns were only heightened when it was 

learned that one of the defendants against whom charges were 

dropped was a Democratic poll watcher.2 Through media reports it 

was later learned that the lead career attorneys on the case strongly advocated in favor of seeking the default judgment against all 

original defendants in this case.3 When Department officials sought 

a second opinion from its career appellate attorneys, they agreed 

with the recommendation of the lead attorneys that default charges 

should be finalized as against all original defendants.4 Those same 

media reports assert that senior political appointees may have 

overridden the decision of career attorneys.5

II. THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST

ALL ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS

The Department asserts that default judgments are not automatic, and that the government must still prove the case based on 

the law and the facts. The minority members of this Committee 

find this argument unpersuasive because one would assume that 

the Department would not have brought the case against the Defendants unless it believed the evidence supported it and that it 

could prove each alleged act based upon that evidence. Furthermore, we know from news reports that the attorneys in charge of 

the case never wavered from their belief that the evidence did 

prove the allegations against each defendant. 

Ultimately, the question that minority members of the Committee wish to have the Department explain and that the Department has thus far refused to do, is why. Either the facts were not 

strong enough for the case to have been brought, or they were but 

the Department decided not to move forward with the case. If the 

Department would simply explain what standard it used in early 

May to analyze the facts and why these facts did not meet these 

legal standards that the Department had concluded just five 

months earlier did would go a long way towards addressing concerns raised by the minority members of this Committee. However, 

the Department’s failure—or refusal—to engage in this discussion 

has led us and observers to wonder whether DOJ has something 

to hide. And in this instance the Department’s silence appears to 

be an admission of guilt. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

III. WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT PURSUED THE FULL SCOPE OF THE

REMEDY ALLOWED UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT INTIMIDATION

PROVISIONS

The Department asserts that with regard to the remedy sought 

against the remaining original defendant in this case it sought to 

punish him to the fullest extent under the law, an injunction. However, the Department fails to address why it rejected the original 

permanent injunction sought in the January filings and instead 

submitted a more narrow request to the court in May that requested an injunction applicable only to polling locations in the city 

of Philadelphia and only through mid-November 2012. 

IV. THE DEPARTMENT’S ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO U.S. COMMISSION

ON CIVIL RIGHTS INQUIRIES

Twenty-four hours before H. Res. 994 was marked up by this 

Committee, the Department provided responses to interrogatories 

served upon it by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (the Commission). The Department provided copies of these responses to the 

Committee. It also produced approximately 1800 pages worth of 

Department documents. 

Unfortunately, the Department’s responses to the Commission’s 

interrogatories provided little, if any, information that would assist 

Congress in the performance of oversight on this matter. The Department refused to answer, either wholly or in part, 31 of the 

Commission’s 49 interrogatories. The Department asserts that it 

did respond to the Commission’s interrogatories and document request last week. However, its answers for those 31 questions consisted of the statement that it ‘‘generally objected’’ to the question 

being asked. In some instances the Department explained in greater detail he source of its objections. Nonetheless, it cannot be argued that the Department answered the questions asked of it by 

the Commission. Instead, they answered by saying that they would 

not answer those 31 questions. 

Furthermore, the 1800 pages worth of documents provided by the 

Department while voluminous, failed to provide Congress any information about the dismissal of this case, particularly with regard 

to how the case could be strong enough to be filed one month and 

too weak to pursue four months later. So Congress remains unable 

to explore the application of the Voting Rights Act to the New 

Black Panther Party case. 

V. THE AFFECT OF THE DEPARTMENT’S OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REVIEW ON CONGRESS’S OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT’S ACTIONS IN THIS CASE

It has been argued by some that Congress should not investigate 

the New Black Panther Party case dismissal because of the ongoing 

review by the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility 

(OPR). 

At its heart, the Department’s handling of the New Black Panther Party case is really a policy question: how can the conduct underlying the case be allowable under the Voting Rights Act and, if 

it is, what changes, if any, should be made to the law to prevent 

such conduct in the future? Policy is set by Congress, not the Department, and it is up to Congress to determine whether current 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

law reaches the conduct that Congress intended the law to reach 

when enacted. 

It is unclear in this case based on what is publicly known why 

the incident of Election Day 2008 is not prosecutable as intimidation under the Voting Rights Act, Thus, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to inquire into whether the law as currently 

written is strong enough to prohibit such conduct. 

The law either currently is strong enough, and the Department 

made its decision to drop the case based on reasons other than substantive legal analysis, a decision which would show partisan political influence, or it is not, in which case Congress has a duty to 

review whether the Voting Rights Act needs to be revised to cover 

such acts. 

Thus far, in response to inquiries and document requests from 

Republican members of this Committee, the Department has stated 

that the claims were not appropriate under the Voting Rights Act, 

despite the fact that based on the same set of facts, the Department had but months earlier decided the facts did merit the initiation of the suit. 

In light of the Department’s current view of the law, it appears 

Congress must consider whether to strengthen the Voting Rights 

Act. In order to have that debate, Congress needs to know the facts 

that the Department had in front of it when it decided to file this 

case and when it decided to dismiss it. 

The Department’s review of whether its employees committed 

misconduct while implementing policies set by Congress has no relationship to Congress’s obligation to ask the above questions about 

implementation of the Voting Rights Act. Congress still has an 

independent duty to ask whether the policies it has set, and the 

laws enacted to implement those policies, work. This duty cannot 

be performed by the agency tasked with implementing Congress’s 

policy determinations. Nor can it be extinguished by an agency’s 

decision to investigate the conduct of its employees in relation to 

the implementation of those laws. 

OPR’s review is merely an internal inquiry into the conduct of 

Department lawyers in the course of performing their duties. In 

this case, those duties involve the enforcement of the same Voting 

Rights Act provisions, the application of which Congress has grown 

concerned about after the November 2008 incident in Philadelphia. 

In the course of its investigation OPR will review whether Department attorneys were competent in their knowledge of the applicable area of the law, whether they were diligent in efforts to 

prepare materials and arguments made before the court, and 

whether their conduct complied with the law, governing ethical requirements, and the duty of care owed by all attorneys. 

With regard to the questions raised by the Department’s case 

against the New Black Panther Party, it is simply outside the 

scope of an OPR inquiry to determine how broad the scope of the 

Voting Rights Act currently is or should be and whether the Voting 

Rights Act as written reaches the conduct Congress wishes to regulate or prohibit. 

While both Congress and OPR will find relevant some of the 

same information, the two entities have different focuses. It is, 

however, the exclusive province of Congress to determine and set 

policy. And the Department has yet to articulate how Congress’s 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

review of these documents, in furtherance of that duty, at the same 

time OPR reviews those documents will interfere with OPR’s ability to assess the import of those documents. 

VI. CONCLUSION

What if on election day in Philadelphia, Mississippi, two white 

men in white robes and hoods, one of them armed with a baton, 

station themselves in front of a polling place and make threatening 

comments to African-Americans arriving to vote. 

In the wake of that election, a Democratic Justice Department 

files suit against the two Klansmen and the Klan, who fail to respond, and the federal judge directs the Department to submit an 

unopposed order resolving the case. 

Instead, a new Republican Justice Department dismisses the 

case and files only a very limited injunction against the one Klansman with the baton. 

In the case of this hypothetical, would our Committee colleagues 

in the majority not be demanding information justifying what led 

to the Department’s about-face? Of course they would be, and the 

minority members of this Committee would join them, because the 

intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Act were designed 

with precisely that case in mind. 

In the New Black Panther Party case we have a case that seems 

tailor-made for the application of the intimidation prohibition in 

the Voting Rights Act, and Department lawyers apparently came 

to that conclusion as well in filing the suit. 

But a new set of eyes at the Department apparently saw the case 

differently. We need to know why. 

In its meager responses to congressional inquiries, the Department suggests that the Voting Rights Act may not be adequate to 

address the actions of these defendants, but that analysis should 

have occurred before the suit was filed. And the Department fails 

to point out any change in the law after the case was filed or any 

newly uncovered facts that would justify its change of heart. The 

only fact that appears to have changed is the change in political 

control of the Department. 

So we are left with one of two choices: either the Department 

erred in filing the suit or it erred in dropping the suit. We should 

be able to make that judgment, but we cannot on the basis of the 

inadequate response from the Department to Mr. Smith’s and Mr. 

Wolf’s letters. 

We need to know because it is up to us, on this Committee, to 

decide whether the intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Act 

need to be strengthened, or if this matter reflects simply a new 

judgment by the new President and his team that he does not want 

to harm his political allies. If that is the case, as it appears now 

to be, then the majority may have finally found the first case in 

which actual political influence appears. 

For more than two years, the majority on this Committee has 

been looking for such a case as it pursued its investigation into the 

firing of political appointees. The problem is they have looked only 

for such cases during the last administration. But in its first six 

months, the new administration has apparently provided an instance that we have yet to uncover during our microscopic invesVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:14 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 089008 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR404.XXX HR404

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

tigation of the previous one: a case tainted by partisan political influence. 

There cannot be true justice if those responsible for ensuring justice rely on a political compass rather than facts and evidence. 

It is unfortunate that this Committee chose not to obtain answers to the serious questions raised by the Department’s conduct 

in this case by reporting this resolution out favorably. The right to 

cast a ballot free of intimidation is at the heart of our democracy. 

We jeopardize our democracy if we look the other way in this case. 

LAMAR SMITH. 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

HOWARD COBLE. 

ELTON GALLEGLY. 

BOB GOODLATTE. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN. 

STEVE KING. 

TRENT FRANKS. 

LOUIE GOHMERT. 

JIM JORDAN. 

TED POE. 

JASON CHAFFETZ. 

DISSENTING VIEWS OF MR. HARPER

I join Sections I–V of the dissenting views offered by Ranking 

Member Smith. 

GREGG HARPER. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS