Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota seems to have serious double standards about when “voter intimidation” is a real problem.
In particular, Klobuchar seems more worried about hypothetical voter intimidation by conservative poll watchers this year than she was about actual intimidation 12 years ago by violent members of the New Black Panther Party.
You probably remember the basic outlines of the Panther case. In the 2008 elections, two Black Panther Party leaders with violent criminal records stood outside a Philadelphia polling place, wearing paramilitary garb while wielding a billy club and saying threateningly racist things to white voters. It was a clear case of voter intimidation, and the Justice Department had already won a judgment against the two intimidators. All that was needed to formalize the judgment was to file papers with the judge — but then, the new Obama political overlords at Justice refused to file the papers, effectively dropping the already-won case.
Amid growing conservative uproar about the Obama team’s decision, department whistleblowers reported that the Obama team’s policy was that civil-rights laws should not be applied against black perpetrators who deprive the rights of white victims. The whole thing became a cause célèbre among conservative and moderate voters.
Nonetheless, Senate Democrats repeatedly dismissed the whole story as much ado about nothing. And when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the subject, committee member Klobuchar failed even to show up. So much for her concern about voter intimidation that actually occurred.
Now Klobuchar sings a different tune. During her questioning of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Klobuchar began, out of the blue, to ask Barrett about a hypothetical case that might emerge from a real news report that “a contractor from outside of my state of Minnesota started recruiting poll watchers with special forces experience, uh-huh, to protect polling locations in my state. This was clear voter intimidation.”
When Barrett demurred, saying that she is precluded from discussing hypothetical cases, Klobuchar persisted: “I’ll make it easier. [Federal law] 18 U.S.C 594 outlaws anyone who intimidates or threatens any other person for the purpose of interfering for the right of such other person to vote is a law on the books for decades. Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian groups at polls?”
Well, yes. If people under arms make a show at the polls, that may well be voter intimidation. What it has to do with Barrett’s nomination is beyond understanding. It seemed more like a demagogic aside by Klobuchar than like a serious question.
Still, why this concern now about something that hasn’t even happened, when Klobuchar and all her Democratic colleagues denigrated the actual, videotaped proof of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation? Is voter intimidation wrong only when it dissuades voters on her perceived side, but not wrong when it targets white voters who may oppose Democrats?
Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring, but not intimidating.
