View Single Post
Old 07-13-2010, 04:26 PM   #27
saden1
MVP
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 46
Posts: 10,069
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

SS33, per your link:

Quote:
COMMISSIONER YAKI: Point of information on the voting rights.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just have a question about a statement made in the Chairman's opening remarks. You talked about the --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we are under tight time constraints.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I know. I understand. But I think this is important because --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: It may be important
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- it goes to the rules of the game here, which is you talked about the so-called terrified poll worker at the facility --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Mr. Yaki? Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- when there has been direct evidence --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we will not be doing this now. Vice Chair Thernstrom, please continue.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I am asking for clarification, Mr. Chair. You made a statement.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Vice Chair Thernstrom?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: It was not based on any direct evidence --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: 1 Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- by anyone here. It is hearsay testimony. The only thing --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, now is not the time to try to run out the clock.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I am not trying to run out the clock. I am simply saying that there has been no direct testimony --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki? Commissioner Yaki, you are wasting valuable time. And you know it.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: And I think that your ten-minute statement when we only get one minute is a way to put facts into evidence which do not exist.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just want to make that point.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: That's all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, if this happens again, it will come out of your time.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: Oh, you can do whatever you want, Mr. Chair.

Testimoney of Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Thomas Perez:


Quote:
As noted in the written responses to the Commission's inquiry, we have endeavored to be responsive to the Commission's request while at the same time protecting against disclosures which would undermine well-established and longstanding confidentiality interests that are integral to the discharge of our law enforcement responsibilities, particularly those relating to litigation decisions.

At the outset, let me emphasize with respect to Section 11(b) decisions that these are hard cases. Very few such cases have been brought. In fact, we can find records of only three cases filed by the government under Section 11(b) since its inception.

The standards for proof are high. And, as in every case, the question to be addressed is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the burden of proof. And on that question, reasonable minds can differ and can look at the same set of facts but draw different conclusions regarding whether the burden of proof has been met. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate that point.

In the most recent case under 11(b) to go to trial, United States versus Brown, the court found that the publication in the newspaper by a county political party chairman of a list of voters to be challenged if they attempted to vote in the party primary did not amount to intimidation, threat, or coercion under 11(b).

In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish.

In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.

In 2005, the Division 1 received allegations that armed Mississippi State investigators intimidated elderly minority voters during an investigation of possible voter fraud in municipal elections by visiting them in their home, asking them who they voted for, in spite of state law protections that explicitly forbid such inquiries.

Here again, the Division front office leadership declined to bring a voter intimidation case in this matter. This is the matter referenced in a recent GAO report that examined a number of cases brought by certain sections of the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration.
Bang!
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 1.57798 seconds with 10 queries