Clinton Was Sued for Intimidating Black Voters in Arkansas

In 1989 then-Gov. Bill Clinton was sued as one of three top Arkansas officials responsible for the intimidation of black voters in his state as part of a legal action brought under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, NewsMax.com has learned.

And a year earlier the U.S. Supreme court ruled that Clinton had wrongfully tried to overturn the election of a black state representative in favor of a white Democrat.

In the 1989 case, "the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated," reported the Arkansas Gazette on Dec. 6, 1989. (The paper later became the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.)

"Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates, other official acts that made voting harder for blacks," the Gazette said.

A federal three judge federal panel ordered Clinton, then Arkansas Attorney General Steve Clark and then-Secretary of State William J. Mc Cuen to draw new boundaries to give maximum strength to black voters.

"Until last year," the Gazette complained at the time, "in more than a thousand legislative elections, the (Arkansas) delta region sent not one black to the legislature. Last year, the federal district court split a multimember district in Crittenden County that had submerged the large number of black voters in the county."

In a related 1988 case, Clinton had tried to replace duly elected African-American state representative with a white candidate, only to be stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The court, by an 8-0 vote, ruled against an appeal by Gov. Bill Clinton and other Arkansas officials that had challenged the election of Ben McGee as a state legislator," the Associated Press reported on Dec. 12, 1988. McGee is an African-American.

"The case began when blacks in Crittenden County filed a voting rights lawsuit attacking the county's at-large system for electing two House members. The suit contended that the system deprived black voters of a chance to elect a black to the House.

A special three-judge federal court had agreed earlier in the year that the system violated the federal Voting Rights Act.

The three-judge court threw out the results of a March 8 primary election in which the black candidate McGee, was defeated by James Stockley, the white candidate handpicked by Gov. Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

"That was tantamount to election on Nov. 8, since no Republican ran for the seat," the AP said.

Clinton and the other state officials had argued that the federal court improperly threw out the results of the first primary and ordered a new election.

The Supreme Court ruling came as the then-governor was fighting another court battle to preserve racial profiling in his state, a tool that Clinton later criticized while president as a "morally indefensible, deeply corrosive practice."

But a decade earlier he approved the profiling of Hispanics by Arkansas State Police as part of a drug interdiction program in 1988, the Washington Times revealed in 1999.

"The Arkansas plan gave state troopers the authority to stop and search vehicles based on a drug-courier profile of Hispanics, particularly those driving cars with Texas license plates," the Times said.

"A federal judge later ruled the program unconstitutional, the paper reported. "A lawsuit and a federal consent decree ended the practice - known as the 'criminal apprehension program' the next year."

Then Gov. Clinton, however, not only criticized the profiling ban, "at one point, (he) threatened to reinstate the program despite the court's ruling," the Times said.

"The state's position was to give away a . . . program that we're now trying to get back," Clinton announced at the time, saying the race-based stop and search program was more important than even airport security measures.

Three years later in 1991, Clinton actually did implement a modified version of the profiling program that prohibited the use of ethnic screening but allowed troopers to continue to stop cars on the highway at their discretion.

Hearing Clinton's condemnation of racial profiling in 1999, Roberto Garcia de Posada, executive director of the Hispanic Business Roundtable, complained that the then-president "had been a strong supporter of racial profiling against Hispanics in the past."

"He does not have the moral authority to lead a national campaign on this issue. If President Clinton truly meant what he said . . . he should apologize to all those Hispanics who suffered this 'morally indefensible' practice, which he publicly supported," de Posada said.

On Thursday and Friday both ex-President Clinton and his wife, Democratic Party presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, criticized Republicans for trying to suppress the black vote in states like Arkansas and Florida. But reporters declined to ask either Clinton about the well documented record of black voter disenfranchisement in Arkansas while they ran the state.

President Clinton endorsed policies that resulted in the incarceration of more Black men than ever before in any 8-year period in American history. More Black men were put in jail under President Clinton than under Presidents Reagan and Bush (43) combined. President Clinton ended the welfare program that Black leaders vociferously argued was necessary to keep a firm safety net in place. And when the talk of "mending" affirmative action arose; it was President Bill Clinton, who, from the White House led the way. President Clinton made an absolute fool of Rev. Jackson - at the civil rights leader's own convention - and demonized a Black woman and pillar of the Hip-Hop community, Sister Souljah, in order to show White America that he would not be under the influence of the wishes of the Black electorate or its leaders.(1)

Nineteen members of the Congressional Black Caucus charged the Democratic Party with racism in its hiring practices and issue prioritization. The text of an article concerning that, as it appeared in The Final Call online on May 22, 2001.(2)

GDP has grown consistently and almost linearly over the past 50 years. Recessions have occurred at roughly ten year intervals as marked on the graph (1958, 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992). The one exception is the mid 1970s recession. President Clinton enjoyed no more economic well being than another President during the mid-10 year cycle.(3)

The economy fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000, with the annualized growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dropping from 4.8% to 0.6%. Considering that the nation had seen a decade-long economic expansion, that the business cycle had not been repealed, that the Federal Reserve had raised interest rates six times in the previous two years, that the stock market had been dropping since March, and that the regulatory excesses of the second Clinton term had to bite into the economy at some point, it seemed pretty obvious a recession was on the way.(4)

President Clinton enacted the most aggressive international use of the military in "low intensity" combat and "operations other than war" than any other President in history. At the same time he , he reduced the military by 600,000 personnel and increased operational use of the military. By 1999 the Clinton administration had undertaken a record-setting 48 peace enforcement and combat missions. Many of those missions —for example, U.S. deployments to Bosnia and Kosovo—have little or nothing to do with U.S. vital interests.(5) As a result of this military interventionalism without a clear foriegn policy goal or direction, the United States has engendered deep hatred among many Muslims, while allowing dangerous dictators to violate treaties and grow in power.

Hope that helps as a start ...

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. It was a phony peace which is now beginning to be evident. North Korea did not abandon a nuclear program. Five FBI agents working full time on Islamic terrorism after OKC was criminal dereliction of duty. 9-11 happened because Clinton misdirected his FBI to go after "right wing" domestic terrorists. Tim McVeigh was an anomoly. We are not far from seeing the definite proof of the Iraqi connection at OKC. The economy runs in cycles. Any CEO of a Fortune 500 company could have run the economy -- we didn't need a rapist criminal to do it. We didn't need a guy who allowed our missile secrets to be sold to the ChiComs and then accepted a bribe from Bernie Schwartz to keep him out of prison. If Clinton was the only Democrat who could have presided over an economy that was on the upswing in George Bush's last two quarters, then the Democrat Party should never again nominate a presidential candidate. As we have seen with the failure of the dot coms, much of the economy was smoke and mirrors. George Bush is picking up the pieces of the disaster and going after the cheating execs. Even the federal government was using phony numbers.

He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. So what? He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in most places, and vastly reduced welfare roles. Thanks largely to the beginning of a long-term economic growth cycled, created by the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, we reaped economic benefits because when people keep more of their own money they start businesses and employ people. Lower capital gains cause people to build buildings. Shorter depreciation causes businesses to invest in capital equipment, giving jobs to those who manufacture the equipment, those providing raw materials, and everyone in the distribution of the equipment. The crime rate dropped because of actions such as "Three Strikes" in California.

He proposed the first balanced budget in decades, and actually achieved a budget surplus. The budget would have been balanced much earlier had the Democrats given what Republican presidents have wanted for a long time -- a line item veto. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination. Check out the 1989 lawsuit by black legislator Ben McGee against Governor Clinton and other officials. Ask the black woman who had the child he fathered if he has taken care of his son. Clinton uses black people as he has used any group he thinks will give him a political benefit.

After the Republican Congress defeated his proposal for a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." Unbelievable lie. We live in different universes.

He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules. Upgrading education means playing ball with the teachers unions. They only have an interest in doing what is best for them. Look at the state of our public schools. They are disasters in many areas, yet they oppose vouchers. Restricting handgun sales, as proven by John Lott ("More Guns, Less Crime") has actually been detrimental.

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Personal indiscretions? Rape is not a personal indiscretion. Intimidation of witnesses is not a person indiscretion. Solicitation of false affidavits is not a personal indiscretion. Perjury is not a personal indiscretion. Introducing a false affidavit to the court is not a personal indiscretion. Giving a "troubled stalker" top secret clearance at the Pentagon is not a personal indiscretion. Suborning perjury is not a personal indiscretion. Getting aides to lie and cover for him is not a personal indiscretion. Using government assets and attorneys paid by U.S. taxpayers to cover his criminal activity is not a personal indiscretion. Attempting to fix a federal civil rights trial is not a personal indiscretion. Creating a hostile workplace in which compliant women are rewarded is not a personal indiscretion. Giving government jobs for sex is not a personal indiscretion. But he was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and he continues to this day, to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president. He never fully apologized. He was only sorry he got caught. He continues to blame his "enemies" for his troubles. Instead of doing his job, he used a federal workplace during business hours to satisfy his perverse desires.

In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia; He bombed Iraq, when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He lobbed a few bombs (to essentially keep Monica off the front page), but until George Bush took action, there were several years in which there were no inspections and he did nothing about it. During that time, Hussein was working on his chemical, nuclear, and biological programs.

He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking. Ask L.D. Brown what Clinton did to stop drugs from coming into Mena. Remember "That's Lasater's deal." Republicans before Clinton, the same Republicans who are responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, were for an expanded NATO. Increased international trade has been a Republican issue for years. Finally, we had a Republican Congress to not stand in the way of its implementation.

He drew huge crowds when he traveled through South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, and China, advocating U.S. style freedom. He want there and played to big crowds because he is an apologist for America. His only desire is to be admired like a rock star.

Under Clinton's leadership, the United States was able to reduce military spending, since we did not need a large military. This is a huge problem which had to be faced by President Bush. The man who told us he loathed the military proved it every day of his administration. We had so few enemies, because we had allies instead of enemies.. Nonsense. He was a foreign policy failure because he had no moral compass which allowed him to distinguish between good and evil. During his term, our allies did not trust us, and our enemies did not fear us.

Israel and the Palestinians were talking peace, and hostilities were limited.. Murdering Yasser Arafat was the most frequent guest at the White House. We are seeing the results of making Arafat believe he was going to be able to eventually push Israel into the sea. Peace was achieved through diplomacy instead of threats and a huge arms buildup. He would apparently be in agreement with Neville Chamberlain who was almost responsible for the destruction of Great Britain. Clinton's flights abroad kept the United States at the forefront as a peacemaker and as an effective negotiator. This fool did not recognize the threat to this nation, even after the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the OKC bombing, and the attack on the USS COLE. He was asleep at the switch while Islamist terrorists were busy around the world. He knew someone else would have to clean up his mess.

Under this present administration, our "excess tax money " has recently been "returned" to our nation's wealthiest citizens. Nonsense. Those who paid taxes had some of the money returned. Our present unsound fiscal policy should be a wonderful gift to our grandchildren. Our hopes for eliminating the national debt were dashed with the election of Bush, who at once set out to cut taxes for the wealthy, and increase military spending to an unbelievable record level. I continue to be amazed at the lack of education in the field of economics. Even John Kennedy proved it, and he proved it well. He cut the tax rate substantially. The result was a phenomenal increase in the amount of taxes collected. Ronald Reagan also proved that cutting the marginal tax rate had tremendous revenue increases for the Treasury. Unfortunately, Reagan did not have a line item veto and the Democratic Congress spent like there was no tomorrow.

It seems that the old method of diplomacy to achieve peace, has now been replaced with a philosophy of superior military power, as a means for enforcing this nation's policy as defined by the president. For those who missed government class, the President of the United States takes an oath to defend this country, not defend the United Nations. Our nation has done more good for more people than any other nation in the history of this planet. When we defeat an enemy, we build them back up and they become a trading partner. There is no greater beacon of freedom than the United States. For that, I will never apologize. This aggressive policy has alienated many of our allies, who now consider the USA as a country that threatens world peace, under the guise of fighting terrorism. Thank God we have a president who can see things in terms of good and evil. Without that ability and the same kind of vision as Sir Winston Churchill, we would be doomed. Not only have our foreign relationships suffered serious decline under Bush, but our National economy continues to deteriorate, as unemployment, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and Corporate Insecurity are constantly a major national problem. The economy was sinking in the last stages of the Clinton administration. Even his own economic advisors admit that is the case. He left a mess. Thanks to Clinton's utter failure to do something serious about the threat of Islamist terrorists, the WTC was hit. It caused a devastating blow to our economy. World peace is now in jeopardy, as threatened by the global goals of George W. Bush. It is time to read a history book, one not created by an idealistic leftist who does not understand the use of power. One country in this world is capable of keeping the peace -- the United States of America. No one else will do it. It is a good thing that there were not too many of you whiners around when it was time to fight Hitler. You would be speaking German, although with the state of the public schools, you would not have been speaking it well. The global goals of George W. Bush were shown in Afghanistan as women who could not show their faces or play music, danced in the streets when Mullah Omar and the Taliban got out of town. Go away you little Clinton kneepad creeps. The adults are again in charge.

a-Ping!

A little something I found in passing - from the Ark. Attorney General.

Adds a little more detail.

Opinion No. 97-216

September 22, 1997

The Honorable Kevin Smith
State Senator
1609 Coker-Hampton Drive
Stuttgart, Arkansas 72160-5713

Dear Senator Smith:

This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the “constitutionality of the redistricting of Arkansas state representative and senatorial districts in Eastern Arkansas for the 1990 and 1992 elections in light of the decision in Miller v. Johnson [515 U.S. ___, 132 L.Ed.2d 762], 115 S.Ct. 2475 (1995).” You have enclosed with your request a copy of a University of Arkansas Law Journal article which discusses the Miller case. See Note, Constitutional Law--Equal Protection-- Race Shall Not Be the Predominant Factor in Congressional District Drawing, Miller v. Johnson, 115 S.Ct. 2475 (1995), 19 UALR LJ 109 (Fall 1996).

The resolution of the question you have posed would require an analysis of all the pertinent facts surrounding the creation, characteristics, and make-up of each individual district. As such, it is beyond the scope of an Attorney General’s opinion. I can, however, in an effort to be helpful, set out a summary of the relevant law.

The districts to which you refer were drawn pursuant to an order of, and approved by, a three judge panel of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas prior to the United States Supreme Court decision in Miller. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D. Ark. 1989) aff’d mem. 498 U.S. 1019 (1991) (finding a violation of § 2 of the federal Voting Rights Acts in the relevant counties save Pulaski County and ordering new districts to be drawn for the 1990 elections); Jeffers v. Clinton, 756 F.Supp. 1195 (E.D.Ark. 1990) summarily aff’d 498 U.S. 1019 (1991) (approving, as modified, the “remedy plan” submitted by the State and retaining jurisdiction to enter other orders to enforce the decree); Jeffers v. Clinton, 740 F.Supp. 585 (E.D. Ark. 1990) appeal dismissed on motion of appellants, 498 U.S. 1129 (1991) (finding some constitutional voting rights violations and imposing a limited preclearance requirement); and Jeffers v. Tucker, 847 F.Supp. 655 (E.D. Ark. 1994) (upholding the State Board of Apportionment’s post 1990 census plan (for the 1992 elections and thereafter) over the objections of the plaintiffs). In its decisions, the District Court found that the districts existing in 1989 diluted the votes of black citizens in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, (42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq.). The court ordered that the then existing districts be redrawn to create additional majority black districts, and retained jurisdiction in order to assure that the districts created in the 1991 apportionment complied with the Voting Rights Act. There was a vigorous dissent in the first three of the cases and a concurrence in the fourth. See Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. 196 (Eisele, Chief District Judge, dissenting); 740 F.Supp. 585 (Eisele, Chief District Judge, dissenting); 756 F.Supp. 1195 (Eisele, Chief District Judge, dissenting); and 847 F.Supp. 655 (Eisele, Senior District Judge, concurring).

The initial Jeffers decisions were handed down before, and thus without the benefit of, the United States Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Johnson, supra, and a predesessor case, Shaw v. Reno. The Miller decision was actually the second decision in a recent wave of decisions interpreting the constitutionality of districts drawn to enhance minority voting strength. The first was Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 113 S.Ct. 2816 (1993) (“Shaw I”), which held that bizarrely shaped districts, created for the purpose of favoring the voting interest of minorities, were unconstitutional under the “equal protection clause” unless narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest (applying the so-called “strict scrutiny test”). In Miller, the Court clarified that the strict scrutiny test is to be applied whenever the legislature subordinates “traditional, race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions, or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations,” and not just when districts are found to be bizarrely shaped. Miller, at 779, 780.

The state of the law on equal protection challenges to redistricting decisions thus involves the analysis of two questions: 1) Were traditional districting principles subordinated to race in the drawing of the districts-- i.e., was race the “predominant factor” in the redistricting-- if so, “strict scrutiny” applies; and 2) is there a compelling governmental interest supporting the use of race as a predominant factor, and are the districts narrowly tailored to serve that interest?

Each of these questions require the analysis of facts as well as law. The first appears to be almost exclusively factual. Whether race was the predominant factor in drawing the districts to which you refer is a question of fact. Relevant for purposes of the second question (involving the existing of a compelling state interest), is the fact that a federal district court ordered the drawing of the districts in question under the federal Voting Rights Act. Two very recent United States Supreme Court decisions provide guidance on this question. In Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. ___, 135 L.Ed.2d 207, 116 S.Ct. 1941 (1996) (“Shaw II”); and Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. ___, 135 L.Ed.2d 248, 116 S.Ct. 1941(1996), the Court “assume[d] without deciding that compliance with [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act], as interpreted by our precedents . . . can be a compelling state interest.” Vera plurality opinion at p. 1960; Shaw II, majority opinion at p. 1905. Justice O’Connor, in her concurring opinion in Vera, stated that she would hold compliance with Section 2 a compelling interest. Vera, supra at 1968. From a reading of the pertinent decisions, it appears that this would be the holding of a majority of the Court.

Thus, compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act can be a compelling public interest supporting a predominant use of racial data in drawing electoral districts. The Court has been clear to point out, however, with regard to the “narrowly tailored requirement” that “compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws cannot justify race-based districting where the challenged district was not reasonably necessary under a constitutional reading and application of those laws.” Miller, supra at 783. (Emphasis added). Most recently, in Bush v. Vera, supra, the Court stated that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “does not require a State to create, on predominantly racial lines, a district that is not ‘reasonably compact.’ [Citation omitted.] If, because of the dispersion of the minority population, a reasonably compact majority-minority district cannot be created, § 2 does not require a majority-minority district; if a reasonably compact district can be created, nothing in § 2 requires the race-based creation of a district that is far from compact.” Bush v. Vera, supra at 270.

The fact that the Arkansas districts in question were ordered and approved by a federal district court in order to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act may be viewed as a compelling public interest which would justify the districts under strict scrutiny analysis even if it was found that race was the predominant factor in their creation. Of course, the relevant federal district court decisions were made without the benefit of the three latest Supreme Court decisions on the topic. Other federal courts have overturned such pre-Miller and Vera decisions where the previously ordered districts did not meet the new U.S. Supreme Court criteria. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mortham, 926 F. Supp. 1460 (N.D. Fla. 1996). A question may remain, therefore, as to whether the United States Supreme Court or lower federal court with jurisdiction would deem the Arkansas districts “reasonably necessary” to comply with the Voting Rights Act, or as “reasonably compact” nothwithstanding that Act. Again, the ultimate issue is one of fact, which would have to be determined by a fact-finder, with access to all the pertinent evidence.

The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Deputy Attorney General Elana C. Wills.

Sincerely,

WINSTON BRYANT
Attorney General

WB:ECW/cyh

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.