Video of black panthers intimidating voters

The head of the controversial New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz, wasn’t kidding when he told WND’s Aaron Klein in September that his group would again deploy outside voting booths today – to prevent “intimidation against our people,” he said – and sure enough, the New Black Panthers are out today in force. Jackson, some may recall, was one of the two New Black Panther Party members charged in what is widely considered the most egregious case of voter intimidation in modern times, when he and “Minister King Samir Shabazz” (aka Maurice Heath), the party’s Philadelphia leader, were videotaped on Election Day 2008 wearing paramilitary uniforms, carrying a nightstick and blocking a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters. ” In a surprise decision that caused career DOJ attorneys to quit, the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder’s leadership decided against prosecuting the case, thus inviting today’s encore appearances.

According to local media reports, members of the New Black Panther Party planned to blow up the St.

Just about a year ago, a controversy was making it’s way through the conservative blogosphere that arose out of an incident at a Philadelphia, PA voting place on Election Day 2008 where two men representing something called the “New Black Panther Party”” were standing outside purporting to intimidate voters while a Fox News Channel camera recorded the whole thing. Commission on Civil Rights where Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican member of the Commission, called the case “small potatoes” while others on the right attempted to turn it into a huge scandal.

The incident was investigated by the Department of Justice and, before Barack Obama became President, the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges in the matter. The controversy mostly died out when the Summer of 2010 ended and people began focusing on the election, but Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog notes that there was a final report issued by the DOJ back in March and it turns out that the whole story really was much ado about nothing: (1) the original NBPP controversy really was small potatoes, as Abby Thernstrom and Jonathan Adler concluded.

This was a tiny incident in a single polling place about which there was not proof of a single intimidated voter.

(2) Jonathan thought the decision to narrow the injunction after obtaining the default judgment did not make sense, but the OPR gives plausible reasons for why DOJ leadership did so—reasons about the scope of injunctions and First amendment rights which seem very strong to me as a teacher of Remedies.

Leave a Reply