Let's look at the law and then review the complete circumstances surrounding what these New Black Panther members did - or rather what the one individual in question did - and then make a rational decision.
The Voters Rights Act, Sec. 11(b) reads:
(b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
So, what did the one member in question of the New Black Pather party do? He utter hostile or otherwise threatening words directed at white voters outside a polling place in Philly:
I hate white people! All of them! You want freedom, you gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of their babies!
He made these statements right outside a polling place and his words were directed at white voters. So, under the law he should have been prosecuted, right? Well, let's look at the specifics of the law again because as legal history has shown, words AND actions on both sides - the person doing the intimidating, threatening, coersion, etc, and those who allegedly are threatened - play a role here.
...intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce...
Clearly, his words were mean spirited, hateful and threatening. But who did he intimidate? Did he directly intimidate, threaten or coerce any white voter and stop them from casting their vote? Was any white voter denied their right to vote as a direct result of his words? (In other words, did any white voter turn away from the polling place because they were affraid of him or the New Black Pather members who were present?)
I understand how some people view this incident. In all honesty, his actions really aren't that much different from white hate groups, i.e., the Klan or any of its knock-offs, who would do the same thing to blacks. But here's the difference...
Throughout the history of the Black Pather party, no member has ever been prosecuted for violating Section 11(b) of the Voters Rights Act...until now. To put it another way, no voters rights or civil rights case made against members of the Black Pathers has ever been succesfully prosecuted whereby it was proven that their actions denied a white person his or her right to vote. So you ask, "How could I make the claim that these members were prosecuted? From the FoxNews article in the OP:
The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012.
In otherwords, a plea bargain was reached, but you have to ask yourself why wasn't this case pursued to the fullest extent of the law? Well, consider that:
a. No one was hurt.
b. No voter was denied their right to vote.
c. It's the individuals protected right to free speech; the only knock is he happen to make such a vile statement outside a polling place on the night of the Presidential election.
Although there apparently is evidence that this wasn't the first time this has happened in recent history w/the New Black Pather party, there hasn't been any evidence to my knowledge (that has been made publicly atleast) that shows that any white voters were denied their right to vote. In fact, according to atleast one website that has covered this incident, some eyewiteness to the Philly account have stated that they saw white voters laughing at the individual who spoke. Clearly, no one was intimidate by his words, and that's the key here, folks.
Before responding to this thread, I did some research and no better commentary as to how insignificant this issue is can be summarized better than the words from Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who not only called this incident "small potatoes, but also considers it to be a "manufactured controversy" by his own party.
From
MediaMatters.com:
Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.
In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only three Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation -- no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.
A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.
Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.
In the grand scheme of things, I'd have to agree with him. Again, I understand how polarized this incident has become; whites in particular want "tit-for-tat" justice, but really how does this compare with the voting rights denied of African-Americans since before the 15th Amendement, the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act were all passed? Believe me, I understand where many whites (and Conservatives) are coming from because as an African-American, I've been on that side of racial injustice. But when you really take the racial and partician blinders off, what real harm has this small trio of racially bias individuals done other than communicating a threat and uttering hate speech?
