FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If Charles Manson ran I wouldn't even know because that's not the part of the ballot I'd be looking at.
Justice Dept. blocks N.C.'s nonpartisan vote
- Thread starter meme
- Start date
If Charles Manson ran I wouldn't even know because that's not the part of the ballot I'd be looking at.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
LOL. Yeah, Democrats are so dumb they need all the help they can get.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Why don't we just replace 36% of the voters with robots that just pull the lever for Democrats? Socialists can't think for themselves.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Because if an individual is affiliated with a political party you have a right to be informed of that affiliation. This is an effort by the community of Kinston to violate the voters rights act of 1964. It aint like this is the first time this has happened in the rural south.
Good Luck
New member
So they WENT to the justice department. And the JD denied their request to remove party affiliation from their ballots.This law has been in effect for 43 years and it's suddenly Obama's fault? Funny how the Washington Times left off that little snippet.
You hacks couldn't get any hackier if you tried.
"Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination."
And the REASON? Because they are afraid that without party tags, the voters cannot tell WHAT COLOR the candidate is.
Now who are the racists? The ones who want to remove partisan information, or the ones who want to keep party affiliation so people can judge who is black or not?
Good Luck
New member
Are you not, in the least, concerned with WHY they insist on keeping party affiliation part of the ballot? So people can, through party affiliation, determine what RACE the candidate is. If that isn't full blown racism, what is? I thought the IDEAL was to be color blind, not keep focusing on color.
BTW: the city of Kinston in no way violated, nor tried to violate the VRA. They proposed removing partisan information from the ballots (which is NOT a requirement under VRA), thus (theoretically) forcing people to actually find something out about the candidates instead of simply (blindly, mindlessly) looking for party affiliation.
Gee whiz, people might actually find out a candidate is black without needing their democratic party label to tell them so.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Here's the actual ruling. I don't see what you're seeing. IMO the Washington Times left out some critical info from their article.
James P. Cauley III, Esq.
Rose Rand Wallace
P.O. Drawer 2367
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-2367
Dear Mr. Cauley:
This refers to the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality-vote requirement, for the City of Kinston in Lenoir County, North Carolina, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your response to our June 10, 2009, request for additional information on June 16, 2009; additional information was received on August 4, 2009.
We have carefully considered the information you have provided, as well as information from other interested parties. Under Section 5, the Attorney General must determine whether the submitting authority has met its burden of showing that the proposed change "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect" of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group. As discussed further below, I cannot conclude that the city has sustained its burden of showing that the proposed changes do not have a retrogressive effect. Therefore, based on the information available to us, I object to the voting changes on behalf of the Attorney General.
According to the 2000 Census, the City of Kinston has a total population of 23,688 people, of whom 14,837 (62.6%) are African-American. The total voting age population is 17,906, of whom 10,525 (58.8%) are African-American. The American Community Survey for 2005-2007 estimates the total population to be 22,649, of whom 14,967 (66.6%) are African-American. As of October 31, 2008, the city has 14,799 registered voters, of whom 9,556 (64.6%) are African-American.
Although black persons comprise a majority of the city's registered voters, in three of the past four general municipal elections, African Americans comprised a minority of the electorate on election day; in the fourth , they may have been a slight majority. For that reason, they are viewed as a minority for analytical purposes. Minority turnout is relevant to determining whether a change under Section 5 is retrogressive. Hale County v. United States, 496 F.Supp 1206 (D.D.C.).
Black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections. The success that they have achieved has resulted from cohesive support for candidates during the Democratic primary (where black voters represent a larger percentage of the electorate), combined with crossover voting by whites in the general election. It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice.
This small, but critical, amount of white crossover votes results from the party affiliation of black-preferred candidates, most if not all of whom have been black. Numerous elected municipal and county officials confirm the results of our statistical analyses that a majority of white Democrats support white Republicans over black Democrats in Kinston city elections. At the same time, they also acknowledged that a small group of white Democrats maintain strong party allegiance and will continue to vote along party lines, regardless of the race of the candidate. Many of these white crossover voters are simply using straight-ticket voting. As a result, while the racial identity of the candidate greatly diminishes the supportive effect of the partisan cue, it does not totally eliminate it.
It follows, therefore, that the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice. Black candidates will likely lose a significant amount of crossover votes due to the high degree of racial polarization present in city elections. Without party loyalty available to counter-balance the consistent trend of racial bloc voting, blacks will face greater difficulty winning general elections. Our analysis of election returns indicates that cross-over voting is greater in partisan general elections than in the closed primaries. Thus, statistical analysis supports the conclusion that given a change to a non-partisan elections, black preferred candidates will receive fewer white cross-over votes.
The change to nonpartisan elections would also likely eliminate the party’s campaign support and other assistance that is provided to black candidates because it eliminates the party"s role in the election. The party provides forums for black candidates to meet with voters who may otherwise be unreachable without the party's assistance. In addition, the party provides campaign funds to candidates, without which minority candidates may lag behind their white counterparts in campaign spending.
Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submitting authority has the burden of showing that a submitted change has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 28 C.F.R. 51.52. In light of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude that your burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality vote requirement.
Under Section 5 you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. 28 C.F.R. 51.44. In addition, you may request that the Attorney General reconsider the objection. 28 C.F.R. 51.45. However, unless and until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment from the District of Columbia court is obtained, the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality vote requirement, continues to be legally unenforceable. Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. 646 (1991); 28 C.F.R. 51.10.
To enable us to meet our responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the action the city plans to take concerning this matter. If you have any questions, please call Mr. J. Eric Rich (202-305-0107), an attorney in the Voting Section.
Sincerely,
/s/
Loretta King
Acting Assistant Attorney General
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ltr/l_081709.php
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that article is BS....it doesn't mention at all how black voters vote for black candidates....a purely racist article
and we all know approx. 95% of black voters voted for obama, the highest percentage ever for a dem president
and we all know approx. 95% of black voters voted for obama, the highest percentage ever for a dem president
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
We've had non-partisan elections here for a long time, and personally I think it's bullshit. It started with the judges, because no-one wants to elect a Democrat for judge, then went to the small town councils. In my local election I met one of the candidates on the street and he asked for my vote. I asked him what Party he was registered with. He told me that the election was non-partisan. I asked him again what Party he was registered with. He told me that the party affiliation for any of the candidates wasn't on the ballot. I asked him a third time what Party he was registered with. He started another non-answer but I cut him off, and told him that it was pretty obvious that he was ashamed of his Party which meant that he must be a Democrat. Sure enough, I looked him up on the State database and he's a Democrat.
christiefan915
Catalyst
? Do you mean the DOJ ruling? The ruling was issued on August 22 and the city has the right to appeal if they're dissatisfied.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
So, there was a history of racism in some 12,000, mostly Southern districts, when the Voting Rights Act was passed...
IN 1965!!!!
What an ingenious Justice Dept. we have going on here...
In 1763, Americans had a long history of being left alone by national governments. Can we get some of that, by any chance?!?
IN 1965!!!!
What an ingenious Justice Dept. we have going on here...
In 1763, Americans had a long history of being left alone by national governments. Can we get some of that, by any chance?!?
Socrtease
Verified User
Is this not a free country? If I want to vote straight ticket EVERYTIME I vote, is that not my right? Yes, in the South, a D by the name can also signify that that person is black. An R by the name can signify that that person believes the world is only 8000 years old. Some people might want that person elected. What I don't get is why it is that big of a deal? Why does it matter so much to you and all the other righties in here? Might it be because you know that without the R or D next to the name you might be in a better position to take back offices lost? This is pure and simple whinerism. It is political manipulation. If it wasn't, there would not be this hard push to get it done nor all this whinerism because the DOJ can see it for what it is. The great thing about america is that I am free to be the most uninformed voter in the whole country and it does not affect my right to vote.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol....I love it when liberals celebrate their right to remain uninformed......
Socrtease
Verified User
I love it when conservatives prove they are too fucking stupid to understand the point being made or that they are just jackasses. You can decide which you are.
I think this is classic. The aim is to have people be more informed about the candidate by providing less information about them. Nice work.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
one of the options is 'your mental superior'.....come to think of it, you don't need any other options......
Socrtease
Verified User
That was never one of my options. I got you with one lobe tied behind my back.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Do your ears hang low?
Do they wobble to and fro?
Can you tie them in a knot?
Can you tie them in a bow?
Can you throw them o'er your shoulder
Like a Continental Soldier?
Do your ears hang low?
They don't want people to know they're republicans. You've been on this board long enough to witness the phenomena of the embarrassed Republican. Otherwise known as the "independent conservative". You watched John McCain and Sarah Palin pretend to run away from the Republican Party in a pathetic attempt to beat Marxist Hussein Obama.