Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shira
-snip-
Now, consider the voting law which is the subject of this thread: Federal law is explicit on the process that must be followed when a voting law that affects minorities is passed: The DOJ must be consulted for approval.

Question: Given the facts of this ACTUAL case, is it okay that the town did not seek approval for the change from the DOJ?

Read the articles.

The town DID follow the law. You vote, then seek approval if you're one of the towns/cities required to do so under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This is not a story about a (black) town not following the rules. This is a story about the DoJ excercising it's judgement in accordance with the Act of 1965.

Nobody's broken any laws/rules.

Fern

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shira
-snip-
Now, consider the voting law which is the subject of this thread: Federal law is explicit on the process that must be followed when a voting law that affects minorities is passed: The DOJ must be consulted for approval.

Question: Given the facts of this ACTUAL case, is it okay that the town did not seek approval for the change from the DOJ?

Read the articles.

The town DID follow the law. You vote, then seek approval if you're one of the towns/cities required to do so under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This is not a story about a (black) town not following the rules. This is a story about the DoJ excercising it's judgement in accordance with the Act of 1965.

Nobody's broken any laws/rules.

Fern

Ah, you're correct.

However, I also read the DOJ's reasoning, and I think they made the correct decision:

Based on the voting pattern in Kinston, candidates who would be favored by the black community in Kinston won because they were listed as Democrats on the ticket, and the broader electorate in Kinston tended to vote straight party-line for Democrats.

Under non-partisan elections, the electorate would have no way of identifying who was a Democrat or a Republican, the the election outcomes would likely be quite different. Meaning that FEWER candidates who would be favored by blacks would be elected.

Although it's true that the referendum to move to non-partisan elections was voted on 2-to-1 by the the overall Kinston electorate, that vote is NOT representative of BLACK voters in Kinston - the article does NOT state how black voters voted on the referendum.

In other words, we have a voting change that likely was NOT supported by the black community in Kinston, and the effect of the change is that fewer candidates favored by blacks would be elected. So I think the DOJ's decision was the correct one.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: shira
...However, I also read the DOJ's reasoning, and I think they made the correct decision:
Based on the voting pattern in Kinston, candidates who would be favored by the black community in Kinston won because they were listed as Democrats on the ticket, and the broader electorate in Kinston tended to vote straight party-line for Democrats.
Under non-partisan elections, the electorate would have no way of identifying who was a Democrat or a Republican, the the election outcomes would likely be quite different. Meaning that FEWER candidates who would be favored by blacks would be elected.
Although it's true that the referendum to move to non-partisan elections was voted on 2-to-1 by the the overall Kinston electorate, that vote is NOT representative of BLACK voters in Kinston - the article does NOT state how black voters voted on the referendum.
In other words, we have a voting change that likely was NOT supported by the black community in Kinston, and the effect of the change is that fewer candidates favored by blacks would be elected. So I think the DOJ's decision was the correct one.

The most you can reliably say is that the vote was not necessarily representative of the will of black voters in Kinston. There is nothing in any of the information readily available to indicate any ethnic trend in the election.

 

[Fern]

Well, I don't see anything that indictaed the black population didn't vote for this. But that's besides the point IMO.

Like Kinston, I live a town of about 22,000 in NC (but I'm on the Western side of the state). What happens in partisan elections in these small towns and counties is that everyone just runs as a Dem (or, as the case may be, Repub). In every small town/county I've seen in NC one or the other party controls it.

In my county it's the Repubs. So all the Dems re-register as repub when they run for office. In the county North of me it's the exact opposite. They have people on their county board who were Repubs before running, just like we have office holders who used to be Dems.

Bottom line is in small communites only one election really matters - the primary if you're voting under the partisan system. So, you might as well just drop the partisan stuff and have one elelction anyway.

If Kinston is like every other small NC town I've seen, they wanna drop the second election to avoid the extra expense and hassle of an unnecessary and useless general election. That would make a lot sense in this economic climate.

The nearest town to me did it about 2 years IIRC for that very reason.

Fern

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: shira
...However, I also read the DOJ's reasoning, and I think they made the correct decision:
Based on the voting pattern in Kinston, candidates who would be favored by the black community in Kinston won because they were listed as Democrats on the ticket, and the broader electorate in Kinston tended to vote straight party-line for Democrats.
Under non-partisan elections, the electorate would have no way of identifying who was a Democrat or a Republican, the the election outcomes would likely be quite different. Meaning that FEWER candidates who would be favored by blacks would be elected.
Although it's true that the referendum to move to non-partisan elections was voted on 2-to-1 by the the overall Kinston electorate, that vote is NOT representative of BLACK voters in Kinston - the article does NOT state how black voters voted on the referendum.
In other words, we have a voting change that likely was NOT supported by the black community in Kinston, and the effect of the change is that fewer candidates favored by blacks would be elected. So I think the DOJ's decision was the correct one.

The most you can reliably say is that the vote was not necessarily representative of the will of black voters in Kinston. There is nothing in any of the information readily available to indicate any ethnic trend in the election.

Yes. Good point. Actually, I intended to include "necessarily" and did explicitly point out that how blacks voted on the referendum wasn't indicated in the article.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fern
Well, I don't see anything that indictaed the black population didn't vote for this. But that's besides the point IMO.

Like Kinston, I live a town of about 22,000 in NC (but I'm on the Western side of the state). What happens in partisan elections in these small towns and counties is that everyone just runs as a Dem (or, as the case may be, Repub). In every small town/county I've seen in NC one or the other party controls it.

In my county it's the Repubs. So all the Dems re-register as repub when they run for office. In the county North of me it's the exact opposite. They have people on their county board who were Repubs before running, just like we have office holders who used to be Dems.

Bottom line is in small communites only one election really matters - the primary if you're voting under the partisan system. So, you might as well just drop the partisan stuff and have one elelction anyway.

If Kinston is like every other small NC town I've seen, they wanna drop the second election to avoid the extra expense and hassle of an unnecessary and useless general election. That would make a lot sense in this economic climate.

The nearest town to me did it about 2 years IIRC for that very reason.

Fern

I'm not understanding how going to a non-partisan ballot affects whether a primary is or isn't needed.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: shira
I'm not understanding how going to a non-partisan ballot affects whether a primary is or isn't needed.

There's no need for a party primary in a non-partisan election. Why pick a Party candidate if he can't run as a Party member?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: shira
I'm not understanding how going to a non-partisan ballot affects whether a primary is or isn't needed.

There's no need for a party primary in a non-partisan election. Why pick a Party candidate if he can't run as a Party member?

Can't the city just hold a big election, with all candidates of all parties on the ballot? Same as would occur if the ballot were non-partisan and the same candidates ran, but without political affiliation listed?

I assume there's a run-off process (if needed) in non-partisan elections, too, so I wouldn't think including the political affiliation of the various candidates would change anything.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: shira
I'm not understanding how going to a non-partisan ballot affects whether a primary is or isn't needed.

There's no need for a party primary in a non-partisan election. Why pick a Party candidate if he can't run as a Party member?

Can't the city just hold a big election, with all candidates of all parties on the ballot? Same as would occur if the ballot were non-partisan and the same candidates ran, but without political affiliation listed?

I assume there's a run-off process (if needed) in non-partisan elections, too, so I wouldn't think including the political affiliation of the various candidates would change anything.

A run-off process for non-partisan elections?

Maybe, but I've never seen one. I imagine if there's a tie you'd have one (I think a recount more likely). I also imagine you could have a rule requiring the winner to get over 50% and that would cause a run-off.

We have non-partisan city elections where i live. I've been here for 15 years and never seen a run-off election.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shira
Can't the city just hold a big election, with all candidates of all parties on the ballot? Same as would occur if the ballot were non-partisan and the same candidates ran, but without political affiliation listed?

wait, are you advocating the ballot not having the political affiliation listed? because that's what a non-partisan election is. in houston you can even run on a slate as long as the slate isn't the name of a political party. houston also requires a runoff if no candidate receives over 50% in the first round.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: shira
Can't the city just hold a big election, with all candidates of all parties on the ballot? Same as would occur if the ballot were non-partisan and the same candidates ran, but without political affiliation listed?

wait, are you advocating the ballot not having the political affiliation listed? because that's what a non-partisan election is. in houston you can even run on a slate as long as the slate isn't the name of a political party. houston also requires a runoff if no candidate receives over 50% in the first round.

See what I bolded above? I was asking why including political affiliation necessitated a primary election. Seems to me the city could save money by NOT holding primaries, but still indicating political affiliation on the ballot.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shira

See what I bolded above? I was asking why including political affiliation necessitated a primary election. Seems to me the city could save money by NOT holding primaries, but still indicating political affiliation on the ballot.

because the parties don't want to split people who vote based on the letter after the name.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Only the Democrats could get away with saying black people are too stupid to know who they want to vote for.

Sad, but true

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: shira

See what I bolded above? I was asking why including political affiliation necessitated a primary election. Seems to me the city could save money by NOT holding primaries, but still indicating political affiliation on the ballot.

because the parties don't want to split people who vote based on the letter after the name.

But creating a non-partisan ballot would "split people," too. Why isn't THAT a problem for the parties?

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: shira

See what I bolded above? I was asking why including political affiliation necessitated a primary election. Seems to me the city could save money by NOT holding primaries, but still indicating political affiliation on the ballot.

because the parties don't want to split people who vote based on the letter after the name.

But creating a non-partisan ballot would "split people," too. Why isn't THAT a problem for the parties?

I am for taking the R and the D off because it will force voters to be informed on who they are voting for. A non-informed voter who votes solely on party affiliation is harmful to our way of life and it has been going on for far to long. People should vote on merit, NOT R or D. Maybe THAT'S why they voted for this.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: shira
Can't the city just hold a big election, with all candidates of all parties on the ballot? Same as would occur if the ballot were non-partisan and the same candidates ran, but without political affiliation listed?

wait, are you advocating the ballot not having the political affiliation listed? because that's what a non-partisan election is. in houston you can even run on a slate as long as the slate isn't the name of a political party. houston also requires a runoff if no candidate receives over 50% in the first round.

See what I bolded above? I was asking why including political affiliation necessitated a primary election. Seems to me the city could save money by NOT holding primaries, but still indicating political affiliation on the ballot.

I've been thinking about this since yesterday. Something bothers me about people being able to put "D" or "R" next to their name without actually winning a primary.

I think that by letting candidates put that "D" or "R" after their names you give the appearence of them being endorsed by that political party. And I don't think that s/b allowed. The party would no control over who elects to put their letter after name. An extreme example would be a KKK member running with the "D" label, that would cause trouble.

If you're not endorsed by the party in a primary I don't think it's right to allow the D or R on the ballot.

I want to again emphasize that at the local level, particulalry for such small towns, there is no relevance to the D or R. There just aren't any issues in similar (Iraq, Afganistan, stimulus bills, bailouts, gay marriage, abortions etc).

I noticed in the NY thread about Scazzafava (sp?) that the party leaders picks their candidate, there is no primary. I've not seen that before. The article about Kinston doesn't say, but I'm wondering if Kinston follows taht system as well. if so, the 2 elections (and cost) isn't the problem, it's placing the power into a few powerful hands to choose who runs as "D" and that is a problem IMO.

Fern