Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

[Atreus21]

http://www.washingtontimes.com...-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

Arrogance? Horrific racism? Nonsense. This is simply a case of one man knowing what's best for 23,000 people.

I mean c'mon. These people were misguided anyway.

Sickening.

 

[Patranus]

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

 

[Corn]

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.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Corn

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.

rofl

 

[herm0016]

so now the feds and overrule local elections? is'nt there something about states rights in that rag the feds continue to whipe their butts with?

 

[Lemon law]

Excuse me, political primaries have been written into State and National election law for almost a century now. It can also be argued that the town has no right to arbitrarily discard those laws. National laws always supersede State laws and State laws always supersede town laws. On that basis, the town is odd man out.


Before you righty tighties get your panties all up in one bunch, you have to realize that one biased article that ignores the legal arguments for the Justice Department action does not mean that there are not two or more sides to the argument. How gullible are some of you when its pretty obvious this is a propaganda piece and not a legitimate news paper article.

And cheer up, the courts will also get involved, and it remains to be seen how far up the appeals process will go. I suspect that the Justice Department will be upheld by the courts but feel free to differ in opinion.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: herm0016
so now the feds and overrule local elections? is'nt there something about states rights in that rag the feds continue to whipe their butts with?

Voting Rights Act of 1965?

also, I'm like 95% sure this is a repost.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: loki8481
Voting Rights Act of 1965?

And that is authorized by the constitution where?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: loki8481
Voting Rights Act of 1965?

And that is authorized by the constitution where?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the Patranus argument, there is not a single valid law passed by Congress and signed by the President in the entire history of the USA.

Way to go Patranus, you are really on a roll. Got any more revelations?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
By the Patranus argument, there is not a single valid law passed by Congress and signed by the President in the entire history of the USA.

Way to go Patranus, you are really on a roll. Got any more revelations?

Huh, I remember part of the constitution that clearly says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I can find stuff about the federal government regulating interstate commerce...huh, thats not voting related.
I can find stuff about the federal government regulating the army...huh, thats not voting related.

Where is the part about regulating local elections?

 

[Lemon law]

For what its worth, by law, Kinston could not arbitrarily change election law.

Here is a less biased version written by the Kinston news that contains the justice department reasoning and the appeals process.

http://www.kinston.com/article...5-justice-waiting.html

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
For what its worth, by law, Kinston could not arbitrarily change election law.

Here is a less biased version written by the Kinston news that contains the justice department reasoning and the appeals process.

http://www.kinston.com/article...5-justice-waiting.html

So pretty much that article states that the DOJ thinks black people are too stupid to know who they want to vote for.

The city should just tell the DOJ to fuck off.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: herm0016
so now the feds and overrule local elections? is'nt there something about states rights in that rag the feds continue to whipe their butts with?

Voting Rights Act of 1965?

also, I'm like 95% sure this is a repost.

I am 99% sure.

 

[OCGuy]

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.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: loki8481
Voting Rights Act of 1965?

And that is authorized by the constitution where?

congress passed the law, the supreme court upheld it as constitutional, and the executive is enforcing it.

while I may have disagreements with the law in question, I'm not seeing the constitutional crisis here.

 

[Lemon law]

Although my link does not give the history, I am sure some one on the losing end of the vote was smart enough to appeal to the justice department. And the person who appealed felt they would lose representation. Now its up to the courts to decide on the merits of the arguments.

Its is clear that the city of Kinston did not follow legal proper procedure in changing election law. . And now Kinston has to race to follow proper primary election procedure.

The point being, the issue may be settled for this election cycle, but its by no means final for the future. But the legal proper route is being followed for now, and that is the point.
Both sides will have their later day in court.

 

[woodie1]

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.

This is news?

 

[Patranus]

---

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Although my link does not give the history, I am sure some one on the losing end of the vote was smart enough to appeal to the justice department. And the person who appealed felt they would lose representation. Now its up to the courts to decide on the merits of the arguments.

Its is clear that the city of Kinston did not follow legal proper procedure in changing election law. . And now Kinston has to race to follow proper primary election procedure.

The point being, the issue may be settled for this election cycle, but its by no means final for the future. But the legal proper route is being followed for now, and that is the point.
Both sides will have their later day in court.

Did you not read your own link?

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the DOJ must approve voting changes in selected states and communities such as those in Lenoir County to ensure those changes would not hurt minority voters.

County elections officials had not planned to hold a primary this year, assuming DOJ approval, but now must scramble to hold one by Sept. 15.

After months of waiting, Kinston citizens heard the U.S. Justice Department?s views on non-partisan voting this week.

Its view did not agree with Kinston?s voters.

You own link indicates, contrary to your 'observation' bolded above, that the city of Kinston did follow the proper procedure. That being - asking the DoJ for the change after voting for it. The story here is that the DoJ is denying their (properly filed) request, not that the city didn't follow the rules.

And, yes, this is a case of the federal government "lording" over a state and/or municipality.

I have no time or inclination to look into the Voting Rights Act of 1965 now, but presumably it exists to make sure minority voters and candidates are NOT disadvantaged by electoral rule-type shenanigans. And from the article it appears it only applies to certain designated communities.

Kinston is 2/3 Black and they need the Doj to overrule their vote for their own protection? WTH?

According to the article here is the DoJ's reasoning:

King wrote that data from several prior elections in Kinston indicated that few black residents typically voted, and candidates who would appeal to the black community ? which often votes Democratic ? win because of straight Democrat ticket votes from the wider electorate.

?Black candidates will likely lose a significant amount of crossover votes due to the high degree of racial polarization present in city elections,? King stated.

So Kinston is predominately Black and Democratic, but somehow unless the candidates has a "D" next to their name on the ballot they won't get elected? This is incomprehensible nonsense.

Because it's a strongly Democratic city, if you have any hope of getting elected you better run on the Dem party ticket. But Black candidates (if that's who the DoJ is trying to protect here) must run in a primary. So if the Black candidate can beat the white guy in the primary, why can't (s)he beat the white guy in an election without the "D" next to their name? This makes no sense.

FFS, there's only 22,000 people there. This is exactly the same size as my town. It's crazy to think that the people in that town don't know who the candidates are (and if they are Black or not). It's so small it's just not possible not to know.

I live in NC (but on the Western side) and nobody over here wants "partisan" electione either. It's a big waste of time and money for both the city - which has to pay extra money for primaries - and for the candidates who have raise money for two elections - primary & general. It's just stupid. IIRC, the nearest NC city to me, which is much larger, recently dumped partisan city elections for the very same reason.

To prevail, I think the DoJ needs to articulate a much more intelligent and pursausive argument to overturn the will of the voters.

I think the real story here may be the questionable judgement of some in Obama's DoJ; the story notes the same person who made this call was the one who let the thuggish Black Panthers off the hook for their intimidation tactics at the polls.

BTW: This story is playing on the radio even here out West, the station is in a very liberal city (known as the "San Francisco" of the East Coast) and they seemed outraged at it too.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Black people ARE too stupid to know who is the Democrat. So is everybody else. Republican don't want to run as Republicans because nobody will vote for them. The only way they can get elected is by hiding who they are. It's a pain in the ass figuring out who is what in local elections where they are allowed to hide. I want it easy and obvious to know who is in the party of death and who is a Democrat so I don't accidental vote for an asshole. I want to know if the Black dude is as asshole of death and the white guy is the democrat.

It's fun to watch folk who vote for the party of death call other people stupid.

 

[Lemon law]

Fern asks, "did you not read your own link?"

And I ask Fern the same question. Because you did not read the link or badly interpreted it.

As proof, Fern says, "You own link indicates, contrary to your 'observation' bolded above, that the city of Kinston did follow the proper procedure. That being - asking the DoJ for the change after voting for it. The story here is that the DoJ is denying their (properly filed) request, not that the city didn't follow the rules."

And no Fern you are wrong, Kinston simply assumed the DOJ would approve and then the city of Kinston discovered they made a wrong assumption. And therefore they have to follow the previous election rules as they went off half cocked imple
menting new rules not approved. The power to say yea or nay was always with the DOJ.

We can argue on this thread regarding the correctness of that DOJ decision, but that argument is somewhat moot, because its now court(s) and not you or I who will have that final word.

 

[piasabird]

Does the Democratic party do anything good for Black Voters?

Name a few things so I can put it in perspective . . .

I just cant see the Democratic party doing anything good for anyone.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Does the Democratic party do anything good for Black Voters?

Name a few things so I can put it in perspective . . .

I just cant see the Democratic party doing anything good for anyone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If nothing else, the democratic party has rescued us from the abuses of GWB&co, and despite the fact you may not agree on how stinking the GOP has been lately, you are still on the wrong side of majority public opinion piasabird.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Does the Republican party do anything good for Voters?

Name a few things so I can put it in perspective . . .

I just cant see the Republican party doing anything good for anyone.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Fern asks, "did you not read your own link?"

And I ask Fern the same question. Because you did not read the link or badly interpreted it.

As proof, Fern says, "You own link indicates, contrary to your 'observation' bolded above, that the city of Kinston did follow the proper procedure. That being - asking the DoJ for the change after voting for it. The story here is that the DoJ is denying their (properly filed) request, not that the city didn't follow the rules."

And no Fern you are wrong, Kinston simply assumed the DOJ would approve and then the city of Kinston discovered they made a wrong assumption. And therefore they have to follow the previous election rules as they went off half cocked imple
menting new rules not approved. The power to say yea or nay was always with the DOJ.

We can argue on this thread regarding the correctness of that DOJ decision, but that argument is somewhat moot, because its now court(s) and not you or I who will have that final word.

And how the heck is being hopeful that the DoJ would respect the will of the voters not follow the rules? That's stupid.

And if the city scheduled a primary after the voters decided aganst it, that would be stupid too.

After months of waiting, Kinston citizens heard the U.S. Justice Department?s views on non-partisan voting this week.

Again, ^ from the article you link - to the extent there's a rush to now hold a primary it's the DoJ's fault for taking months to make a ruling.

What the hell else is the city supposed to do? They held a vote, sent in the request and don't hear back for months. The only thing they can do legally is go ahead with the new plans. If the new city law says there is no primary, then that's how the city is forced to proceed, at least until hearing that that new law is void.

I don't understand why you continue to berate the city of Kinston, it's predominately Black (2/3's) and 2/5's of it's City Council are Black (I don't count the Mayor because under their structure - with a city manager - it's primarily a cerimonial position). You've gone off half-cocked in spite of facts and laid blame everywhere but in the proper place. Not to mention material misstating the issue as below:

Excuse me, political primaries have been written into State and National election law for almost a century now. It can also be argued that the town has no right to arbitrarily discard those laws. National laws always supersede State laws and State laws always supersede town laws. On that basis, the town is odd man out.

The law they are up against isn't a century old, it's from 1965. Nor do federal laws define election proceedures at teh state and local level. If they did we wouldn't so many differences in how state and local politicians are appointed (e.g., the issue of how MA appoints a replace for Ted Kennedy and how most cities/towns in NC don't have partisan/primary elections, but some do).

Nor does national law always supercede state law (although it's getting more-n-more that way). If it did we wouldn't have to have the SCOTUS step in so often under the giuse of Interstate Commerce in pot legalization cases at the state level. In HC reform, the federal government can't seem to pass a law superceding that of states to allow for more competition among insurance companies. I also seem to remember recent TX case where the SCOTUS ruled against the fed gov, and for TX regarding a Mexican who was convicted of murder - they could'nt supercede state law there either.

The whole issue here is that of the DoJ dithering and ultimately arriving at a highly questionable decision overrides the will of the voters.

Fern