the DNC's plantation.

[hope4dopes]

By Ben Conery

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.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston - a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches - residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

"To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department's involvement.

[Winehole23]

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department's involvement.Local NAACP chief won't get behind DOJ. Interesting.

[hope4dopes]

Local NAACP chief won't get behind DOJ. Interesting. Oh yes how interesting, the NAACP a beacon of truth>So now the people have to have their voices sanctioned by the NAACP?I see your nose is still firmly entrenched up Obama's ass.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh yes how interesting, the NAACP a beacon of truth>So now the people have to have their voices sanctioned by the NAACP?I see your nose is still firmly entrenched up Obama's ass.

so now you're claiming naacp is not a truthful organization?

[clambake]

everybody knows the naacp operates the way i did. a beacon of up yours.

[Winehole23]

Oh yes how interesting, the NAACP a beacon of truth>If you say so. Chapters can be pretty different from place to place. I wouldn't venture such a blanket statement myself.


So now the people have to have their voices sanctioned by the NAACP? I don't think so.


I see your nose is still firmly entrenched up Obama's ass.And I can see you're still a pervert.

Thanks for continuing to share your obsession with Obama's private parts on this public forum. It's revealing, if a bit pungent. :tu

[hope4dopes]

If you say so. Chapters can be pretty different from place to place. I wouldn't venture such a blanket statement myself.

I don't think so.

And I can see you're still a pervert.

Thanks for continuing to share your obsession with Obama's private parts on this public forum. It's revealing, if a bit pungent. :tu I will defer to your intimate expertise in the matter, I'm sure through long association you'd be best informed on the pungency issue.

[hope4dopes]

so now you're claiming naacp is not a truthful organization?Oh yeah they handed down the stone tablets dude.

[Winehole23]

I will defer to your intimate expertise in the matter, I'm sure through long association you'd be best informed on the pungency issue.You can't stop thinking about it, can you? :lol

[hope4dopes]

You can't stop thinking about it, can you? :lolWell I admit, I find this messianic cult you all got going, interesting. I mean I've read about such forms of mass hysteria, but I never really witnessed it first hand, on such a broad scale, so yes I do find it intresting and sickening.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh yeah they handed down the stone tablets dude.

making up stuff again huh? shows how weak you are.

[Winehole23]

Yeah yeah yeah, everyone who disagrees with you is a deluded Obama cultist, even if they voted for somebody else, and criticize Obama's policies on a daily basis here.

I'm very familiar with your MO, micca. It's pretty bush league.

[Winehole23]

http://a.espncdn.com/travel/080320/travel_dairyday1_590.jpg
Expect a cow-milking contest, 1,000 giveaway cowbells and players wearing Holstein-print jerseys during Dairy Day in Visalia.

[clambake]

Well I admit, I find this messianic cult you all got going, interesting. I mean I've read about such forms of mass hysteria, but I never really witnessed it first hand, on such a broad scale, so yes I do find it intresting and sickening.

i get it. you're like that guys dad on "american beauty".

[ChumpDumper]

Well I admit, I find this messianic cult you all got going, interesting. I mean I've read about such forms of mass hysteria, but I never really witnessed it first hand, on such a broad scale, so yes I do find it intresting and sickening.You watched the tea parties.

[hope4dopes]

What no comment from the ususal suspect about the Obama/Soros whitehouse creating a "state party" no outrage, not even a raised eyebrow?I guess we can do away with those pesky ballot boxes.

[Winehole23]

For the record, I find the DOJ ruling bizarre and almost inexplicable, except as a straightforwardly partisan measure. I also think it is perverse. The DOJ overrode a 2 to 1 vote, citing a strange theory of "white" voting behavior to bolster its presumption that non-partisan elections would hinder African Americans from electing African Americans in a majority African American city.

I'm in basic agreement with this editorialist (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/oct/21/brent-batten-defense-non-partisan-elections/):


King makes no allegation that blacks are in any way being denied the right to vote. She notes in her ruling that while black voters make up two-thirds of Kinston’s electorate, their turnout has been low in recent elections. As a result, “Black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice.”


One way to make sure that a group elects its candidate of choice — a way that doesn’t require the heavy hand of the Justice Department to override the will of the voters — would be to increase voter turnout in that group.

[101A]

I am saddened and stunned by this.

Unbelievable.

"Heavy Handed" doesn't begin to describe the DOJ's actions in this; and I can't begin to understand where they derive the power to proclaim this as they have. The city ought to defy the ruling.

[Winehole23]

I am saddened and stunned by this.

Unbelievable.

"Heavy Handed" doesn't begin to describe the DOJ's actions in this; and I can't begin to understand where they derive the power to proclaim this as they have. The city ought to defy the ruling.


Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may not look like a political weapon. But in the hands of certain government lawyers, that’s exactly what it has become.

It requires certain (mostly Southern) states to get “pre-clearance” of their voting-rules changes from the Justice Department. http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OWIwNWIxMjE5ZDI0OTRkYTU3NmY1Yjg1N2JhZDFlMDY=

[101A]

It requires certain (mostly Southern) states to get “pre-clearance” of their voting-rules changes from the Justice Department.

Thanks.

[Winehole23]

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/about.php

[Winehole23]

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/maps/us_s5_cvr08.PNG

[Winehole23]

Key:Covered Jurisdictions ______

Red: States Covered as a Whole (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/covered.php#statewide) ______

Blue: Covered Counties in States Not Covered as a Whole (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/covered.php#counties)

Pink: Covered Townships in States Not Covered as a Whole (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/covered.php#townships)


http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/covered.php

[Winehole23]

What Must Be Submitted Under Section 5

It is important to understand that Section 5 applies only to changes in practices or procedures affecting voting. Continuous use of a voting practice in effect prior to the jurisdiction's coverage date does not implicate Section 5, nor does continued use of a practice already reviewed under Section 5.


In Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 565 (1969), the Supreme Court stated that the coverage of Section 5 was to be given a broad interpretation. Any change affecting voting, even though it appears to be minor or indirect, returns to a prior practice or procedure, ostensibly expands voting rights, or is designed to remove the elements that caused objection by the Attorney General to a prior submitted change, is subject to the Section 5 review requirement.


Voting Changes Enacted or Administered by Any State Official Require Section 5 Review

There is a broad range of officials who enact or administer voting changes that are subject to Section 5 review, including legislative bodies (i.e., state legislatures, county commissions, city councils), executive officials (i.e., governors and mayors), and other officials (i.e., secretaries of state, county clerks, registrars). All voting changes adopted by a state court of a fully covered state requires Section 5 review, as do voting changes adopted by a state court in a partially covered state if the change is to be implemented in a covered political subdivision of that state.


Some Federal Court Orders Require Section 5 Review

The Supreme Court has held that a voting change developed and imposed on a jurisdiction by a federal court is not subject to Section 5 review. These are generally referred to as "court- drawn" or "court-ordered" voting changes. However, if a voting change ordered by a federal court reflects the policy choices of the jurisdiction--for example, if it was presented to the court as a consent decree agreed to by the jurisdiction-- Section 5 review is required. These are generally referred to as "court adopted" changes.


http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/types.php

[Winehole23]

This appears to be the AG's first objection (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/nc_obj2.php) to voting procedures in Lenoir County; why it is a covered county in the first place is not recorded on the DOJ website that I've found so far.

[Winehole23]

The 2006 extension of the preclearance procedure has been challenged in a lawsuit, NAMUDNO v. Holder (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NAMUDNO_v._Holder&action=edit&redlink=1), which was argued before the Supreme Court on April 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_30), 2009[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#cite_note-AJC-11). The lawsuit was brought by a municipal water district in Texas, which elects members to a water board. The district does not register voters, nor has it been accused of discrimination. However, it wished to move the voting location from a private home to a public school; the preclearance procedure required it to seek approval from the Justice Department, because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#cite_note-LAT-12)

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Austin_Municipal_Utility_District_No._1_ v._Holder

[Winehole23]

In an 8-1 opinion, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of that provision; citing the principle of Constitutional avoidance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance), it merely concluded that the district was eligible to apply for a exemption (bailout) from this section per §4(a), because the definition of "political subdivision" in §14(c)(2) included a district of this nature.

[Winehole23]

Justice Clarence Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) was the sole dissenter. He argued that Section 5 is no longer constitutional.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Austin_Municipal_Utility_District_No._1_ v._Holder#cite_note-15)

[Winehole23]

In the next few years, either a local government that tries but fails to get out from under Section 5’s controls, or a state government covered by the law but convinced it should not be any more, would have quite a good chance of renewing the constitutional controversy that the Court did not decide. The main opinion, in fact, provides what could easily be read as a roadmap for such a future constitutional complaint.

Perhaps one of the main ways to read the Court’s ruling, then, is that it it a warning to Congress that it needs to reconsider Section 5, and shore it up, if it can, with a new formula for coverage, and provide some assurance that it will no longer single out some states to bear Section 5’s obligations in ways that the Court suggested were now unequal.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-is-section-5s-future-shaky/

via NYT's Opinionator blog

[Winehole23]

Though the Supreme Court by a wide margin today formally declined to resolve a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5, the reality is far different. The decision unambiguously served notice that the Justices are prepared to invalidate the statute as it stands. Congress is now effectively on the clock: it has the period between now and the date that it decides a follow-on challenge by a covered jurisdiction that is not permitted to “bail out” of the statutory scheme to amend Section 5. If the statute remains the same by the time the next case arrives, the Court will invalidate the statute.


Today’s ruling is thus as much subtext as text. An entire section of the opinion is devoted to the constitutional infirmities of Section 5. There is no counter-point. Nor do any of the Court’s more liberal members issue a reassuring concurring opinion indicating that Section 5 would survive a constitutional challenge - though some surely believe it.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-supreme-court-invalidates-section-5%E2%80%99s-coverage-scheme-2/