The Kinston Decision

21Oct/0910

The Kinston Decision

Small city in NC, Kinston, which hasn't elected a non-Democrat within living memory, attempts to do away with party affiliations on ballots for a couple of local offices. Ballot initiative passes 2:1. Justice Department decides that would be . . . raaaaacist!

In short, it says that blacks need to have a (D) choice if they're to make an informed decision. Because the (D) is the only trademark that makes it clear that blacks are being served. We spoke with Abigail Thernstrom on The B-Cast about this, yesterday. I spoke to Alejandro Miyar, mentioned in the above-linked article, a spokesperson for the DoJ, who said at that time, contrary to what he told CNS, that he'd be willing to answer questions in writing but that it was Department policy not to respond verbally to questions on Section 5.

One of the things that the memo implies is that white crossover voting is a good thing, but black crossover voting is to be discouraged. As Abigail says, "It's demeaning, it's patronizing, it's . . . liberal racism."

Here, on the other hand, is something that the DoJ aren't going to address: "multiple line voting." This example is conspicuous by the presence of fraud, but the idea is that a candidate may, for example, appear as the candidate for a particular office as a Democrat and also, on a separate line, as a Working Families Party candidate, and will receive more votes that way. Nothing wrong with that, right, Baracky?

So, in short, no party affiliation is bad; multiple party affiliation is good. Huh.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Tagged as: doj, kinston decision, race Leave a comment

Comments (10) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Bob Reed
October 21st, 2009 - 09:48

The Kinston decision is mind boggling, especially in the implications of the explanation;
1) Blacks need to see that reassuring (D) to know their vote is righteous and true…
2) Whites won’t vote for blacks unless they see the (D) “seal of approval”, provin’ that them boys be’s a’right wif the redneck crew…
3) The fact that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being used to override the will of the local people-in a majority black town is simply too bizzare to begin to address. At first I thought that the press release was an Ionesco, literature of the absurd, piece!

But you know, over all, general Holder is turning out to be an incredible flop at AG. The selective prosecutions and lack thereof make a mockery of our system of laws; proving that in Obama’s America we are more a nation of men than law…

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
timb
October 21st, 2009 - 09:49

Uh, New York is not covered by the VRA. The DOJ would hesitate to get involved in a State election, unless there was a Federal Civil Rights issue raised in the investigation.

Covered entities under the VRA are mostly in the South and some places in the West.

Don’t blame you for disagreeing, but the point raised in the letter was to maintain Democratic white voters voting for Democrats.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ltr/l_081709.php

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Bob Reed
October 21st, 2009 - 10:09

The VRA is an artifice of a different social climate in America, and a useless usurpation of states rights. I realize that it only applies to certain states, but bases it’s raison d’etre on more than 35 year old data!

And what right does the DOJ have to “ensure” the Whites registered as Democrats continue to vote that way?

It’s called the Voters Rights Act, not the Democrat Election Rights act…

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- timb
  October 21st, 2009 - 14:45
  
  Bob, it was just re-authorized in 2006. For a relic, it held up to Congressional re-authorization and Section 2 overcame a constitutional challenge.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Bob Reed
    October 21st, 2009 - 16:43
    
    I’m aware of that timb, and it’s yet another action of Boooooosh! that I disagree with…
    
    And I wonder why it passed so easily? I’ll give you a hint, it was a congressional election year filled with tough races that the Democrat’s ultimately won for a variety of reasons. After having the nutroots pillory RethugliKKKanz on the war and other issues, all they needed was to be called RAAAAAAAAACISTS! for voting against, or even objecting to parts of, the voters rights act. So, passage of a bill does not automatically make it fair, it just makes it law. And, as I mentioned in another comment, Roberts and the SCOTUS won’t take it up capriciously due to their belief in separation of powers and judicial minimalism; but if a serious case arose that involved the application or enforcement of a section 5 ruling, I believe tat it might be found unconstitutional. As Dan has mentioned, it is questionable whether it is being invoked to address an issue of fairness, which was it’s original intent. AG Holder has already demonstrated his willingness to politicize the DOJ, as well as his racialist outlook; I don’t know whether it’s minority exceptionalism, but it is certainly informed by identity politics and in the case of the NBPP smacks of cronyism…
    
    And by the way, I didn’t call it a relic, but an artifice of a defferent social climate; there’s a nuance there that you missed I believe…
    
    And I really have no idea why you keep mentioning NY.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
Dan Collins
October 21st, 2009 - 10:36

Timb, the big question here–and I know that NY is not covered under Section 5–whether fundamental fairness is served or not. That was the original intent of the Voters Rights Act.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- timb
  October 21st, 2009 - 15:00
  
  I figured you knew about NY, but it was a fastball in the middle of the plate.
  
  Look, when it comes to Section 5, it is the only time in school I found myself ever agreeing with anything said or believed by Clarence Thomas. People SHOULD not vote for candidates based upon the color of an individual candidate’s skin. It is that reason, grounded in idealism about the Founding and the universal wonderfulness of American ideal, that Thomas hates these laws and I am lukewarm on them. The difference between me and Thomas is that the world doesn’t function the way I wish it would, whereas Clarence thinks it would if it weren’t for that “meddlin” government (I suppose another way we are different is that only one us has the power to affect the law!).
  
  Seemingly, each time, for the last 40 years the majority could skew voting procedures, voting locations, and voting rights, they have done so. This entire referendum reeks of it. A referendum put forth to eliminate partisan designation? Who favors that? Except exactly the sort of people who know what the results would be, i.e. electing whites in a majority black district. It sounds innocuous and even “post-partisan,” so it fools the average voter. It’s exactly that sort of thing that Section 5 is designed to analyze to determine if a disparate impact would occur.
  
  Frankly, it’s not like Rush or CNS cares what happened here. They are trying to use the decision of career prosecutors (a process begun last year, no less) to make a racial issue for Holder and Obama. Frankly, I’m surprised it riles you guys up so much. After all, you can’t move a polling station across the street in these places without approval. Section 2 is the weird part.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - Dan Collins
    October 21st, 2009 - 15:21
    
    Sorry, but it is Holder and his merry band of idiots at the DoJ who have made this a racial issue, because it’s not about fairness, it’s about race.
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
  - Bob Reed
    October 21st, 2009 - 16:49
    
    “Seemingly, each time, for the last 40 years the majority could skew voting procedures, voting locations, and voting rights, they have done so. This entire referendum reeks of it.
    What in the world are you talking about timb?
    
    “ A referendum put forth to eliminate partisan designation? Who favors that?”
    Well, maybe people that are tired of oartisan squabbling or voters automatically pulling levers based on party affiliation.
    
    “Except exactly the sort of people who know what the results would be, i.e. electing whites in a majority black district.”
    That’s wildly accusatory without merit. Do you know these people? Have you ever been to Kinston? Why are you reading bad intent into the outcome of their referendum?
    
    “It sounds innocuous and even â€œpost-partisan,â€ so it fools the average voter. Itâ€™s exactly that sort of thing that Section 5 is designed to analyze to determine if a disparate impact would occur.”
    
    I’ll remind you that this is a majority black district, so how exactly can this be about electing the white man, or denying black voters their electoral rights. It’s a selective application of VRA section 5 by a partisan, political, racialist DOJ under Holder…
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
richard mcenroe
October 21st, 2009 - 13:00

Because the (D) is the only trademark that xxxxx xx xxxxx that blacks xxx xxxxx servex.

Fixed that for ya.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )