“ 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 “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.”

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fixed that for ya.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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

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

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