A North Carolina town wanted to make their elections non-partisan, removing reference to party from the ballot, and had approved it by referendum. The administration used their preclearance power to veto the change, because Democratic voters would be disproportionately harmed if party affiliation was removed from the ballot.
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.
Good Lord, addy, the Moonie Times?
And you know what’s strange? Just for shits and Googles, I searched on Kinston N.C, and you know what I got? Bupkiss, is what I got, least as far as any story like yours and the Rev. Mung Bean Goon. By page four of results, I was offered links to affordable dentures in Greater Metropolitan Kinston, but nothing remotely similar to the scenario outlined above.
How very odd.
Oh, okay, so it never happened. Dude, there’s a big difference between a partisan slanted story and just making up stories that never even happened.
How about a left-wing site?
Oh wait, that case was a companion case that got that part of the VRA thrown out. So yeah, if the administration hadn’t abused their power here, maybe they would have gotten a better hearing from SCOTUS.
CAto submitted a legal brief in the case, but I guess they just made that up too:
http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/nix-v-holder-shelby-county-v-holder
Yes. “Odd.”
From the North Carolina Bar: https://constitutionalrightsandresponsibilities.ncbar.org/newsletters/theconstitutionalistjune2010/kinstonvoters
From the Souther Coalition for Social Justice:
http://www.southerncoalition.org/program-areas/voting-rights/major-voting-rights-cases/ (they assisted the North Carolina NAACP in defending the DoJ action)
From the Justice Department (PDF):
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/app/briefs/laroquebrief.pdf (their brief for the appeal)
Does this collection of links allay your “suspicions,” elucidator?
Can you now explain, elucidator, what specific aspect(s) of the Washington Times story you contend are not factual? I assume my previous post dispels any claim that the entire incident was fabricated.
Nah, its more fun to watch you gloat.
What do I think? I think this is a rather silly exercise by Justice and worthy of a blushing admission on their part. Even people who are trying to do the right thing fuck up. They fucked up, they should eat that crow. Its why we of the left need an honest conservative party to check up on us, said so many times on these very pages. Dearly wish we had one.
But is it sordid and malign? Maybe, but I’m going with just plain dumb for now.
Is it some sort of equivalence? To a nation-wide conspiracy by the Republican Party to bugger the voting access rights of…millions(?)…of people?
Do I believe that its only “some” Republicans, and the rest of them just kind of tagged along, innocently protecting the sacred value of voter confidence? Yeah. Right. Sure. Nobody told them, nobody mentioned to them that it would negatively impact the opposing party. Innocent lambs, they were, frolicking amongst the daffodils. Hugh Betcha!
Only “some” of them were smart enough to see the malign impact of their actions, the rest are too stupid to make their own oatmeal. That what you’re selling here, hoss?
As far as VRA goes, preclearance had outlived its usefulness. It was virtually a wartime-like measure, temporarily suspending some states and communities’ sovereignty. Such a state of affairs cannot legally be permanent, anymore than habeas corpus can be permanently suspended.
Take your own advice. Your post implied that the Washington Times account was not to be trusted, because the paper is owned by a conservative-leaning organization. You didn’t supply any evidence apart from that and your apparent inability to use Internet search engines.
I used Google, and found the links I posted, and more, in perhaps 45 seconds.
Confronted with this fuckup, you supply a post that excoriates someone else for failing to eat the crow following a fuckup, seemingly with the hope that the casual reader will be distracted from your own conspicuous non-consumption of crow.
Moreover, when discussions of liberal bias in the media arise, you might think back on this incident: clearly it happened. Equally clearly (according to you) only the Washington Times reported on it. Why is that?
I guarantee you will have “forgotten” this incident when the next such discussion arises.
(As a complete hijacky aside: gimme some props for the punny Thorstein Veblen shout-out).
Pit me. Make it about how dishonest and hypocritical I am, compared to your shining example of civic piety and strict honesty. Double dog dare you.
We’re in the Pit.
Any time you’re ready, Counselor. Please proceed.
There’s virtually zero risk of being caught for an alien voting where no IDs are required. And a close election may usher in a DREAM-Act friendly politician. I have personally heard CASA of Maryland volunteers telling illegal aliens how easy it is to vote…
And its crap. Its well known and widely established that illegals in America are people who come here to work to support families that they dare not even see! And you offer us the proposition that these people would risk their family’s well-being just for one goddam vote amongst millions? Seriously?
Christ Jesus, Bricker, use your head for something other than a hat-rack!
Sure. Some of them also drive drunk, a crime which is almost infinitely more likely to be detected than voting illegally. Some rob others; some rape; some drink in public. Why do you suppose they risk their families’ well-being under those conditions?
And I notice you still haven’t eaten any crow for your suggestion above that the Kinston incident was fabricated by the Washington Times. You appear to be bringing this issue up to distract from that one.
And while I’m all riled up… You long since abandoned the effort to convince us that there was any real threat from in-person voter fraud, that got totally beaten to death. Just about all of your positions in this thread have been debunked, and you are reduced to defending the sacred value of voter confidence. A value that you, yourself, undermine with an unsupported anecdote!
You don’t know this stuff? You don’t know about the misery and desperation of illegal workers in America? And you are perfectly willing to exploit them to gain a petty point on a message board? Where the hell is your humanity, pickled in a jar on your desk?
Man, what’s wrong with you?
(Said this before I saw your last post. Just as well. You, Counselor, are a piece of…work.)
No, no – you can’t rewrite history. My positions have not changed, nor have they been debunked.
Last year, discussing in this thread when voter fraud might make a difference, I said:
In the very next post, I (re)listed several examples of very close elections:
None of that has been “debunked.”
And you STILL haven’t taken responsibility for your suggestion that the Washington Times fabricated the story from Kinston.
None of that is relevant, you dishonest lying dipshit. The discussion is over fraudulently-cast votes, not one of which you can show even fucking exists and not one of which can you show would be prevented by your pet law even if it did. But you know that by now, so repeating it is evidence only of your own amorality.
The number of close elections is evidence, to the contrary, that even a small unequal suppression of turnout makes a difference in results. That is in fact the entire purpose, as is obvious to all but not admittable by all.
But at least you have adaher’s admiration. May that give you comfort.