Originally published 04:45 a.m., October 20, 2009, updated 07:25 a.m., October 20, 2009

Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party


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.

Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor.

"The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said.

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."

Located about 60 miles from the Atlantic Coast in eastern North Carolina, Kinston has a history of defying governmental authority. During Colonial times, the fledgling city was known as Kingston - named for King George III - but residents dropped the "g" from the city's name after the American Revolution.

In Kinston's heyday of manufacturing and tobacco farming, it was a bustling collection of shops, movie theaters and restaurants. Now, many of those buildings are vacant - a few have been filled by storefront churches - and residents are left hoping for better days.

In November's election - one in which "hope" emerged as a central theme - the city had uncommonly high voter turnout, with more than 11,000 of the city's 15,000 voters casting ballots. Kinston's blacks voted in greater numbers than whites.

Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston's general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama's victory as America's first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city.

The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city's nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.

But before nonpartisan elections could be implemented, the city had to get approval from the Justice Department.

Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.

In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department's answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change's "effect will be strictly racial."

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, "the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."

Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.

After a judge ordered a default judgments against the Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all but one of the defendants, saying "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them.

Ms. King's letter in the Kinston case states that because of the low turnout black voters must be "viewed as a minority for analytical purposes," and that "minority turnout is relevant" to determining whether the Justice Department should be allowed a change to election protocol.

Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

"It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice," she wrote.

Mrs. Thernstrom of the civil rights commission blasted the department's interpretation of the law.

"The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day," she said. "The Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a 'candidate of choice.' ... My 'candidate of choice' loses all the time in an election."

When asked whether Justice had ever "either granted or denied" requests either "to stop partisan elections or implement partisan elections," Mr. Miyar, the department spokesman, said it was impossible to retrieve past decisions on that basis.

But he did provide, based on the recollection of a department lawyer, a single precedent - a decision during the Clinton administration denying a bid from a South Carolina school district to drop partisan elections.

That decision employs similar reasoning and language as the Kinston ruling: "Implementation of nonpartisan elections ... appears likely to deprive black supported candidates of meaningful partisan based support and to exacerbate racial polarization between black and white voters."

But the 1994 decision doesn't mention the necessity of the Democratic Party and doesn't mention low turnout among black voters in that school district as a factor affecting their ability to elect candidates they prefer.

Kinston City Council member Joseph Tyson, a Democrat who favors partisan elections, said nothing is stopping black voters in Kinston from going to the polls.

"Unfortunately, I'm very disappointed with the apathy that we have in Kinston among the Afro-American voters," he said.

Mr. Tyson, who is one of two black members of the six-member City Council, said the best way to help black voters in Kinston is to change the council's structure from citywide voting to representation by district. Kinston voters currently cast as many votes in the at-large races as there are council seats up for election - typically three, or two and the mayor.

"Whether it's partisan or nonpartisan is not a big issue to me, whether or not the city is totally represented is what the issue is to me," he said. "If you have wards and districts, then I feel the total city will be represented."

Partisan local elections are a rarity in North Carolina. According to statistics kept by the University of North Carolina School of Government in Chapel Hill, only nine of the state's 551 cities and towns hold partisan elections.

The City Council could take the Justice Department to court to fight decision regarding nonpartisan elections, but such a move seems unlikely. The council voted 4-1 to drop the issue after meeting privately with Justice Department officials in August.

"What do I plan to do? Absolutely, nothing," Mr. Tyson said. "And I will fight, within Robert's Rules of Order, wherever necessary to make sure that decision stands."

The Justice ruling and Kinston's decision not to fight it comes in the wake of a key Voting Rights Act case last year. In that decision, the Supreme Court let a small utility district in Texas seek an exemption from the law's requirements to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. But the court declined to address whether the law itself is constitutional.

Critics of the law argue it has changed little since its 1965 inception and that the same places the law covered then no longer need Justice Department approval to make changes to voting procedures.

Proponents, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said the law is still necessary to ensure equal voting rights for all Americans.

In Kinston, William Barker is the only City Council member who voted to continue discussing whether to challenge the Justice Department's ruling.

He said he voted against eliminating partisan elections because the proposed new system would declare a winner simply on who received a plurality of votes instead requiring candidates to reach certain threshold of votes based on turnout.

"Based on the fact that the voters voted overwhelmingly for it, I would like to see us challenge it based on that fact. My fight is solely based on fighting what the voters voted on," he said. "It bothers me, even though I'm on the winning side now, that you have a small group, an outside group coming in and saying, 'Your vote doesn't matter.' "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/print/

Positively not. Give me a break. Make people, owners of dangerous dogs, responsible under the law for any damages they do..

But "outlawing" a specific breed of dog is tilting at windmills. There are actual applications for the pit bull. People in the country use them to hunt ferril hogs.

I know what you're going after. You want to make it harder for people to engage in dog fighting but it's more than pitbulls that people use for that. There are puppy mills that breed rhodesian ridgebacks against mastiffs and lots of other breeds to make fighting dogs..

You won't solve the problem of bad dog owners by outlawing certain breeds of dogs.

Thanks for the personal attack

but I'm not advocating neglecting my own personal health.. what I'm saying is that rather than pay for health insurance when I don't need it, I'll just get by on paying out of pocket and take the tax penalty until I get a real disease, like hodgekins or lymphoma, or cancer or MS or whatever when I know I can fall back on the "pre-existing conditions" clause that guarantees me coverage..

Don't you get how that will make the system crumble? I'm sorry that you have a medical condition. I hope you get better..

but the point is that they're setting up a system where only sick people will carry insurance, which leads to more being taken out than is being put in.. it's simple math really.. if you spend more than you make, yo go broke.

That's the problem with medicare and medicaid.. they operate at a deficit, a huge deficit..

but no one likes to talk about the elephant in the room. so go on and continue making your appeals to pathos and ignore all ethos and logos.. your plan doesn't make sense and will go broke before it gets off the ground

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the sick and the poor and the needy shouldn't be able to have access to the care they need.. the question is how to go about paying for it and how to set up a system that is equitable for those who end up carrying the load and one that doesn't collapse under it's own weight..

because, face it, when someone needs something that they can't pay for themselves and you decide that they will get it, it's gotta be paid for by someone..

what do subprime mortgages and mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions have in common?

Read the first post of this thread. Think about what it means to be able to wait untill you're sick with some debilitating disease to get health insurance.

And think about what it means to put the control to access to healthcare in the hands of the government, the enitity with the power to tax and to enact law.

Think about all the things that have been banned either entirely or in part because "they're bad for you".

And think about what it means to put your access to healthcare in the hands of the government that can decide that drinking soda or eating bacon represents a financial burden to the healthcare system that it controls..

Do you not understand that once they have control over your healthcare they have contol over your whole life?? That they can come and mandate that you take a vaccine whether you want it or not?

Do you not believe them when they say that they want "single payer" and that the public option is the best way to get to the single payer system?

Don't you get that "getting to single payer" means destroying the private sector, either by statute or by attrition?

yeah, we know.

I'm sure you were a fan of the Community Reinvestment Act and sub prime home loans to people that couldn't afford to buy a house as well..

So "Death to the Private Sector" then?

Government control is your solution?

I just want to be sure your position is clear..

No private sector solution. All control in the hands of Federal Bureaucrats, jack the income tax rates up to 60 or 70% and we all get to go to the DMV to see a doctor..

why am I not suprised that you're able to respond with a smiley face to this but can't levy the intellectual resources to contend with the issue of subprime insurance policies on the other thread http://mingle2.com/topic/show/251297

I make no assumptions.. my point you quite well elucidate.. if those amoungst you had youe way.. it would be made illegal for those without insurance to seek "off the grid" healthcare such as I was able to recieve..


the parishiners (sp???) of the church make their tythe according to their beliefs.. it has nothing to do with taxes paid to the state.. that's my entire point. if they didn't want their tythe money used o treat the poor and indigent. they wouldn't give it. but they do and they doc's come and donate their time.

your preferred system would, in effect, make such a charitible contribution to the community illegal...

is that what you want?

for every health care consultation to be sanctioned by the federal government? by some beauracrat out of DC to decide what you can and can't have in term of care of your health?

that's what you're asking for with the Democrat "healthcare reform".. you want DC to control your access to medical treatment.. and you do so in the name of charity and goodwill..

why is it then that one of the first acts out of the Obama administration was to limit the tax deductibility of charitible donations???

it couldnt be that The One wants to be in control of all the services rendered to those in need.. would it??

**** **. talk about off the rails...


I'm sorry I even brought it up!!

It appears that you are completely incapable of actually discusing the issue.. particularly without substituting smiley faces for punctuation marks..

Tell me how anyone can remain in business insuring cars when the only time anyone comes to buy a policy is when they have a crashed car they need fixed. Particularly when, after the car is fixed, they stop making payments on their policy even though the next time they crash their car you are obligated by law to sell them coverage..

Does this sound like "sub-prime" health insurance to anyone else but me?

Or is that the idea? To drive public sector insurers out of business leaving only the Federal Government, with its ability to print money out of thin air, to pay for the entire nations health costs...

Wow, the most interesting agruement going on here is whether or not l4u has the 100th or 101st post..

The people that belong to a church are called a "congregation" and the Doctors and med students that are there all volunteer their time.

No Tax dollars involved. All resources provided by the church and it's parishoners.. good friendly people.. they even have a free hot meal service that coincides with the clinic, all paid for by the congregation of the church..

As an aside,

Do you just see American citizens for the tax dollars they give to the government? like the humans in The Matrix.. just resources for the benefit of running the state?

Are you not a free man or woman? Are you not entitled to allocate your resources as you see fit? Or would you rather just surrender your resources to the state so that it may allocate them as it sees fit?

Shall you make it a violation of law to see a doctor and pay him with money from one's own pocket?

Will you make it illegal for a doctor or a church to have a free healthcare clinic and treat the poor and homeless? I've gotten such treatment, at **gasp** a church in my neighborhood where doctors from the University medical school run a free clinic for the indigent and they even pay for their scripts at the Wal-Mart. I didn't have to pay a dime. I avoided a sure case of bronchitis because of it. One that if I had come down with it would have landed me in your precious emergency room, the cost of which would have either gone to the taxpayer or followed me around for the next several years (I'd prefer that latter by the way)

Should that become illegal under this magnanimous system?

someone mentioned the hypocratic oath.. If I remember right, the first statement is: Do no harm..

The designs the Democrats have on the healthcare system will violate that principal, primary statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ve-IiOM9mM

Hmmm....

Interesting. I knew there was something about Hilldog that made me nervous.. It wasnt the fact that key witnesses in cases against her kept "disappearing", that's just politics..

But now.. here's the key.. She's actually an alien! mwahahahaha!!!

so what are you going to do? suspend my license to buy vitamins and medicine at the drug store?

People are talking about yearly premiums ranging as high as $20K.. I can guarnatee you that as sick as I've ever been, I've never consumed $20,000 in medical costs.. nowhere near half of that in the space of a year..

Seriously.. why pay it? when I can just go to the doctors office and pay out of pocket for her to diagnose me with whatever it is I have, scratch me out a script for some meds, go to the pharmacy and get generics, and go home and watch sportscenter..

Government has never been able to increase solvency for any issue of this caliber. If you think insurance companies are screwing you over.. wait untill you don't have the choice of choosing something else. when you HAVE to go to the government for healthcare. that's the end of the road when you find yourself with no other option than to go to Uncle Sam.. I mean Uncle Barak..

when the government controls your access to healthcare, they control your life. period.

At least with the insurance companies (and believe me, I'm no fan) you have the choice of taking your business elsewhere. not so with single payer..

Look..

Here's the problem..

They want to offer a "public option"

They want to pass a federal mandate on individuals to carry an "insurance policy".

They plan on enforcing this mandate through the power of the IRS.

There will be a tax penalty for failure to meet the obligation to carry this mandated policy.

They also want to force insurance carriers to accept what are called "pre-existing conditions".

That means you're already sick. You have a condition that'll be expensive to treat.

They are also going to make it so that those with such pre-existing condition won't have to pay for adverse risk coverage.. and they'll call it "being fair"

Ok.. So I'm young and relatively healthy. Not Sick. I'm going to simply pay this tax penalty each year and pay out of pocket for whatever doctor's appointments I need, whatever medications I need, whatever treatment I need as it comes along rather than pay the $800 or $1200 per month in premiums.

Get it?

I'm going to wait untill I'm 30, or 40 or 50 or 60 or whenever it is that I get sufficently ill that I can no longer cover myself out of pocket.

The good news for me is that they have this nifty little clause in the law that states that I can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions..

Wow..that's cool.. Now that I've developed lymphoma or kidney disease or diabetes and my treatment is going to cost $15,000 a month, I can just go and pay my $800 or $1200 a month and get my treatment..

This will only lead to a situation wherein only sick people carry insurance and whoever carries the policy is going to go broke.

It's like being able to wait till you crash your car to buy collision insurance. Why pay all those months you're not using it when you can just wait till you do need it?

So when the insurance carriers (public or private) are only collecting premiums on cars that are already crashed and having to pay to fix all those crashed cars, it doesn't even take a monkey to figure out that the cash flow will be strictly NEGATIVE!

Understand? It won't work...

...

pathetic..

please listen to Robert Reich's Words on what he considers to be the way the health care system should look like in this country.

These are the words of Robert Reich, Obama's Labor Secretary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

"We have the only health care system in the world that is designed to aviod sick people."

"You young healthy people, you're going to have to pay more."

"We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die."

"Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the Federal Government... medicare, medicaid.. to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs but that means less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means that you're not going to live that much longer than your parents."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574475440538219178.html