Nonpartisan elections are discriminatory??

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
At first I thought this was a joke but sadly it is real.A U.S. District Court judge has rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—filed when the Department of Justice barred the city of Kinston, N.C. from holding nonpartisan elections—reasoning that lack of access to party affiliation would discriminate against minority voters who otherwise wouldn’t know how to find Democratic candidates on a ballot.

The challenge was initiated after the Justice Department rejected a 2008 referendum vote in which the city of Kinston voted to stop listing candidates’ party affiliations on ballots.

here is the DOJ's reasoning for denying the city the right to NOT put political affiliations next to name on ballot.
from filed paper at link:
"The Attorney General declined to
preclear the referendum on the ground that "elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will
likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice."The Link

maybe someone can explain how this from Holder isn't an insult to the intelligence of black voters?
 
Can you really not see the issue here?

I'd be happy to explain it to you, but it would behoove you to try to analyze the issue from a perspective other than what you've gotten from FOX News.
 
Can you explain it a little better? It seems like the benefit would be that only knowledgeable voters would be able to vote and the drawback would be that incumbents would have a greater chance of winning.
 
I agree with you, uninformed, that the issue is primarily one of awareness/knowledge rather than intelligence, which the original poster has claimed. I'll leave it to the rest of you why the op would choose to frame the issue in those terms.

Should the blacks in this NC community be better informed? Probably. This is a comment which can be made of many voters in many jurisdictions. But why remove the tag of Rep/Dem/Ind from the ballots? In this case, because there is a benefit to the party supported by the non-black population. So... then why do it? Why not structure the voting process in such a way that helps the electorate, all the electorate, make better decisions instead of concocting reasons that seem to disproportionally favor one party over another?
 
per
"I'd be happy to explain it to you,"
Oh I think Holder explained it quite well. He and Bo think balcks are too stupid to know who to vote for and they need a D by the name to make a " choice". if a white AG had said that the marches would be in full swing.
BTW this did not come from Fox news . Did you open the link?
 
per
'But why remove the tag of Rep/Dem/Ind from the ballots? In this case, because there is a benefit to the party supported by the non-black population"

and By leaving the R/D You admit there is a benefit to the dems .
 
Perm:

Sorry you lose badly on this one. That is not only disgraceful, it is racist in so many different ways.

Most City elections that I have participated have not had the party affiliation, not quite sure what the problem is here.
 
I can see that you don't quite get the problem.

I've laid it out, perhaps even using the phrase "disproportionate impact". You have to look at how various groups are affected. And neither of you are doing that.
 
satch
"And are you conceding an advantage to the Repubs if the D/R is removed? "

Are you saying blacks would end up voting for Republicans ?
 
a lot of plantation thinking on this thread from posters who ought to know better.

....and the fried chicken reference is offensive
 
Who knew some blacks would have such low expectations of their fellow blacks.
Why would removing party affiliation remove chiuce> the same number of names would still be there, same number of choices.
talk about the bigotry of low expectations. Can you imagine if Holder was white and said that?

many cities including Dallas hold non partisan elections and blacks seem able to make choices just fine. maybe some people underestimate their intelligence
 
I have to agree with those who think this is a horrible ruling.

One can not argue that removing the party affiliation from the ballot hurts a particular group without acknowledging that having the affiliation helps a particular group. It is a zero sum game. They arent taking off the D and leaving the I and the R on there.

Amazing to me that Holder specifically said "black" voters. How can one possibly argue that removing party affiliation would only affect one race? It apparently has no effect on white, latino, asian, indian etc folks. Just blacks? If this was some other issue and someone suggested that every race involved would be fine with a set of rules but "black's" couldn't handle it, they would be roasted- and rightfully so.

Per- You claim a "disproportionate impact" but fail to give any explanation on why it would be so. Please explain why black voters would be impacted differently than other races.

The only possible way your statement has any value is if you concede that blacks will vote for the democrat candidate regardless of who the candidate is, or what their views are, or what beliefs they have etc. It can only make any kind of sense if you agree that blacks will vote purely on party lines with absolutely no attention paid to the actual candidate.

And by singleing out blacks, as opposed to any other races, you are essentially saying that other races have the capabilities to judge candidates on their merits but that blacks do not. That seems incredibly racist.

heck, Satchel proves the point:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
What is sad is your pathetic attempt to make my words mean what you want them to mean. If you voted twice for GWB, you have no standing to criticize how reflexively uncritical anybody else might be when casting his/her ballot.
 
Elections are not for groups, they are for individuals to make choices. Ballots should not cater to groups or parties for that matter.

If your group wants to vote in a bloc, then either have your own education and teach your followers who to vote for or we could just do proxy balloting which was done for years and years in the Democratic party.

Ballots should be independent of groups and set up so an individual can see WHO they are voting for not WHAT.

Group think in this country is way out of control.
 
i read the opinion and its a typical activist opinion in that a vast majority of the quotes and case law used is out of date and unrelated but stretched to make the final decision they were seeking. They even go out of their way to correct the arguments made for the side they are seeking to remedy.

There is no way that removal of party affiliation on a ballot can violate equal protection or the voting rights act. it affects everyone equally on its face. one side may not like it but it doesnt change the facts and they can never prove the intent of the provision....of course, they dont have to, if the ag thinks it does....and to think i have always been told its those on the right who can't read or think for themselves...
 
Yawn. As the original posts points out which YOU responded to-

The DOJ claims that "elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice."
 
I never once used the term "discrimination". Disparate impact, yes; discrimination, no.

We're now getting into nuance that is, frankly, unsustainable in a venue such as this.
 
How about you tell us what you think "disparate impact" means in this context. And please include in your definition how you can have a disparate impact in this particular case based soley on race that does not disparage the race in question.
 
And please include in your definition how you can have a disparate impact in this particular case based soley on race that does not disparage the race in question.

The disparate impact is not based solely on race. It's more a function of social standing, income, education, etc. The disparate impact may hit one race harder than another.

The problem here is that you are leaving several steps out of the analysis, not objectively analyzing the tools used to "disparately impact" certain groups, nor (and perhaps the biggest point) bothering to wonder just why these steps are being taken.

It's similar to requiring driver's licenses (where previously none were required) to prevent "voter fraud" (where instances of fraud were already quite low to almost non-existent); or limiting the hours of voting stations, or any number of other actions where the reason given is ostensibly non-partisan but which has the affect of making it harder for a particular group of people to vote. And that is the real underlying reason: to make it more difficult for a particular group to vote.
 
If the DOJ wants to keep partisan elections, I'm ok with that. But saying that blacks won't have the ability to elect candidates without it is sad, ignorant and insulting. No matter what Satch and his sock say. Especially since, there are already nonpartisan elections in cities/towns/municipalities across the country.

But then again, when you wield political power from fear and ignorance, you do what you gotta do.
 
But saying that blacks won't have the ability to elect candidates without it ....

Why don't you go back and read what was actually said?

The first post talks about how this "will likely reduce the ability of blacks...."; it does not say they won't have the ability to elect candidates without it.

That's a rather big difference and I have to wonder why you have chosen to misrepresent Holder's quote (or the quote above, if Holder made it). Is this intentional? Are you being lazy?

You, like others, are simply not paying attention (or worse). You fall into your deeply-channeled rut of pre-judgment and let your preconceived currents carry you, all without any type of exertion on your part to steer an objective course.

If you wish to attack this as being "sad, ignorant, and insulting" then you really need to get your own argument in order and be honest and accurate when criticizing Holder.
 
If I likely reduce the ability of you to do something, that means you likely won't be able to do something. Don't try to parse words with me.

Work on your own rambling argument in defense of the DOJ's perceived lack of trust in blacks not being able to choose without that D, next to a name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top