Justice Concludes Black Voters Need Democratic Party

Remember the case against the Black Panthers who stood outside a polling place last November intimidating voters? Charges were brought by the Justice Department, but were later dropped. Keep that in mind...

Here in Alabama, elections in most cities and counties is non-partisan... no party affiliations involved. We view this as normal, but not all states run local elections this way.

Enter Kinston, North Carolina. This is a small town that wanted to elect its city council without party affiliation being involved. They held a referendum and the entire populace voted on the subject... and decided to do it. That public vote, the will of the people in that town, was recently overturned by the Justice Department... specifically, by the same official responsible for dropping the charges against the Black Panthers.

Why?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature

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.

Did you catch that? The Justice Department of the United States of America officially said that blacks can’t get elected, and black voters can’t elect their candidate of choice, without the Democrat party being involved.

What???

I’m glad to say that critics include the local chapter of the NAACP and the US Commission on Civil Rights.

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."

But think about it... do any of us have a RIGHT to see our “candidate-of-choice” elected? No, we don’t. We have the right to VOTE for him, and to campaign for him, and to try and see he does get elected... but we have no right for him to win. Thankfully, I am not the only person saying this.

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."

So does mine.

This is a terrible decision, and the city should fight and not let it stand. Basically, the message is that blacks can’t get “their” candidates elected without the Democrat party.

Are you insulted? I would be.