Town wants to remove party affiliations, DOJ says no:

[The Straight Story]

The federal government is at it again, overstepping it's legal authority, this time in the small town of Kinston, N.C. The good people of Kinston voted last year to remove party affiliations from the ballot box, meaning voters would only see names when they went to the polls and no longer the (D), (R), or other designation next to it. Though the reason for this isn't clear it seems like it shouldn't be that big a deal, yet in order to make the change the city had to run it past the Justice Department for federal approval. The DOJ reviewed the request and denied the citizens of Kinston the right to change their ballots.

The reason?

As reported by the Carolina Journal, the reason given was that black candidates could not be elected in Kinston if party affiliation were dropped from the ballot. According to a letter written to the city, white people will not vote for blacks unless the candidates have the (D) designation next to their names. No...I'm not making this up. On behalf of the Justice Department Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King wrote,

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2310947/department_of_justice_strikes_again.html

[LibertyLover]

1. I like having the party affiliation on the ballot -

because the Gods know, here in Maryland no political sign in recent memory has had it. It frustrates and annoys the hell out of me that politicians won't put their party affiliations on their signs or pamphlets. Yeah, yeah, I know - it's easy enough to check it on the internet or to call party headquarters, but why should I, as a voter, have such a difficult time determining who is a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent? Put it on your signs, your ballots and your campaign literature so that I don't have to waste my time figuring out if I want to vote for your or not. This last campaign cycle it pissed me off to have people come to the door soliciting my vote and handing me brochures and I still had to ask for the party affiliation of the candidate in question after looking at the propaganda I'd been handed.

[msanthrope]

2. Why are you using a 'news' source that calls the President "Chairman Barack"?

Further. you do realize that Kinston is under DOJ oversight for racial discrimination in voting until 2031, for precisely this kind of crap?

Nice source, nice, slanted story, written by a man who could not stop himself from mentioning the Black Panthers and Acorn voter fraud in the article, too.

[The Straight Story]

3. Not the original source I got it from, but the source they used, also DOJ website:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ltr/l_081709.php

James P. Cauley III, Esq.
Rose Rand Wallace
P.O. Drawer 2367
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-2367

Dear Mr. Cauley:

This refers to the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality-vote requirement, for the City of Kinston in Lenoir County, North Carolina, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your response to our June 10, 2009, request for additional information on June 16, 2009; additional information was received on August 4, 2009.

We have carefully considered the information you have provided, as well as information from other interested parties. Under Section 5, the Attorney General must determine whether the submitting authority has met its burden of showing that the proposed change "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect" of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group. As discussed further below, I cannot conclude that the city has sustained its burden of showing that the proposed changes do not have a retrogressive effect. Therefore, based on the information available to us, I object to the voting changes on behalf of the Attorney General.

According to the 2000 Census, the City of Kinston has a total population of 23,688 people, of whom 14,837 (62.6%) are African-American. The total voting age population is 17,906, of whom 10,525 (58.8%) are African-American. The American Community Survey for 2005-2007 estimates the total population to be 22,649, of whom 14,967 (66.6%) are African-American. As of October 31, 2008, the city has 14,799 registered voters, of whom 9,556 (64.6%) are African-American.

Although black persons comprise a majority of the city's registered voters, in three of the past four general municipal elections, African Americans comprised a minority of the electorate on election day; in the fourth , they may have been a slight majority. For that reason, they are viewed as a minority for analytical purposes. Minority turnout is relevant to determining whether a change under Section 5 is retrogressive. Hale County v. United States, 496 F.Supp 1206 (D.D.C.).

Black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections. The success that they have achieved has resulted from cohesive support for candidates during the Democratic primary (where black voters represent a larger percentage of the electorate), combined with crossover voting by whites in the general election. 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.

This small, but critical, amount of white crossover votes results from the party affiliation of black-preferred candidates, most if not all of whom have been black. Numerous elected municipal and county officials confirm the results of our statistical analyses that a majority of white Democrats support white Republicans over black Democrats in Kinston city elections. At the same time, they also acknowledged that a small group of white Democrats maintain strong party allegiance and will continue to vote along party lines, regardless of the race of the candidate. Many of these white crossover voters are simply using straight-ticket voting. As a result, while the racial identity of the candidate greatly diminishes the supportive effect of the partisan cue, it does not totally eliminate it.

It follows, therefore, that the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice. Black candidates will likely lose a significant amount of crossover votes due to the high degree of racial polarization present in city elections. Without party loyalty available to counter-balance the consistent trend of racial bloc voting, blacks will face greater difficulty winning general elections. Our analysis of election returns indicates that cross-over voting is greater in partisan general elections than in the closed primaries. Thus, statistical analysis supports the conclusion that given a change to a non-partisan elections, black preferred candidates will receive fewer white cross-over votes.

The change to nonpartisan elections would also likely eliminate the party’s campaign support and other assistance that is provided to black candidates because it eliminates the party"s role in the election. The party provides forums for black candidates to meet with voters who may otherwise be unreachable without the party's assistance. In addition, the party provides campaign funds to candidates, without which minority candidates may lag behind their white counterparts in campaign spending.

Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submitting authority has the burden of showing that a submitted change has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 28 C.F.R. 51.52. In light of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude that your burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality vote requirement.

Under Section 5 you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. 28 C.F.R. 51.44. In addition, you may request that the Attorney General reconsider the objection. 28 C.F.R. 51.45. However, unless and until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment from the District of Columbia court is obtained, the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality vote requirement, continues to be legally unenforceable. Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. 646 (1991); 28 C.F.R. 51.10.

To enable us to meet our responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the action the city plans to take concerning this matter. If you have any questions, please call Mr. J. Eric Rich (202-305-0107), an attorney in the Voting Section.

Sincerely,

/s/
Loretta King
Acting Assistant Attorney General


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/21/nc-citys-bid-for-nonpartisan-vote-nixed/

http://www.kinston.com/news/voting-70360-nonpartisan-federal.html

[msanthrope]

4. So how is this incorrect? Kindly tell how the town met its burden of proof

required by the Voting Rights Act?

[Igel]

7. I can offer a hint.

It goes like this.

To have a change permitted, it can't have a racist intent and it can't have a racist effect. The effect in this case is discouraging black voter turnout, either by making it impossible or difficult for blacks to vote, placing some impediment in their way.

King has determined that if this changes were applied black persons' right to vote will be infringed because whites will vote for fewer blacks.

To get there she argues the following:
1. Blacks may be a majority of the voters on the rolls but in 3/4 of the last 4 elections their turnout was under 50%.
2. Blacks vote for blacks. If blacks constitute under 50% of the voters black candidates can't win enough black votes to win the election.
3. Whites vote for whites. They do so because whites only vote for whites, all things being equal.
4. Whites will allow party loyalty to trump racism. Those (D) get whites to vote for blacks.
5. It's necessary to get those whites to vote for blacks to protect black voters' right to vote.

We can quibble with (1) but it doesn't matter for the argument, we can point out the asymmetry in deeming (2) a good thing and (3) a bad thing, we can wonder if labels in the voting booth are really enough to trump white racism, but most of these are uncontroversial. (That the earth was flat was also uncontroversial, so let's not confuse "uncontroversial" with "true". Still, in the legal system they're often equated so we're forced to make the same assumption.)

The slip comes in (5). She doesn't make the connection explicit. How are blacks' voting rights connected to the number of of whites' votes received by black candidates?

There's no claim that voters will be directly affected: No claim of depressed turnout, problems registering, problems voting. No effect, as customarily assumed under Section 5, is presented as likely nor even just boldly claimed without justification.

The "effect" on black voters is that they won't succeed in electing as many black candidates. Not that this won't represent the views of those who actually vote. But to protect black voters the number of white voters voting for blacks has to be maintained. To remove the likelihood (probability? possibility?) of whites voting for blacks is to discriminate against not the black candidate--s/he has no right to white votes--but against the black voter who, apparently, does. Or, put more correctly, the black voter has the right not to have the number of white voters voting for their black candidates subject to possible reduction.

I usually find the asymmetry between (2) and (3) above to be unjustifiable. I find this last claimed "right" to be hilarious--and dangerous.

I don't see how we conclude that King is tacitly claiming anything other than the black voter has a right to have the number of black candidates who won in the past continue to win in the future and that if this requires doing things to maintain white votes for black candidates anything that might alter white voters' behavior to diminish the number of winning blacks is discriminatory.

She doesn't say where this right comes from. She might be tacitly arguing that if white voters didn't help guarantee black electoral victories blacks would register less or vote less--permitting the claim that if your guy(s) don't win you'll vote less is a kind of discrimination. She might be tacitly arguing that anything if minority voters aren't proportionately represented by people who look like themselves--if they vote this way--it's discrimination. I don't know.

She may just be thinking that in party-ticket votes a lot of whites vote for blacks without thinking about it. If there can be no straight party voting then only actual supporters will vote. The assumptions you make at that point really matter a lot. Do blacks vote straight ticket more than whites? Would they only vote for the top spots? Do whites vote straight ticket more often than blacks? Would they only vote for the top spots? Would blacks vote their race and only pick obviously "black names" or candidates they knew were black? Would whites specifically avoid "black names" or black candidates? I don't know.

I do think King had an obligation to say *why* the possible reduction in white votes for black candidates constitutes a discriminatory effect on black voters. I may have missed it. I rarely review my posts for replies. This one I will. (Even though I expect at least a couple to be the vacuous "You just don't get it." As though that constitutes explicit reasoning, or, indeed, reasoning of any kind; it's just a claim that if I'm not called to believe than there's no way to explain faith, a kind of argument that holds in church or mosque but not secular discourse and mostly serves to shut down dialog and justify the self-righteous.)

[FLAprogressive]

5. Huh?!

[jwirr]

6. That is one of the things I do not like about MN voting. County officials

are not labeled as to party. So we get to vote for judges! They all tell us they are married with good families, great educations, etc. but not one word about philosophy. So who am I voting for? Does he support my ideas? This year I left the damn things blank and voted for people I knew. Not labeling can be a two edged sword.

[Liberal_in_LA]

8. weird story.

[tabbycat31]

9. my municipal elections are nonpartisan

I had to research my candidates before I voted for them and I wound up voting for the local GOP chair because I had to vote for 4/6 candidates. The only Democrat on that ticket was a dead guy.

I wish the local party would have at least put forth an even race with good candidates.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. That is the way out...declare them non-partisan offices

DOJ might have a problem with that but they would have to make a better case than they did in this one