DOJ: No party labels are racist

[Madisonian]

Democrats are the non-thinking persons party (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x114394)


The Straight Story
Original message
Town wants to remove party affiliations, DOJ says no:

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/depart...

As you can expect, this is not going well for the OP...


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.

Because God knows I don't have the time to be an informed voter an post here as well...


wirr
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.

Reading and research anyone?


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.

The only good Democratic candidate is a dead Democratic candidate?:D

What is not mentioned in the OP is the other reason stated by the DOJ is because if party affiliation is not included, certain minorities would not know who to vote for if only presented a name without a (D) after it.

[lacarnut]

We should have a test for voting eligibilty...same as they do for driving. Make it so easy that a caveman could pass it. Multiple choice with just 2 answers. But then half the members of the black Congressional caucus would flunk it. The test would be deemed racist cause ebonic language was not included. We would also have dumb ass whites that would flunk it too.

[Rockntractor]

We should have a test for voting eligibilty...same as they do for driving. Make it so easy that a caveman could pass it. Multiple choice with just 2 answers. But then half the members of the black Congressional caucus would flunk it. The test would be deemed racist cause ebonic language was not included. We would also have dumb ass whites that would flunk it too.

What iz ya saying? what 'chew trippin foo'

[Novaheart]

[
Reading and research anyone?



Around here the judges and some other offices run "nonpartisan" which is total BS of course. The problem is that the parties play along with this, so you can't go to the party website. For some reason, the PAC's won't tell you either. The PAC's will do position papers or surveys, but nothing to tell you that Judge X has been hanging out with the scumbag Mel Sembler or owes his soul to Jeb Bush's gangster buddies.

So I don't agree with the idea that party designation leads to people being ill informed. If the party were designated then the party would have an info sheet on the candidate.

Of course, judges shouldn't be elected anyway, it's inherently corrupt. Justice is supposed to be blind, which is hard to do if you have one eye on the next election.

[Rockntractor]

Around here the judges and some other offices run "nonpartisan" which is total BS of course. The problem is that the parties play along with this, so you can't go to the party website. For some reason, the PAC's won't tell you either. The PAC's will do position papers or surveys, but nothing to tell you that Judge X has been hanging out with the scumbag Mel Sembler or owes his soul to Jeb Bush's gangster buddies.

So I don't agree with the idea that party designation leads to people being ill informed. If the party were designated then the party would have an info sheet on the candidate.

Of course, judges shouldn't be elected anyway, it's inherently corrupt. Justice is supposed to be blind, which is hard to do if you have one eye on the next election.

ya don' know anyfin'! with muh beeotch

[Novaheart]

ya don' know anyfin'! with muh beeotch

I think you have your websites crossed.

[Rockntractor]

I think you have your websites crossed.

I be confused? in the hood:confused:

[Madisonian]

Around here the judges and some other offices run "nonpartisan" which is total BS of course. The problem is that the parties play along with this, so you can't go to the party website. For some reason, the PAC's won't tell you either. The PAC's will do position papers or surveys, but nothing to tell you that Judge X has been hanging out with the scumbag Mel Sembler or owes his soul to Jeb Bush's gangster buddies.

So I don't agree with the idea that party designation leads to people being ill informed. If the party were designated then the party would have an info sheet on the candidate.

Of course, judges shouldn't be elected anyway, it's inherently corrupt. Justice is supposed to be blind, which is hard to do if you have one eye on the next election.

Not necessarily in disagreement, but appointment would be more political than elected, so what method would provide for capable and culpable judges if not elected by the people or appointed a governmental body?

We see what happens in the looney 9th. Circuit out west.

[Dan D. Doty]

I see that DU doesn't practice what they preach.

These jerkazoids are the most ill informed bunch of brain dead loser this side of the planet :rolleyes:

[noonwitch]

Our judicial elections are non-partisan, and the campaign ads don't ever state the candidates party affiliation. I do my research into it, but the union usually sends me voter's guides that list who they endorse and the affiliations of those candidates, so it's not hard to figure out that the candidates that didn't get endorsed are generally the GOP candidates.


The GOP pulled one over on Michigan dems for the MSSC election this year. They ran a woman who has a traditionally democratic last name (Kelly), and she won.

[FDK]

Blatant DOJ racism. This must be what O meant by transparency.