Talk about racist and insulting.

[quack quack]

I think we should all do away with party tags on politicians. The D or R next to a name makes voting to easy. If you vote for that person regardless of party you will know who they are!! For holder to step in and do this is racist and insulting to every voter.

A small North Carolina city is getting a taste of what life is like now that the Justice Department is run by Attorney General Eric Holder. When the city voters decided to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, the Justice Department came down on them like the proverbial load of bricks.

The Department overruled the decisions of the voters and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without candidates being clearly labeled as Democrats. Ben Conery of the Washington Times reports:


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.

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.


The decision was made by the same Justice Department person who ordered the widely criticized dismissal of a voting rights (voter intimidation) case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.

The rationale is that African-American candidates (presumably Democratic) can only win if white voters support candidates that they are informed are Democrats (by noting their party on ballots). The stereotypical view of African-Americans (that they are Democrats) is insulting. So is the paternalism. So is the dismal view of the intelligence of voters (who apparently are incapable of informing themselves regarding the views and history of candidate - despite the small size of the community). Both African-Americans and whites gave broad support to eliminating the labeling of candidates. The Justice Department sent the city (Kinston, North Carolina) of stern letter:


"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,"

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."

[Uncle Buck]

How about eliminating the individual names of the candidates, and just have 2 choices on the ballot. (R) or (D) Yeah... that would solve the problem. Or better yet... (B) or (W)... and it won't be who you're voting FOR, it will be what your race is, and the government will pick the officials based on your color.

I'm obviously speaking sarcastically. But that's the inverse of the situation. I'd rather do away with party designations and vote for individual candidates that are appropriate and qualified for the position. If you don't take the time to learn about the candidates you're voting for, it defeats the entire purpose of your personal voting choice.

Actually... To keep things completely racially and demographically unbiased, a candidate's race should not be disclosed, nor any photograph, gender or age. Just a serial number, the candidate's qualifications, history, and issues to be addressed in his/her term.

[fishxtreme]

Originally Posted by Uncle Buck

I'd rather do away with party designations and vote for individual candidates that are appropriate and qualified for the position. If you don't take the time to learn about the candidates you're voting for, it defeats the entire purpose of your personal voting choice.

Actually... To keep things completely racially and demographically unbiased, a candidate's race should not be disclosed, nor any photograph, gender or age. Just a serial number, the candidate's qualifications, history, and issues to be addressed in his/her term.

what you said

[Saltybrad]

No more guess votes on local judges or any other elected official for me, I've done it and see the consequences. The voting process is taking on a new meaning to me, an honest reporting media would be a nice help, but I think use of the internet will take on a new role in our future electoral process. Blog pages for all elected candidates would be a tremendous informational tool to help shape opinion even on the smallest local level.

[mneptune]

Originally Posted by Uncle Buck

Actually... To keep things completely racially and demographically unbiased, a candidate's race should not be disclosed, nor any photograph, gender or age. Just a serial number, the candidate's qualifications, history, and issues to be addressed in his/her term.

That sounds like a very good idea to me but I seriously doubt that would be a good idea to any liberal.

[Uncle Buck]

Don't worry... It's just another Uncle Buck's "makes too much sense to actually work" concepts.

[Dusky Mike]

appropriate and qualified???....i thought we were talking politics! ;-)