On August 18, city officials in Kinston, North Carolina, received a letter from the U.S. Justice Department, saying the Department will not approve letting Kinston switch from partisan city elections to non-partisan city elections. See this story.
The voters had voted to switch to non-partisan elections in November 2008. Now the city must hold a partisan primary on September 15, 2009, and a partisan general election on November 3. Also, Earl Harper, a candidate who is an independent voter, must collect the signatures of 4% of the city’s registered voters in order to run. The signatures are due in September; Harper needs about 560 valid signatures.
Something feels very dirty about a Justice department not allowing non-partisan elections. Sounds like the dirty Dems and Repubs are taking away community voices.
The city has the right to take the matter to federal court in Washington, D.C. In that action, the Justice Department would be forced to defend its conclusion that the switch to non-partisan elections hurts African-American voters.
One more action subverting the 15th Amdt — one more case for the Supremes to overrule lots of MORON unconstitutional earlier cases.
Sorry – NO mention of *partisan* or *nonpartisan* in any part of the 1787 Constitution or any Amendment — regardless of the armies of MORONS in the gerrymander Congress.
#2: Does the Voting Rights Act mandate three-judge federal panels to hear suits brought under Section 5? In 1971, it was such a panel that blocked implementation of Mississippi’s “top two” (“open primary”). Evers v. State Board of Election Commissioners
The Dept. of Justice also failed to approve Mississippi’s “top two” (“open primary”) in 1976 and 1979; governors had vetoed the “open primary” bills of 1966 and 1975.
So, how did Louisiana switch to top two while Mississippi couldn’t pull it off? Did any other southern states try to do top two?
And in all likelyhood, top-two in Mississippi leads to a lot of Black v. White runoffs, and probably would have kept Thad Cochran out of elective office too.
Former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards did a very skillful job of persuading U.S. Justice Department officials to approve “top-two” for Louisiana. He went to Washington, D.C. himself and used his charm and political wiles and his contacts with powerful Democrats to get approval. Mississippi just didn’t have anyone with his skill and determination.
Louisiana didn’t have the history of black independent candidates that Mississippi had. The DOJ approved the “top two” (“open primary”) for Louisiana’s state and local elections starting in 1975; Louisiana also used the “top two” for Congress, 1978-2006 (ironically, Louisiana had copied Mississippi’s “open primary” law).
To my knowledge, no other Southern state has attempted to impose the “top two” for state or congressional elections.
Thad Cochran has indeed led a charmed life. In 1972, he was first elected to the U. S. House with less than 50%. A black independent (from the Democratic nominee’s home county) drained votes from the Democrat. Cochran only carried two counties.
In 1978, Charles Evers ran as an independent for U. S. senator and got 23%, almost all of which would have otherwise gone to the Democrat, who got 32%. Cochran won with 45%.
The blacks finally wised up and began working within the Democratic Party. Evers ran for governor as an independent in 1983 and only got 3.9% (of course, he had not helped himself with his fellow blacks when he backed Ronald Reagan for president in 1980).
In the 1971-72 Louisiana governor’s race, Edwin Edwards resented the fact that his Republican opponent had a much easier time reaching the general election. While Edwards had to slug it out through the Democratic primary and the Democratic runoff, David Treen had only a token opponent in the Republican primary.
Click here for Mississippi’s and Louisiana’s history with the “top two” (“open primary”).
It is sad that the US Justice Department can just override a voter approved decision in a North Carolina city under the Voting Rights Act, sounds sort of two-faced to me personally. If they want non-partisan elections, more power to them, and they have a right to have them that way if they want it.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is absurd and violates state’s rights.
And how, may I ask, will Non-Partisan elections “reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice”? This would actually let more candidates run, now of course people would actually have to educate themselves about the candidates (which we should be doing anyway) instead of just sticking to a Party name.
#9: The reasoning is that a candidate needs 50%-plus to win a nonpartisan (“top two”) election. In partisan elections, in contrast, most jurisdictions do not require 50%-plus to win the general election.
Back in the ’60s and ’70s, Mississippi blacks lobbied the Dept. of Justice not to approve the “open primary” (“top two”) for our state, and Charles Evers brought the 1971 suit against the “open primary.”
Although I’m glad that the “open primary” was blocked for Mississippi’s state elections, I share your contempt for Section 5 of the VRA. It’s ridiculous for DOJ to disapprove nonpartisan elections for a municipality, given that the great majority of U. S. municipalities already have nonpartisan (“top two”) elections.