Justice Dept: Blacks MUST Have Democrat Label to Know How to Vote

Posted By Bobby Eberle On October 20, 2009 at 9:02 am

There have been some crazy actions to come from Obama and his advisors regarding race. Remember when, not knowing ANY of the facts regarding an incident between a white police officer and a black professor, Obama said on national television that the officer acted stupidly?" Or how about Obama's 20-year affiliation with a pastor who blasts America and advocates racial division?

Well, now I think I've seen it all. Obama's Justice Department has ruled against the actions of the town of Kinston, North Carolina. What did this town do that was so terrible? The residents voted overwhelmingly to eliminate partisan elections for mayor and city council members. The Justice Department stepped in and said, "Whoa! Wait just a second!" According to the Justice Department, blacks in Kinston must have the Democrat Party in order to elect their "candidate of choice." How insulting! Basically, what Obama's team is saying is that blacks will only vote for Democrats, and without the party label, blacks can't figure out for themselves which candidate will get their vote. This is not only a slap in the face of the voters, but it continues Obama's efforts to divide people along racial lines rather than bring them together.

The Washington Times has an excellent accounting of what is happening in this small North Carolina city. Following a city vote to do away with partisan elections for city offices, the Justice Department blocked the action:

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.

Candidate of choice? Basically they are saying that blacks will ONLY vote for Democrats, and if there is no party label, they won't know what to do. Obama's team also continues to take steps backward in race relations. Saying that whites will only vote for a black if there is a party label attached smacks of blatant bigotry. Furthermore, to say that blacks can't figure out who their "candidate of choice" is without a party label, Justice Department officials are making a huge assumption about the intelligence of black voters.

First of all, if a person is running for office, and that person is the "candidate of choice" for a voter or group of voters, it doesn't matter if that candidate has a party label attached or not. Shouldn't the electoral process by a process where voters actually pay attention to issues, do a little research, and then make an informed decision? What the Obama folks are saying is, "Forget all that! We just want them to vote for the Democrat."

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor. "The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said. 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."

Keep in mind that according to the news story, this city votes Democrat overwhelmingly...both blacks and whites. Kinston "voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city."

The news story gets ridiculous when one reads the quotes from Loretta King, "who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division."

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," she said.

Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.

Through King's efforts, the charges against all but one of the Black Panthers were dropped.

The Justice Department's actions are not only racial, but overtly political. As noted by Hans A. von Spakovsky at National Review Online:

The attorneys in the Voting Section also increasingly use the Voting Rights Act as primarily a political bludgeon to protect and enhance the electoral successes of the Democratic Party. Thus, in the Kinston objection letter, the Department stated that “it is the partisan makeup of the general electorate” that allows the winner of the Democratic primary to win in the general election. But of course, the VRA is supposed to protect voters, not majority parties. The fact that blacks are a controlling majority in the city is essentially deemed irrelevant.

This is yet another example of Obama's advisors showing that they are not ready for their duty to represent the entire country. They are partisans, and they are ideological radicals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

hmmmm....sounds rather racist to me. Either that, or the Justice Department thinks voters in Kinston are just too stupid to vote for the candidate they deem to be the better choice. The candidates have to be labeled or the voters might vote for the wrong person!

I know it's never going to happen - removal of "labels" telling us what a person is, rather than who the person is, but I like the idea. I think people would be surprised if political labels were removed and we voted for what that candidate said or did, rather than representing a party affiliation. We tend to be herding creatures; we want to be around people like us, so we join groups that espouse the same or similar beliefs. In politics, we tend to be what our parents are or were, or what our friends are. Sad but true.

We all know that there are candidates who are Republicans, but vote with the Democratic Party more often than with their own party and vice versa. And we all know people who vote straight party lines, no matter who the "better" candidate might be. Again, sad but true. As we tend to be herding creatures, many of us don't want to think too hard about the people we vote into office. So if candidates come with labels, we don't have to think about it. Just vote Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green or whatever, without even wondering what that person plans to do if they gain office.

For the love of God, don't make us think about the people who are going to representing us on the city council, the White House, or anywhere in between! It's just too much!