Justice Dept. concludes blacks need Democratic Party

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

Washington Times Story
How much longer until the Justice Dept. starts deciding local elections? I hope this gets challenged in court. The referendum that abolished party affiliation was voted on and passed by a decent margin. It allows people to vote on the candiddates merits rather than which party they belong to.

Indeed... this is disturbing... Obama his doing his ``job`` as a puppet to force partisanship down the throat of America.

Shame on him...

Thats BS! I sure hope we see a lawsuit to reverse this decision. If I was a n African American in that county I would be so pissed off. Obama basically said that they were not smart enough to know who to vote for without a "D" beside the name.

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.

-E-

[edit on 20-10-2009 by MysterE]

Yeah, I think that this is typical of the Democratic Party. I generally dont get involved in partisan debates but my opinion is the Democrats promise the blacks the world so they get their votes and then they dont do anything! Thats my piece.

Clear cut case of legislated racism.

Hypocrisy at its' finest.

I wish that had happened where I live. The part about doing away with party affiliation, I mean. It would just make so much more sense if we vote based upon what a person will do, not by choosing one party or the other. If only it were on a national level...

I.. I am really unhappy with this overruling. What is the puspose of even voting if the results can be thrown out the window whenever the ruling people decide they don't like them? Also, I absolutely abhor bringing race into this at all. Now, if you try to fight this, you are a racist for "taking away the only chance a black person has for being elected." (Democats are the only party that runs black people?). Being labeled a racist is enough of a deterrent for most people.
If only people would see that, by bringing race into this to start with, that the Democrats are seeding the seeds of racism.
Plus, I disagree with this entirely. People will vote for (without party affiliations) whoever is the best option, be they black, white, green or luminescent.

Perhaps what the Democrats are trying to stop is people knowing who they are voting for. In the past, it has always been Democrats and Republicans. They were the first definition of a candidate. If they disappear, then it would be: Mr. Doe, (Pro-whatever, Anti-blank, and For reformation of the .. mint.) ACTUAL information might appear easily enough for people to know who to vote for, replacing the (D) or (R) that tells us nothing at all!

Great, now I'm all fired up

[edit on 20-10-2009 by fleetlord]

For those that would like an overview of this issue, the local paper has posted a variety of links on their website and their reporting seems very balanced (something we see very little of nowadays). .

www.kinston.com...

Here is the thing about the JD's explanation, they claim that if the democratic party isn't around in Kinston then the whites will decide the elections and African Americans will not be able to get anyone elected. However the times article states that 2/3 of the overall population is African American which the JD claims are almost all dems. Math anyone? They also claim that without white cross-over voters the AA community could not get thier candidate elected. Huh? 2/3 AA, 1/3 white, ummmmm

Blacks don't need the democratic party. The democratic party needs them.

Badgerprints is right. Legislated racism.