Politicization of the DoJ, squared

posted at 12:15 pm on October 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How patronizing can the federal government get?  Try to follow the reasoning in the latest intervention by the Department of Justice in electoral law, which negates a community’s right to opt for non-partisan races in its local elections:

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.

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.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters’ election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Bear in mind that this DoJ also dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party activists that intimidated voters in Philadelphia after the DoJ had already won the cases.  Now, somehow, stripping off party affiliations in local elections — which most American communities do — represents a bigger threat to electoral integrity than thugs threatening people outside a polling booth?  This DoJ has a curious sense of priorities when it comes to protecting voters.

Or perhaps not so curious.  The intervention explicitly aims to ensure that Democrats win local elections, which at least has the refreshing sense of honest corruption.  Democrats screeched when George Bush had the temerity to replace political appointments for US Attorneys that he had politicized Justice.  What the hell is this, then?  Holder has deliberately intervened into an area where the federal government has no jurisdiction — local elections — and did so explicitly to boost the Democratic Party.

If we actually had a Congress, why, this administration might be in serious trouble over this.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Back in the 90s, I thought Janet Reno was bad. Just like I thought Carter was bad during the 70s. Now with Holder and Obama, I’m finding out what “bad” really means. So now we get affirmative action in the polling booth?!? Count me disgusted.

jwolf on October 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM

If we actually had a Congress, why, this administration might be in serious trouble over this.

Shades of “The Emperor has dissolved the Imperial Senate” on that one.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Holder is my least favorite appointee in this administration.

visions on October 20, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Is Holder/Obama saying that blacks are too stupid to understand who they’re voting for without thae big “D” after their names?

Bevan on October 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Is Holder/Obama saying that blacks are too stupid to understand who they’re voting for without thae big “D” after their names?

In so many words, yes.

Rusty Bill on October 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM

In light of the DOJ’s blatant partisanship and obvious desire illustrated by actions, or non-actions to skew electoral results, how much longer can people honestly hold the position that it will be possible to vote Obama out of office come 11/4/12?

The determination by this administration to “fix” elections cannot be any more clear than this list…

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/10/2010-census-still-a-boondoggle-for-the-left/

ACORN may be on the ropes, but the myriad allied entities still at the center of both the 2010 census, most probably central to 2012 voter registration efforts, and assuredly will have election judges manipulating the count will be using pantheresque tactics poling stations yet again. Why would’nt they, Holder’s DOJ has given them the green light to do so without the threat of prosecution.

By 2010 things are going to get a little funky in how we hold elections in America, by 2012 will it look any different than say Chavez’s definition of “free & fair”, or Putin’s lop-sided vote tallies?

Just when I see “green-shoots” of a posible revitalization of renewed constitutionality and return to founding principles,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/reading_the_electoral_tea_leav_1.html

I am overwhelmed by the probable avalanche of election irregularities that lie just ahead.

Man, I hope I am wrong about this, but I fear we may have to get used to a “president for life” with Obama inoffice for the duration. Some moron has already introduced a bill to repeal the 20th amendment…

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.Res.5:

…that opens the door for an American tyraany.

Archimedes on October 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Back in the 90s, I thought Janet Reno was bad. Just like I thought Carter was bad during the 70s. Now with Holder and Obama, I’m finding out what “bad” really means. So now we get affirmative action in the polling booth?!? Count me disgusted.

jwolf on October 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM

That old joke, Cheer up things could be worse…I cheered up and sure enough, things got worse.

right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

The Democrats have enjoyed decades of representing the black
voters on a local level.
No one seems to realize they just need your vote.
They aren’t really there to help you.
They are there to help themselves.

elderberry on October 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Is Holder/Obama saying that blacks are too stupid to understand who they’re voting for without thae big “D” after their names?

Bevan on October 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Too be fair, they also said that no white person would ever vote for a black unless that black was identified as a Democrat. Glad to see the fight against racism has come so far…

hawksruleva on October 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM

This guy writes phony articles then posts them as fact…I already wrote to Ed Morrisey and gave him examples.
We don’t need this kind of poster, he is a wannabe so he makes up stories.
right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM

So what you’re saying is s/he works for the MSM?

conservative pilgrim on October 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

So apparently the town is already basically a one-party town (Democrat)with 2/3 of the voters being black BUT the DOJ is afraid that unless those voters KNOW a candidate is a Dem that might change? So both black and white voters need proding to continue to elect black candidates?

katiejane on October 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Does ANYONE still think there will be fair and open elections in 2010 and 2012? If you DO, back away from the crack pipe!

nelsonknows on October 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Holder IS Janet Reno, only Reno was more manly.

nelsonknows on October 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM

At this point, I am not willing to believe that there wil be elections – “fair and open” or otherwise – at all in 2012… unless, of course, actions are taken to reign in the current occupants of the White House and Congress.

Rusty Bill on October 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM

At this point, I am not willing to believe that there wil be elections – “fair and open” or otherwise – at all in 2012… unless, of course, actions are taken to reign in the current occupants of the White House and Congress.

Rusty Bill on October 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Who is going to reign in these leftists, the GOP? The GOP is too busy hiding under their desks.

nelsonknows on October 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Eric Holder would respond but he’s too busy prosecuting CIA agents at the moment.

GarandFan on October 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Is Holder/Obama saying that blacks are too stupid to understand who they’re voting for without thae big “D” after their names?

Actually he/they are saying white people are too racist to vote for black people. But they will vote for -D so that way black people can fool white people into voting for them instead of the white guy …

Lord Nazh on October 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM

So now everyone still think 2010 is a lock for us Republicans.

Dire Straits on October 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM

So what you’re saying is s/he works for the MSM?

conservative pilgrim on October 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Ha!
Unfortunately he isn’t even that good.

right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Too be fair, they also said that no white person would ever vote for a black unless that black was identified as a Democrat. Glad to see the fight against racism has come so far…

hawksruleva on October 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM

The only people I hate are Democrat politicians of all creeds, colors, genders and religions.

Is that racist?

I’ll vote for anyone who vows to overturn any “accomplishment” of a Democrat and who vows to investigate, prosecute and jail Democrats for their crimes against the American people.

NoDonkey on October 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM

And while we’re at it:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/democrats-stealing-names-and-voting-in-a-ny-election-casting-fraudl-votes-.html

Comment, Mr. Holder?

Hmmmmmmm.

CPT. Charles on October 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM

I think it’s time for a systematic audit of every county ACORN operates in.

CPT. Charles on October 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Is Holder/Obama saying that blacks are too stupid to understand who they’re voting for without thae big “D” after their names?

Bevan on October 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM

That’s the only way that can be read.

Then again, it says a lot about President Toonces’ voting base, in that they apparently aren’t disagreeing. No one can say that 0bama doesn’t know his voting base.

MNHawk on October 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Why not skip the formalities and just put (B) (W) or (H) next to the names.

Martin Luther King Jr, please pick up the red courtesy phone.

pedestrian on October 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Rush was talking about this just now, and all I could do was stare at the computer (I listen online at work) and go “SAY WHAT???”

Highlar on October 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Yeah, I had the same reaction. The most infuriating thing is that unlike other WH administrations in history, when things like this happened, (never this bad and never this much), the press or congress, or someone in a position of authority called them on it. Then, at least there was a chance that the administration would back down.

Susanboo on October 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Archimedes on October 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Fear not.
We are a nation of 300 million. This is not Venezuela.
In order to become “president for life” you’re going to
need the military to be 100% compliant among a huge
host of other conditions. Not going to happen.
Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.
NIxon did.

elderberry on October 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Congress shall make no law abridging blacks.

Unless it’s a unicorn. They can be white without fear of racism.

BobMbx on October 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Ignore the ruling. It is unconstitutional and goes against the wishes of the community. They could simply ignore it. And when the feds come to enforce it they’ll have to physically remove the local officials. I’m sure that will not go over well.

hogfat on October 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM

A racist Attourney General, leading a racist DOJ appointed and supervised by a racist president.

And they have the gall to attack Rush as a recist!

Amazed on October 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Obama’s team recognizes the importance of the 2010 elections, just as we do. They have the power to permit fraudulent voting, and they will use it.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM

the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

I thought we all had the right to vote. I didn’t realize that certain people have the right to elect the candidates they want.

Instead of a guarantee of equal opportunity to vote we now have a guarantee of the desired outcome of the vote?

tom on October 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM

The worst part of this DOJ ruling is that it effectively extends the reach of the DOJ under the Voting Rights Act to localities in which blacks actually have a majority but don’t bother to vote. This is stunning in its legal wrongheadedness.

rockmom on October 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM

I thought we all had the right to vote. I didn’t realize that certain people have the right to elect the candidates they want.

Instead of a guarantee of equal opportunity to vote we now have a guarantee of the desired outcome of the vote?

Yes, since the Voting Rights Act was passed, which attempts to engineer situations where Blacks will be able to elect “candidates of their choice;” i.e. Black candidates.

The idea behind it was that discrimination was so strong in many states (primarily in the old Confederacy), that Blacks could not obtain proper representation. Without representation, their issues would always be sidelined. The VRA puts its finger on the scale by re-drawing districts to allow majority-minority districts which will tend to elect Black politicians.

This scheme is how elections have been run in this country for decades.

Revenant on October 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Way to go, Holder.

Keep these folks on the plantation forever.

And Holder was the person who accused us of being a nation of cowards for not wanting (apparently) to engage in a national discussion on racism.

I don’t recall being invited to any such affair, but I could have inadvertantly thrown the invite in the trash.

Holder and Obama are both racists and they both trade in racism and race-baiting.

molonlabe28 on October 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections

what follows is of no consequence.
will the federal government, PLEASE get out of our butts

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on October 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM

If we actually had a Congress, why, this administration might be in serious trouble over this.

Truer words were never spoken. :/

Theophile on October 20, 2009 at 5:57 PM

I am so surprised to see this issue getting national attention. I am from Kinston, NC, and though I was outraged at the DOJ’s blatant disregard for the wishes of the people, I never thought anyone else would hear about it. The truly sad thing is that the local officials are perfectly happy with the status quo, and have done everything in their power to handicap the application process. The only ones in our town who want this to happen are the people who might possibly have a chance at getting elected in a non-partisan election. But the city council is too busy working on the forced annexation of several upper-middle class neighborhoods to pay for the social programs that keep their base happy to care about the wishes of the people.

missykat16 on October 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM

“B-but how ‘we gonna win if we don’t have ACORN AND we can’t cheat?”

NightmareOnKStreet on October 20, 2009 at 8:34 PM

I wonder how long it is going to be before the average black person twigs on to the obvious, that the Democrats think they are stupid and can’t vote without training wheels.

johnsteele on October 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Don’t hold your breath.

Gang-of-One on October 21, 2009 at 12:24 AM

I was hoping you guys would pick this up! I think that if I were the city, I’d take it to court. I would hope that some public interest lawyers would represent them, because the bottom line is to say that only the Democratic Party can represent blacks. If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is, and African Americans ought to resent it that the Obama administration sees them as poor, dumb ex-slaves who won’t know who to vote for without “Democrat” at the top of the ticket.

flataffect on October 21, 2009 at 2:43 AM

…that opens the door for an American tyraany.

Archimedes on October 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

That door was opened a long time ago. There is really only one way to accurately describe what we Americans are living under now, and that is tyranny.

The feds are telling us what light bulbs we are allowed to use, what cars we’re allowed to drive, what foods we’re allowed to eat, how we’re allowed to be treated by a doctor, what drugs we’re allowed to use, how much money we’re allowed to earn (and then keep), how much carbon we’re allowed to emit, etc. etc. etc ad nauseum.

If this isn’t a tyranny, what would you call it?

runawayyyy on October 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2