The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

October 20, 2009 Gigi Jones, The South writes:

I doubt seriously that the DOJ is motivated by a need to make sure a tiny place like Kinston, NC votes Democrat. I think there is something missing from your story (the truth, maybe?) of why the department decided to take this action at this time. You have made something very complex sound simple, in a disparate attempt on your part to paint all things related to civil rights with a broad brushstroke.
If you aren’t a reporter, who goes in and gets the whole story, why do you bother writing half-stories? And then you recommend people go and read the NYT? Boy, you are just all over the place politically, aren’t you? Don’t you know your boys don’t read the NYT?

October 20, 2009 Rod Sullivan, Professor of Law, Florida Coastal School of Law writes:

People need to be forewarned that in 2010 a census will be taken, and that in 2012 the states will be redistricted. I have long feared that the Obama Administration will use the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as a political tool to deprive Republican voters of their right to vote in free and fair elections.

The Kinston case is the first example of what is to come. There will be more.

October 20, 2009 Jason Deans writes:

Please help our conservative candidate running for Mayor of Kinston. Only man who will fight for fair elections in Kinston.

Please donate.

http://www.murphyformayor.com/

October 20, 2009 Debbie in San Diego writes:

Kinston is 2/3rds black and voted a year ago to list candidates without requiring them to belong to a party, Democratic, Republican or otherwise. Sounds like the blacks in Kinston do not care about party affiliation. Kodos for them! It’s about time we look beyond party affiliation and simply look at the candidates for their ability to lead and get things done on behalf of the people. If Kinston residents wanted partisan candidates, they would have voted no to the non-partisan proposal. I see no Civil Rights being violated because there are no facts brought forth by DOJ to indicate intimidation or denial of access to voting last year. And a non-partisan ballot in the future does not prevent Kinston residents from getting informed about the candidates running for office. So I don’t see why DOJ even got involved?

October 21, 2009 Jeff, Pittsburgh writes:

its all a conspiracy! aaah! Quick, run, before the Obamabots get you! Hide! its all an evil plot! We all know the first step in the communoislamofascist takeover of america is making sure that black people can vote. Maybe step two is putting little red “R”s and “D”s next to their names.

Honestly, people. Grow up.

October 21, 2009 John, Seattle writes:

SCARY! BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

You can vote however you want…as long as it’s for a Democrat.

October 21, 2009 Casey, Wilmington, NC writes:

@Gigi, This article isn’t bad, but it is just kind of an “aerial overview”. Here is an article from the Washington Times that “zooms in” a bit more and will lay out some more details.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?feat=home_cube_position1&

Hope that helps

October 21, 2009 Valeria Truitt, New Bern, NC writes:

If the letter from the Justice Department employee, a Loretta King, was quoted accurately in the Washington Times, there’s more to the story than favoring one political party over another. Perhaps King has some personal axe to grind?

Most towns in North Carolina have non-partisan municipal elections. Often, it’s difficult to persuade candidates to run for city offices at all–and if it were required that each party field candidates and that only one candidate per party could run, there wouldn’t be a contest. People who are elected tend to keep their seats term after term. All of this tends to lead to voter apathy–which the City of Kinston tried to overcome. Perhaps we shall overcome one day, but not if the Justice Department continues to provide that sort of help.

Down the road in New Bern, which has non-partisan city elections, the mayor is in a runoff and only one member of the Board of Aldermen was reelected in the October election. While the lines at the polls were far from out the door and around the corner, voter apathy clearly was not a factor.

One elected member of Kinston’s governing body stated that he thought Kinston’s method of electing all representatives “at large”–every voter votes for candidates for all seats rather than voting only for one’s own representatives by ward or precinct–is a bigger problem than partisanship. I have to agree with him, and I wonder if that situation will be addressed any time soon. And if it is, will the Justice Department hand down another incomprehensible ruling, since they have to agree (per the 1965 court order) to any changes made in the way Kinston holds its elections?

October 21, 2009 BJ Murphy, Kinston NC writes:

As a Republican, I’m the only candidate in a three-man race that has supported nonpartisan elections for Kinston. Kinston voters approved it by a margin of 2 to 1 last year. In almost every election we have candidates who are more concerned with which party they’ve got to run under than the issues facing the city. That’s why I helped go door-to-door collecting signatures to force it on the ballot last year. The USDOJ ruling needs to be overturned.

Check out our campaign’s website: http://www.MurphyforMayor.com

October 21, 2009 Derek writes:

The letter in question:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ltr/l_081709.php

Where is the ACLU on this? Is this not a violation of civil liberties??

October 22, 2009 Mike, Raleigh writes:

Gigi, I doubt seriously that you read this article and I can say with certainty that you didn’t read the news account of this event, since it’s in the WASHINGTON Times, not the NY Times as you referenced in your comment. I always appreciate an apposing opinion to keep editorialists honest, I just wish there was something worthwhile in yours. The Foundry is spot on. The DOJ’s actions are transparently partisan and serve no positive purpose.

October 22, 2009 Pat-San Antonio writes:

This is just another intrusion by the government into issues where they have no right to intrude. Is the Democratic party so desperate that they have to resort to rigging elections in tiny towns? Eric Holder should be run out of Washington in disgrace. What a prime example of Obama appointees.

October 22, 2009 Ray, Savannah, GA writes:

I have family in Kinston, and therefore had a quite an interest in this story when it broke. I’m glad to see there have been enough comments to set Gigi straight–obviously, from people who actually read the Times article.

November 4, 2009 Joe - Billings MT writes:

Seems to me that the people of the town spoke in a free election and the DOJ just said “We don’t care what the people want!!!”

Maybe this will turn into voter apathy and with good reason.