WH forces partisan races on N.C. city

Question of the Day

What has been the biggest debacle on Obama's watch?

View results

A feud involving local elections in a small North Carolina city is now a battleground over the future of one of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act’s most critical and contentious elements.

Several residents of Kinston, N.C., filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an Obama administration decision that the town must keep political parties in local elections because equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

Kinston voters decided overwhelmingly in a 2008 referendum to eliminate partisan elections, but the Justice Department stopped the change because the city is among 12,000 almost exclusively Southern voting districts that require department approval before making any changes to voting procedures.

The lawsuit argues that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which gives the federal government this power, is unconstitutional. It was filed on behalf of local residents by the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative group that learned about the situation from a report in The Washington Times.

“Although the Voting Rights Act has accomplished many valuable goals, its ‘temporary’ Section 5 provision is now unconstitutional because it singles out certain jurisdictions for extraordinary burdens based on 46-year-old election results,” Michael Carvin, a Washington lawyer who is handling the case pro bono, said in a statement.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The department’s decision in Kinston, which affects races for city council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

“Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,” Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

Ms. King said that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

Critics of the law giving the Justice Department the power to make and enforce such a ruling argued that the law has changed little since its 1965 inception and that the same places it covered then no longer need the department’s oversight. Proponents, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said the law is still necessary to ensure equal voting rights for all Americans.

The Kinston lawsuit was filed in the wake of a key Voting Rights Act case that the Supreme Court heard last year. In that case, a small voting district in Texas challenged the constitutionality of Section 5, but the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the constitutional issue and opted instead to allow the Texas district an exemption from the law’s requirements.

The court, in its 8-1 decision, did express concerns about the law. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion saying Section 5 was unconstitutional.

“The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable, but the act now raises serious constitutional concerns,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. But he also said that the “importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it. Quite the contrary: Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions.”

Analysts said at the time that the ruling would open the door to more constitutional challenges.

The Kinston lawsuit could face difficulty because it is brought by residents and not by the city itself, which opted not to challenge the Justice Department’s decision. Cases challenging Section 5 decisions typically are brought by the impacted municipality of a voting district.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
About the Author
Ben Conery

Ben Conery

Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association’s Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...

Latest Stories

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks