Injustice Dept.: Ruling Turns Voting Rights Act on Its Head

You would think that the Obama Justice Department, having badly embarrassed itself in a Philadelphia voter-intimidation case, would take pains not to smear any further egg on its face. But if the case of Kinston, N.C., is any guide, you would be gravely mistaken.

In November the black-majority community of Kinston voted by a margin of almost 2-to-1 to switch from partisan to nonpartisan elections. That would have brought it in line with the vast bulk of localities in North Carolina, where only nine out of 551 hold partisan elections.

The measure passed in seven of Kinston's nine black-majority precincts. But Kinston remains subject to preclearance restrictions under the Voting Rights Act, which means changes in election law need the approval of the Justice Department before they can take effect. Justice considered the nonpartisan-elections measure, and said no.

The department's Loretta King wrote to Kinston that it could not switch to non-partisan elections because the effect of that change would be "strictly racial." She reached this conclusion because (a) white residents tend to vote in higher proportions than black residents; (b) voters in Kinston tend to vote more along racial lines than along party lines; so (c) without having a (D) by their name, black candidates could receive less support than they otherwise might: "It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice."

This seems to suppose the black community's "candidate of choice" will always be a black Democrat -- and that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is less to ensure that people who want to vote can, than to ensure that people who do not vote get to elect the type of candidates the Justice Department thinks they would, if they actually bothered to go to the polls.

In any event -- assuming the Justice Department's assumptions about the voting preferences of Kinston residents are correct -- if the majority black voters of Kinston showed up at the polls in the same proportion as white voters do, then the Kinston City Council would have a black majority instead of a black minority, regardless of whether candidates are identified by party or not. Nothing is standing in the way of that happening -- not poll taxes, or literacy tests, or even (as in Philadelphia) truncheon-wielding members of a fringe group wearing paramilitary uniforms. Only black voter apathy keeps blacks from dominating the Kinston electoral scene.

But as Abigail Thernstrom of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights notes, "The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for [the] failure of voters to show up on Election Day. [And it] doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a 'candidate of choice.' . . . .My 'candidate of choice' loses all the time in an election."

The Justice Department's King concedes that "black persons comprise a majority of the city's registered voters." But she goes on to say that "in three of the past four general municipal elections, African Americans comprised a minority of the electorate on Election Day." So, she writes, "for that reason, they are viewed as a minority for analytical purposes."

Hunh? By this line of reasoning, if white voters in Kinston -- who are already a minority for numerical purposes -- decided to boycott an election, that would make them the "minority for analytical purposes" as well. This then would require the Justice Department to step in and ensure the election of the candidates the white voters refused to cast ballots for in the first place.

Now here's the ultimate irony: In November's election, the black voters of Kinston showed up in massive numbers -- the city had a turnout rate of 73 percent. As noted earlier, a majority of black residents voted at that time in favor of switching from partisan to nonpartisan elections. But the Justice Department has thwarted the plainly expressed will of those very black voters who actually cast ballots, in order-- it says -- to protect the preferences it imputes to those black residents who might not bother to cast ballots in the future.

And this protects voting rights exactly how?

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility. --Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Contact A. Barton Hinkle at (804) 649-6627 or .