January 15, 2007

Voting Rights Case Defends Rights Of Whites

And some folks are troubled that a race-neutral guarantee is being enforced in a race-neutral way.

Over the years, Ike Brown has earned a reputation in rural Noxubee County as a wily political boss, and his election triumphs have time and again aroused suspicions of impropriety. But talk of his tactics never carried much farther than this small community of sawmills and catfish ponds.

Today, though, Brown, who is African American, is scheduled to go on trial in federal court in Jackson, where he will face charges from the Justice Department that he violated the political rights of Noxubee's white minority. It is the first time that the 1965 Voting Rights Act has been used to ensure white rights.

About two-thirds of the 8,700 adults in Noxubee County are black, and Brown, the local Democratic committee chief, has been criticized for urging people to "vote black" while engaging in an array of electoral shenanigans.

At issue is whether Brown, 52, has directed "relentless voting-related racial discrimination" against white voters and white candidates through fraudulent election tactics, as federal lawyers say, or whether he was merely operating aggressive political campaigns in a milieu that has long been split along racial lines.

What are some of the actions that Brown is accused of?

In a 1999 Democratic primary for sheriff, for example, the margin of victory for Brown's preferred candidate was only five votes. A judge ruled that a new election should be held because 52 ballots, most of them from absentees, were found to be invalid.

Brown, as chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee in the county, did not fulfill the judge's order, telling the local paper, the Macon Beacon, that someone would have to file a lawsuit to compel him to do so. No one did.

In 2003, Brown recruited a black lawyer to run against the incumbent white county prosecutor, according to the government's court filings, even though the white lawyer is a Democrat and the black lawyer was ineligible to run in Noxubee because he lived in Jackson. Brown refused to hear the complaints of the prosecutor and dropped the campaign only after a judge ruled against him.

The same year, Brown delivered to the Macon Beacon a list of 170 or so white Republican voters whom he said he would challenge if they tried to vote in the Democratic primary. Critics say he singled out white voters, but Brown indicated that he was only trying to keep Republicans from voting.

Now tell me that any fair minded individual would have a single objection to prosecuting such actions under the VRA if this man were white and his victims black. Clearly the same standard needs to apply here -- if this country is truly about applying equal protection of the laws in voting rights cases, without regards for the race of the perpetrator of the violations or the victims.

And wonder -- is there a single liberal out there willing to make a denunciation of the "vote black" rhetoric as they would about a GOP official urging folks to "vote white"?

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Of course. 

No liberal is going to support letting this guy off, if he is shown to be guilty..

I'll even denounce his attempts to prevent Republicans from voting (assuming it's legal to switch sides in a primary in the state).  That is almost as reprehensible as the Missouri Republicans' attempts to keep the elderly and poor from voting in Missouri, through an unconstitutional Voter ID Law.  They're both anti-American efforts, and anybody who supports Brown or Missouri Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

For the record, though, this is another one of those silly right-wing arguments where you find something stupid to complain about, and then insist that all liberals pass your ideological purity test by denouncing it.  Normally, I wouldn't play your game, but I thought I'd humor you this morning. 

And, no, I won't waste my time by playing your game and asking you to denounce the unconstitutional attack on voting rights undertaken by the Missouri Republicans. 



Posted by: Dan at Tue Jan 16 00:17:53 2007 (IU21y)

2 So you won't condemn the "vote black" rhetoric?  You find racial appeals in voting to be acceptable, and will hold them to be so when a white candidate urges white voters to "vote white" in a race against a black opponent?

And  won't speak for the site-owner, but I find requiring proof of identity in order to vote to not only not be inoffensive, but also a matter of common sense.  But then again, when did common-sense measures to prevent voter fraud ever pass scrutiny with the Democrats?  Of course, the Democrats are historically the biggest beneficiaries of fraudulent voting, so naturally they will object.  How dare we disenfranchise the dead and the non-existent Democrats, or those who vote in multiple jurisdictions!

I will agree, however, that any voter ID law that does not make a provision to provide them free of charge to those unable to afford them is problematic.  But voter ID laws are not unconstitutional.

Posted by: Jacob at Tue Jan 16 02:46:05 2007 (4nXaP)

3 Jacob, you have to realize that Dan considers any effort to cut down on the tradition of Democrat voter fraud to be an unconstitutional infringement on the civil liberties of fraudulent voters everywhere.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 16 13:30:41 2007 (FNslZ)

4 Of course I disapprove of "vote black" rhetoric. My point on the voter ID was simply that it is hypocritical of RWR to expect an outcry from dems when he sat silently by when the Missouri Republicans tried to disenfranchise the poor and elderly.

But my ultimate point is that it is nonsense for either of us to feel compelled to "denounce", "condemn" or otherwise make a big deal out of every slip-up on our respective sides. RWR doesn't do it, I don't do it, and nobody should expect it. It's just a cheap rhetorical trick, beneath the dignity of serious people.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Jan 16 14:49:19 2007 (IU21y)

5 Dan, I do denounce my side when they are wrong.

I just don't think that actions takn to reduce voter fraud are wrong.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 16 22:53:36 2007 (8uWHd)

6 Even when they disenfranchise legitimate voters?! Or just when they disenfranchise legitimate democratic voters, as the Republicans in Missouri attempted?

Posted by: Dan at Wed Jan 17 00:11:12 2007 (IU21y)

7 But how does requiring identification disenfranchise legitimate voters, Dan? 

How can you tell who is a legitimate voter if you don't require identification? 

Frankly, photo ID is the only way to go.

Posted by: Jacob at Wed Jan 17 01:04:44 2007 (4nXaP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
12kb generated in CPU 0.0065, elapsed 0.0136 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0087 seconds, 36 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]