California is one of the states that must ask for U.S. Justice Department approval before it alters its election laws. On August 16, 2010, California had forwarded a copy of the new “top-two” law that goes into effect in 2011, to the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department.
On October 25, the Voting Rights Section replied to California, with questions about how “top-two” will affect ethnic and racial minorities. The questions are limited to past elections in the four covered counties, Kings, Merced, Monterey and Yuba Counties. After the state answers the questions, the Voting Rights Section has 60 days to evaluate the answers. “Top-two” cannot be into effect until this process is completed. Thanks to Rob Richie for this news.
Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if the U. S. Justice Departmnent would prohibit the implementation of Top-Two due to these 4 Counties discriminatory voting procedures that they used decades ago.
Each State is a sovereign NATION-STATE.
The 1965 VRA and the moron SCOTUS cases about it are a giant subversion and perversion of 15th Amdt, Sec. 1.
— par for the course in this New Age of mass idiocy in the courts.
After the close 1868 election for Prez U.S. Grant the Elephants in the gerrymander Congress had a panic.
They noted that many of the NORTHERN States had many adult male blacks (many ex-Union Army and Navy vets of the horrific 1861-1865 Civil War).
Thus the 15th Amdt, Sec. 1 language — directly connected with 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
See the giant debates in Jan-Feb 1869 in the Congressional Globe — roughly 7 inches thick of fine print.
Elector definition versus Election Systems — different subjects — much too complex for the SCOTUS MORONS to understand since 1965 (along with armies of lazy MORON lawyers and especially lazy MORON amicus profs).
what about MY voting rights? Huh?
Five times between 1966 and 1979, the Mississippi legislature enacted the “top two”/”open primary” for state and local elections, and its implementation was blocked each time. Three of those times, it was blocked under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The black-majority city of Kinston, NC, recently approved a “top two” ballot measure for its municipal elections, but the Department of Justice refused to approve it under the Voting Rights Act.
I’m not holding my breath, but maybe the DOJ will also block California’s “top two.” Hope springs eternal.
#1 California used to have a literacy test. What determined whether counties got covered by the VRA was if there was some sort of vote test, and less than 50% of voting age population voted in a particular election (1972 presidential IIRC). In effect, the presumption was that the literacy test was the cause of low participation.
The 4 counties in California that are covered all had military bases, and relatively low civilian population. Most persons on military bases are young, temporary, and may have voting residences elsewhere. There was some procedure so that military personnel could prove that they voted elsewhere, but there wasn’t any real impetus for them to do so – simply to keep the county where they were based for months perhaps to not be covered by the VRA.
In the 1990s redistricting of supervisor districts in Monterey County both Fort Ord and Soledad prison were considered as prime targets for including in a minority district, because they would add 1000s of population to the district for “one man, one vote” purposes, pump up the minority CVAP, but have almost no voters. For Fort Ord, turnout was incredibly low, something like 5%. Fort Ord was BRAC’ed as was Castle AFB in Merced County.
Counties like San Diego, with both Camp Pendleton and Naval Base San Diego were not included under the VRA because of the large permanent population in the county.
In California, the literacy test had already been declared to be in violation of the California Constitution because it was administered in English only, and was officially repealed within a few weeks of the election that was used to determine coverage.
One California county is applying for bailout. They have spent something like $1 million over the past 10 years with filing busywork, and expect to spend $200,000 getting out from under the VRA. They may have even been accidentally covered. When the CVAP population of the county was calculated, it was calculated that all population growth in the county had been citizens, and the county just barely missed 50% participation by a few 10s of percent.
#4 The 4 covered counties already use Top 2 for their county elections.
# 5 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 was a MAJOR effort to get universal adult male suffrage [worked on in Jan-June 1866 ]– totally screwed up by armies of MORON lawyers and especially the party hack SCOTUS super-MORONS — who have NO idea what the English language means in all sorts of constitutional law cases.
Sorry for females until the 19th Amdt.
#6 The four covered counties, like all counties in California, have non-partisan elections. These are two-round runoff elections. This is not the same thing as Louisiana/Washington/California top two because those are elections for partisan offices.
#5 Thank you. This helps explain a fine points of CA districting and covered county DOJ-voting rights coverage for plaintiffs in various national federal districting / HAVA law suits based in NYS/2nd Circuit but including CA as lead defendant. (see Forjone v CA USCA2C 10-822)
#8 All voters and candidates regardless of their party affiliation are permitted to participate in the primary for both non-partisan offices such as county supervisor and state superintendent of public education, and voter-nominated office such as state legislator.
Political parties may support candidates for both non-partisan and voter-nominated offices, and may not formally nominate candidates (recognized by the State) for either type office.
You perhaps meant that the two types of election are not identical.
#10 It’s the type of office that is different, not just the voting rule (although that is different, too). California city councils and county boards of supervisors do not have party caucuses formally recognized in statutes. The state legislature does (as does Congress). The California Government Code contains language about the “majority party” and the “minority party” which simply doesn’t make sense if the office of state legislator is non-partisan. (It also wouldn’t make sense if no party had a majority or even if there were more than one minority party, but that’s a separate conversation.)
My understanding is that the proponents of Prop. 14 thought about proposing genuinely non-partisan elections and didn’t because focus groups proved to them that voters wouldn’t want that. So instead they proposed the monstrosity of “voter nominated” candidates for partisan offices.
As usual — P.R. and NONPARTISAN App.V. = NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
#11 For purposes of the VRA, I don’t see what difference the type of office makes a difference. Explain.
And how is the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction a different type of office than Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner, or even the Lieutenant Governor or Governor?
It is OK to have a partisan cooking the books, but not cooking the minds of schoolchildren? Do you really want a Secretary of State expressing an overt political agenda?
Most city councils and board of supervisors are not large enough to support caucuses. While the Government Code does define the majority and minority leader of the Assembly as officer, it does not do so for the Senate. And even the Senate rules do not define majority floor leader.
All the Constitution says is that party caucuses are not subject to open meeting laws. So it is really pretty vague.
Whether or not a legislator who expressed a preference for a particular party on the ballot, participates in the caucus of that party in the legislator is surely up to the other members of the caucus. IIRC, a member of the Washington legislature was expelled from the Republican Caucus, and there was a member of the California legislature who left the Democratic caucus. I don’t know whether he changed his voter registration. And recall that an independent was elected Speaker Pro Tem of Louisiana House. While information about a candidate’s party affiliation may be useful to voters, it is no way determinative as to activities once elected. You’re surely not suggesting that a State political party could or should be allowed to recall a legislator who acted contrary to its wishes.
Political parties would have been more overtly opposed to non-partisan elections, and would have been able to convince voters of that, regardless of what any focus group of voters might say.
#6: At the times that Mississippi requested approval from the feds for the “open primary”//”top two,” we already had nonpartisan elections (and still do) for such offices as state and county judges and county election commissioners. And yet the feds still rejected the “open primary” (in all of our nonpartisan elections, there is no runoff when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round).
Louisiana copied Mississippi’s “open primary” scheme, including putting party labels on the ballots (LA used to leave the space blank next to the names of independent candidates, and I assume it still does).
David Duke was a registered Louisiana Republican when he won a special state legislative election in 1989. The Republican Party repudiated him but was unable to stop him from running as a Republican. He got 44% for US senator in 1990 and ran second in the ’91 governor’s race.
Minnesota had nonpartisan state legislative elections, 1913-1973. There was a Conservative caucus and a Liberal caucus. The big majority of Republicans were Conservatives, while the big majority of Democrats were Liberals.
#5: President Lyndon Johnson’s crazy formula for including jurisdictions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was based on the 1964 election, since the VRA was enacted in 1965.
#13: “Do you really want a Secretary of State expressing an overt political agenda?”
The great majority of the states elect their secretaries of state in partisan elections. And, as you noted, in nonpartisan/”top two” elections, each party may support a candidate for any office.
Elections for some North Carolina offices are nonpartisan, and yet the Department of Justice blocked implementation of nonpartisan elections for the city of Kinston’s municipal offices.
#14 Section 5 was a temporary provision, and was later extended. Some of the covered areas are based on the 1968 and 1972 elections.
Does your SOS do public service announcements urging voters to vote the Republican ticket?
#16: My secretary of state does PSAs urging voters to vote– period.
#17 And you wouldn’t want him to be overtly partisan in the manner that the Governor or even the Attorney General might be?