U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Rules that Independent Candidate in City Election Has Standing to Challenge Partisan Elections in Kinston, North Carolina

On July 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. issued this opinion in LaRoque v Holder, 10-5433. The decision says that independent candidate John Nix, who wants to run for city council of Kinston, North Carolina, in the November 2011 election, has standing to challenge the chain of developments that causes Kinston to still have partisan city elections.

In November 2008, the voters of Kinston voted to start using non-partisan elections instead of partisan city elections. But the U.S. Justice Department refused to pre-clear that change, arguing that partisan elections are more beneficial to black voters in the south. Therefore, Nix and some other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General, arguing that partisan elections are harmful to independent candidates, not only because North Carolina has such severe ballot access hurdles for independent candidates, but because North Carolina uses a straight-ticket device that injures independent candidates. Nix argued that the city council refuses to file a lawsuit to get permission for the city to use non-partisan elections, and therefore his only remedy is to sue to get Section Five of the Voting Rights Act overturned. The U.S. District Court said Nix lacks standing, but now the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled Nix does have standing.

Because the constitutionality of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act (the part requiring certain parts of the nation to get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election laws) is already shaky, this case may become very important. Of course, the Justice Department is free to change its mind about Kinston, and let the city have non-partisan elections. The U.S. Court of Appeals decision deals only with standing, and sends the case back to the U.S. District Court to adjudicate the merits of the case. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.


Comments

U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Rules that Independent Candidate in City Election Has Standing to Challenge Partisan Elections in Kinston, North Carolina — No Comments

  1. Pingback: U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Rules that Independent Candidate in City Election Has Standing to Challenge Partisan Elections in Kinston, North Carolina | Ballot Access News

  2. The 1965 VRA is a TOTAL perversion of the 15th Amdt. — due to the politically correct party hack robot SCOTUS MORONS in the 1960s.

    Compare 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 and 15th Amdt, Sec. 1.

    Much too difficult for SCOTUS party hacks to understand.

    See the 1868 election results — Elephant Grant barely elected in many States.

    See the Jan-Feb 1869 debates on the 15th Amdt. — i.e. too many MORONS to count — regarding the plain English in the 15th Amdt

    — regarding ONLY the definition of Elector (BASIC – negative) —

    — NOT other election stuff — ballot access, officer qualifications, gerrymanders, etc.

  3. IF the robot party hacks were really serious about enforcing the 13-14-15 Amdts, there would be FED DEATH penalities for intentional violations of such Amdts by the robot party hacks in the States.

    But the party hack Congress MORONS have played their EVIL stupid games since 1865-1870.

  4. Pingback: U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Rules that Independent Candidate in City Election Has Standing to Challenge Partisan Elections in Kinston, North Carolina | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  5. Pingback: U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Rules that Independent Candidate in City Election Has Standing to Challenge Partisan Elections in Kinston, North Carolina | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.