Thread: NY village violates US voting law?

Judge: NY village violates US voting law
By JIM FITZGERALD
01/22/08 16:46:45



A suburban village has been violating the Voting Rights Act by using an election system that leaves its rapidly growing Hispanic population without representation, a federal judge said Tuesday.

The decision against Port Chester, on the Connecticut border 25 miles from New York City, is expected to force a revision of the village's at-large election system, in which all voters cast ballots for each of the six trustee positions that run the village government.

The likely alternative is a district system, in which each district would elect one trustee. One district would be drawn around Hispanic neighborhoods to increase the chances that a Hispanic-backed candidate would be elected.

Judge Stephen Robinson, who held a trial last May when the village and the Justice Department could not settle the case, said the at-large system "prevents Hispanic voters from participating equally in the political process in the village."

The government had alleged that the at-large system allowed candidates preferred by whites to win all the trustee elections because whites tended to vote in a bloc. No Hispanic has ever been elected trustee or mayor in Port Chester, although the population is almost half Hispanic. The white population votes in greater numbers.

Robinson gave each side until Feb. 7 to recommend solutions. The government has already suggested plans it said would accomplish a Hispanic district, but the village said the plans would devalue the votes in the non-Hispanic districts, which would have larger populations.

Anthony Piscionere, Port Chester's attorney, said the village was disappointed but not surprised. Piscionere said he would meet with the trustees Tuesday night "to determine the next steps." It was too early to decide whether to appeal, he said.

Said U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia: "We hope that Port Chester will move forward and work with us to develop a district-based election system that remedies the violation."

Robinson blocked last March's trustee elections with an injunction, and they have yet to be held. Meanwhile, a new election is scheduled for this March. It was not clear what effect Tuesday's decision would have on that election.

Last year's mayoral election went on as scheduled, and the judge noted that it featured "a blatant racial message." He was apparently referring to an anonymous flier that included the statement, "The Hispanics are running the show already."

Robinson said he was troubled by the fact that such a message "emerged in the midst of the ongoing proceedings in this case."

He ruled that the government had met the three principal requirements established by precedents: that the minority group is big enough and compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district; that it is politically cohesive and votes as a bloc; and that bloc voting by the white majority generally defeats the minority's preferred candidate.

http://www.fresnobee.com/641/story/341402.html

He ruled that the government had met the three principal requirements established by precedents: that the minority group is big enough and compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district; that it is politically cohesive and votes as a bloc; and that bloc voting by the white majority generally defeats the minority's preferred candidate.

What he fails to mention is that though the minority group may be big enough, are they eligible to vote as US CITIZENS? If they are, go for it. If they are NOT US citizens, then SHUT UP!

Originally Posted by miguelina

He ruled that the government had met the three principal requirements established by precedents: that the minority group is big enough and compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district; that it is politically cohesive and votes as a bloc; and that bloc voting by the white majority generally defeats the minority's preferred candidate.

What he fails to mention is that though the minority group may be big enough, are they eligible to vote as US CITIZENS? If they are, go for it. If they are NOT US citizens, then SHUT UP!

So true!! Legal? Good idea. Not legal? Shut thy trap