No. I am a common man who can point out to the rest of the voters that you are a Demoncratic Mouthpiece who carries water for the Obama Admin and the party that is going to bankrupt this nation. Your party lies preced you Comrad.

From classic's link:
Given that the settlement was imposed/approved by Judge Stephen Robinson, a Bush appointee to the bench (he rejected the remedy proposed by the DoJ of voting by district).....perhaps you can explain how it was all an Obama/Democratic plot.

Every time you open your mouth, you look more foolish....my advice, stick to eating your :corn:

They already are citizens, aren't they?
I find it odd that one group gets 6 votes each and the other only gets one. Unless I read it wrong and all the voters got 6 votes.

Of course you read it wrong...you rushed to judgment. Every citizen gets 6 votes and Merc's suggestion that it is to make them citizens ASAP is ludicrous.

But you're not reading this :lol: ...or my explanation of how it (at-large elections) is a fairly common Voting Rights Act issue and an issue of law despite Merc's attempt to make it a partisan political issue by somehow turning a Republican-appointed judge's settlement into a nefarious plot by Democrats.

added:
I think elections by district would have been better, with a far greater likelihood that an Hispanic would be elected to the town council, which is long over-due considering that the town is almost half Hispanic and the council has been all White for ever.

Your making the assumption the white councilmen don't vote what's best for the entire town and not just for whites.

No...I'm not. I'm just offering my understanding of the case.

The judge made the decision that it was a violation of the Voting Rights Act, based on a pattern over time that the at-large process has not provided for a "fair" opportunity for minority representation on the town council...ever....in a town that is nearly half minority (it would not be an issue if the minority population was very small).

Added
And, I still prefer district elections (or a combination of mostly district and one/two at large) over all at-large elections at the local level. IMO, they are more representative, not just of race, but neighborhood issues, fair distribution/allocation of resources, etc.

We're going through a version of this right now. Our county board members are elected at large for the entire county. The county is made up of roughly 75% Democrats and 25% Republicans. So the county board slots have always been filed by Democrats. It's basically a one party system here in Arlington.

There's a movement now to switch over to a district election system, pushed by the Republicans so they can get some representation on the board.

DC had a similar issue with the city being 85% Democrat.

We have districts and at-large, with two at-large elected every two years; the catch being they cant be from the same party, so a Republican always gets one at-large seat on the Council.

That's stupid, people should be able to elect who they want.

As it relates to political affiliation, I agree with you...and it is not covered by the Voting Rights Act.

As to race, it falls under civil rights and IMO, the Voting Rights Act has played a significant role in enabling minorities to achieve elected political office....and that is what this case is all about.

Enabling minorities to achieve elected political office? Big fucking deal. That's like giving losers an extra 500 points on their SAT scores.

So now what are they going to do once they're in office, take care of their own, or do what's right for the whole community? If they're going to do what's right for the whole community, what difference does it make who wins?

Politicians should be elected for their record, or promises in the beginning, then bounced if they fuck up... no matter what color or party. This sounds like one of those fucking esteem boosting programs.

I get it. You dont like the Voting Rights Act....or at least, Section 2 of the Act.

I disagree...and so has every President/Congress since its enactment/extension.

IMO, having equal access to the political process is not just the right to vote, but the right to serve in elected office and when barriers exist to make that possibility less than fair, the remedy (not a guarantee) is appropriate.

That doesn't make it right, just politically correct.

Perhaps I didnt explain it well or perhaps it wont make a difference.

Many decisions by local governing bodies are not always about what is best for the city/town as a whole. Often, it is about prioritizing and/or responding to the needs of communities or neighborhoods within the city/town.

If a community/neighborhood is not represented on the governing body, preferablly by someone from within that community/neighborhood and particularly when that community/neighborhood is primarily a minority community...there is a far greater likelihood that the community/neighborhood will not be served as well as those that are represented directly on the governing body.

It is not always political correctness, but fairness!

What if the "majority" office holder only takes care of their own? They'll never be bounced because they have the backing of the majority. Someone who consistently fucks the minority can stay in office forever, regardless of whether they they do what's right for the whole community.