Tuesday, November 22, 2016

What Greensboro's City Council is going to court to uphold; The opposite of justice

"As the Supreme Court has long recognized, at-large voting schemes can “minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial [minorities in] the voting population.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47 (alteration in original; citation omitted); see also Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1018 (1994); Blytheville, 71 F.3d at 1390 (“The majority vote requirement, staggered terms, and at-large structure also tend to suppress minority voters’ influence.”); Collins II, 883 F.2d at 1236.

Greensboro's City Council is going to court 
to keep at-large districts in Greensboro, North Carolina

Indeed, as the Eighth Circuit has observed, the 1982 amendment to Section 2 “was aimed particularly at discriminatory at-large election systems which dilute minority voting strength.” Buckanaga, 804 F.2d at 471.

Yvonne Johnson, Jamal Fox, Justin Outling, Sharon Hightower, 
Marikay Abuzuaiter and Nancy Vaughan are spending taxpayer monies
to do the opposite of what is in their constituents bests interests
to keep themselves in a crooked system set up for their own benefit
at the expense of Greensboro's African American population

Regarding the ample statistical evidence that at-large voting has this dilutive effect on Black voters in FFSD, see supra Section IV.B (finding racially polarized voting), Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified to how at-large voting has worked in conjunction with socioeconomic racial disparities in FFSD to disadvantage Black candidates who “are likely to have less access to the necessary resources for travel and advertising” outside the immediate area surrounding the candidates’ homes, Ward, 782 F. Supp. at 1104. Because of continuing racial disparities and racially polarized bloc voting, at-large voting in FFSD does, in fact, fundamentally enhance the opportunity for discrimination against African American voters and candidates."


Yet these Council members want to keep it the way it is
for their own benefit, and for the benefit of their campaign contributors

It's shameful Greensboro's News and Record is taking the same stance