By Allan Wall
06/23/2010
In colonial times, only white landowners voted. In the past few centuries that franchise was gradually expanded, until now, in 2010, all adult U.S. citizens (and some lucky non-citizens) are allowed to vote.
But it’s still not enough. Because if our multicultural masters are not pleased with the results of an election, other measures must be taken to bring about acceptable results.
A case in point: the village of Port Chester, New York (25 miles NE of New York City). No known injustice took place there. No eligible voter was excluded. Nobody was turned away from a polling station against his will.
But it didn’t matter. Since no Hispanic had been elected as a trustee of Port Chester, the voting system just had to be altered.
Could such a procedure be heading to your community?
Jim Fitzgerald reported on the Port Chester situation in his AP article entitled Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election, AP, June 15, 2010.
The article begins, in the typical frustrated-novelist-style of contemporary journalism:
"Arthur Furano voted early- five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to boost Hispanic representation. "
What exactly was the problem in Port Chester? Were Hispanic citizens being turned away from the polls? No, there was no accusation of any such thing. It’s just that the results were not considered Politically Correct. None of the village trustees were Hispanic:
"Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won."
The article says half the village residents are Hispanic, but it doesn’t say that half of the electorate is Hispanic, in fact it says that most voters were white. In many Hispanic communities, illegal aliens and legal non-citizens (who aren’t supposed to vote but sometimes do anyway) form a significant proportion of the population. Not only that, but many legal Hispanic citizens don’t turn out to vote.
Whatever the reason, the powers that be didn’t like it. So the Bush-era Department of Justice sued the village in 2006, to compel Port Chester to switch from an at-large system to a district-based system. According to the Bush Department of Justice, "the current at-large system for electing members of the Port Chester Board of Trustees results in Hispanic citizens having less opportunity than white citizens to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice to the Port Chester Board of Trustees."[(United States v. Village of Port Chester 6 Civil 15173) ]
Once again, I remind the reader that Hispanic voters were not being turned away or disqualified. It’s just that the Bush DOJ did not agree with the result of Port Chester’s electoral system.
To its credit, the Port Chester Board of Trustees fought back, disagreeing with the decision, asserting that the problem was not discrimination but Hispanic voter apathy. But it didn’t matter. In 2007 federal Judge Stephen C. Robinson ruled in favor of the Bush Department of Justice (Robinson himself was a Bush appointee.).
Since they knew they were beaten, the village officials, rather than break up Port Chester into electoral districts, opted for the six votes option, which was approved:
"Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates." Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election, AP, June 15th, 2010
The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to make sure that blacks had the right to vote. It has now morphed into a tool of the authoritarian multicultural state. Remember, the problem in Port Chester was not that Hispanics were not allowed to vote. They were allowed to vote. The complaint was that no Hispanics had won an election. That’s another question entirely. In other words, the Voting Rights Act is now regulating not just the process by which voting is carried out but the results of the voting.
As our government deliberately reduces the white majority, can anybody doubt this will get worse?
Returning to Arthur Furano, mentioned at the beginning of the article, it says that he and his wife voted early, and Arthur said "That was very strange. I’m not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, 'one man, one vote.´ " Indeed.
Now, it’s fair to point out that this system, called "cumulative voting", was not invented in Port Chester. It’s used in corporations (admittedly a different situation); it was used to elect representatives to the Illinois House and to school boards in England in the 19th and 20th centuries. It’s used on Australia’s Norfolk Island where voters are forbidden to cast all their votes for the same candidate. In certain situations and entities, it might be a valid system.
But since the 1980s, cumulative voting has been growing in the U.S. for the same reason as it was adopted in Port Chester. According to Wikipedia, "As of November 2009, more than fifty communities in the United States use cumulative voting, all resulting from cases brought under the National Voting Rights Act of 1965."
Candida Sandoval was one of the voters in the Port Chester election (June 15th was the last day to vote):
"On Tuesday, Candida Sandoval voted at the Don Bosco Center, where a soup kitchen and day-laborer hiring center added to the activity, and where federal observers watched the voting from a table in the corner."
Wow, they vote at a "day-laborer hiring center"! Do you suppose any illegal alien day laborers voted? Anyway, here’s what Candida thought about the election and its goals:
"I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don’t know, but I hope so."
Yes, Candida has some great American civic values. We should import more voters like here.
"But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice." That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, ´it won’t be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred.' "
Then there was the language issue. In order to prepare for this election, they had to hold 12 forums (six in English, six in Spanish) to explain it. And of course, the ballot (see here) was bilingual. Here’s a description:
"The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six."
Plus there was plenty of expense in promoting the election:
"Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declared 'Your voice, your vote, your village,' part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language. All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids' backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice."
[See portchestervotes.com, with the Spanish language version here: ¡En Port Chester Votamos!]
Well, after the election, Fitzgerald had a follow-up article: "Vote System that elected NY Hispanic Could Expand", AP, June 18th.
In Fitzgerald’s follow-up piece, he tells us how the Port Chester election turned out, with the leadoff statement that
"The court-ordered election that allowed residents of one New York town to flip the lever six times for one candidate — and produced a Hispanic winner — could expand to other towns where minorities complain their voices aren’t being heard."
And of course, we need to expect a lot more of that, because
"The 2010 Census is expected to show large increases in Latino populations and lawsuits alleging discrimination are likely to increase, said Rob Richie, [Email] executive director of FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group. 'The country’s been changing in a lot of places, with minority growth in exurbs and commuter cities, and there will be a realization that those minorities can’t elect candidates of choice', Richie said. That will leave minority groups, federal prosecutors and municipalities looking for ways to keep elections from violating the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities' constitutional right to equal protection under the law. "
Well, they got the Hispanic trustee they were looking for. It was Luis Marino, a Peruvian immigrant, who finished fourth. Marino said:
"It helped me get elected," said Marino, a Democrat who works in maintenance at the Scarsdale schools. "I will be representing all the people of Port Chester, but I am aware that I can help Hispanics bring their concerns to the board."
Now Port Chester is seen as an example for other jurisdictions:
" 'The way this election was implemented in Port Chester can be an example for other jurisdictions with similar problems,' said Randolph McLaughlin, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in several voters' rights cases, including Port Chester’s. He cautioned, however, that the success was not just due to the unusual election system, but 'was the result of the work that went in before the election.' That work — an extensive voter education program — was the principal subject of exit surveys. The questions, in Spanish and English, weren’t about whom they voted for but about how well they understood the system and what strategy they used in voting. The survey also asked which of Port Chester’s outreach programs — a website, radio and TV commercials, voter forums, handouts — were helpful. Voter education was a requirement of the settlement, but Port Chester officials believe they went beyond their obligation. 'We put so much emphasis on education — we may have spent $100 a voter — because we knew it would be critical to success,' said village spokesman Aldo Vitagliano. 'We also know that the next community can point to Port Chester and say 'That’s how it’s done.' "
But not so fast, says Activist/Lawyer McLaughlin, this still may not be enough:
"Until there’s a separate analysis of the votes, including who did well in Hispanic neighborhoods, it won’t be known for sure if Marino was actually the preferred candidate of Latino voters. 'The election of a Hispanic candidate does not necessarily mean that a Hispanic-supported candidate was chosen,' McLaughlin said. 'But it’s definitely a step forward.' "
So in the name of the Voting Rights Act, the feds force a New York village to adopt a banana republic style voting system in order to achieve a more acceptable result — but it still might not be enough.
Maybe in the future they'll just dispense with elections altogether. A Multicultural Enforcement Board can simply appoint the officials of Port Chester.
And maybe in your city as well!
American citizen Allan Wall recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.