Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Outgoing congresswoman hints at challenging Georgia voting laws
www.macon.com ^ | 9/7/2006 | BEN EVANS

Posted on 09/08/2006 10:05:06 PM PDT by TWohlford

Outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney hinted Thursday that she or her supporters might try again to challenge the legality of state voting laws that allowed Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary where she lost her House seat last month.

McKinney, the first black woman elected to Congress from Georgia, said "malicious crossover" voting by Republicans disenfranchised black voters in her district from picking their candidate of choice, despite the fact that the winner of the primary is also black.

She said the state's primary system violates the Voting Rights Act, which was first passed in 1965 to protect minority voters.

"In the state of Georgia, we have some unfinished business with respect to the Voting Rights Act," McKinney said after a panel session on U.S. intelligence programs she hosted at the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus. "We have got to do subsequent lawsuits to deal with these statutes."

McKinney's supporters made similar arguments in a 2002 lawsuit after McKinney lost her seat to Denise Majette. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the suit, and the decision was upheld by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

McKinney, who won the seat back in 2004 after Majette gave it up to run for Senate, would not say Thursday whether she is planning another lawsuit. She said the question might be better posed to her constituents and that she is not ready to announce a next step.

Unlike some other states, Georgia allows voters to pick which primary they want to vote in, regardless of their party status.

"What happened to me ... is that an incredible number of Republicans decided they would pick up Democratic ballots," she said. "I guess you could say I'm the poster child for Republican crossover."

McKinney, a firebrand known for her confrontational style and a scuffle with a Capitol Hill police officer earlier this year, was forced into a runoff in the July Democratic primary by challenger Hank Johnson, an attorney and former DeKalb County commissioner. Johnson, who also is black, went on to defeat McKinney 59 percent to 41 percent in the Democratic runoff.

Voting results show that Johnson fared well in heavily Democratic areas of the district that had been McKinney's base of support, such as south DeKalb County, where Johnson won 57 percent of the vote in the primary runoff.

McKinney, who declined to discuss her political future, also charged that the state's system for runoff elections, in which winners must take more than half the vote to avoid a runoff, violates the law.

Shortly after the election, McKinney blamed her loss on the media and on electronic voting machines, which she says are a threat to the nation's democracy.

She hosted a forum on alleged civil rights abuses by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, comparing them to well-documented efforts to silence black activists in the 1960s. Panelists blasted the Bush administration for creating what they said was a police state in which fundamental constitutional rights are consistently violated.

"We know where the wickedness is in Washington, D.C. It's at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," McKinney said.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; electionscongress; georgia; goawayplease; mckinney; racistidiot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to Capital Hill....
1 posted on 09/08/2006 10:05:08 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

The balls on that woman.


2 posted on 09/08/2006 10:06:51 PM PDT by RippyO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

What a certifiable wacko.


3 posted on 09/08/2006 10:07:57 PM PDT by Calvin Coollidge (The last really great president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

"Unlike some other states, Georgia allows voters to pick which primary they want to vote in, regardless of their party status."


I am against allowing crossover voting though.


4 posted on 09/08/2006 10:08:30 PM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
Her fellow democrats who are courting the Republican vote may not agree with her.
5 posted on 09/08/2006 10:10:40 PM PDT by msnimje (What part of-- "DEATH TO AMERICA" --do the Democrats not understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
Terrible shame that she lost. If Republicans had indeed "crossed over" to vote in her primary, they would surely have voted for her. McKinney is the gift that keeps on giving - - the perfect "face of the Democrat party".


6 posted on 09/08/2006 10:11:25 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
"What happened to me ... is that an incredible number of Republicans decided they would pick up Democratic ballots," she said. "I guess you could say I'm the poster child for Republican crossover."

Last time she lost, it was because of the Joooooooos.

7 posted on 09/08/2006 10:13:37 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC (AIDS, abortion, euthanasia - Don't liberals just kill ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Tay! Idn't dat Buckwheat's tister?


8 posted on 09/08/2006 10:13:54 PM PDT by 43north (7 of 11 living things are insects. This explains liberals and islamofascists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford; writer33; potlatch; ntnychik; Smartass; Boazo; Alamo-Girl; PhilDragoo; ...

I thought this HAD to be a spoof....I kept looking to see if Chris Davis had written it....


"said "malicious crossover" voting by Republicans disenfranchised black voters in her district from picking their candidate of choice, despite the fact that the winner of the primary is also black."


9 posted on 09/08/2006 10:14:17 PM PDT by bitt ("And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 308MBR

You were saying? :-)


10 posted on 09/08/2006 10:15:14 PM PDT by Howlin (Who in the press will stick up for ABC's right to air this miniseries? ~~NRO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Coollidge

Did she ever get the money from that Saudi prince after Guliani rejected it?


11 posted on 09/08/2006 10:17:21 PM PDT by sandra_789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

We should all be honest...if there were better ways then we'd easily agree to them. But the entire system is build on democracy and rules. Let us assume that in 2008...with Hillary running in the primary season against one or two fair challengers...90 percent of Republicans might just decide to cross over and give her challenger a vote...and toss her entire campaign into a high-spend situation. Do we care who runs from the Republicans or is the idea simply to take down Hillary at all cost? Thats the situation in front of us. I don't readily see how you limit a guy to one primary group...unless you said he had to be registered a year ahead of time to one party. But then you'd go back to the national ID card and terminate people voting in different states (which they do now anyway).


12 posted on 09/08/2006 10:18:31 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

"the perfect "face of the Democrat party"."

Yeah, ever since Barbara-Rose Collins was dumped in her Michigan primary in 1988, I've been looking for someone to fill those shoes. McKinney was the ideal person.

Sheila Jackson Lee was a good candidate for a while, but it appears as though she has a good hair stylist, doesn't abuse her staff, stays away from the Ethics Committee, and even works with the GOP from time to time.


13 posted on 09/08/2006 10:19:01 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bitt; devolve

14 posted on 09/08/2006 10:20:42 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

That picture needs an hedgehog sticking its head out of her hair and saying, "Dinsdale!"


15 posted on 09/08/2006 10:24:09 PM PDT by Disambiguator (Don't mess with Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RippyO
The balls on that woman.

Yeah, they fit the holes in her head.

16 posted on 09/08/2006 10:24:10 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

LOL


17 posted on 09/08/2006 10:25:27 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

She wont discuss her political future,BUTT I WILL! She wont have one.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


18 posted on 09/08/2006 10:26:49 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

Yup, I love it


19 posted on 09/08/2006 10:29:24 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: imahawk

Not everybody has dragons in their hair!


20 posted on 09/08/2006 10:30:46 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

What a babe? Is she married?


21 posted on 09/08/2006 10:31:18 PM PDT by no dems ("25 homicides a day committed by Illegals" Ted Poe (R-TX) Houston Hearings 8/16/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

Let's talk about this primary cross-over problem....

If you restrict a primary to just your people (Dems, GOP, greens, etc) then don't you have to ask for an ID when they vote? I thought that IDs for voting were racist or something.

And, how would you determine who is part of the club? Who puts together the list? Do you have to publically declare your party when you register? Would the GOP people be able to exclude the RINOs, or the Dems exclude Lieberman moderates?

Enquiring minds, etc


22 posted on 09/08/2006 10:33:40 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I am against the primary system in general. It gives way to much power to the parties.


23 posted on 09/08/2006 10:34:39 PM PDT by gafusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

We have this situation in California.

The primary is only for the party, it has nothing to do with rights or freedom.

The parties should be able to choose their own candidates, they should not be open to the opposition party choosing their candidate for them.

In effect a opposition party queering the other sides primary has negated the actual official governmental election.

In Florida for instance the Nelson democrats could literally have chosen his Republican challenger, they could have even had a sympathizer run in the Republican primary and chosen him.

(Please no remarks about the Florida primary)


24 posted on 09/08/2006 10:37:47 PM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

I'm sorry to see her go. The more raving lunatics on the Democratic side of the aisle the better. Makes our jobs easier come November. I'd hate to see the moonbats be replaced by rational people.


25 posted on 09/08/2006 10:37:54 PM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

"
McKinney, the first black woman elected to Congress from Georgia, said "malicious crossover" voting by Republicans disenfranchised black voters in her district from picking their candidate of choice, despite the fact that the winner of the primary is also black.

"

I'm sure the difference in the 57-43 election was crossover voters!!!!!


26 posted on 09/08/2006 10:39:16 PM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gafusa

"I am against the primary system in general. It gives way to much power to the parties."


I can't imagine how not letting each party choose their own candidates would be an improvement.



27 posted on 09/08/2006 10:40:38 PM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Each party still gets to choose their candidates, they can endorse anybody, but it would not be government sanctioned. Instead their would be a general election with all eligible candidates regardless of party, possibly a run off after it. Much more fair and in keeping with the founder's principles.
28 posted on 09/08/2006 10:49:29 PM PDT by gafusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gafusa

I don't think Ronald Reagan would have made that cut.

I do believe that John McCain would win.


29 posted on 09/08/2006 10:53:59 PM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
She is having her Al Gore Moment.Her won,but I lost,and I will miss the perks and moolah thing.She is still in shock,but hopefully with the best treatment taxpayers can provide,she can recover.We can only hope.Nutcase comes to mind.I doubt her replacement is going to be much of an improvement.
30 posted on 09/08/2006 11:03:48 PM PDT by xarmydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

31 posted on 09/08/2006 11:05:56 PM PDT by Disambiguator (Don't mess with Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I am against allowing crossover voting though.

I'm registered as an independent. I join whichever party I need to to vote in a primary to best affect the outcomes I want, then change back later. So, unless you try to Permanently lock citizens into one party you mostly just create the more paperwork that I and other crossover voters are still willing to go through.

Why? Because here in the south, until the last decade there were often Democratic candidates more conservative than anything the republicans were running. Or we want to get rid of representatives like Cynthia McKinney, or the late unlamented Mike Synar.

32 posted on 09/08/2006 11:07:42 PM PDT by MrEdd (The easiest way to LIE with statistics is to use the average instead of the Median.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

I picture a couple of students sitting around a computer in the year 2110 studying history laughing about her.


33 posted on 09/08/2006 11:11:14 PM PDT by BigCinBigD (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
an incredible number of Republicans decided they would pick up Democratic ballots," she said.

Just an incredible amount of patriotic American voters decided to pick up the trash and throw it out. Bye Bye.

34 posted on 09/08/2006 11:13:12 PM PDT by tflabo (Take authority that's ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

LOL, you found a hedgehog!!


35 posted on 09/08/2006 11:14:44 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

"I'm registered as an independent. I join whichever party I need to to vote in a primary to best affect the outcomes I want, then change back later."

I like the result you are going for, because we are both conservatives (I'm independent too), but I think the government should stay out of all political parties internal processes to prevent the very thing that you are doing.


36 posted on 09/08/2006 11:16:13 PM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
The parties should be able to choose their own candidates, they should not be open to the opposition party choosing their candidate for them.

A few decades ago, the Democratic party in Southern states was whites-only, claiming that as a private organization it was free to discriminate. Because the Republicans weren't competitive in those days, and the Democratic primary effectively decided the general election, that helped to ensure that if any blacks managed to register and vote, their votes wouldn't mean much.

I don't see how letting party bosses who weren't elected or even appointed by elected officials tell the voters which candidates they may choose from would benefit democracy. The hypothetical abuses of open primaries pale in comparison to the actual abuses that occurred in closed primaries; crossover voting might swing a close race, as happened to McKinney in 2002 (I don't think it was that close this time out), but I don't know of any instances of wholesale hijacking of one party's primary by the other.

In your hypothetical, if the Democrats were so dominant that they could swing the Republican primary their way, then wouldn't they be dominant enough that it wouldn't matter who the Republican nominee is?

37 posted on 09/08/2006 11:48:01 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

That's fine because it would keep Democrats from doing the same thing, which they did in the 2000 and 2004 elections.


38 posted on 09/08/2006 11:57:43 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
She is having her Al Gore Moment.Her won,but I lost,and I will miss the perks and moolah thing.She is still in shock,but hopefully with the best treatment taxpayers can provide,she can recover.We can only hope.Nutcase comes to mind.I doubt her replacement is going to be much of an improvement.
39 posted on 09/08/2006 11:58:59 PM PDT by xarmydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
She is having her Al Gore Moment.Her won,but I lost,and I will miss the perks and moolah thing.She is still in shock,but hopefully with the best treatment taxpayers can provide,she can recover.We can only hope.Nutcase comes to mind.I doubt her replacement is going to be much of an improvement.
40 posted on 09/08/2006 11:59:00 PM PDT by xarmydog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

" I don't see how letting party bosses who weren't elected or even appointed by elected officials tell the voters which candidates they may choose from would benefit democracy."


It is changing that system that will end democracy.

Party bosses are called party bosses because they run a political party whether it is Libertarians, or Greens or the Constitution party or the Republicans, or the Black Lesbian party.

Let the people form parties then choose a candidate within that party to represent it in the general election, then the public at large makes their chose from those candidates.

To now give the government power over how the people choose their party's candidates can do more harm than good.


41 posted on 09/09/2006 12:00:56 AM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

I think the vote results show that the Republicans were more likely to favor McKinney. She was very useful in Washington.


42 posted on 09/09/2006 12:08:02 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
I think the vote results show that the Republicans were more likely to favor McKinney. She was very useful in Washington.

I doubt it. She was "useful" to Republicans on the national level, but less so to the folks of any party who happened to live in the 4th district -- and they were the only ones eligible to vote in the race.

43 posted on 09/09/2006 12:14:23 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

"I am against allowing crossover voting though."

Is that any relation to cross dresser voting. Is this some South Beach idea?

Or is this a Democratic standby, an old (no pun intended) reliable - the graveyard vote, where those who have "crossed over" vote Democratic?


44 posted on 09/09/2006 1:07:30 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
Of course its alright if Democrats cross over to vote in the Republican Party primary but its unforgivable if Republicans cross over to vote in the Democratic Party primary. Jihad Cindy still seems to think its all about HER. The voters of her district disagreed when they gave her the boot.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

45 posted on 09/09/2006 1:10:02 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

"the graveyard vote, where those who have "crossed over" vote Democratic?"


I like that.


46 posted on 09/09/2006 1:11:02 AM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Frankly, I can't believe that you've written what you have and posted it to FR! LOL

First of all, the USA is NOT a "democracy"; it is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Secondly, many states ( the majority, IIRC ), do NOT allow crossover voting in primary elections.

Thirdly, what's with that junk about "PARTY BOSSES"? The FF's ORIGINAL intent was for the PARTY BOSSES to select ALL of the Senators and that procedure wasn't changed for about 100 years.

You haven't an iota of an idea WHAT a "party boss" is.

Nor, obviously, do you understand how our election system works. So, here's a wee clue........there are two major political parties in this nation. There are something close to 100 fringe parties. Because we don't have a parliamentary system, no matter WHAT it is you appear to "think", the winner of any major, national political race will ALWAYS be from one of the two major parties.

Primaries ARE the time when people actually get to vote in WHO the candidate for their party, as long as it's one of the two major ones, is going to be. But in some races, there may NOT be a primary, because nobody is willing to run against an incumbent or a big name.

Fringe party candidates have ALWAYS ( with one and ONLY one national exception and that because most of the defeated party had run off and formed a new one ) been what is know as "spoilers".

I do suggest that you do some reading up on American history and voting.......you need to; badly.

47 posted on 09/09/2006 1:33:13 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

1. First of all, the USA is NOT a "democracy"; it is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

ans. we knew that

2. Secondly, many states ( the majority, IIRC ), do NOT allow crossover voting in primary elections.

ans. we knew that

3. Thirdly, what's with that junk about "PARTY BOSSES"? The FF's ORIGINAL intent was for the PARTY BOSSES to select ALL of the Senators and that procedure wasn't changed for about 100 years.

ans. that has nothing to do with our conversation about todays "party bosses"

and then the nonsense continues.





My question is why do these ramblings out of the blue always sound so angry and mean?

Why not just join in the conversation with a couple of fellow freepers?


48 posted on 09/09/2006 1:45:55 AM PDT by ansel12 (Life is exquisite... of great beauty, keenly felt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You're the one who said that any change would "ruin our democracy"; or words to that effect.

I responded to your post. I suggest that you go read it, because you have now contradicted yourself completely, in this reply to me.

Would smiley faces help? Are you THAT thin skinned, that any refutation or engagement is seen, by you, as "angry" and "mean"?

Your posts are full of nonsense. My reply to you was historically correct and factual. :-)

49 posted on 09/09/2006 1:52:28 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

"I am against allowing crossover voting though."

I am too, what's the point of a primary then? And why is that up to the state, and not the parties? If you want to do that do what Louisianna does and just have open "jungle" elections.

Guess we'll have to file this under: stopped clock right twice every day.


50 posted on 09/09/2006 2:23:23 AM PDT by jocon307 (The Silent Majority - silent no longer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson