Federal Court Rules Port Chester, NY System of Election Discriminates Against Hispanic Voters

PR Newswire ^ | jan 22 2008 | US Department of Justice

[Feldkurat_Katz]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A federal judge has ruled that the at-large system of election used by the Village of Port Chester, N.Y, to elect its trustees violates the Voting Rights Act because it discriminates against Hispanics(...)

(...)

According to the evidence at trial, and as cited in Judge Robinson's opinion, the 2000 census shows that almost half of Port Chester's residents, and 22 percent of Port Chester's citizens of voting age, were Hispanic. By July 2006, the number of Hispanic citizens of voting age had increased to about 28 percent. Despite these figures, no Hispanic has ever been elected to Port Chester's municipal legislature, the six-member Board of Trustees. Indeed, no Hispanic has ever been elected to any public office in Port Chester, despite the fact that Hispanic candidates have run for office six times -- twice for the Board of Trustees, and four times for the Port Chester Board of Education, which manages a school system that is overwhelmingly Hispanic.

In ruling for the United States, the court also found that:

-- A six-district plan could be drawn for Port Chester in which Hispanics would constitute a majority of the citizen voting age population in at least one district;

-- Hispanics in Port Chester voted cohesively for their candidates of choice and that these candidates of choice were routinely defeated;

-- Voting in Port Chester is polarized by ethnicity;

-- Hispanics in Port Chester suffered from the lingering effects of discrimination that negatively affected their ability to participate in the political process; and

-- Racial appeals -- in particular an anti-Hispanic flyer in the 2007 mayoral race -- had marred recent political campaigns.

(...)

[Feldkurat_Katz]

Two points:

1. Common sense is dead: the reason Hispanics do not get elected may be that illegal aliens are not eligible to vote. By the way, Port Chester is an armpit.

2. This disgraceful press release was not written by Democrats. It was issued by the US Department of Justice, headed by a Republican.

[domenad]

I don’t understand this ruling. A court cannot dictate how an election or seat should be held, only that the process cannot discriminate. Given that Hispanics have the same opportunity to vote as everyone else, how can this ruling stand?

[doc30]

Very simple. All of the seats for the board of education and for the trustees are at large, not district based. A district based system would permit candidates from different parts of the municipality representation, rather than a slew of people from the region as a whole and who may not have the best interests of individual neighborhoods in their hearts. The current system completely denies the minority voters (minority in the sense of numbers, not race) any voice at all. They are completely ignored and have no political pull. A distric system would compensate.

The real point concerns the role of the courts. Based on the opinion, it does sound like a system designed to squelch a certain segment of the population.

[BigBobber]

Wow, you actually agree with this ruling? So U.S congressional districts should also be redrawn along racial lines?

[longtermmemmory]

so now the court is mandating formal quotas to elected officials.

[toddlintown]

You hear this sort of crap in Chicago, the strengh of the Hispanic voting bloc. The problem is, however, while the census might count 11,000 in a ward filled with Mexicans, only 2,000 or so can legally vote.

[Feldkurat_Katz]

Some parts of the press release have nothing to do with the law:

-- Hispanics in Port Chester voted cohesively for their candidates of choice and that these candidates of choice were routinely defeated;

The point being? Is there a law which says "candidates of choice" cannot be defeated?

-- Voting in Port Chester is polarized by ethnicity;

The point being? Is it illegal to vote along ethnic lines? Aren't Hispanics voting for "candidates of choice"?

-- Racial appeals -- in particular an anti-Hispanic flyer in the 2007 mayoral race -- had marred recent political campaigns.

Minority candidates make racial appeals frequently, there is nothing illegal about it. Have the authors of this press release read the First Amendment?

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Wow, you actually agree with this ruling? So U.S congressional districts should also be redrawn along racial lines?”

---

That’s not what he’s saying at all. But if, say, Maryland decided that all 8 of its U.S. Representatives would be elected at-large, the 70%-white statewide electorate would elect 8 white Democrats. Such a system would not allow the black majority of voters in Baltimore and in Prince George’s County from electing the candidate of their choice, which would violate not only the Voting Rights Act but also arguably the 14th and 15th Amendments (in addition, it would violate the principle of one-man, one-vote, since a 55% Democrat majority would cast 8 votes for Democrats, leaving the 45% Republican minority with no chance to elect a representative). Similarly, assuming that Hispanics in that town in NY are concentrated in a particular area, the decision to elect councilmen at-large instead of by district had the obvious effect of denying Hispanic voters the ability to elect one of more councilmen.

[BigBobber]

What’s wrong with “at large” elections? The Dems are proposing we have “at large” (i.e. popular vote) nationwide for the president, so they are obviously not opposed to the principle.

Segmenting voting populations by race is wrong, wrong, wrong and this is a horrible decision.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Imagine if instead of the 50 states electing Senators we had one national vote in which everyone gets to vote for 100 Senators: that’s what at-large elections are. The presidency is a single-member office, so whether he is elected by an electoral college (as I support on federalism grounds) or by a national election it would not be similar to the at-large election of a multi-member counsel.

[BigBobber]

Sorry, I don't think that argument is going anywhere. Each state has two senators, so should we have racial districts that vote only for their senator?

What is abhorent about this decision is the conclusion that white officials can only represent white people and Hispanic officials are needed to represent Hispanics. This is offensive and un-American. The judge should be ashamed.

[Stingray51]

Hispanics in Port Chester voted cohesively for their candidates of choice

How does the court know this? I thought we had a secret ballot in this country. Oh, so the court must be relying on polls....

[AuH2ORepublican]

“What is abhorent about this decision is the conclusion that white officials can only represent white people and Hispanic officials are needed to represent Hispanics. This is offensive and un-American.”

---

Well, while it is certainly offensive and un-American to say that only members of a certain ethnicity may represent people of such ethnicity, that’s not what the judge is saying. The ruling is that an election scheme in which a discrete population living in a particular part of the city (such as Hispanics) are denied the opportunity to elect the councilman of their choice violates the political rights of such group. It would be the same if all 6 members of the Baltimore City Council were the candidates favored by blacks because they held a citywide vote where everyone gets to vote for 6 candidates (and thus the black majority can elect 6 members) and white voters that form the overwhelming majority in North Baltimore cannot elect a single councilman of their choice. If Baltimore was divided into 6 districts, white voters would be able to elect the candidate of their choice in 2 of them, and if people voted citywide but with some sort of proportional representation (say, with each person casting a single vote), white voters would still be able to elect 2 of the 6 councilmen; the only electoral scheme in which a simple majority of voters can elect 100% of council members would be one in which each person votes for 6 members. Well, that Baltimore hypothetical is exactly what (according to the court’s findings) occurs in Port Chester, New York, only with the Hispanic population.