Home

Residents Get Six Votes Each in Suburban New York Election

Posted June 15th, 2010 by Michael Erickson
Presumably because of at large voting in a predominantly white village in New York, no Hispanic ever has been elected to the Board of Trustees there. A federal judge sees this as a violation of the Voting Rights Act and accepts a plan for cumulative voting. The clear expectation is that the Hispanic minority then will focus their six votes a piece behind one, Hispanic candidate, while the whites dissipate theirs among a number of other candidates. "Vote early, vote often" becomes the latest means of enforcing political correctness - the public, and the United States Constitution, be damned.

Here is the article "Residents Get Six Votes Each in Suburban NY Election," written by Jim Fitzgerald for the Associated Press:

PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – 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 help boost Hispanic representation.

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday night.

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.

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. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.

"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, 'one man, one vote.'"

It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.

The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.

Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early. Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.

Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.

"I understand the voting," she said. "But since I have time, I'm going to learn more about the candidates."

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.

"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."

FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.

Campaigning was generally low-key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.

Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.

Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said, "I think this is terrific. It's good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too."

Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.

"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."

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."

The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. 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.

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.

Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.

"It was very different but actually quite simple," he said. "No problem."

A Comment from Michael Erickson

On June 15th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
I am incensed, and more Americans should be. Our Constitutional Republic is based on the premise that ultimate power resides in the people; and since the expansion of voting rights in the Age of Jackson, we have understood that to mean "one man, one vote." It took time, and indeed much civil strife and bloodshed, for that to be applied to women and then non-whites; but it is a testament to our underlying goodness that we achieved those ends. Now, under the guise of the very same Voting Rights Act, which finally allowed for black Americans to vote nationwide, we are seeing the idea of "one man, one vote" perverted to guarantee politically correct outcomes. There is a larger question here: Does ultimate power reside in the person, whether that person be male or female, white or non-white; or does ultimate power reside in a "tribe" of persons, whether self-identified on ethnic grounds, or perhaps on some other basis? If a "tribe" may be defined by a shared ethnic heritage, then why not by a shared socioeconomic background, or even sexual orientation? By this logic, should we not demand as such cumulative voting in areas, where no homosexual ever has been elected to the local government? Each arguably is a way of defining "the people;" but is each similarly conducive to the preservation of our Republic? I would answer that, in fact, only "one man, one vote" may save our Union; the alternative of "tribal" voting (and mandating politically correct outcomes) can only foster in time cultural balkanization and political secession. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamt of a nation in which men are judged by the conduct of their character, not the color of their skin; it is a great and tragic irony that the same Voting Rights Act that he proved so instrumental in achieving now would be used to justify this nightmare.

A Second Comment from Michael Erickson

On June 15th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
As a footnote, our nation has had to contend with this affront to the principle of "one man, one vote" in the past. Indeed, there are several examples that come to mind; but the most egregious is the action of the Southern States in unlawfully seceding from the Union after the election of Abraham Lincoln in the early months of 1861. At the time, the secessionists spoke passionately about defending their unique way of life, which of course included the "peculiar institution" of slavery, but which also had found its expression in a cultural, and to some degree even ethnic, distinction from the Yankees in the Northern States. The dominant among the seceding States was Virginia, which never appreciated losing her near hegemony over national affairs that she had exercised during the generation of the Founding Fathers. There was a tribal feeling among the antebellum Virginians, whose aristocracy in particular considered themselves specially blessed by their racial and ethnic heritage to lead the nation. In their minds, it was bad enough that non-Virginians every now and then reached the White House - but a backwoods, lawyer, Republican from Illinois (who was rumored to be partially black) was beyond the pale. From that perch of cultural egotism, they decided to turn aside the will of the people, who had elected this President, and instead mired the nation into its worst period of bloodshed. We should heed this lesson from history, when we see other "tribes" throwing aside the principles of "one man, one vote" for the egotistical promotion of their own, unique, ethnic or cultural heritage.

A Letter from a Friend to Michael Erickson

On June 15th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
I must be missing something here because the way I see it, judicial intervention was unwarranted based on the facts. As I understand the facts, the following is true: The village has about 30,000 residents, nearly half of whom are Hispanic. Six trustee seats exist, and candidates run at large in the village. That to me means that the Hispanics could always elect at least two and probably three of the trustees if all six seats become vacant at the same time. If they are staggered - the terms of two trustees end every two years - then the Hispanics have enough political muscle to obtain a seat for at least two trustees. Virtually any member of the SCRCC could broker that deal. So what's the problem? The number six may provide the answer - each Hispanic voter was granted six votes because eligible-to-register Hispanics in the village have more important things to do than to register and vote - or maybe the non-Hispanic trustees are doing an O. K. job, in their opinion. I know that the Hispanics would register and vote if a $500 cash stipend could be claimed at the time they cast their ballot - so I conclude that they are neither afraid nor unable to register and vote. Unless there is something more to this picture, the federal judge, it would appear, lacks depth of insight. What is going on there, if anything, that would cause a federal judge to implement this plan? Incidentally, I would feel much better about it if the judge had simply appointed the Hispanic Trustees that he wanted on the Board - it would have been more direct for those who are result, rather than law, oriented. Moreover, it would have reduced the registrar of voters election costs.

A Response from Michael Erickson to the Friend

On June 15th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
I agree with your assessment. As you know, the federal courts have exercised injunctive relief pursuant to the several civil rights laws of the 1960s (as well as previous Constitutional and statutory bases), when there has been a showing of long term, invasive discrimination, the effects of which presumably could not be remedied without the extraordinary exercise of equity jurisdiction. An example is the forced redrawing of electoral district lines. Absent further facts, I see nothing in this case to suggest any long term, invasive discrimination on the part of the town fathers, let alone the local registrar of voters. There is nothing to suggest deliberate or even unintentional misadministration of the voting franchise (i.e. not processing voter registration forms of would be Hispanic voters; not providing poll places in Hispanic neighborhoods; applying different standards for the certification of Hispanic political candidates). There is nothing to suggest that the Hispanic populace is not receiving adequate representation from the current or former members of the Board of Trustees (i.e. chronically not returning their calls; refusing to allow Hispanics to voice concerns during public hearings; consistently approving and then enforcing policies, which may be only to the benefit of whites but not to non-whites). Frankly, there is nothing to suggest a cause of action, let alone the extraordinary measure of an injunctive relief that has the effective of mandating Hispanics be on the Board of Trustees. Furthermore, when the federal courts exercised civil rights related injunctive relief in the past, they usually did so in such a way as to set forth a more level playing field among the races. Sometimes, in my opinion, they crossed the line, by effectuating measures that essentially guaranteed certain outcomes (rather than just "leveling the playing field"). The aforementioned example of forced gerrymandering applies here: by redrawing district lines to create majority non-white districts, when those new district lines clearly had no geographical basis to them, the courts essentially mandated the election of non-white politicians. Still, at least then, there remained the principle of "one man, one vote," in that the citizens living in these artificially constructed districts were granted only one vote for the candidate of their choice. Given how, in many cases, these same citizens formerly had been denied their right to "one man, one vote," or had been the victim of gerrymandering in the other direction, this relief at least had some merit, even if, in my opinion, the act of essentially guaranteeing outcomes crossed the line. In the case here, the federal judge is throwing aside even the pretense of "one man, one vote." He is saying that "one man, one vote" is no longer an underlying principle for our Constitutional Republic, especially if it gets in the way of what he evidently sees as the social good of having racially diverse boards. My fear is the proverbial Pandora's Box. The Left has shown already an utter contempt for the electoral process (i.e. trying to invalidate the right of the citizens of the State of California even to vote on how marriage will be defined in its laws, let alone seeking to invalidate the law itself once passed). What would stop them from having one of their fellow Leftists within the federal judiciary demand cumulative voting, if and when one of their favored "victim classes" consistently fails to win at the polls? A growing number of people already doubt that their vote counts for much of anything; but if and when it becomes apparent that the whole process has been rigged by unelected judges, at the behest of what the Federalist Papers decry as "factions," then the electoral process as we know it will fall apart altogether. Most people will give in to apathy; like Winston at the conclusion of "Nineteen Eighty-Four," they will toast to Big Brother and be happy that he is caring for them in their misery. A few will bring their violent rage to the streets, which will make the modern day "tea parties" look like child's play in comparison. Only tyrants will benefit from this breakdown in trust, which perhaps is the unspoken hope of the protagonists in this daunting assault on one of the keystones of our republican culture and rule of law.

A Second Letter from the Friend to Michael Erickson

On June 16th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
I agree with your analysis - a factual basis justifying this extreme judicial measure appears not to exist. Hence, we are living in the realm of ideas rather than reality; ideas and concepts are prioritized over reality. This does not promote stability, confidence and progress.

A Response from Michael Erickson to the Friend

On June 16th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
You express the heart of the matter, when you proclaim that "we are living in the realm of ideas rather than reality." Indeed, that is another way of saying that we are living in a gnostic culture, where the abstracted "vision" of the good and just society trumps real historical experience, the rule of law, and even common sense. It is the first sin of man, that he be able to act and to know as the Creator, not by any gift of divine grace from without, but in virtue of his own, innate "divinity" (the "secret knowledge" or gnosis of classical gnosticism). When a gnostic so divines, he believes that he has a moral and intellectual impunity to violate any tradition, or legal precedent, or even clear, statutory language, if and when they pose an obstacle to attaining that "vision." This hubris is as old as the condition of man. It is subdued, if not forced underground altogether, when a religious or civic society maintains its firm foundations in piety before the Creator God; when that piety loosens (often as a result of the luxury of great wealth or power over a protracted period of time), that ugly hubris reappears in its many vanities. It is no surprise then that the height of Christendom - at least in the West - would be simultaneous with the economic scarcity, political chaos, and near military collapse of the dark ages, when the Muslim horde erected a blockade around the vulnerable Christians residing in Gaul, Spain, and Italy; it is equally no real surprise that Christendom begins to fade, as Western kingdoms find economic stability and worldwide, political prominence, after the demise of Napoleon inaugurates a century of colonial conquests. The Europeans expressed this colonial governance of much of the world under the guise of "the white man's burden." They cherished the extent to which they brought "progress" and "Bible based civilization" to their "little, brown brethren" (phrase used by President McKinley in justifying the Spanish-American War at the end of the nineteenth century). Note the hubris in these phrases: the West is at love with its own success and views itself as the vanguard of creating the "perfect world." That self-acclaim would fall asunder in the ravages of the First World War; but that gnostic conceit, that man himself could compel the arrival of the New Jerusalem, would bring us the fascism and communism of the twentieth century. In spite of the defeat of these wretched expressions of gnosticism, we see still its underlying seduction: in the hubris of a judge ignoring "one man, one vote" for the sake of his own "vision" of what is good and just; in the cavalier, public be damned attitude of our recent Presidents and Congresses, especially with respect to the restraints imposed by our own United States Constitution; in the discrediting of our traditions, in place of a new, politically correct "education" of our youth; in the utter silencing of the faithful in the public square, by peer pressure, mob coercion, or even the abusive exercise of the law. So much of what we face today, in one political, religious, or cultural crisis after another, is the result of our culture of hubristic self-acclaim. If we refuse to recognize that we are not God, and as Lincoln noted that the judgments of God are wholly righteous, then we cannot but know tyranny; if, on the other hand, we know ourselves to be free only when we are pious, then we may be again free men.