Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA) Statement on New York Court Decision Giving Latinos Six Votes in Election

 

Phoenix, AZ – ALRA Chairman, Jesse Hernandez, commented on the recent federal court decision of the State of New York. “On behalf of ALRA, we are appalled at the gigantic step backwards a New York federal court and the New York suburb of Port Chester have taken in regards to race relations and voting rights. They have chosen to give Latino residents six votes instead of one in an election for village trustees. As a nation, we have made great strides from the days when blacks were only considered 3/5 of a person. That unfair treatment was rightly reversed by the 14th and 15th Amendments. It is equally wrong now to give one race or ethnicity additional votes, regardless of the motive. It has the same effect; unfairly reducing the vote of those who are not Latino.

The United States is no longer the land of Jim Crowe. It is unlikely the reason there aren’t any Latinos on the village council is due to racism. It is more likely there aren’t any because none chose to run for office. Almost half of the village population is Latino, but many are too young to vote or are there illegally and therefore disenabling to participate in a legal voting process. If people are concerned there are not enough Latinos as village trustees, they should recruit Latinos using their private resources, not the heavy hand of government.

Even so, we would hope that people would select their leaders based on whether they are the best candidate for the office, not the color of their skin. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said in his ‘I Have a Dream Speech’, that he had a dream that his four little children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Today the extra votes may superficially seem to benefit us as Latinos, but tomorrow a ruling on another issue could easily cut against us. The right to vote is one of our most cherished rights. To have it diluted and restricted for some is an affront to the equal opportunities our nation provides. This is a slippery slope we do not want to go down. We strongly denounce this court decision and its negative effect on the foundation of our political system.”

CONTACT: Arizona Latino Republican Association Jesse Hernandez, Chairman mexgop (602) 549-9296 www.latinogop.org


Comments

  1. Get out any US history book and you’ll see the 3/5ths issue had nothing to do with slaves voting. Slaves could not vote, period. Neither could a lot of people, even citizens, unless they owned a certain amount of land. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of counting the population that a state was entitled to have representation for in Congress. Slave states wanted slaves counted as a person, but the North didn’t want to count them at all. And people think the Southerners were bigoted! So 3/5ths was the compromise needed to get enough support for the Constitution.

    Today we do a similar thing when we count up the number of Democrats and Republicans living in an area and then draw the district boundary to try to make them “even.” We do it based on race as well. Toss in reviewing poverty level and pretty soon no one’s vote is equal.

  2. So, how come a first-generation Hispanic gets more voting preferences than a 50-generation Apache gets?

    Or did New York not think of that and will scramble to come up with a “multiple” that they believe this week is “fair?” Then next week have to come up with a “fair multiple” for Navahos who won’t vote for an Apache if they have a Navajo candidate, even though they are naively lumped together as “Native.” Then New York will be picketed by Arabs who need to be better represented, so in a month another “fair” “multiple” for voting will be necessary.

    And since “Hispanic” is a linguistic distinction, does anyone in New York have any credible educational foundation at all?

    This is chaos. The race-obsessed Democrats as a political party seem to have gone from pro-slavery to anti-Civil Rights, to quotas, to now quota voting.

    The only common thread here is the Democrats cheating SOMEONE out of their one man, one vote basic rights.

  3. I must rephrase that – “The only common thread here seems to be the Democratic Party cheating A RACIAL PROFILED GROUP of their one man, one vote rights.

  4. I would like to make clear that “one man, one vote” is a feel-good myth that is not supported by history, or the current reality in the method of election to, and representation in, the US Senate.

  5. Purple Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 4:32 pm
    I would like to make clear that “one man, one vote” is a feel-good myth that is not supported by history,
    ………..

    No justice no peace. This is one of the most unjust and racist disenfranchisements ever concocted by Liberal Left Lizards, ever, and that’s even before invoking the fact it’s blatently un-Constitutional.
    The Democrats’ fight to preserve slavery gave us Civil War, guess they dont’ care what horrors they bring on ALL our heads again. The’ve already turned the once beautiful Gulf of Mexico into a tar pit, gonna be the political party responsible for the extinction of sea creatures big and small, and now are working every angle to destroy our society.

  6. I like Jesse Hernandez. I also think cumulative voting sucks. But I have to say that Jesse Hernandez appears to be completely confused about cumulative voting.

    Cumulative voting doesn’t give anyone any more votes than anyone else. It doesn’t give voters of any ethnic or racial group more votes than other voters. It gives everyone the same exact number of votes but lets them give more than one of those votes to an individual candidate in a race where more than one seat is up for election.

    For example, if there are six seats up for an at large city council election under cumulative voting, each voter gets six votes. It doesn’t matter what race they are or anything else. Every single voter gets six votes. They can give six candidates one vote each, one individual candidate six votes, three votes to one candidate and three to another, etc.

    The real problem with cumulative voting is that it tends to help very organized special interest groups (like labor unions) have disproportionate power especially in low turnout elections.

    The only way to stop cumulative voting is to accurately criticize it. If you run around saying it gives more votes to Hispanics when it doesn’t, you are going to lose the argument and we’ll get stuck with it or even worse electoral systems.

  7. ……………………
    VSB Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 9:01 pm
    The real problem with cumulative voting is that it tends to help very organized special interest groups (like labor unions) have disproportionate power especially in low turnout elections.

    The only way to stop cumulative voting is to accurately criticize it. If you run around saying it gives more votes to Hispanics when it doesn’t,

    ……………..

    You just confirmed the two big problems with it. It empowers special interest groups, like unions which seem to be overpowered right now landing mobs on people’s doorsteps, beating up citizens and blocking constituents from town hall meetings, using union mandatory dues to fund political candidates the union rank and file wouldn’t vote for… and on and on.
    This particular ruling specifically named “Hispanics” as the “special” special interest group. By the logic, I’m outvoted all the time around here, how come I don’t get to bundle my ballot votes, too? But I’m not “special” enough. Hispanics are not the only group out there that doesn’t have the local votes, but no one else gets this favoritism.
    AMerican-Americans never got this and they’ve been here for generations. SO, it’s disingenuous to ignore which group got more rights than any other group in the entire USA.

    This is recipe for social chaos. It’s very dangerous. People will cooperate even if they understand life isn’t always fair, as long as they feel the unfairness is equally spread around, that is everyone is pretty much in the same boat so it evens out, but THIS is blatent inequality.

  8. The press release is so laughable. The ruling did not give Latino residents more votes than anyone else. The reason there were six votes is because there were six trustee positions being voted on. Everyone got six votes and the top six candidates won.

    wanumba, get a grip. There is nothing preferential or unequal in voting this way.

  9. Todd,
    are you permitted to bundle your ballot votes to one candidate?

  10. The new gimmick allowed a candidate to win who otherwise would not have been elected.

    This is codifiying racial voting. A viable candidate of any “race” or ethnicity appeals to lots of diverse people, getting support from a wide portion of the population. This twisting allows a candidate to win who has a very narrow appeal – a special interest appeal only – a “one issue” candidate, who would normally lose. This is nonsense – rather it undermines the tradtional need for voter consensus on candidates – handicapping those who have a broad appeal in favor of those with a narrow appeal.
    THis could have been argued in favor of American-AMericans, the minority by which all other minorities compare themselves, but nope, it’s surfaced this year of all years to favor specifically, Hispanics. The Democratic Party is obviously desparate for their votes as they are losing maintream AMerican voters in droves due to their strange, unequal, punitive taxing and incompetent governing.

  11. “This particular ruling specifically named “Hispanics” as the “special” special interest group. By the logic, I’m outvoted all the time around here, how come I don’t get to bundle my ballot votes, too? But I’m not “special” enough. Hispanics are not the only group out there that doesn’t have the local votes, but no one else gets this favoritism.
    AMerican-Americans never got this and they’ve been here for generations. SO, it’s disingenuous to ignore which group got more rights than any other group in the entire USA.”

    Wanumba do yourself a favor and Google “Loni Guinier”. This isn’t about just Hispanics. The left has wanted this for a long time.

  12. “Wanumba do yourself a favor and Google “Loni Guinier”.”

    Whoops..it’s “Lani” not “Loni”… Anyway, look it up. This is just the beginning…

  13. Wanumba
    No I don’t, but all the residents of Port Chester did. This type of voting is used in many communities and has been for a long time. There is nothing undemocratic about it..

    Oh and by the way, this all stems from a 2006 Civil Rights ruling.

  14. VSB Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 10:55 pm
    “Wanumba do yourself a favor and Google “Loni Guinier”.”

    Whoops..it’s “Lani” not “Loni”… Anyway, look it up. This is just the beginning…
    ………..

    No problem, I’m old enough to be able to recognize her name. You are exactly right, the Left has wanted to do this for a long time, but in peculiar timing, Hispanics landed it first.

  15. todd Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 11:05 pm
    Wanumba
    There is nothing undemocratic about it..

    Oh and by the way, this all stems from a 2006 Civil Rights ruling.
    ………………….

    It’s very “undemocratic” and we live in a republic, not a democracy.

    And so what if it stems from a 2006 Civil Rights ruling. Did the anti-common-sense, anti-human rights Dredd Scott decision make ANYTHING right? The Democratic Party thought it was terrific, a short term win to preserve slavery … that set the country inexorably to civil war.

    Courts screw things up all the time.

  16. Wanumba, the decision that the town was violating the Voting Rights Act was made by the last administration’s Justice Department, blowing s little hole in the theory you posit in post #2

    There is nothing undemocratic about the voting method being used. There are six open positions and every voter gets six votes I fail to see what is undemocratic nor does it violate our Constitution.

    Lastly, we are actually both a Federal Republic and a Representative Constitutional Democracy.

  17. Lets see if I can explain why this is a bad idea. Say there are 9 candidates and the top six are going to get the seats
    and there are 100 people voting (for easy math and to illustrate the point)
    let say six are white candidates and four are hispanic candidates
    On election day:
    Fifty-nine people give one each of their six votes to the white candidates. each candidate gets 59 votes
    of the other 31 people, ten people give all six votes to hispanic candidate #1, ten people give all six votes to candidate #2 and ten give all six votes to
    hispanic candidate #3, and the last person gives two votes each to the hispanic candidates. Each hispanic will have 62 votes and the hispanics will control half of the board with only 31 percent of the people voting for them. And the other six will be in a runoff. Or worse the last person gives two votes each to the three white candidates of his choice and all six winners are essentially elected by 31% of the voting population. If this is not injustice… I don’t know what is

    The real danger is that radicals will be elected by a small minority which will run roughshod over the will of the majority of the CITIZEN Electorate. The laws and foundation of the country are on representative government of the citizenry not representative government of the populace. The fact that no Latinos have been elected to office in New London is a reflection, not of the percentage of the populace that is Latino, rather what percentage of the electorate is Latino. At the end of the day the Latinos or any other group, do not deserve to be represented merely because they are identifiable as a “group” they deserve representation when they convince a majority of their fellow citizens that their ideas and policy initiatives are in the best interest of their town, county, state, or our nation.

  18. This is the sort of thing to be expected in a Democratzi government.We can now start studying the end of the Weimar Republic and making comparisons of similar events in the move toward totalitarianism.

    Illegal immigrants get to vote, and they get six votes for our one. Millions of citizens vote constitutionally to amend the California constitution, and then a federal judge says that he has more votes than they have.

    Putting Obama in the White House has set the timer ticking on the end of America, The fall election will get a few Democratzis out of Congress (barring massive voter fraud or the INS waiving residency requirements for citizenship and voter registration), but a Democratzi is in complete charge of the entire executive branch. He can pardon criminals, refuse to enforce laws against criminal behavior of those whom he favors, and he can surrender U.S. sovereignty bit by bit simply by reprising Carter’s act of “gee, what do I do now?????”

    Obama is bad, not because he is black, or half black, or whatever. He is bad because he has spent his entire life studying to destroy the U.S. Constitution. However, those who voted for him for no other reason than he is black call those who oppose him because he is manifestly evil, “racists.”

    One thing, though. When America becomes a poor, third world country, people like Obama’s father won’t come here any more to marry American citizens. I just wonder how many other countries will declare an open door to refugees from the U.S. trying to enter their territories illegally. I expect refugees from America going into Mexico will meet a brace of automatic weapons wielded by the humanitarian and nonracist Mexican army.

    George

  19. Very good resource. Add to bookmarks

Leave a Reply