news-record.com

I don't know what's more ridiculous:

* The assertion that nonpartisan elections are prejudicial against black voters; or

* The calculation that 64.6 percent is a minority.

Credit the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for both absurdities.

In our editorial today about nonpartisan municipal elections, we referred to the strange case of Kinston, one of only five North Carolina cities and towns that still elect local councils in partisan voting.

In a referendum last November, voters in Kinston overwhelmingly said they wanted to change to a nonpartisan system.

In August, DOJ rejected the switch under the authority of the Voting Rights Act.

Here's the letter explaining the ruling, written by Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King.

It cites a history of racial polarization in Kinston voting.

That's unfortunate. But it becomes clear from the context that when whites vote for white candidates, that's racial polarization. When blacks vote for black candidates, that's expected and in fact desirable.

Some white Democrats, however, show enough party loyalty to vote for Democratic candidates, white or black. That's what DOJ intends to preserve in Kinston.

"Without party loyalty available to counter-balance the consistent trend of racial bloc voting, blacks will face greater difficulty winning general elections," King writes. "Our analysis of election returns indicates that cross-over voting is greater in partisan general elections than in the closed primaries. Thus, statistical analysis supports the conclusion that given a change to a non-partisan elections, black preferred candidates will receive fewer white cross-over votes."

She concludes that the party "cue" is necessary to ensure approved outcomes -- which apparently is not only the election of more black candidates, but Democrats.

It gets stranger. As King notes in her letter, 64.6 percent of registered voters in Kinston are black.

Why in the world does a group that accounts for nearly two-thirds of the electorate deserve this extraordinary federal protection? Apparently because a large number of black residents choose not to vote.

King writes: "Although black persons comprise a majority of the city's registered voters, in three of the past four general municipal elections, African Americans comprised a minority of the electorate on election day; in the fourth , they may have been a slight majority. For that reason, they are viewed as a minority for analytical purposes."

So, for "analytical purposes," a sizeable majority is conveniently redefined as a minority.

King mentions no impediments to voting, no discrimination barring black residents from the polls. Rather, because of an apparent lack of interest in muncipal elections by many black voters, DOJ must step in to help -- specifically by preventing a switch to nonpartisan elections. Sorry, Kinston, you must keep party labels so that voters know which candidates deserve to win.

Where will DOJ apply this strategy next -- to school board and judicial elections?

Why don't the federal civil rights lawyers simply eliminate elections in Kinston and dictate who should serve on the town council just to be sure of the proper outcome?