The Machinations of Mackey (Part Five)

Constitutional questions raised about the Mecklenburg Democrats failure to use 'one person-one vote')

Federal law mandates that Commission (not just Democrat Party) review rules that selected Mackey.

Racial and 'Urban over Suburban' voting bias on the part of Democrats could disqualify selection results.

He asks for a report from the County Attorney to be given to the Board at the next (1-15-2008) meeting. To place the matter on that agenda requires the County Manager's or the Chairman's consent.

This evening, Commissioner Dan Bishop sent a 'lawyer to lawyer letter' to the County Attorney and also copied his request to the County Manager. In this letter (a bombshell if the word ever is to have any meaning) is the assertion that the County Commission must determine if the Democrat Party's 'election' (or 'selection' depending on who you believe) is legal.

The memo which is reprinted below with limited graphics however you can view the full printable version of this official letter as a PDF if you have Adobe. The link to the letter on my web site can be found here.

The gist of the letter is that he believes that for a party to control the election process, it must follow Federal Election law which requires one person-one vote. He cites Federal case law.

The Mecklenburg County Democrat Party followed its own rules but the assumption by Democrats was that they could do whatever they wanted and the rules were not 'reviewable' by the Commission.

Their theory went that "if they wanted to allow 'Mickey mouse' (AKA urban voters) to get 5 votes and only gave Daffy Duck (Suburban voters) 1 vote - they were entitled and it was no one's business but theirs." 

Not so according to Federal law and various published opinions (see letter).

It is hard to imagine the whole Mackey mess getting any more muddy. Essentially, the question is this:  "If the party doing the selecting doesn't follow the law regarding one man - one vote; how can the selection be legal?"

The various opinions and law he reviewed appears to indicate that it can't be legal but here is the crux of the matter.

According to Commissioner Bishop, it is the COUNTY COMMISSION that is required to review the constitutionality of the Meck Democrats vote not 'just' the State Democrat Party. If the decision of the County Commission is that the vote was not constitutional then the Commission cannot accept the Democrats recommendation no matter what the State Democrats do (or don't do).

Bishop has asked that the County Attorney investigate the Commission's Federal Constitutional role in insuring that the election (or selection) was proper.

Since it is pretty clear that the Meck Democrats utilized a system that gave urban (most Black) voters 4 votes for every one vote given to Suburban (mostly white) voters.

If the system were reversed and Black voters were given 3/5ths of the vote of a White person the process would be thrown out as unconstitutional. The process used was biased and discriminatory but against Suburban and White voters.

This charge against the party that wraps itself up in the flag of 'diversity' in essence is saying, if proved, that the Democrats discriminated against White Democrats and against Suburban voters and didn't follow one person-one vote.

If there was some sort of election in the works, their rules wouldn't really matter. In this case, their 'selection' of Mackey is being touted as a take it or leave it deal. To Mackey's supporters they say that the Commission MUST accept what the Meck Democrats did, no matter how discriminatory the process was. Their motto, "approve Mackey and fix the problem later". 

Federal law, it seems, says otherwise.

Stay tuned !

Sincerely,

Bill James
Billjames.org