Latino and Asian voters...cry foul! At-large elections not fair!



Years ago, when Harvey Milk first ran for office in the Castro District, he lost the first couple of times out at the polling stations.

That is a little known footnote in San Francisco (and LGBT) history.

The reason he failed to nab the popular vote first-time out in the heady days of open-and-out gay activism?

Quite simply, the city districts were structured in such a way, that the election process did not favor the homosexual community.

However, once the Castro District was rezoned, Milk was able to snap up the majority - in neighborhood where the voters were mostly gay or homo-friendly - go figure!

Now, the Asian and Latino communities in San Mateo County are crying foul for the same reason.

The two ethnic groups make up one quarter of the county's nearly 72,000 residents and a slightly smaller share of its voting-age population.

So, what is the fuss all about?

The two minorities are lamenting the fact that only one Latino - and no Asians-Americans - have held seats on the five-member Board of Supervisors since 1995.

According to a spokesperson for the disgruntled voters, the at-large system - combined with alleged "racially polarized voting" - unlawfully deprives Latino and Asian members in the community to voice their preferences meaningfully with ballot-in-hand.

For this reason, a lawsuit - based on voting rights - has been filed against San Mateo County.

The plaintiffs are demanding that the Judge presiding over the proceedings declare the upcoming county-wide elections illegal. 

Pursuant to state law, attorney Robert Rubin (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights) has argued that new election districts should include a majority-Latino and majority-Asian American district.

"And, perhaps there should be a third district, in which two groups together form a majority," he noted, in an after-thought.

In response, County Counsel John Beiers has stated for the record in no uncertain terms, that he has not seen any evidence that the at-large system weakens the voting power of Latinos or Asian Americans.

The underlying arguments that the suit is based on refers to a 2002 California voting-rights Law that prohibits at-large elections in areas with a history of racially polarized voting - such as in the case where the majority voted as a bloc - against minority candidates and minority interests.

The litigants are optimistic about their chances of prevailing in court.

After all, an appeals court upheld the law in a suit against Modesto, in 2006.

On the heels of the ruling, the city switched from an at-large system to district elections.

In defense, opponents argue quite vigorously that at-large elections encourage voters to consider diverse views of an entire city or county.

But, critics pooh pooh that notion, for good reason.

In their view, the at-large elections allow a majority - whether racial or political - to control a governing board and ignore minority concerns.

We'll see which way the wind blows, after the issues are hashed out in court.

http://www.thetattler.biz

Beachfront property worth fighting for!

U.S. Supreme Court...Unconscionable ruling favors anti-gay protesters! 1st Amendment rights!



One headline said it all:

“Unconscionable but Constitutional”

Of course, I am referring to the high court’s ruling in favor of a hateful posse of protesters who were sued for picketing a soldier’s funeral because he was an “out” practicing homosexual.

While the actions of the rag-tag gang of Church-goers (!) from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka (Kansas) was considered deplorable (un-Christian-like, if you ask me) the Supreme Court was forced to recognize that the protesters (headed up by Fred Phelps) had a Constitutional right to voice their opinion that the “U.S.” was “overly tolerant of sin” and that God allegedly “Kills soldiers as punishment” for their “gay” lifestyle.

To many, though, the Church group’s anti-gay protests at funerals – where shameful parishioners waved signs that read – “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” – were “sick” and in bad taste.

Although their message may have been lacking in any resemblance to the loving God portrayed in the scriptures – or his message of compassion and understanding and forgiveness – Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Phelps and his bible thumpers observed the laws of the land because they maintained a thousand-foot buffer zone and protested without “physical” violence .

What about the mental and emotional anguish they wrought on innocent mourners?

With an 8-1 ruling to back his decision, the bench-warmer wrote in his opinion that “even hurtful speech on public issues” merits 1st Amendment protection.

In sum, the hypocritical religious zealots won this round – rightly so – for the aforementioned reasons.

However, in the eyes of God, their reprehensible conduct was not only unconscionable – but, sinful - as well.

The scriptures are quite specific in that regard in at least two passage as follows:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

John 8:7

“Judge not that ye be judged”

Mathew 7:1

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz




Chief Justice John Roberts votes for 1st Amendment rights!
(no matter how hateful in nature)