Why? Because Mr. Yelton, until yesterday a member of the Buncombe County Republican Executive Committee, told the truth about the real motives behind the new voter suppression law passed this summer by the new Republican majority in the NC General Assembly. Said Mr. Yelton, North Carolina's new voter ID law "is going to kick the Democrats in the butt."
Both the Buncombe County Republican Party and the NC Republican Party fell all over themselves calling for Mr. Yelton's prompt resignation as a Buncombe precinct chair. He had pulled the white sheet a little too far back to reveal the contemporary Republican Party in the modern South, and though a majority of Republicans agree with Mr. Yelton's opinions, his blabber-mouthing their strategy all over Comedy Central was a definite no-no.
Sort of like Watauga Republican Party Chair Anne Marie Yates blabbing to the Watauga Democrat newspaper about how the local Board of Elections was planning to play hardball over the college student vote. So far, Yates still has her job. That's the big difference.
POSTSCRIPT
The refreshingly honest Mr. Yelton doubled-down in an interview with Jake Frankel in the Mountain XPress:
"The comments that were made, that I said, I stand behind them. I believe them."
The short interview clips were edited together from a much longer two-hour sit-down, says Yelton. But he says he was pleased overall with the parts that were included. In fact, he notes that some of the comments he made that weren't included might've even been more controversial. "To tell you the truth, there were a lot of things I said that they could've made sound worse than what they put up." He adds, "I would've loved to been able to do it live. … But that wasn't offered."
Emphasis added. The man's proud of himself.
Don Yelton live. Boggles the mind.
Much as I hate to say it, while this man's comments are clearly hostile to the Democrats and reveal levels of deliberate intent and personal prejudice rarely if ever admitted (in public these days) by his party, they do not do much to strengthen the legal challenge currently underway by the DOJ, NAACP, etc., against the new NC voting laws. Just working to get your party an advantage over the other is not in itself proof of racial bias. That BTW is how Texas has so far successfully defended itself against charges of bias in its election laws. It's OK to discriminate against Democrats, just not against racial minorities. Until we have truly non-partisan commissions drawing district lines, running elections, and staffing our courts we will always see such maneuvering taking place. Does it promote the general welfare? Nope, but remember that's only in the preamble not the Constitution. Meanwhile--Get informed, VOTE, and work to get out the vote.
ReplyDeleteBrotherdoc- The preamble IS part of the constitution and section 8 first paragraph specifically states that congress has the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. There is no doubt that the constitution mandates the fed. Govt. to promote and provide for the general welfare.
ReplyDeleteAs for the way in which Republicans are working to gives themselves an advantage, it is obviously unethical at the very least. We need to emphasize that a vote for Republicans is a vote for the party of cheats and crooks.
Brushfire, it is of course true that in the larger sense the Constitution does allow Congress to appropriate money for the general welfare. What I really should have pointed out is that a general positive national right to vote is not there. We have only the negative wording of the 14th and 15th amendments, and the 19th, which don't allow the states to deprive certain groups from voting. And those provisions, esp. the 15th, have often been very narrowly interpreted by the courts.
ReplyDeleteBrotherdoc- The 14th amendment seems pretty clear and specific- " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Isn't it obvious that the restrictive voting laws of NC and other Republican governed states are designed to abridge the privilege of voting?
ReplyDeleteBrushfire, with respect I would point out that the 14th amendment is the very one that has been iterpreted to grant personhood right to corporations. It was designed to protect the rights of freed slaves, yes, but the Courts very narrowly interpreted its applicability to voting rights and in an 1886 case the SCOTUS said a corporation has the same property rights as a person. There is no national right to vote in the constitution, but there is a long and tangled history of the topic of voting rights. Here's one link that takes a fairly detailed look:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/government-and-civics/essays/winning-vote-history-voting-rights
brotherdoc, The link is behind a paywall. It looks interesting though.
ReplyDelete