News-Record.com

Update, 1 p.m. July 17: The city of Greensboro has received the Justice Department's OK to proceed with the recall election. The department says it reserves the right to intervene if additional information requires. Please look for more details in our news section.

It doesn't make sense to me that this column I wrote Feb. 28 got dragged into the Pulpit Forum's request to the Justice Department that it block the Dianne Bellamy-Small recall election.

The Pulpit Forum faults the column for "essentially advocating the return to the pre-1983 at-large system of government, a clear reversal in the progress toward full enfranchisement of minorities."

Actually, the Pulpit Forum completely misunderstood the column. The point was to show what would be necessary, using current logic, to achieve "full enfranchisement of minorities." The district system in place in Greensboro is designed to achieve the election of at least two black representatives on the City Council, but it does nothing for other minority groups such as Asians or Hispanics. In order to guarantee "full enfranchisement of minorities," wouldn't we have to create a lot more electoral ethnic enclaves throughout the city? Well, maybe the Pulpit Forum doesn't think other minority groups are entitled to that much consideration.

Anyway, neither that nor most of the other arguments raised in the PF letter have anything to do with the recall. It's simply not possible to use the Voting Rights Act to defend Councilwoman Bellamy-Small. The petition process used to force the recall election is race-neutral. It doesn't matter legally how many of the petitioners were white or how many black. As long as they are legally registered voters who reside in District 1, they have the necessary standing. It's absurd to contend that the petitions are somehow invalid because many, even most, of those who signed them were white. Would the Pulpic Forum use the same logic to argue that the signatures of black voters living in majority white districts shouldn't count in a similar situation? It might as well argue that only people of certain racial characteristics should be allowed to vote in certain districts.

To further state that the recall election "will have the discriminatory effect of diluting the African American vote, as well as reducing the quality of representation to the African American community of Greensboro" isn't convincing, either. Two-thirds of the voters in District 1 are African American. The recall election does not dilute their vote; on the contrary, it gives them the largest voice in its outcome. They'll determine whether Councilwoman Bellamy-Small has given them the "quality of representation" that they desire. We shouldn't expect the Justice Department to make that determination. I doubt it's going to rule that Ms. Bellamy-Small is the only person capable of providing quality representation for District 1.

Now, I happen to agree with the Pulpit Forum that this recall election is both wasteful and ill-timed. I haven't heard a convincing case for why Bellamy-Small should resign or be removed from office before the end of her term. The voters can elect a new representative in November if they want. That's soon enough. The expense of holding a separate recall election is needless.

Nevertheless, the legal requirements for such an election have been met, and no sound legal case has been presented to block it. The Pulpit Forum's complaint just doesn't offer valid reasons to stop it, and I'll be very surprised if it isn't quickly dismissed by the Justice Department.

Its biggest flaw is to confuse voting rights with a particular individual's right to hold office. The right of everyone in District 1 to vote in this recall election is not hindered in any way. And only those voters can decide whether Ms. Bellamy-Small should remain in her council seat.