NY Times did report on the case 3 years ago. Though it's hardly a major civil rights case, it's one corrupt guy in a small town doing what lots of corrupt guys do every day. Should he have been stopped, yes. Is this something for the National Review to get their panties in a bunch about? Well, I guess if that's all they've got.

They did neglect to mention that Mr. Brown was defended by a Republican lawyer who called him the Karl Rove of Noxubee County. Hmmm. Fortunately, the NYTimes didn't leave out that quote.

yes, the story was reported in 2006 as I linked to.

The point is that there is no report of the victory which happened this year. The point is that if the situation was reversed, the successful win would be major news.

Is the presidential election a major civil rights victory? Is it the ultimate civil rights victory?

Actually BC, a major civil rights victory will be when we can elect a President without people seeing it as some kind of Civil rights victory.

It seems that the ruling wasn't Feb 27th if this year.

It was actually back in 2007! Which expalins why it isn't in the news today a year and a half later.

Makes this post pointless. If you all want, go ahead and delete it.




EDIT: update. It was ruled on in the US's favor in 2007, however it was appealed - unsuccessfully and there was a final victory in 2009.

So, that part of the story still holds some water. Just not as much as the article leads you to believe.

I never did hear about it, so I think its still a good post. Bad journalism, but a noteworthy post. And tragluk did make a good point.

In the end, we need to aim for colorblindness.


I like to think I'm doing my part by actually being colorblind.

If it is to be equal, then it should be EQUAL.

I am not going to go on a crazy rant, I would just like it to be known that I feel very strongly that racism is kept alive primarily by things like this. Yes, there are the people that still breed that hate and ignorance but this is the crap that keeps the lines divided.

Same here, I had not heard of this until 2many posted it.

I'm surprised that neither J. Jackson or Mr. Sharpton didn't protest this blatant act of discrimination...;)

Why? It wasn't indicative of widespead, systemic suppression and discrimination. It was just a solitary nut case.

Sorry, I didn't realize discrimination of any kind had to reach a critical threshold concerning frequency of occurrence before it was considered wrong.


My question then is this; How many people should be denied their right to vote before it is considered newsworthy?



As far as the Jackson and Sharpton quip, chalk it up to sar-chasm, that gulf between the author and their intended audience.

No one has suggested that it has to.

I believe I misread your first post.

I think I've got what you mean;
We haven't heard of the story because it was an isolated case?



If that is what you're saying I would still ask, what is the threshold of voter intimidation required to get the attention of America?

I don't think color blindness is the answer. I see people's color. I see whether someone is red, black, brown or white. I just don't care one way or the other.