In response to:

A Ruling on Racial Progress

Wallac Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:54 PM
Wow! You really need a true history lesson.
sbemis Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 9:34 PM
FLAGGED FOR REGESSIVE STUPIDITY-IT IS COMPLETLY AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF A TOWNHALL OR A dEBATE TO WITHDRAW FOR THE REASON STIPULATE.iT IS TRUE THAT MORE DOCUMNATATION COULD BE GIVEN TO SUBSTANCHEATE THE HISTORIC BASIS OF THE CONTENTION.wHAT IS REALLY IMROPER IS PUTTING THE OTHER ,CALLING NAMES,DEHUMANIZING.


DEBATE TO WITHDRAW
3204 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 5:00 PM
Flagged for regessive stupidity.

I can only hope that the scourge of racism is finally purged from Stewartstown and Pinkham's Grant. These are two of 10 New Hampshire towns covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires local officials to get permission, or "preclearance," on any changes to their election laws.

Stewartstown has just over a thousand souls in it and is 99 percent white. In 1970, when it was put under the authority of Section 5, the census listed two blacks out of its 1,008 residents. Pinkham's Grant boasts nine residents, and it must also beg Washington for permission...