Regarding “Democratic Party endorses challenger in Raleigh mayor’s race” (Aug. 1): Type: As a true blue Democrat, I’m disappointed with the Wake County Democratic Party endorsing a candidate in the upcoming Raleigh mayoral election. In doing so, they weaponize party affiliation to an extent we are already gagging on in today’s political world. They arbitrarily set aside the tradition of our non-partisan local elections by what they rationalize as a higher good.
We don’t need Democratic or Republican litmus tests for mayoral qualifications. Good judgment should be enough. It’s a shame to see factionalism displace nonpartisan campaigns in the name of gaining the upper hand, even if it is my own party.
Regarding “After disability check glitch, state wants its money back” (Sept. 17): The State Treasurer is pursuing an aggressive campaign to get recipients of disability over payments to pay the State back. This despite the fact that individuals who receive disability are usually barely making it physically and fiscally.
Carla Shuford has been one of the greatest contributors to the well-being of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro community since 1965. She is one of those targeted, unfairly in my opinion. There should be some provision for forgiveness to persons like Shuford. The Republicans installed in government are more than willing to deny support to the less fortunate in order to sustain the well-being of the affluent. They have no sympathy or compassion for our less-favored residents.
Reading both “An Occupying Force” and “Redistricting is fundamental to equality at the ballot” (Sept. 15), I couldn’t help but see two ways the UNC Board of Governors fails to reflect the people it purportedly serves, and how those deficits could have led to its wrong-headed decision to close the Civil Rights Center.
First, the BOG is built on the constitutionally suspect foundation of a gerrymandered General Assembly. The GA elects the BOG. But the GA itself contains 28 districts that the Supreme Court has ruled were racially gerrymandered to muffle the voice of minority voters.
Second, the gender make-up of the BOG bears very little resemblance to the make-up of the UNC system itself, or the state it serves. Of 29 BOG members, only six – 21 percent – are female. Meanwhile, 58 percent of the student body at UNC-CH, for example, is female, as is 51 percent of N.C. State.
Is it any wonder, then, that a board comprised primarily of people from a historically privileged and enfranchised class would fail to comprehend the need for a center that helps people who have been disenfranchised both historically and in the present day? These people are racial minorities and women, people who sometimes must resort to the courts to assert basic rights they are granted by law, but denied in fact.
Eliza K. Strickland