I recently became aware of this James Rowen person as some kind of local political consultant who cyber-stalks Libertarians because of their opposition to a taxpayer-subsidized 49er stadium. He says he's upset that a standard Libertarian handout (from The Advocates For Self-Government) cites laws against "dwarf-tossing" as an example of nanny-state paternalism. He infers that Libertarians are biased against dwarfs, but I explained to him (here) that the opposite is the case. (Libertarians don't agree with his demeaning opinion that dwarfs are so incompetent as to need government to restrict them from making undignified voluntary choices. Libertarians think dwarfs are competent to decide for themselves what voluntary choices are undignified.)
Rowen apparently thinks that the lack of dwarf representation on the Purissima board could be a problem under the California Voting Rights Act. As much as I'd relish some publicity for the LP's position on this issue, it seems that Rowen is confused about the applicability of the CVRA. At 14026(d) the Act says:
"Protected class" means a class of voters who are members of a race, color or language minority group, as this class is referenced and defined in the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et
Feel free to give this issue precisely the amount of attention that you think it deserves.
On 10/9/11 3:16 AM, James Rowen wrote:
The California Voting Rights Act allows for the review of the electoral system of a district where there has been a lack of minority preferred candidates elected to the board, see Sanchez v. Modesto, for a number of years if the election is done at large. We suggest given the attitude of some board members towards people of protected classes, see 42 USCA 1793, known as the Voting Rights Act, and physical characteristics is considered a protected class, a real evaluation of the makeup of the board be done.