Archive for July, 2021

Lawmakers call for protections to voters’ rights on anniversary of John Lewis’ death – News 12 Bronx

News 12 Staff

Jul 18, 2021, 1:56am

Updated on: Jul 18, 2021, 1:56am

Many gathered around the nation and throughout New York City Saturday to mark one year since the death of since civil rights icon John Lewis.

At the National Action Network in Harlem Saturday morning, elected officials called on lawmakers to pass legislation to protect voting rights that Lewis marched to protect.

"The way to make sure we memorialize him is to pass the voting rights bills that is in our Congress," said Rev. Al Sharpton.

Rep. Yvette Clarke highlighted the 80-year-old public servant's activism.

"And that brother walked through the dungeons, where you could still smell the death of our people," Clarke said.

The late Lewis' presence was in the air as many joined together on Zoom at the Good Trouble Vigil for Democracy to remember the late congressman.

"Not only does he talk about bridges but he walks on bridges and so we know we crossed over but there are future bridges ahead of us," said faith leader Dr. Robert Waterman.

The John Lewis Mobalization organized the event and highlighted the legislation many have called for.

"We need to do whatever possible to make it easier for people to vote, and so I'm committed to passing this piece of legislation," said Sen. John Liu

"They need to know that they have the right to vote but why they need to vote" State Assemblymember Stefani Zinerman.

Legislation from For the People Act to the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that would federally protect voters across the fifty states and would minimize voter suppression.

Lewis is best known for marching and organizing in Selma, Alabama alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1965.

The rest is here:
Lawmakers call for protections to voters' rights on anniversary of John Lewis' death - News 12 Bronx

Civil Rights Leaders Urge White House To Put The Full Moral Prestige And Power Of The Presidency Behind Voting Rights – Seattle Medium

By Marc H. Morial

(Trice Edney Wire) The 21st century Jim Crow assault is real. Its unrelenting, and were going to challenge it vigorously. While this broad assault against voting rights is not unprecedented, its taking on a new and, literally, pernicious forms. Its no longer just about who gets to vote or making it easier for eligible voters to vote. Its about who gets to count the vote who gets to count whether or not your vote counted at all. Its about moving from independent election administrators who work for the people to polarized state legislatures and partisan actors who work for political parties. To me, this is simple: This is election subversion. Its the most dangerous threat to voting and the integrity of free and fair elections in our history. President Joe Biden

Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with President Biden and Vice President Harris to discuss the appalling attack on democracy that is ongoing in state legislatures across the country, as well as other issues of racial justice.

A few days later, President Biden delivered one of the most impassioned speeches of his presidency, echoing many of the themes we discussed in our meeting. He alluded to our meeting, reminding Americans of our commitment to stay vigilant and challenge these odious laws in the courts. I was proud that we pushed the President to address the issue, and we intend to continue pushing.

The National Urban League helped lead the meeting between the White House and a group of leaders from eight legacy Black civil rights organizations. Joining me were Melanie Campbell, President and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; Dr. Johnnetta Cole, National Chair and President of the National Council of Negro Women; Wade Henderson, Interim President of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Damon Hewitt, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; Derrick Johnson, President and CEO of the NAACP; and Reverend Al Sharpton, President of the National Action Network.

I was grateful for the opportunity to impress upon the President and Vice President the urgency of confronting the wave of anti-voter legislation that is surging through state legislatures. When we look at what is happening in this nation, we see an effort to impose a system of American apartheid on our grand and glorious multicultural nation. State laws are used to suppress the vote, the filibuster process is used to obstruct Congressional oversight. the courts are used to undercut the Voting Rights Act, all to subvert the democratic process and overturn the will of the people.

We urged President Biden to put the full moral prestige and the power of the presidency behind voting rights, to help frame the debate for the American people. As a candidate, he talked about the soul of the nation. No issue cuts to the soul of the nation more than voting rights.

I was glad to hear President Biden and Vice President Harris reconfirm their determination to push for passage of the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act two vital bills that would protect voting rights and the integrity of the elections process.

We also discussed the frustrating delay in securing passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which is currently being negotiated in the Senate. Days after the meeting, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is leading the negotiations for Senate Republicans, said he hopes a police reform package is approved by the end of this month.

We look forward to continuing the discussion and holding the President and Vice President to their commitments.

See original here:
Civil Rights Leaders Urge White House To Put The Full Moral Prestige And Power Of The Presidency Behind Voting Rights - Seattle Medium

Trump’s 2020 loss gave the GOP the last key to ‘win’ the midterms – MSNBC

There was a time in the not too distant past when the Republican Party was known for its sneakiness, a product of the underhanded tricks of operatives like Lee Atwater and his protgs. These days, the GOP is more a fan of brute force tactics when it comes to winning elections, reworking the rules of the game to make it more winnable potentially even when they haven't won the most votes.

Even as the media shine lights on the individual components of the GOP's strategy from the slew of changes in election laws enacted or proposed in states like Georgia and Texas to the absolute circus that's taking place in Arizona's "audit" of the 2020 election it can be easy to miss how they fit together. But when you take a step back, it becomes clear that they're all interconnected, with one overarching goal: Republicans' opposition to free and fair elections boils down to a three-step plan to reclaim power in Washington and cement their control at the state level.

In three areas, the Republican Party is working to win elections not by persuading new voters to subscribe to their ideas, but by making their opponents incapable of victory.

I wrote last week about the choice Democrats face in whether to ban gerrymandering nationwide ahead of the 2022 midterms. While there are groups that want to end gerrymandering entirely, like former Attorney General Eric Holder's National Democratic Redistricting Committee, it has been an uphill climb to get politicians on board with giving up one of the most palatable uses of pure partisan power.

That works out well, though, for Republicans, who 10 years ago used their success in the 2010 midterms to draw favorable electoral maps that made it easier for them to keep control of the House. And that was done with the Voting Rights Act still in place to help keep their worst excesses in check.

In three areas, the Republican Party is working to win elections not by persuading new voters to subscribe to their ideas, but by making their opponents incapable of victory.

This time around, Republican legislatures are champing at the bit to use this period the first redistricting campaign since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 to redraw election districts in ways that box out Democratic voters. And this time around, federal courts have less power to step in to redraw explicitly partisan borders. There is the threat that, as in North Carolina, state courts could still toss out maps that are clearly biased toward one party but that's a risk some Republicans are willing to take.

In doing so, the GOP has the ability to win elections before the candidates are even in place if there just aren't enough Democratic voters in a given map, there's no chance that seat could be the tipping point for a majority in the House. And as we were reminded in this most recent election, the House has the power to determine a winner in a presidential election when the Electoral College fails to give a candidate a majority.

This is the step that has gotten the most attention lately in the media and in Congress, as it's the form of voter suppression Americans are most familiar with thanks to the fights to end Jim Crow in the 1960s. Today, Republicans are using the lie that the 2020 election was rife with voter fraud as an excuse to introduce dozens of bills to change election laws to make it harder for their states' citizens to vote.

The real insidiousness here is that in many cases, these restrictions are subtle enough to seem logical and defensible to the unaware. Texas' new elections bill would shut down 24-hour voting locations and drive-thru voting; Georgia's new law sharply restricts the use of drop boxes to collect early voting ballots. In effect, Republicans argue, these laws are just about securing elections and resetting standards back to the pre-pandemic norm.

Is that the same as stripping people of their right to vote? No. But it does raise the difficulty of casting a vote. And in cases like the above, in which it was mostly urban, minority voters who took advantage of these easier voting methods, there is a definite attempt to reshape the electorate in effect.

It's akin to placing hurdles on a racetrack everyone still has the chance to run the race when the starting gun goes off, but there are obstacles in the way that will cause some people to trip or give up on running at all. What's worse is that the targeted way these changes are being designed makes it as though hurdles are being added to only some lanes.

Add the first two steps together and the odds of Democrats' keeping control of the House drop after the midterms. But it's step three that's the real innovation and the most anti-democratic idea that former President Donald Trump has brought to the table.

In contesting the results of the election, Trump offered no real evidence to prove that President Joe Biden had "stolen" the race from him. But his followers believed it and Republican leaders are hesitant to correct the record. That has led us to a place where investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which Trump's rhetoric spawned, is a partisan issue.

The violent overthrow of the election is a bit too distasteful for most mainstream Republicans. What could be a real endemic threat, though, is the farce playing out in Arizona. For the last three months, a "forensic analysis" of the election results in Maricopa County has been hunting for any sign that Trump's claims about fraud were true. Trump has apparently even thought that the Arizona audit was his ticket back to the White House.

While the "audit" has made a bunch of money for its backers, it has come up totally empty so far. That hasn't deterred Cyber Ninjas, the firm running the audit, from insisting last week that it needs to take its sideshow door to door to really make sure there was no fraud. Worse, as MSNBC columnist Charlie Sykes recently wrote, the fever swamp in Arizona is spreading to Pennsylvania and potentially other battleground states. There's little stopping this from becoming a normalized part of the post-election process and justifying further restrictions on voting rights.

And there are more "legitimate" efforts to bring about the same potential outcome of Republicans' being declared the winners of elections in which they didn't get the most votes. The most dangerous involve Republicans' taking direct, partisan control over how elections are run and decided. Georgia's election law strips the secretary of state of his power over the State Election Board, giving it to the hyperpartisan Legislature. The scrapped version of Texas' election bill would have given judges the power to directly toss out results of elections that seemed, for whatever reason, dodgy.

When you think about the efforts to shape control of the House and limit who gets to vote and a new willingness to change the results of elections after the fact, you get a world where Trump's long-shot effort to have the House declare him the winner over Biden would have a real shot at success.

The genius of this plan is that it involves manipulating the outcome at every stage of the election process: before, during and after voters' trips to the polls. Taken separately, any one of them can be an infringement on the people's right to choose their elected officials. Together, they're a nightmare for democracy.

This is the plan, in plain view for anyone who is willing to look. It's naive to suggest that this behavior is somehow ahistorical or outside what America is capable of accepting. But it would be nice if it could have been relegated to the past, where it belongs.

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

View original post here:
Trump's 2020 loss gave the GOP the last key to 'win' the midterms - MSNBC

The Clock Is Ticking on Preventing an Undemocratic GOP Power Grab in the House – Jacobin magazine

You wouldnt know it by watching Congress take long summer vacations and slowly mull infrastructure legislation, but Democrats are facing a fast-approaching deadline that could decide the partys political fate for the next decade.

By August 16, the US Census Bureau is scheduled to release data gathered in the 2020 census to the states, enabling state governments to begin redrawing their legislative and congressional districts.

If Democrats want to have their best shot at preventing Republicans from redrawing red states congressional districts in a way that could lock in a GOP House majority for a decade, they need to tweak and pass the For the People Act, their signature voting rights and democracy reform legislation, before that date.

The For the People Act would implement aseries of rules and procedures designed to curb partisan gerrymandering, the process of drawing legislative districts to benefit a political party. If the bill isnt passed before August 16, Democrats could modify its language to ensure some parts of its anti-gerrymandering provisions could take effect retroactively but not all of the legislations original redistricting reforms would be preserved this way. Theres also a risk that some Democrats may end up happy representing new, safely Democratic districts, and thus be less interested in passing reforms.

As of today, the bill has completely stalled. Itfailed in the Senate last month due to a Republican filibuster, and since a handful of conservative Democrats have steadfastly refused to eliminate or modify Senate filibuster rules requiring sixty votes to advance virtually all legislation, Republicans can continue to block the legislation indefinitely.

Its not clear how or when Democrats are planning to pass the bill. In recent weeks, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate have instead focused on negotiations over infrastructure legislation, a key priority of the Biden White House.

Both legislative houses are currently scheduled to be on recess for much of August. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, recently indicatedhe could keep senators in Washington for part of the August recess period but specifically to work on passing infrastructure legislation.

The For the People Act was supposed to be the Democratic Partys response to ongoing efforts by Republicans to restrict voting rights across the country. Supporters describe it as a democracy infrastructure bill or, as Elizabeth Hira, a policy counselor with the Brennan Center for Justice, calls it, the next great civil rights bill.

Not only is it beating back voter suppression, the likes of which weve been fighting since before 1965 with the Voting Rights Act, it actually does the forward-looking work to ask the question about what structural changes would need to exist in our democracy to actually create an inclusive democracy, Hira says.

To that end, the legislation would establish redistricting rules that include enhanced protections against minority voter dilution, mandate states use independent federal commissions to oversee their redistricting, and require transparency and public participation in the redrawing process.

For Democrats, the need to pass such a package could not be more urgent. Every ten years, following the release of updated demographic data from the US Census Bureau, states redraw congressional and legislative districts. Republicans, who dominated state legislative electionslast year, have proven to be willing to use the redistricting process to their extreme advantage.

And yet Democrats remain paralyzed on the issue a problem stemming from the top.

On the campaign trail, President Joe Bidenannounced that a first priority of a Biden Administration will be to lead on a comprehensive set of reforms like those reflected in the For the People Act (H. R. 1) to end special interest control of Washington and protect the voice and vote of every American.

As president, Biden followed this rhetoric with gestures signaling a desire to overhaul American democracy to be fairer and more inclusive. After the House passed its version of the For the People Act in March, he released a statementthat he was looking forward to signing the bill into law. Days later, Biden signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to expand ballot access.

The White House and Democrats even mobilized top brass to back the legislation. Vice President Kamala Harris hasled the administrations voting rights efforts, while former president Barack Obama and exattorney general Eric Holder held a teleconferencelast month urging Congress to compromise in order to get an iteration of the For the People Act passed.

Despite these gestures, however, the For the People Act remains stymied. On June 22, a vote to debate the bill failed in the Senate much to the chagrin of activists who, for months, have been calling on Senate Democrats and the Biden administration to embrace eliminating the filibuster.

Time is running out to pass the For the People Act, says Michael Li, the redistricting and voting counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. He says August 16, or shortly thereafter, is the deadline for Democrats to pass a bill containing the most robust [redistricting] reforms possible.

You could pass some things after August 16. The partisan gerrymandering ban, for example, could be retroactive, he says. But other things like the procedural requirements (the transparency and public participation requirements) could not be implemented.

But making parts of the bill retroactive could leave it less politically viable, says Li because, as he notes, As a practical matter, the politics of passage. . . potentially become more complicated once [redistricting] maps are passed. Thats because members of the House, including Democrats, could in some cases end up pleased with their newly redrawn districts, and therefore less interested in redoing them by passing the legislation.

Because Democrats have waited so long to pass the For the People Act, even if lawmakers find a way to pass the bill before the August 16 deadline, they will now have to rewrite some of its language regarding nonpartisan redistricting if they want it to apply to this cycle.

It is too late to create federal commissions to draw maps, so even though that is still technically in the bill, it wont be possible and will need to come out of any final bill, says Li. But there is time to implement national map-drawing rules, including a ban on partisan gerrymandering.

The uncertainty about whether Democrats will actually pass the For the People Act and whether it would even make a difference in the redistricting process is concerning for advocates who say there is a unique danger in Democrats not using their current control of the government to do away with gerrymandering once and for all.

I would have come out of the gates with a partisan gerrymandering bill, says author David Daley.

Few would know better than Daley. His 2016 book,Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal Americas Democracy,recountshow the GOP weaponized the redistricting process after the 2010 midterms in defiance of unfavorable demographic trends.

The plan was called REDMAP and it was simple: pour money into state races to control the process and use it to disempower the opposition. The results were devastating for Democrats.

Democrats did not regain control of the House of Representatives until the 2018 midterms, despitewinninga majority of votes in congressional races in 2012, and have faced uphill battles at the state level ever since.

A 2017studyfrom the Brennan Center described the impact: In the 26 states that account for 85 percent of congressional districts, Republicans derive a net benefit of at least 16-17 congressional seats in the current Congress from partisan bias significantly more than previously thought.

Now, Daley predicts that unless legislation is passed to stop it, this redistricting cycle will be a drunken bacchanalia of gerrymandering, making what came before seem tame by comparison.

Law professor Lawrence Lessig shares Daleys concerns. Speaking to theDaily Poster, Lessig predicts that the gerrymandering we saw in 2010 is going to be gerrymandering on steroids in 2020. Lessig notes that in 2010, people were still worried that the Supreme Court was going to come in and strike down extreme partisan gerrymandering, but now the court said, Were not going to do anything.

The Supreme Court decision Lessig was referring to came down in June 2019 in the case ofRucho v. Common Cause. The court found that partisan gerrymandering was a political issue, and therefore not reviewable by federal courts.

TheRuchodecision is not the only one clearing the path for extreme gerrymandering. Six years earlier, in the case ofShelby County v. Holder, the court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that laid out the metrics used to determine which jurisdictions needed to obtain federal preclearance before changing their voting laws. The court found that the old standard which applied to places with a history of racial discrimination was no longer adequate and left it to Congress to find a new, workable formula. But lawmakers never came up with a substitute.

At the time, Greg Abbott, then Texas attorney general, lauded the decision, noting: Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may. . . take effect without approval from the federal government.

The warnings of Daley and Lessig are likely prophetic. Democrats took a drubbing in down-ballot elections in 2020, despite Joe Bidens campaignpledgeto retake state legislatures.

Making matters worse for the party is its unilateral disarmament in the redistricting wars. In the last decade, several Democratic states, including New York, Colorado, and California, haveimplemented nonpartisan redistricting measuressince the last census, while big red states have not.Most of thethirty-one statesin which state legislatures draw the districts as a partisan matter are controlled by the GOP.

Since the failure of the For the People Act in the Senate, Biden has continued to speak about the need for voting rights reform.

Last week, the presidentpointed out that seventeen states have enacted 28 new laws to make it harder for American to vote, not to mention nearly 400 additional bills Republican members of state legislature are trying to pass. He labeledthe GOP efforts the 21st century Jim Crow assault.

Its the most dangerous threat to voting and the integrity of free and fair elections in our history, Bidensaid.

Despite the tough talk, Bidenstopped shortof calling for Senate filibuster reforms that might allow Democrats to actually do anything about the threat.

Some Democrats, like House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-SC, have now started pushing to exempt voting rights legislationand other constitutional measures from the filibuster.

Its a weak proposal, especially since it would mean the filibuster would continue to block major Democratic priorities like overhauling climate policy, reforming labor laws, and increasing the federal minimum wage.

With less than a month left before the census data is set to be released to the states, these efforts and all of the talk about preserving voting rights may be too little, too late. Unless Democrats manage to spring into action, quickly and decisively, Biden may never have full control of Congress again.

See more here:
The Clock Is Ticking on Preventing an Undemocratic GOP Power Grab in the House - Jacobin magazine

Ann Coulter: Critical Race Theory is a complex … oh, who are we kidding? – Marshall News Messenger

One of the unintended consequences of teachers using COVID to refuse to do their jobs in 2020 is that their students suddenly had to take classes remotely within earshot of Dad. A mother at a fancy New York City private school told me that the wokeness curriculum was nothing new, but mothers never made a fuss about it. Then the fathers overheard their kids' remote classes and all hell broke loose.

Now that the teachers' anti-white agenda has been exposed (thank you, fathers of America!), the left is spinning a series of increasingly hilarious defenses of "critical race theory," which is just a more boring version of the left's usual hatred of Western civilization.

Their current position is that they simply can't discuss CRT with you because it's too complex and can only be understood by high-level graduate students after years of study.

Paul Begala on CNN: "It's a graduate-level construct."

CNN's Anderson Cooper: "It started in the '70s, as I understand, in sort of academic circles, law schools."

"Dr." Ibram Kendi who is a "doctor" in the same sense that Jill Biden is explaining his position on CRT:

"I'm not a legal scholar. So I wasn't trained on critical race theory. I'm a historian. ... Critical race theory is taught in law schools. I didn't attend law school, which is where critical race theory is taught."

Oh, cut the crap. The "theory" is: Everything is based on racism.

The preposterous conceit that CRT rises above the level of a child yelling "THAT'S RACIST!" has the advantage of allowing liberals to refuse to debate it.

Here's MSNBC's Joy Reid dismissing Christopher Rufo, a Manhattan Institute scholar, brought on her show putatively to debate CRT: "Are you like an expert in race or racial history? Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal scholar? Is that part of your background?"

How else could Rufo possibly understand a "theory" that says:

America is racist!

Criminal law is racist!

Policing is racist!

Arrests are racist!

Incarceration is racist!

Standardized tests are racist!

Mortgages are racist!

Oh my gosh, how am I ever going to master this complex theory? I thought the quantum field theory of subatomic particle forces was tough, but this? I guess I'll be hitting the books tonight.

CRT is like the Monty Python sketch, "Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses":

Anne Elk: "My theory, that belongs to me, is as follows ... (throat clearing) This is how it goes ... (clears throat) The next thing I'm going to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?"

Presenter: (whimpers)

Anne Elk: "My Theory, by A. Elk (Miss). This theory goes as follows and begins now ...

"All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it and what it is, too."

Presenter: "That's it, is it?"

CRT advocates talk in hushed tones about where the "theory" was "invented," like they're describing the apple falling on Newton's head.

In fact, CRT grew out of black student protests in the 1970s, forcing universities to hire more black professors. That's literally how the father of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, got his job. Black students protested the lack of black professors, so Bell was given a professorship at Harvard Law School.

How'd you like to be hired by the (then) premier university in the world, not based on the excellence of your scholarship, but because of students threatening to burn the campus down? Instead of being embarrassed and hoping no one ever asked how he got his job, Bell rationalized his hiring by accusing Harvard of ... well, I'd tell you, but it's too complex for you to understand. On the other hand, I don't know how else to convey the intricacies of this deeply intellectual theorem, except to just state it:

Bell accused Harvard of ... RACISM!

And thus a new academic discipline was born. (I guess all the new hires had to teach something.)

The idea that our country is steeped in white supremacy is laughable. Most of what built this country had nothing to do with race conquering the West, the invention of electricity, the telephone, the automobile, airplanes and steamboats, bringing drinking water to Manhattan, smashing the Nazi war machine and on and on and on.

I'm sorry, Black America, but all this was happening with or without you.

Yes, slavery was an abomination, the worst thing that ever happened within the borders of the United States. But there are whole vast areas of the American economy that didn't have anything to do with slavery.

In fact and to the contrary, the slave economy had turned the South into a backwater. If the South had won the Civil War, not only would slavery have continued, but half the country would have had a primitive third world economy.

No need to feel bad about it. The main players in America's explosive growth weren't women, immigrants, Hispanics or Asians, either. Somehow we got over it. On the plus side, we get to live in the best country in the world.

Jealousy and obsessive self-regard are not the stuff of an intellectual movement. The daily denunciation of white men is more akin to the tantrum of a 4-year-old.

Which, by the way, is exactly how liberals think of black Americans. If there were an international symbol for liberals, it would be one adult patting another on the head. Otherwise, liberals would just come out and say: CRT's not a theory! It isn't complex, it isn't interesting, and it isn't true. (Also: We think you're capable of getting a voter ID.) Instead, liberals coo to the CRT devotees, It is your birthday every day!

See the original post:
Ann Coulter: Critical Race Theory is a complex ... oh, who are we kidding? - Marshall News Messenger