The Trump Administration's War on Black and Poor People

The Trump Administration is"Making America Great Again" by trampling on black and poor people. Trump seeks to:

1.  Suppress black and Latino voters

The Nation reports that:

The (President's voter) commission was set up for one purpose—to spread false information about voter fraud, like Trump’s gigantic lie that millions of people voted illegally, in order to build support for policies that make it more difficult to vote. Kobach and his ilk have long advocated for suppressive policies like strict voter-ID laws, documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and voter purges, along with weakening landmark voting-rights laws like the Voting Rights Act and National Voter Registration Act.

2.  Escalate the War on Drugs thereby exacerbating the problem of mass incarceration

The Washington Post reports that:

Law enforcement officials say that Sessions and Cook (Stephen H. Cook) are preparing a plan to prosecute more drug and gun cases and pursue mandatory minimum sentences. The two men are eager to bring back the national crime strategy of the 1980s and ’90s from the peak of the drug war, an approach that had fallen out of favor in recent years as minority communities grappled with the effects of mass incarceration.

Crime is near historic lows in the United States, but Sessions says that the spike in homicides in several cities, including Chicago, is a harbinger of a “dangerous new trend” in America that requires a tough response.

3.  Reevaluate and reconsider police consent decrees

At a time when police have a license to kill black people with impunity, the Trump Administration is putting vital police reforms in jeopardy. If Trump has his way, there will be more Philando Castiles, Tamir Rices, Eric Garners, Terrence Crutchers, Michael Browns and Rekia Boyds. The New York Times reports that:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered a sweeping review of federal agreements with dozens of law enforcement agencies, an examination that reflects President Trump’s emphasis on law and order and could lead to a retreat on consent decrees with troubled police departments nationwide.

In a memorandum dated March 31 and made public Monday, the attorney general directed his staff to look at whether law enforcement programs adhere to principles put forth by the Trump administration, including one declaring that “the individual misdeeds of bad actors should not impugn” the work police officers perform “in keeping American communities safe.”

...The broad review announced Monday could threaten some of those decrees if the Justice Department seeks to change its past stance about systematic police abuses in the affected agencies. But the Justice Department would not be able to unilaterally unwind the agreements without court intervention.

This is not a surprise for a couple of reasons. Prior to his appointment, now U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions expressed his opposition to police consent decrees. Second, during the campaign, Donald Trump stated that he supports racial profiling and New York style unconstitutional stop and frisk programs.

4.  Drastically cut Section 8 and other housing programs

Truth-Out reports that:

The gutting of HUD would take money directly out of the hands of renters in need. The Post story notes, "Under the proposal, direct rental assistance payments -- including Section 8 Housing and housing vouchers for homeless veterans -- would be cut by at least $300 million, to $19.3 billion. Additionally, housing for the elderly -- known as the Section 202 program -- would be cut by $42 million, nearly 10 percent. Section 811 housing for people with disabilities would be cut by $29 million, nearly 20 percent. Money available for Native American housing block grants would fall by $150 million, more than 20 percent."

According to Rice's analysis of the Post report, if the cuts go through, "Housing Choice Vouchers that some 200,000 low-income households currently use to pay their rent would be eliminated in 2018." He explained, "Reducing the availability of this crucial support would increase and prolong homelessness for vulnerable people with disabilities, families with children and others."

These cut will adversely and disproportionately impact African Americans. As stated on Living Cities, "...there is another pernicious outcome of the lack of Section 8 resources for every eligible household. Lack of Section 8 fuels inequality and works a racial injustice. In 2014, one out of every 3.6 black households in metropolitan areas was extremely low income, a rate 2.2 times higher than white households. (Source: 2010-2014 ACS 5-Year Public Use Microdata Sample)"

5.  Substantially cut food assistance for the poor

As reported on Mother Jones,

The budget includes $193 billion in cuts over a decade to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps—25 percent of the program’s budget. About 44 million people benefit from food stamps in the United States, especially poorer states in the Southeast. For example, 1 out of every 5 people in Louisiana receive food stamps in a given month, according to a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Trump’s proposed cuts to food stamps will by and large hit the states that voted for him the hardest. Louisiana voted overwhelmingly for Trump, as did its Southeast counterparts Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, and Georgia. Out of the 10 states with the highest food stamp use by population, seven voted Republican in last year’s presidential election. (See more details in the list below.)

Similar to Section 8 cuts, food stamps cuts will disproportionately impact African Americans. Although African Americans are 13.3% of the U.S. population, we are 25.7 percent of those are on food stamps / SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program).

6.  Eliminate health insurance for 22 million people, many of whom are African American
The Trump Administration health care bill would have caused 22 million to lose their health insurance. According to the New York Times, the Budget Office found:

that next year, 15 million more people would be uninsured compared with current law. Premiums and out-of-pocket expenses could shoot skyward for some low-income people and for people nearing retirement, it said.

Conclusion

The bottom line is this. The Trump Administration has declared war on black and poor people. We must fight back. We must resist. We must lobby Congress and fiercely oppose the Trump Administration's legislative agenda. We must vote out Trump's allies during the mid-term elections. We must do everything in our power to ensure that this is Trump's last term in office.

Tariq Nasheed's Don't Vote Campaign Equals Black Voter Suppression

Ahead of the South Carolina primaries, author and film maker Tariq Nasheed wrote an article entitled Why Black People Should Not Vote In The 2016 Presidential Election. The article promotes an anti-voting campaign called #Don'tVote. His article is misguided, deeply flawed, problematic and irresponsible.

In his article, Nasheed asserts that "many Black Americans are disheartened by president Barack Obama's hateful neglect of issues plaguing the Black society." Nasheed claims that "this has caused many Black people to be disheartened by the election process in general."

President Obama has not "hatefully" neglected the black community. Obama promoted policies and took action that directly benefited the black community. For instance, he launched the Brother's Keeper Program, issued an executive order establishing the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans, passed the Fair Sentencing Act, defended the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, defended affirmative action in Fisher v. the University of Texas, re-energized the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, sued the discriminatory Ferguson Police Department and entered a consent decree with the Cleveland Police Department. Although one can argue that President Obama has not done enough to address the problems plaguing Black America, it is a gross exaggeration to accuse the President of "hateful neglect." Furthermore, Nasheed's analysis fails to consider Republican obstructionism which prevented Obama passing other potentially beneficial legislation like the Jobs Bill.

It is naive for anyone to expect one black man to miraculously solve America's 400 year-old race problem. Instead of waiting on Obama to walk on water, part the Red Sea and raise the dead, the African American community should have put greater pressure on the President. Rather than doing so, many public intellectuals like Michael Eric Dyson and activists like Reverend Al Sharpton sold out for access and proximity to power. As result, we are, at the very last, partially to blame for the President's failure adequately address lingering problems haunting Black America. Our failure to hold elected officials is not a sound basis for deciding not to vote. Instead of merely voting, we must present an agenda, demand support, vote for supportive candidates and hold them accountable.

Tariq Nasheed's second argument emphasizes that "Presidents selected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote." He further claims that participation in electoral process is imperative to prevent the people from rebelling against the power structure.

The mere existence of the Electoral College is not a legitimate reason not to vote. As everyone learns in middle school, the American people indirectly elect the President and Vice President. As noted in the Huffington Post article titled What is the Electoral College? How It Works and Why It Matters, for most states, the Presidential "candidate who wins the majority of votes in a state wins the state's electoral votes." The article notes that "electoral votes are assigned by proportional representation" in Nebraska and Maine. In other words, when we vote, we are "voting for our candidate's electors."

The electors pledge to vote for their parties' nominees. As stated in the Huffington Post article, "twenty-seven states have laws requiring electors to vote for their party's candidate if that candidate get a majority of the state's popular vote." In the other states, it is still "common practice for electors to vote for their party's nominee." As stated on U.S. Electoral College website, "more 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged." Wikipedia states that "faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date." In sum, through the popular vote in each state, we indirectly elect the President and Vice President. The suggestion that our votes do not matter is just false. The Bush-Gore election of 2000 is a major reminder of how very important our votes are. Again, the existence of the Electoral College is not valid reason not to vote.

Nasheed's third argument against voting is that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are two faces of the same coin. Essentially, he is implying that the parties are the same. To prove that Democratic Party is just as racist as the Republican Party, Nasheed cites examples of Democratic prosecutors failing to prosecute various police brutality cases. Rather than substantiating his fundamental argument that black should not vote, such examples illustrate how precious and valuable our vote actually is.

Clearly, one should not select a candidate based solely on his or her party affiliation. We must select candidates based on their positions on important issues. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors are elected by the voters. If the citizens voted for other prosecutors who were truly committed to eliminating police brutality, perhaps, there would be different outcomes in the Michael Brown and Tamir Rice cases. Perhaps, a different Chicago prosecutor would have promptly filed charges against the officer who allegedly killed LaQuan McDonald.

Contrary to Nasheed's simple analysis, the two major parties are not essentially the same. Although there are some similarities on some foreign policy issues, the parties have conflicting views on affirmative action, criminal justice reform, police brutality, immigration, abortion, taxes, social programs, Wall Street, voting rights, workers' rights, health care, campaign finance reform and other issues. The difference is further demonstrated by mere fact that Republican leaders and candidates, including Donald Trump, seek to have another staunch conservative justice fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. They want to appoint more judges and justices like Antonin Scalia, a deceased Supreme Court Justice who said that African Americans should go to "slower track" schools and that maybe the University of Texas should not attempt admit as many African Americans as possible. The Republican want to usurp President Obama's constitutional power and wait for the next President to appoint a new justice.

On the other hand, the Democrats want the President to exercise his constitutional power and appoint a progressive justice. Without doubt, just based on the power to appoint justices and judges, African Americans would be worst off with Trump or any other one of the Republican candidates in the White House. Such judges regularly decide cases that directly determine our constitutional and human rights.

Even if one does not support either major party, one should, at least, vote for a third party candidate. Buried at the end of his article in one sentence, Nasheed writes, "If Black people choose to vote, they should vote independent." That sentence contradicts and dismantles the feeble premise of his entire article.

Nasheed's final argument is that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders "have not committed to actually doing anything for Black people." Contrary to Nasheed's claim, a simple review of the candidates' websites reveals that both candidates have committed to actually doing things for black people. Sanders' website and Hillary Clinton's website outline their plans for addressing police brutality, voting rights, mass incarceration, racial profiling, education, economic disparities and environmental racism. Apparently, Nasheed failed to conduct any basic research before he wrote his article.

Next, Nasheed basically asserts that black people should not vote for Sanders because Sanders does not support reparations. Reparations is an important issue. We should pressure all candidates and political parties to support H.R. 40. However, upon further reflection, we cannot base our decision solely on that one issue. There is a myriad of other urgent issues, such as police brutality, poverty, unemployment, failing schools, mass incarceration and inner city violence, that must be addressed. Moreover, Nasheed rightfully criticizes the Clinton for policies that led to the black mass incarceration.  If we elected a more progressive President at the time, maybe there would no 1994 crime bill. That is yet another illustration of the importance of voting.

In conclusion, as previously explained, Nasheed's reasons for not voting are weak. His article is irresponsible and reckless. It is one thing to demand that politicians fight to earn our vote. It is quite another thing to support a ridiculous Don't Vote Campaign. When a group withdraws from the political process, the politicians have no incentive to address that group's interests.

The Don't Vote will not empower the black community. It will only empower Donald Trump and the rest of the rabid right wing opposition. Such a campaign promotes the voluntary suppression of the black vote. The extreme Right does not need to implement voter ID laws, eliminateof early voting or purge voters as long as we have misguided people like Tariq Nasheed encouraging gullible black people not to vote. His self-defeating campaign is a slap in the face of the black elders and ancestors who fought, bled and died for our right to vote. Instead of discouraging our people, we need to encourage them.  We must encourage voter education, voter registration and voter participation. There is too much at stake for us to sit on the sidelines waiting for some distant, elusive and imaginary rebellion to occur.

Obama Calls Out the GOP for Voter Suppression

Good morning, family. Yesterday, President Obama spoke at the National Action Network National Convention. The President called a spade a spade. He called the Republicans out for suppressing the black vote. The Grio reports that:

In an unsparing critique of Republicans, President Barack Obama on Friday said the GOP is threatening voting rights in America more than at any point since the passage of the historic 1965 law expanding rights at the ballot box to millions of black Americans.

“The stark simple truth is this: The right to vote is threatened today,” Obama said in a fiery speech at civil rights activist and television talk host Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference.

The election-year warning comes as Obama seeks to mobilize Democratic voters to fight back against state voting requirements and early balloting restrictions that many in his party fear will curb turnout in November. The president vowed that he would not let the attacks on voting rights go unchallenged, but offered no new announcements of specific actions his administration planned to take.

The president pinned efforts to curb access to the ballot box directly on the GOP, declaring that the effort “has not been led by both parties. It’s been led by the Republican Party.”

The President spoke the truth. Republicans supported striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"). As Think Progress reports, "the Republican attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional." In Shelby County v. Holder, it was Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices who decided to strike down Section 4 of the VRA. Moreover, all around the country, the GOP is deliberately attempting to suppress black voters and other voters who tend to vote for Democrats.

The New York Times reports that:

Republicans in Ohio and Wisconsin this winter pushed through measures limiting the time polls are open, in particular cutting into weekend voting favored by low-income voters and blacks, who sometimes caravan from churches to polls on the Sunday before election.

Democrats in North Carolina are scrambling to fight back against the nation’s most restrictive voting laws, passed by Republicans there last year. The measures, taken together, sharply reduce the number of early voting days and establish rules that make it more difficult for people to register to vote, cast provisional ballots or, in a few cases, vote absentee.

In all, nine states have passed measures making it harder to vote since the beginning of 2013. Most have to do with voter ID laws. Other states are considering mandating proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a passport, after a federal court judge recently upheld such laws passed in Arizona and Kansas. Because many poor people do not have either and because documents can take time and money to obtain, Democrats say the ruling makes it far more difficult for people to register.

In sum, the President's assessment of the GOP is accurate.

The question is what are we prepared to do combat the GOP's voter suppression efforts. In addition to gathering evidence and filing lawsuits, we must combat voter suppression through intensive voter information and registration campaigns. We must ensure that all African American voters are aware of all new voter laws in their state. We must register record numbers of African American voters and inspire them to actually vote. While we inform the public and register new voters, we must continue to boldly define and vigorously push a black agenda. We must support or oppose politicians based solely on their demonstrated commitment to our agenda.  We cannot afford to vote for candidates based solely based on party affiliation. Our agenda must be primary, first and foremost.

"If It Hurts A Bunch of Lazy Blacks...So Be It!"

The GOP supports many policies that are detrimental to black people.  Many Republicans are just plain racist.  For instance, they want to do everything in their power to prevent you "lazy blacks" from voting. If you think that voter ID laws and restrictions on early voting are not designed to suppress black voters, watch this video and wake the hell up. GOP precinct chair of Buncombe County in North Carolina Don Yelton's only problem was his failure to effectively camouflage his racism. That's why he was forced to resign.

The War on Black Voters in North Carolina

Disclosure and disclaimer: I work for the NAACP. However, as usual, the opinions expressed in this article are my own personal opinions. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the NAACP, its officers, its members and/or its staff. I take sole responsibility for the contents of this article.

America is becoming a majority minority country. This nation is browning. Soon and very soon, white people will no longer be a majority. This country is slowly transforming and undergoing the Second Reconstruction. In 2008 and 2012, we witnessed what was once inconceivable, the election and re-election of the first African American president. In 2012, for the first time, a greater percentage of black people voted than white people. Progressives view those milestones as major achievements. Conversely, the reactionaries view those developments as the realization of their greatest fear, the fear of a black and brown nation.

Like the racist Klansmen in the Southern states following Reconstruction and like the white minority Apartheid regime in South Africa, the modern day White Citizens' Council, also known as the Republican Party, is determined to cling on to power by any means necessary. For the time being, their means of choice is voter suppression. By striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the United States Supreme Court unleashed the southern states on black people. Republican dominated southern states are waging an open war against African American voters. North Carolina is ground zero in that war.

People are not stupid. They know that blatant Jim Crow tactics such as outright poll taxes and literacy tests will be struck down by the courts. So, the right has erected new, second generation barriers to make it more difficult for black people to vote. The radical right wants to discourage black people from voting. If enough votes are suppressed, the GOP can remain in power. To hide their true intentions, they claim that they doing what is necessary to fight in person voter fraud. However, in person voter fraud is extremely rare.

Here is what is happening in North Carolina and why it matters. Last week, the North Carolina State Conference NAACP filed a lawsuit to strike down North Carolina law H.B. 589, the worst voter suppression law in the country. That law imposes strict voter identification requirements. According to the North Carolina Justice Center, "African Americans are more than three times as likely as whites to not have a government-issued ID." According to the ACLU of North Carolina, although black people are only 22 percent of the population in North Carolina, they are 31 percent of the voters who do not possess valid state-issued government ID.

In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, H.B. 589 eliminated same day voter registration. Similar to voter identification requirements, the elimination of same day registration has a disproportionate impact on black people. As stated in the NAACP's lawsuit, although African Americans are 22 percent of North Carolina's population, they constituted 41 percent of the people who used same day registration in 2012.

H.B 589 also eliminates seven full days of early voting, including Saturday and Sunday voting. That change disproportionately impacts black people. As stated in the complaint, 70 percent of black voters used early voting in 2012. Although black people constitute 22 percent of the population in North Carolina, they constitute 29 percent of all early voters.

Finally, H.B. 589 eliminates out of precinct voting and increases the number of people who can challenge ballots. As stated in the complaint, although black people constitute 22 percent of the population in North Carolina, they cast 30 percent of all out of precinct ballots. By increasing the number of challengers, North Carolina is paving the way for right wing groups like True the Vote to harass and profile black and Latino voters. This will only slow down the voting process, increase the lines at the polls and discourage people from voting.

Before enacting H.B. 589, civil rights groups informed the legislature of the proposed law's disproportionate and discriminatory impact on African Americans. Yet, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Fifteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, the General Assembly decided to enact the law anyway. I hope that the court strikes down H.B. 589. If we don't defeat H.B. 589 in North Carolina, voter suppression will become the norm and African American political power will be diluted and other civil rights gains will be reversed as well.

The Supreme Court Unleashed the South on Black Voters

“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”  Ken Emanuelson, Texas Tea Party leader

African Americans and others fought, bled and died for voting rights. Following the 50th Anniversary of assassination of Medgar Wiley Evers and the 49th anniversary of the assassinations of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, the United States Supreme Court showed utter disrespect for the black people and our struggle. Instead of protecting the Voting Right Act ("VRA"), the Court castrated it.  They rendered it impotent. With its disastrous decision, the Court eviscerated all that we struggled for.

In the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. In order to understand the importance of Section 4, one must understand Section 5. Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia prior to implementing any changes in their voting laws. The covered jurisdiction must prove the proposed law "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." Section 4 sets forth the formula that determined which jurisdictions are covered. Covered jurisdictions includes States and counties that have a long history of discriminating against African American voters. More specifically, Section 4(b) states:

"(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964."

By striking down Section 4, the Supreme Court rendered Section 5 useless, at least until Congress acts. It is like having a car with no engine or a computer with no hard drive.

Another key provision of the VRA is Section 2. Section 2 states that "no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." Section 2 remains in place. However, it is not as effective as Section 5. Section 5 is proactive. It fights discrimination in voting before it occurs and saves plaintiffs the time and expense of litigation.

The Court held that Section 4's formula is outdated and violates the principle of equal sovereignty among the States. Basically, the Court found that the current burdens of Sections 4 and 5 are not justified by today's current needs.  The Court noted that states no longer use literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent African Americans from voting.  The Court further stated "African American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by Section 5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent." The Court mentioned that "minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels."  The Court acknowledged that that progress is a direct result of the effectiveness of Section 4 and 5.

Here is the layman's translation. The Court said, "Since the Voting Rights Act worked so well, you people don't need it any more."  The Court basically said, "You Negroes have black mayors, black congressman,  black senators and even a black president. What more do you people need?" For the first time in history, the black vote exceeded the white vote. Instead of celebrating that achievement, the Court decided to collectively punish black people by stripping us of the tool that made that accomplishment possible. As Justice Ginsburg stated in her dissent, "[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discrimination changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

As pointed out in the Ginsburg's dissent, the Court failed to consider the current day, "second generation barriers to minority voting" such as racial gerrymandering, adoption of at large voting, vote dilution and other tactics that "diminish the minority community's ability to fully participate in the electoral process and to elect their preferred candidates." Moreover, the court failed to consider that the bailout provisions keep the VRA current. The bailout provisions allow covered jurisdictions to opt of Section 5 by proving that they no longer discriminate against minority voters.

While I read the Court's opinion, I keep thinking about Justice Scalia's saying that the VRA "a racial entitlement."  In his twisted mind, such "racial entitlements" are difficult to eliminate through the normal political process. Accordingly, this activist Supreme Court decided to substituted its judgment for Congress' judgment.

In the Court's eyes, it did not matter that Congress considered a voluminous 15,000 page record when it decided to reauthorize Section 5 of the VRA. As noted in the dissenting opinion, that record established DOJ blocked over 700 discriminatory voting law changes between 1986 and 2006.  According to the Katz study in citing in the dissenting opinion, although the covered jurisdictions are less than 25 of the population, the covered jurisdictions accounted for 56 percent of the successful Section 2 litigation and "there were nearly four times as many successful Section 2 lawsuits in covered jurisdictions as there were in noncovered jurisdictions." The record before Congress established that the covered jurisdictions are more racial polarized than the noncovered jurisdictions. In her dissent, Ginsburg correctly asserts such racial polarization "increases the vulnerability of racial minorities to discriminatory changes in voting law."

Now that the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the VRA, African American voters are vulnerable.  Although there are no literacy test and poll taxes, discrimination in voting is not dead.  It has evolved. We will have to confront more second generation barriers.  As Texas Tea Party leader Ken Emanuelson acknowledged, the Republican Party does not want black people to vote. Through its horrible decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court has unleashed the rabid, howling, southern states on black people. More specifically, MSNBC reports that:

"Texas is ground zero for measuring the impact. Just hours after the ruling was announced, Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state’s voter ID law “will go into immediate effect.” The law—the strictest in the country, and described by Attorney General Eric Holder as a “poll tax”—had been blocked last year under Section 5, after a federal court found it discriminated against blacks and Latinos, who, numerous studies show, are more likely than whites to lack ID. On Thursday, the Supreme Court officially threw out that ruling.

In South Carolina, the Supreme Court’s ruling may allow the state to enforce an existing voter ID law more strictly. Last year, a federal court, citing Section 5, blocked the law for the November election. It said the measure could go into effect in 2013, but only because the state promised to broadly interpret a provision making an exception for voters without ID, allowing them to vote if they affirm they weren’t able to obtain one. The court added that if South Carolina wanted to interpret the provision more narrowly, making it harder for those without ID to vote, it would need federal sign off under the Voting Rights Act...

Adam Piper, a spokesman for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, told MSNBC that the assurance the state gave the court about its interpretation of the provision “still applies.” Nonetheless, now that federal sign-off is no longer needed, state officials can likely interpret it however they choose in the future...

Then there’s Virginia, which recently passed its own voter ID law, scheduled to go into effect next year. Opponents of the law had held out hope that it might be blocked under Section 5. Now that’s moot, the measure appears likely to be in force for next fall’s midterms."

Contrary to the GOP's representations, such laws are not designed to prevent in person voter fraud.  In person voter fraud is extremely rare.  The real purpose such voter ID laws and laws limiting early voting is to suppress African American voters.  Such laws have a disproportionate impact on African Americans.The NAACP's Defending Democracy report states that:

"An astonishing 25% of African Americans (over 6.2 million African-American voters) and 16% of Latinos (over 2.96 million Latino voters) do not possess valid photo ID. By comparison, only 8% of whites are without a current government-issued photo ID. "

Furthermore, according to the Defending Democracy report, "African-American voters have been much more likely to take advantage of early voting, accounting for 22% of early voters during the 2008 general election, despite being only 13% of the Florida electorate.

GOP lawmakers know that such laws will suppress African American voters, a group that tends to vote for Democrats.  Last year, state House Majority Leader Mike Turzai acknowledged that the purpose of Pennsylvania's voter ID law was to help elect former Republican Presidential Mitt Romney.  In fact, as reported in  Palm Beach Post, former Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer admitted that the GOP limited early voting in Florida in order to suppress the black vote. This is just the beginning. If you do not act now, this will only be the tip of the iceberg.  If left unchecked, southern states will dilute the black vote through other schemes. We must urge Congress to correct the Supreme Court's supreme error.

 

Judge Allows GOP to Suppress Minority and Elderly Voters in Pennsylvania

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As reported in the Washington Post,

A Pennsylvania judge Wednesday allowed a Republican-backed law requiring voters to show IDs to go into effect starting this Election Day, a setback for Democrats and civil rights groups who contend that such laws could deny many Americans the right to vote.

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said those challenging the law had failed to prove that it violates the state constitution by denying voters’ rights. He also disputed the challengers’ predictions of the number of voters at stake and said there is still time for those without proper ID to acquire it...

Supporters of recent laws passed by several Republican legislatures requiring voters to show IDs say the measures protect the integrity of the electoral process by making sure only qualified voters cast ballots.

Democrats and minority groups counter that the restrictions are likely to disenfranchise voters — often minorities, the poor and elderly, those who live in urban areas and others who may not have the type of photo ID required....

Cases of voter impersonation fraud — the kind that would be stopped by photo ID laws — are exceedingly rare. Pennsylvania acknowledged that such fraud had not occurred in the commonwealth, nor was it likely to occur in the coming election, even without the law.

The bottom line is simple. The Republicans realize that they probably will not win the Presidential Election on the merits.  So what do they do?  They do everything in their power to suppress voters who tend to vote Democratic.

Their primary targets are African Americans, Latinos, the poor and the elderly.  A disproportionately high percentage of African Americans do not have the required government issued photo IDs.  Many elderly African Americans born were in rural areas during the Jim Crow time period and do not have birth certificates. Consequently, it is difficult if not impossible for them to get government photo IDs.  For those who are poor or on a fixed income, paying for a government photo ID or a birth certificate is basically a poll tax.  No one should be forced to choose between eating and voting.

Instead of just complaining about the problem, progressives must step up their efforts to ensure that all citizens have the necessary photo IDs and documentation.  We must intensify our voter registration, mobilization and education efforts.  If we don't, over 700,000 people in Pennsylvania alone may be disenfranchised. 

A "Brother" Found Guilty of Selling Out the Community for A Few Dollars

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

On this past Friday, the Baltimore Sun reported that:

Jurors acquitted Henson on three of the four charges he faced in connection with the "robocall," made on behalf of Republican former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s campaign about two hours before the polls closed.  

Henson was found guilty of a single conspiracy count, for failing to include a campaign authority line in the call. He will be sentenced June 13 and could face a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.  

Henson, 63, who wore a three-piece suit with his trademark salt-and-pepper dreadlocks pulled back Friday, dismissed the significance of including a line to note that the robocall was authorized by the Ehrlich campaign.  

"Fifty percent of campaign materials don't have an authority line; it's sort of similar to spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking," said Henson. "It's not enforced."  

Henson's lawyer, Edward Smith Jr., said he will seek a retrial on the conviction. Henson had also faced two counts of conspiracy to influence voters' decisions to cast ballots and another count of distributing the message without including an authority line; convictions on all counts could have led to a 12-year sentence....  

He was paid $112,000 by Ehrlich's campaign and had been promised a $30,000 bonus if Ehrlich had beaten Gov. Martin O'Malley, who was seeking re-election. O'Malley won handily.

As few days earlier, the Sun reported that:

Political consultant Julius Henson returned to the witness stand Monday and placed blame for a controversial Election Day 2010 robocall on a top campaign aide to former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.  

Henson told jurors in Baltimore Circuit Court that he was eating with his granddaughter at a Baltimore McDonald's at 4:42 p.m. Election Day when Ehrlich campaign manager Paul Schurick called him and authorized Henson to arrange the call — which prosecutors have described as a plan to suppress the black vote through fraud.  

The automated call suggested registered Democrats in Baltimore and Prince George's County should "relax" and stay home. It implied that Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, had already won his race against Ehrlich, a Republican, even though the polls were still open.  

Henson, who is charged with election fraud, testified that he wrote the call in three minutes on the back of a McDonald's napkin and called Schurick to read to him what he proposed to tell potential voters. That's good," Henson recalled Schurick telling him. But Henson said he was surprised when Schurick instructed him not to include an Ehrlich campaign authority line on the call.

Brothers and sisters marched, fought, bled and died so that African Americans could vote. The power to vote is the power to determine one's destiny. All other rights flow from the right to vote.



It is unbelievable that a so-called "brother" would help racists suppress the African American vote. I should not be surprised. Every race has its traitors and sellouts. I just hope that Henson receives the maximum sentence for his crime.

Part 2: A "Brother" Allegedly Attempted to Suppress the Black Vote

Today, the Baltimore Sun reports that Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler filed a federal lawsuit against black political consultant Julius Henson, Universal Elections and Rhonda Russell for making deceptive robocalls to Prince George's County and Baltimore Democratic voters.  For more information regarding the robocalls, click this link to my last article.  The calls were designed to suppress the black vote. 

The civil complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and seeks millions of dollars in fines.  Gansler claims that he has no reason to believe that former Governor Bob Ehrlich was aware of the calls. 

To read the article, visit the Baltimore Sun website.

A "Brother" Allegedly Attempted to Suppress the Black Vote

Many brothers and sisters fought, bled and died for the right to vote.  Sadly, some black people, like political operatives Julius Henson and Rhonda Russell, do not give a damn about our struggle for equality.  On WBAL TV, Mr. Henson acknowledged sending controversial robo-calls to predominantly black Baltimore and Prince George's County during the 2010 Midterm Elections.  Rhonda Russell actually made the call.  In an obvious attempt to suppress the black vote, Ms. Russell's robo-call said:

"I'm calling to let everyone know that Gov. O'Malley and President Obama have been successful. Our goals have been met. Our polls were correct and we (unintelligible). We're OK. Relax. Everything is fine. The only thing left is to watch on TV tonight. Congratulations and thank you."

Contrary to Mr. Henson's assertions, that call was clearly designed give black Democratic voters the false impression that there was no need to vote.  The call implied that the election was over.

Voter suppression is not new phenomenon in Maryland.  However, it was shocking and disappointing to learn that some African Americans would participate in such a scheme against their own community.  Henson and Russell sold out the black community for approximately $97,000. According to WBAL TV, that is how much former Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich (R) paid Henson for political consulting.  Unfortunately, some people will do anything for the love of money.  This situation conjures up images of African kings selling their own African brothers and sisters to European slave masters.

Hopefully, Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler will conduct a thorough investigation and bring all of those involved to justice.

To read WBAL TV's news report and view the related videos, click this link.

Right Wing Extremists Seek to Suppress the Black and Latino Vote

On October 28, 2010, Project Vote issued a press release detailing nationwide efforts by members of the Tea Party and Republican Party to suppress minority voters.  The Brennan Center has a page on its website tracking right wing so-called "ballot security" operations.  Under the guise of promoting so-called "ballot security" and "voter integrity", right wing activists are using various suppression tactics against black and Latino voters.  Here are a few examples cited in Project Vote's report:

In Houston, Texas, someone sent fake and deceptive fliers to African Americans to discourage them from voting a straight Democratic ticket. 


In Nevada, a political television ad actually urged Latinos not to vote.



As reported in the Houston Chronicle, in Harris County, Texas, early voters in predominantly minority districts complained to the County Attorney Vince Ryan about Tea Party activists" "hovering over" voters, "getting into election workers' faces" and blocking or disrupting lines of voters waiting to cast their ballots."

Finally, in Illinois, Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk was recorded saying, "I have now funded the largest voter integrity program for 15 years in the state of Illinois.  These are lawyers and other people that will be deployed in key vulnerable precincts.  For example: South and West side of Chicago, Rockford, Metro East, where the other side might be tempted to jigger the numbers somewhat."  Those precincts are predominately African American. 

As noted on the Keith Olbermann show and in the Huffington Post, "Hans von Spakovsky was in Chicago.....recruiting Republican attorneys for "voter integrity" efforts. In 2006, von Spakovsky, according to the Washington Post, pushed to require Georgia voters to provide photo identification that had to be purchased--basically creating a poll tax that disproportionately affected the black community." For more information, watch the Keith Olbermann video below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Voter suppression is a modern form of oppression. Such despicable racist strategies are contrary to this nation's ideals and values.  Voting is the essence of American democracy. Those schemes are analogous to poll taxes, literacy tests and other repressive Jim Crow era strategies to prevent black people from voting. The opposition understands the importance of our vote. Otherwise, they would not work so hard to suppress it.  We must exercise and defend our right to vote. 

On November 2, 2010, I will be working with fellow NAACP staff attorneys and the Election Protection coalition to assist voters.  If you experience any problems voting, please contact 1-866-OUR-VOTE for assistance.  For more information, visit http://www.866ourvote.org/.