All votes matter, but some matter more than others.

     The Field Negro education series continues.

"They are creative, I'll give 'em that. The same conservatives who succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act last year are now attacking the principle of one person, one vote, and the court has just agreed to hear their case. The purpose of both maneuvers is the same, to help Republicans win elections by diluting or suppressing Democratic votes, in particular the votes of black and brown people. As Greg Palast put it:

Back in 2013, the Supreme Court put a knife into the guts of the Voting Rights Act, making it almost impossible to enforce laws that prevented discrimination against voters of color. Here we are again -- the same group.

 

The case of Evenwel v. Abbott centers on the question of how legislative districts should be drawn, given that a number of Supreme Court decisions in the mid-1960s established the principle of equal representation, i.e., one person, one vote. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court found that districts in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as in all houses of a state legislature must "be apportioned substantially on a population basis," and that districts must "be of equal population."

Seems pretty straightforward. However, the plaintiffs in Evenwel claim that using population as the measure actually dilutes the vote of eligible voters in districts where there are proportionately fewer non-eligible voters, which includes anyone from disenfranchised felons, non-citizen but legal residents, undocumented immigrants, and, of course, children. Democratic districts are more likely to contain a disproportionate number of people who fall into those categories. That's why, explained election law guru Richard Hasen, a victory for the plaintiffs in this case will likely result in more electoral clout for Republican voters. If they win, FiveThirtyEight found the likely net outcome would be a shift of eight seats in the House of Representatives to the GOP.

The plaintiffs want the court to require states to ensure that every district has an equal number of eligible voters rather than an equal number of people (even though figuring that out is likely impossible, because, according to the folks at FiveThirtyEight, doing so "relies on statistics that nobody has"). If the plaintiffs win, states will be forced literally to count some people more than others. I told you there was something about this case that sounds familiar to anyone who knows our country's, er, problematic history on voting and discrimination.

Nina Perales is the vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, an organization that opposed the Evenwel plaintiffs. She called their effort "an attempt to cut back on growing Latino political strength in [Texas] by packing Latinos into a smaller number of districts."

There is a lot to unpack in this case, in terms of constitutionality and legal principles. Although the issues are complex, the aforementioned Hasen nonetheless characterized the Court's decision to take it "a surprise move." He added that he had "considered the issue fairly settled by the Supreme Court that states have the power to decide whether to use total population or another measure for drawing district lines." At this point, nothing surprises me when it comes to conservative attempts to win elections by changing the rules of the voting process rather than actually trying to, you know, win votes.

On the matter of it sounding familiar, one thing that stuck in my mind as I was reading about this case was how much it reminded me of something from the time of America's founding, a morally suspect deal struck in order to keep slave-owning states in the union as the Constitution came together.

   The specific circumstances of the Evenwel case certainly differ from those surrounding the Three-Fifths Compromise. However, the fundamental parallel remains. Even leaving aside the question of undocumented immigrants, if the conservative plaintiffs in Evenwel triumph, some Americans will count and others will not in determining the very same question at the heart of that debate from over two centuries ago, namely how to draw legislative districts of equal size.

Ultimately, the Three-Fifths Compromise allowed Southern white conservatives to gain greater representation in the House of Representatives than they deserved, at least so long as they denied citizenship, freedom, and equal rights to those Americans of African descent whom they enslaved in such large numbers. After slavery was outlawed, the South got an even greater unearned benefit in representation because -- under Jim Crow -- they denied black men the right to vote while counting 100 percent (as opposed to three-fifths) of Southern blacks in their states' population. This discrepancy only grew wider after women won the right to vote in 1920 -- except in the South, where, until 1965, whites continued to disenfranchise black women as well as men while happily counting their numbers for purposes of representation.

This case is by no means the equivalent of slavery, or of Jim Crow. But that is a very low bar to clear in 2015. The Evenwel case is, without question, part of a long-term, multi-pronged effort by conservative activists and Republican officials to alter election and voting rules in a way that enhances their electoral prospects. In other words, they want to fix the game. Having already achieved much, they certainly aren't going to allow something like counting a person as a person stand in their way.

Will the Supreme Court see this scheme for what it is and rule in favor of not counting some Americans more than others? Or, on the other hand, will the five conservatives on the Court see it for what it is and give the conservative plaintiffs exactly what they want, knowing full well the purpose behind their push? Given how the court ruled on the Voting Rights Act, we need to be prepared for the worst. If that indeed comes to pass, the next question will be: What are we who believe that voting rights and equality are sacrosanct going to do about it?" [Source]

The most important job of a president, in my humble opinion, is appointing Justices to serve on the Supreme Court. Our next president might have as much as four appointments.

Keep that in mind when you go to the voting booth to select your next president.

Snowed in, but still chasing the big R.

I feel like I am living in Northern Minnesota right about now. Snow is all around me. *Memo to self: Buy a really nice snow blower this weekend*






This is crazy. I knew this was going to be a rough winter, but this is getting to be a bit too much for my Jamaican blood.








So anyway, snow or no snow; the racism chase must go on.








Tonight my first stop takes me to the state of North Carolina, a state where they are fast becoming as loony as some of their neighbors to the South.








How about this head scratcher?








"A North Carolina mother is reeling after an elementary school rewarded her black son with a Confederate Army hat.


When Natasha Lea's 9-year-old son Jacob got off his Reidsville school bus last week, she said she was absolutely floored by what she saw him wearing on his head.


"I said, let me see that hat," Lea emotionally recalled to MyFox8.
Jacob obediently handed her the grey flat-topped cap, which didn't have any outside markings on it. But when she looked inside, she saw the damning proof.
Its tag read "Confederate."




Of course, the clueless folks in the elementary school didn't seem to think that there was anything wrong with their contribution to this sad bit of irony.






Rockingham County Spokesperson Karen Hyler confessed that the hat was given away to Lea's son as part of a class prize in exchange for "big bucks," a kind of academic currency rewarded to their students." [Source]


But the gift wasn't given in a "malicious way" by his teacher, she said.


"Before winter break in December, the class had an auction where students could bid on different items using their 'big bucks,'"


No, it might not have been "malicious"; just incredibly stupid and insensitive. And, if you ask me, a little bit racist.




Speaking of racists, conservatives, in an effort to do away with the rights of minority voters, are now falsely claiming that the Voting Rights Act discriminates against white people. Yes, they really said that.



"Conservatives insist the congressional effort to strengthen the Voting Rights Act (VRA) unfairly discriminates against white voters. The claim rests on evidence that’s shaky at best—but could still make it harder for the bill to win the Republican support it needs.


The Voting Rights Amendment Act, unveiled Thursday by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, aims to update the formula used to determine which areas of the country must get federal approval before making any changes to their voting rules—a system known as “pre-clearance.” In June, the Supreme Court struck down the law’s existing formula, under which almost all the southern states were covered, ruling that it was out of date.


In an interview last week with msnbc, Center for Equal Opportunity president Roger Clegg argued that the VRA’s pre-clearance system unfairly advantages those claiming discrimination. Clegg’s organization has fought to narrow the application of civil rights laws.


“They don’t like these laws, and so they’ve brought lawsuits, that’s fine,” Clegg said, referring to voting rights advocates. “If they can prove that there’s been racial discrimination they’ll win those lawsuits. Why would the deck be stacked further in their favor?”


Writing last week in National Review, Clegg made an additional argument against the new legislation. Clegg called the bill “color-conscious,” charging that it “offers protections for ‘minority voters’ that it withholds from ‘nonminority’ voters.”' [Source]


Look, I know that some of you white conservatives believe that you are losing your country to brown and black people, and that if you don't find ways to keep them away from the voting booth they will take away whatever power you think you have.




But here is the deal: Voting with people of color on some of the major issues of the day, might actually be more in line with your own best interest-- and better for you-- than voting with the party ---and for people--- who you believe have your best interest at heart.




Sorry, but unless you happen to be a major corporation, or you have enough money to own an NFL team; they are just not that into you.




In case you didn't notice, the wealth gap is really growing in the world. (The poorest 3.55 billion people must live on what the richest 85 people possess.) And every politician and every lobbyist ---who owns these politicians--- want to be with the guys with the big bank accounts; not the rest of the people. 




"Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a persistent critic of aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws, has gone further.


“For the first time, [GOP Rep. James] Sensenbrenner’s bill actually says that the protections of this amendment will only apply to racial minority groups, and they defined them in the law, and it specifically excludes white voters,” von Spakovsky told the Washington Times.


He added, “They’re basically giving a ‘get out of jail free’ card to black elected officials in the South, where they can discriminate all they want against white voters.”




Wouldn't it be nice, if, just for once, "white voters" and "black elected officials in the South" would come to realize that they all want the same thing?

Passing laws to suppress votes, and a shaky rescue in Florida.

This post won't be long because I am on the road and not in my comfort zone if you will.

Anyway, I was browsing the web this morning, and I saw where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has declared that her prediction as it relates to the supremes striking down a key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act having dire consequences, is turning out to be spot on.

Take, for instance, what is happening in North Carolina. The state's republican lawmakers have lost their minds now that they have taken control, and they are now going to make sure that minorities and poor people have no access to the ballot box. No pesky federal government to watch over how they disenfranchise thousands and thousands of people. I suspect that it won't be long before we go back to the days of having to prove we can read and write or that we own property before we can have the privilege of voting in some states here in America.

Down in Texas (I wish they would just go ahead and secede) they are  doing their  best to suppress votes as well, and the only thing in Texas in more danger than poor people and minorities is a woman's womb.

I was glad to see Eric Holder address this issue at the Urban League get together in Philly. He has vowed that his justice department will be watching these states and will be proactive in coming months. (*Breaking! The Justice Department is asking to reinstate The Voting Rights Act in Texas.)

We will see. I like Holder, the fact that wingnuts hate him so much is reason enough for me to like the guy. All that hateration from the right wing; he must be doing something right.

Finally, this Zimmerman rescue story. I am not big on conspiracy theories, but....

"This was a suspicious story from the beginning.

 

We have seen news reports of protesters doing thousands of dollars of damage to be wrong. The claims of separate attacks by protesters over the Zimmerman verdict turned out to be false. Now added to the list of  false news reports appears to be the story of George Zimmerman heroically rescuing a family of four from a burning SUV.

The initial report was that George Zimmerman was ‘just coincidentally’ driving by after a car accident occurred, that he leaped out of his vehicle, fire extinguisher in hand, to come to the rescue of the family of four trapped inside as the vehicle caught fire, pulling them to safety. That was followed by the claim that the family he rescued had planned a press event to thank George Zimmerman, but that they canceled due to threats from Trayvon Martin supporters.

It appears they may have canceled the event because they did not want to be part of the fraud of making Zimmerman out to be a hero, when that story was not precisely true.

What did occur was that an accident occurred where a car slid on its side into a median. People at the scene called 911, which went to the Sanford office of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. BEFORE responding to the 911 call, News Ball.com reports that Seminole Sheriff’s Dept. Officer Patrick Rehder, a self-styled friend and supporter of Zimmerman, contacted Zimmerman by cell phone directing him to go to the accident so as to appear to be a hero.   News Ball.com also provides a social media screen capture of a curious statement about Rehder taking pleasure when someone gets credit for something they did not do.

Rehder’s name appears on the accident report as the responding officer; social media shows his connection to Zimmerman." [Source]

Wingnut sites, of course, have a different take on things.

I am not sure where this is all going, but it should be interesting to see it all develop.

      

 

"March Madness"

This is a great time of year if you happen to live along "Tobacco Road". What's not to love about being in North Carolina and cheering for one of those great college basketball teams down there. Yep, it's great to be in the "Tar Heel" state this time of year. Well, unless, of course, you happen to be a person of color living in Pender County. Yes folks, just in case you have been sleeping for the past few days, let me update you on what your supremes did yesterday:

By a five to four margin your supremes decided that the Voting Rights Act shouldn't be as powerful anymore in a post racial A-merry-ca. No sir, not when we have a black prez. Who needs something as racial as a Voting Rights Act? People in A-merry-ca --especially the South-- don't see race anymore.

So let's see now, the supremes decided in a case styled Bartlett v. Strickland, that because Pender County is not majority black, the Voting Rights Act shouldn't apply. In essence what they said is that county,state, and city officials should not consider race when drawing up electoral districts if you black folks don't make up the majority. (Nice, so if you are in the majority you get the protection of an act that you don't really need because you are in the MAJORITY. But if you are in the minority and you need to have a say in how your government is run; no voice for you ) Poor North Carolina, their state lawmakers actually tried to draw up a district where they thought that a black candidate could actually win. But not so fast. See, in post racial A-merry-ca, that is not fair to the white folks in Pender County who might want to elect.... well, a white candidate. It's not fair that the 39% of black folks in Pender County get to combine with another county to create a district that might elect the black guy. So they sued the state, and when it was all said and done, the supremes agreed with them.

Seems the lawmakers of Carolina misread the law. The law only applied when a "geographically compact group of minority voters could form a majority in a single member district." So said the judges in the majority, led by the man who couldn't remember his lines when he was swearing in the chosen one. (Guess which side Clarence was on? That's not a trick question) Of course there was a dissenting opinion: Four justices agreed with the field that this is a step backwards for civil rights because it would "discourage minority 'opportunity districts' in which blacks or Hispanics could win with the support of whites". This should be fun come redistricting time again down South. We will see how far we have come with this race thing.

"State Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D.,Vt.) said the ruling 'dealt a serious blow to the progress of the civil rights movement' by limiting the application of the Voting Rights Act."

Oh calm down Patrick, you are still stuck in the sixties. Welcome to the age of Obama. There is no more need for a "civil rights movement".

"Next month, the court will hear a closely watched challenge to another part of the Voting Rights Act which requires Southern officials to obtain the permission of the Justice Department before making changes in their election rules. "

Clarence should just vote now and get it over with.

Vote Halle Vote

Hi everybody, the field would like just for once to keep it light with you, and blog about some nice stuff that goes down with him from time to time. But what's that line from the Godfather? " Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in..." or something like that.

So anyway, it's like this. Today I am heading to court and I literally run into this old colleague of mine. A certified dime piece, and head turner who the field hadn't seen in awhile. Girlfriend could probably play Halle Barry's sister in her next movie. Anyway, I had forgotten just how gorgeous she was, and the sight of her made the field realize just how beautiful life can be in these United States. Hey, the field can appreciate true beauty without having any nefarious intentions. Besides, it's not like she is Lark Voorhies or anything; but I digress. So the field makes some small talk with the Nubian, and not wanting to let the moment pass, asks her to lunch. She accepts, we coordinate our times, and the next thing you know, the field is having lunch with this beautiful Nubian in a Center City Philadelphia eatery and enjoying the view.

Well that's the good part. Now here is where it's not so good. We are making small talk, she is telling the field about her new love and her career, the field is telling her about his life, and career, as well as professional plans for the future. Somehow we get on the subject of the upcoming November elections, and I ask her who she will be voting for in the hot senate race between Bob Casey, Jr., and Rick Santorum that the entire country is watching this fall. And this is when girlfriend drops the; "field I don't vote" on me. Now all of a sudden, girlfriend is looking a lot more like Whoppie than Halle, and I am thinking to myself; did she just say that? So I ask her if she is serious, if she really means that she doesn't believe in voting. And she says yes, she says that no matter who is in power it won't effect how much she spends on a Coach bag, or a pair of Kate Spades. [Yes she really said that] Now I am taken totally by surprise. After all, we are not talking about some young kid fresh out of high school. We are talking about an individual who I am guessing, is in her mid thirties, who spent at least nineteen years of her life in school, and who is supposed to be pretty worldly and sophisticated. I ask her again if she is serious, and I tell her that as a lawyer she should no better. But no go, girlfriend is clearly not buying what the field is selling.

So I try another tactic, I try to explain to her that people died for that right. That black families were burned out, tortured and terrorized in the South before the federal government stepped in with laws like the "Force Act", the "1957 Civil Rights Act", and the "Voting Rights Act of 1965". to allow them to have a right that she now so casually dismisses. I tried to tell her about poll taxes and literacy tests, how white folks in the south lost their minds when we started exercising our rights to vote after Reconstruction. How that led to the rise of groups like the Klan, and the White Camellia, groups who used some serious terrorism to suppress black voter strength. How people like John Lewis from Georgia, literally got their skulls smashed in on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, by racist state troopers trying to break up a march for voter rights. How Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman were brutally murdered by the Klan during freedom summer in Philadelphia, Mississippi, for trying to register black folks to vote. I mean, I could have also told her about Fannie Lou Hamer, and the struggle of the other folks in places like Mississippi and Alabama. But what would be the point? She clearly was not interested. I wondered how many more like her there was? Black professionals, so caught up in themselves and their careers, that they never even took the time to register to vote, and exercise that right when the opportunity presented itself.

Finally, I did tell her, that even though she doesn't exercise it, black folks almost lost that right. As a matter of fact, if a bunch [80 to be exact] of GOP house members had their way, we probably would have. They didn't want the 1965 Voting Rights Act renewed, because they didn't like some of the language that dealt with bi lingual issues in Section 2 of the act. I could have, but didn't tell her about Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia expressing his frustrations with the act by saying: "If you want to move a poling place from a Baptist church to a Methodist church, you have to go through the justice department" You damn right you do Jack. Like what the f#%&? Do you really think we would leave voting rights up to the states again like pre 1965? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I want your ass to tell the federal government if you even think about moving the damn poling place. Hey, didn't some lady named Barbara Arwine, the Director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law say that a bi partisan commission found evidence of RECENT voting rights violations in Georgia, [Yes Jack, Georgia] Texas, and several other southern states. Sorry boys, I just don't trust you down there in the land of NASCAR, and sweet tea just yet.

So back to my lunch. I am telling girlfriend all this stuff-not all of it, cause if I did, no matter how great a company the field is, I suspect the head turner would have bailed on the field- and she is telling me, that I am making a little sense, but really, she has never voted, and she doesn't see how it would have changed her life if she did. But what about helping us black folks to be relevant? I ask her. I mean this is why both parties take black folks for granted now, because of attitudes like yours. I tell her to try to change her position and vote this year. I tell her to study up on all the candidates and make an informed pick. Of course I know it's going in one ear and out the other. Then I try another tact. Do you like George Bush I ask? She shrugs her shoulder, says he is alright. Well what if he didn't sign the Voting Rights Act into law? What if he had enough votes to block it from passage on the republican side and his veto could not have been over ridden? What if frat boy and the republicans was sick of only getting about 12% of the black vote every national election, and decided to do something about it? Do you realize that we would go back to the possibility of poll taxes, and literacy tests if individual states and not the federal government controlled the process? But then she hit me with one too. But field, she says, do you realize how ridiculous this all is? Like we have to get someone else es blessings to vote, I think the whole thing is crazy. What do you care I strike back, you don't vote anyway. Yeah, whatever field, she says, clearly annoyed, before she changes the subject.

Now girlfriend is sounding like the grown ups on those Charley Brown cartoons, cause the field ain't hearing a word she is saying. The field is thinking about what girlfriend just said, and the scary thing is, she is right. Someone had mentioned it on this blog earlier and I didn't pay it much attention. Of course that person is right too. Why do we even have to get someone else es permission to freely vote? Why do federal laws have to be passed to protect us from our own fellow citizens? Yeah that's some messed up stuff. And the more I think about it, the more ironic all this crap is. Here I am telling girlfriend to vote to exercise her right in a free democracy, when the democracy is really kind of f%#&d up. I mean the President had to sign legislation that reauthorized my right to vote. Damn! But hey, I think to myself, it ain't gonna get better if we don't participate in it. So my black ass is going to keep voting, and I am going to encourage every other black person I know or meet to do the same thing.

The check comes, and girlfriend reaches for it. The field can't let her, I tell her I have it she insist on going dutch, I tell her no way. I lie and tell her I enjoyed her company, and the least I could do is get the check. She doesn't believe it, but she acquiesces to the field, thanks him for lunch, and is on her way. As she walks away, I start to think of Halle again.... ..I wonder if Halle votes? Nahhh, when you look like that, nothing is going to effect you unless you want it to.

****The field would like to apologize to everyone who has had problems posting in the fields. According to the boys at blogger, it has something to do with the field switching over to beta blogger. If you are not on beta, you will have to post as anonymous. Hopefully it's temporary. At least that's what these tech guys tell me. Although sometimes I swear it's a grand plot by Mr. Charlie to get me. I bet conservative blogs don't have these blogger problems.

Peace!