Urban News Features

There is Strong Statistical Evidence that Politics is Resegregating by David A. Bositis, Ph.D.

June 30, 2013

State of Equality and Justice in America:

There is Strong Statistical Evidence that Politics is Resegregating

By David A. Bositis, Ph.D.

NEWS ANALYSIS

David Bositis

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - There are demographic changes occurring in the United States that will change politics and public policy and make this country a more humane and equitable place. In another 20 to 30 years the U.S. will be a majority-minority country and White supremacy will be a discredited idea of the past. But we are not living in that future time. And for African-Americans, more than half of whom live in the southern states, the facts do not speak to a just or equitable society.

Black unemployment is twice that of Whites. The average Black income is much less. Black family financial assets are one-twentieth that of Whites. There are large racial disparities in health and access to health care and much higher high school drop-out rates for African-Americans; and of course much higher incarceration rates.

The gains that African-Americans have seen since the Civil Rights movement were substantially built on Black votes and civic participation. But despite the hardship and struggles that many African-Americans face, there are many who would oppose the progress and promise the future holds. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder opened the door to widespread efforts in the South to diminish minority voting rights.

By invalidating Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the court has effectively eliminated Section 5 federal oversight. The current U.S. House of Representatives will almost certainly not provide a new definition for Section 4 coverage, and so Section 5 is out for the foreseeable future.

By next year's midterm elections, there will likely be photo identification laws operative in all the southern states, and Blacks and Hispanics are much more likely than Whites to lack government issued photo ids. The changes will not only involve photo identification laws. There will be a headlong rush to change election laws across Section 5 jurisdictions in order to discourage minority voters. This will involve not only state governments but local ones as well.

Section 2 is still in effect, but with no preclearance provisions. What this means is that all sorts of election changes will be put into effect to diminish minority votes - moving and locating polling places, changing hours, the mechanics of voting - not to mention extralegal intimidation - without federal intervention.

Even when these changes are challenged and the civil rights community 'wins' the legal case, the minority community's preferred candidate may still lose, and then the Section 2 cases result in consent decrees where the opposing side agrees not to do the same thing (actions to discourage minority voters) again - at least until the next election. The results of elections - even unfair elections - are rarely undone.

Following the election of President Barack Obama, some political observers - mostly conservative ones - suggested that the United States was now a post-racial society. At the present time, five years later, in the region of the country where a majority of African-Americans live, the South, there is strong statistical evidence that politics is resegregating with African-Americans once again excluded from power and representation.

Black voters and elected officials have less influence now than at any time since the Civil Rights Movement. Less than a handful of the 320 Black state legislators in the South serve in the majority in their legislative chambers. And southern state constitutions invest in the state legislatures' power over all aspects of government in those states, including local government.

Conservative Whites control all of the political power there, and they are enacting legislation and adopting policies both neglectful of the needs of minorities - in health care, education, employment - as well as some that are downright hostile to the rights of African-Americans , e.g., the assault on voting rights through photo identification laws and other means.

Last month, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies published a report based on a survey of the five Deep South states (the states with the proportionally largest black populations - Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina) on attitudes toward Medicaid expansion. Majorities of the populations in all five states, and large majorities of African-Americans in those states, favored expansion. The state legislatures in those five states oppose expansion, and the disproportionally uninsured Black populations of those states will suffer the consequences.

Has the United States become a more just and equitable society? Almost 50 years ago - around the time that the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was founded, Robert F. Kennedy gave a speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention where he quoted from one of his brother's favorite poets: "...but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep."

David A. Bositis, Ph.D., a senior research associate for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, is a foremost expert on voting and Black political participation in America. This article - the twentieth of a 20-part series - is written in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, of which Congressman John Lewis is grand marshal. The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today. For more information, please visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

Urban and Rural America: Unleashing Possibility in Partnership by Marc H. Morial and USDA Secretary Tom Visack

June 30, 2013

To Be Equal
Urban and Rural America: Unleashing Possibility in Partnership

By Marc H. Morial and USDA Secretary Tom Visack

marcmorial

vilsac

Tom Vilsack

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “We recognize, understand and appreciate that rural and urban America are interconnected and interdependent. Working together, we can leverage more investment and cooperation to achieve greater results.”

A few weeks ago in New York City, the two of us had an opportunity to visit about expanding partnerships between the National Urban League and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

At first blush, our organizations work in different areas of the country on different issues. The Department of Agriculture does a great deal of work in the small towns and communities that make up rural America, but often is not associated with urban parts of the country. The National Urban League has achieved tremendous results over its 103-year-history to achieve economic empowerment for people in our cities – but often is not associated with rural America.

We had this discussion because we are united in a belief that in a world with more priorities and limited resources, partnership is more important today than ever before. America is bigger than the sum of its many parts, and as we look to fuel the economic recovery, partnership is more important than ever before. Leaders across our nation, from government agencies at every level, to non-profit organizations, to the business community, must branch out and expand our work together if we are to keep up economic growth.

While folks may think that a divide exists between rural and urban America, the fact is that we depend on one another for economic growth.

America’s farms and ranches provide more than 80 percent of the food we consume in the United States, and provide for agricultural exports that support more than one million jobs – many of them in our largest cities. Meanwhile, the work happening in America’s cities, from small businesses to companies in nearly every field, add value and demand for products from rural America. New advancements in biobased products promise to further this connection.

For example, auto manufacturers are creating car parts from soybean foam that replaces petroleum-based products – increasing value for soybean producers and giving vehicle manufacturers a way to produce a biobased product in city factories. Ford Motor Company has already used more than 62 million pounds of soybeans in manufacturing. Dasani, the bottled water distributor, now uses bottles made from corn-based plastic. Ohio State University is researching ways to use waste from hog farms to produce asphalt. The possibilities are truly endless – and such advancement holds promise in every corner of the U.S. economy.

We know there’s an opportunity to strengthen connections like these that build on the strengths of communities everywhere in the nation. We recognize, understand and appreciate that rural and urban America are interconnected and interdependent. Working together, we can leverage more investment and cooperation to achieve greater results.

All of this work has the same key goal: to build up economic capacity and opportunity for Americans. In the coming months, we hope to further explore opportunities for USDA and the National Urban League to work together.

We hope that our first meeting in New York City was just the beginning of a lasting partnership and further cooperation. We look forward to penning similar notes to this one on our progress in the future.

Marc Morial is president/CEO of the National Urban League. Tom Vilsack is secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Sean Hannity’s Black Conservatives by A. Peter Bailey

June 30, 2013

Reality Check

Sean Hannity’s Black Conservatives
By A. Peter Bailey

(TriceEdneyWire.com)-As anyone who regularly reads this column knows, I have absolutely no regard for Sean Hannity, the obnoxious, right-wing talk show propagandist for Fox News. However, journalistic reasons compel me to occasionally watch him deliver his spiel to those who believe that they must “take back” their country from alien forces.

A recent such occasion was a Hannity program featuring members of his posse whom he lovingly calls “Black conservatives.” Hannity, who comes off as a know-it-all college frat boy, smiled from ear to ear as his Black conservatives launched attacks on Black folks in general for their refusal to see the light about race and politics in this country and on the Obama administration in particular.

I am not now and never have been an Obama supporter. In fact I didn’t vote for him in 2008 or 2012 because of a belief that his election would be a roadblock to the development of the type of independent, focused Black economic, cultural and political movement needed to promote and protect our individual and group interests in this group-oriented society.

On the other hand, Hannity’s Black conservatives basically oppose the Obama Administration for the same reasons as does Hannity and his right-wing cohorts. One of the main reasons for their fervid opposition is his advocacy for and support of government-sponsored programs. Such programs, they insist, destroy individual initiative and lead to dependency. That position has some small grain of truth but they never say what will happen to children who need food stamps, day care, health care, etc. What they are basically saying is that children should be left to suffer because of the actions of irresponsible parents and other adults.

Another problem that Hannity’s Black conservatives have with President Obama is that he’s not grateful enough to Whites in this country for the opportunities provided him. Black conservatives always come off as being deeply grateful to the U.S. for all the goodies they have accumulated. What they so conveniently ignore is that the opportunities they now have don’t result from White folks becoming more accepting and their studying and working hard. Their opportunities are the direct result of thousands of Black folks (and a few Whites) putting their lives on the late 1950s and 1960s fighting for equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity. Black men, women and children were killed, brutalized and arrested in the intense struggle against White supremacy/racism. Many lost jobs and job opportunities. Others’ homes were firebombed. Their courage and determination is the main reason Hannity’s Black conservatives enjoy current opportunities.

Finally, not one of Hannity’s Black conservatives showed the slightest interest in helping to develop an independent Black economic, political, and cultural movement in this country not tied to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party but willing to work with either on any given issue of mutual interest. Ironically, this is a trait they share with Black liberals. What Black conservatives and Black liberals fight each other about is what group of Whites should we become an appendage of – White liberals or White conservatives, White Republicans or White Democrats, White Tea Partiers or White Wall Street Occupiers.

Neither faction has demonstrated the slightest interest in organizing a serious Black movement in this country which explains why the Sean Hannitys of the world have so little real respect for either Black liberals or Black conservatives.

Supreme Court on Shelby County v. Holder by Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

June 30, 2013

Supreme Court on Shelby County v. Holder
By Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - W.E.B. DuBois said, “The power of the ballot we need in sheer defense, else what shall save us from a second slavery?” When it comes to fair voting, we came up short again. Most of our coalition had to struggle to gain the right to vote. The decision of the Court in Shelby County v. Holder threatens to reverse the rights earned through decades of struggle and sacrifice. Nonetheless, we are grateful for the four Justices who still believe in the concept of protection for our voting rights - the most basic of all the rights of our citizenship.

It’s obvious that five Justices wore blinders or blatantly ignored the actions of the many states which directly or indirectly attempted to erect obstacles to the free exercise of our right to vote in the 2012 elections. Pre-clearance prevented a lot of major problems.

The significance of voting in 2012 inspired an historical outpouring of eager voters in greater numbers than ever before. Apparently, the five justices who struck down the provisions of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act are philosophically and politically aligned with those who have dedicated themselves to making the vote more difficult for many of us. Joe Scarborough is having a difficult time understanding that our complaint is not just about an ID card. It’s about the obvious effort to decrease our vote because most of us do not vote the way that benefits his political “right”.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, do those five Justices deciding to limit our vote believe the hearts and minds of those who think they are inherently superior and covet power have changed to the extent that we no longer need pre-clearance or Justice Department intervention? We actually need to expand it!

We already knew, by his own declaration, Justice Scalia thinks African Americans have been awarded the right to vote as a "racial entitlement." We harbored no illusion that he would live up to his obligation to provide equal protection under the law for us. Justice Thomas always distorts the meaning of the word “Justice” when it relates to African Americans—so we had no expectation he’d stand on the side of defending us against patterns of injustice born from historical elements of racism. We always pray that a spark will ignite a flame of fairness in the hearts of a majority of the Justices, but it didn’t happen.

The Court has referred us to Congress – the body that cares so little about us that it has spent 37 tries this session to repeal health care that our citizens so badly need. They refer us to the Congress that’s openly declared war on women! Does the Court really believe throwing the ball back to Congress for the purpose of insuring equal voting rights for us will fare any better than women have already fared with this Congress?

Maybe we should’ve kept it a secret that in 2012 our glorious coalition succeeded in electing many officials, including President Barack Obama, who best represent our interests. The Court’s example of justice clearly teaches us that eternal vigilance is the price we pay for our achievements—lest they become temporary.

Our greatest challenge is to re-emerge with all the resolve we demonstrated to achieve our initial civil and voting rights successes. The 50th Anniversary of Dr. King's "March on Washington" comes none too soon. Our antagonists have set the level of our response for us. We must work for a constitutional amendment that will unconditionally guarantee the right and freedom for all of us to vote. It is through our struggles that we gain our victories. The worst thing we can do is throw up our hands and do nothing.

On Race, Supreme Court is Out of Touch by Rev. Jesse Jackson

June 24, 2013

On Race, Supreme Court is Out of Touch
By Rev. Jesse Jackson

COMMENTARY

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In its decision Monday on affirmative action, the Supreme Court punted. It reviewed the University of Texas affirmative action program — in which race is admittedly “a factor of a factor of a factor” in admission, one of many factors used with a university committed to the educational benefits of a diverse student body — and said the lower court had to give it even stricter scrutiny. Or in essence, take another, harsher look and come back next year.

In making the decision, the court once more revealed how out of touch it is with reality. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed to provide equal protection of the laws to African Americans emerging from slavery. But 150 years of slavery was followed by 100 years of apartheid, as the courts and the Congress perverted the purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments (13-15).

Finally, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court, driven in part by the civil rights movement and in part by Cold War concerns that legalized discrimination might discredit the U.S. in the nations emerging from colonialism, ruled that segregation was unconstitutional and accepted affirmative action to bring equality of opportunity to all Americans. And that revolution in civil rights for blacks led directly to the women’s movement, the gay liberation movement, and the Latino movement.

Now, conservatives on the court want to distort the Constitution once more, and rule that affirmative action based on race is unconstitutional, even when it is undertaken to provide opportunity to those who were locked out. In essence, the court is saying that equal opportunity has been achieved, and that considering race as a factor is thus inherently discriminatory.

But African-Americans still make far less than Whites do. African-American unemployment is twice as high. The wealth gap has widened, not closed. African-American children still enter a world stacked against them. Too many are born to poverty, raised on mean streets. They go to crowded and underequipped schools, starved by the “savage inequality” of funding. They are targeted by banks for higher interest rates, and the most exotic mortgages. They are more likely to be arrested for nonviolent crimes like those involving drugs, more likely to be jailed if arrested, more likely to serve time if tried. In red states across the country, conservatives pushed various measures to limit their right to vote. The pattern of continuing discrimination is pervasive and inescapable for all who care to look.

That’s why Justice Ruth Ginsberg dissented from the opinion, arguing that more scrutiny is not needed. After a yearlong review, the university, she writes, reached a “reasonable, good faith judgment that supposedly race-neutral initiatives were insufficient to achieve the educational benefits of student-body diversity.” The purpose is constitutional; the means appropriate. Nothing else should be required.

In this case, in the Voting Rights case likely to be announced this week and in future cases, the court faces a choice. It can ignore the reality of race in this country, enforce an ideological position and trample the basic constitutional mandate of equal rights under the law. Or it can take a clear look at reality and sustain the original intent and clear mandate of the Constitution, particularly its 14th and 15th Amendments. The rights of African Americans — but also the rights of women, of the GLBT movement, of Latinos — will depend to no small degree on how the court rules

Keep up with Rev. Jackson and the work of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition at www.rainbowpush.org.