(TriceEdneyWire.com) - When we forget the first fights over voting rights, we forget who profits when the many are divided.

Voting rights is back in the news because some people are still trying to decide whose votes deserve trust. In Georgia, the Justice Department and FBI under President Donald Trump have reopened questions around Fulton County’s 2020 election records after agents seized hundreds of boxes of ballots. The Associated Press reports the FBI has assigned 260 analysts and operations staff to review them.

Fulton County includes most of Atlanta and sits at the heart of Georgia’s transformation. It has a large Black electorate, growing Latino and Asian American communities, and many newer residents drawn by the Atlanta region’s jobs and universities. It voted against President Trump. Yet Georgia’s 2020 result was not some partisan rumor. Local officials counted the ballots. The state counted them three times, including once by hand. Republican officials certified the result. Each count confirmed the same outcome. That matters because vote suppression has often followed the same pattern: discredit the voters, divide the people, deprive enough citizens of the ballot, and move power upward.

The country has largely forgotten one of its earliest broad voting rights victories: the campaign to end property qualifications for white men. In many states, a man could be white, free, taxed, armed and called to defend the Revolution — and still be denied the vote because he did not own enough property.

Those men did not suffer as long as Black men, women, Native people or others shut out of democracy. Their exclusion still reveals the old fault line. Power rightfully belongs to the people. Yet wealthy interests have often tried to keep too much of it for themselves.

Some people profit from our forgetting. If we forget that landless white men once had to fight for the vote, we can miss the pattern when it returns in new clothes.

Benjamin Franklin saw the absurdity. He told the story of a man whose vote depended on owning a jackass worth enough money to qualify him. When the animal died, the man lost the vote. Franklin asked the obvious question: “In whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?”

Thomas Paine gave the moral answer. “Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured.”

There is irony in President Trump’s love of President Andrew Jackson. Jackson and his allies built the Democratic Party with a founding promise: government should answer to the landless many, not merely the propertied few.

Jackson’s democracy was badly bounded. It excluded Black people, women and Native people. His politics also embraced slaveholding white supremacy. Still, he saw one danger clearly. In his veto of the national bank, he warned that “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.”

That warning fits this moment. Vote suppression has often worked by discrediting voters, dividing working people against one another, and depriving the many of their full voice so some rich and powerful people can bend government toward themselves.

That was much of the logic of monarchy: divide and conquer. It was much of the logic of Jim Crow: tell poor white people their enemy is Black freedom. It was true in the 1820s. It was true in the 1920s, when immigrants from predominantly Catholic countries like Ireland and Italy were cast as threats to real America. It is true today, when immigrants from predominantly Catholic countries like Haiti and Mexico are made into scapegoats again. Tell rural voters their enemy is city voters. Tell Election Day voters their enemy is mail voters.

The tools change. The purpose often does not. Property requirements became poll taxes. Poll taxes became literacy tests. Literacy tests gave way to purges, ID rules, closed polling places and attacks on early voting, same-day registration and mail ballots.

The burden comes as paperwork, deadlines, long lines, missing names and ballots questioned after the people have spoken. A poll tax charged money. A long line charges time. Cutting early voting can tax people who do not control their schedules. Restricting mail ballots can tax seniors, disabled voters, rural voters and caregivers.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson spent his life widening the meaning of the many. He urged young people to hold “a diploma in one hand” and “a voter registration card in that other hand.” Education and the ballot. Knowledge and power.

I come to this history as a son of the Revolution, the abolitionist movement, and the Southern populist tradition that rose in the decades after the Civil War and united working men across color lines. My great-great-grandfather, Edward David Bland, was born enslaved and died a Virginia legislator.

He helped build the Readjuster Party, a post-Civil War, multiracial voting rights movement that brought together Black men who had been enslaved and white men who had fought for the Confederacy. Their cause was schools, fairer taxes, debt relief, voting rights and democracy. When they gained power, they abolished Virginia’s poll tax.

After they were broken, Virginia’s ruling Democrats wrote a new constitution in 1902 that brought the poll tax back with literacy tests and other barriers. Black voters were almost wiped out as a political force. White voting was cut roughly in half. The old ruling class knew whose coalition it was trying to prevent from rising again.

Imagine if every schoolchild learned that the poll tax was not only an attack on Black voting power but also on poor white voting power. We might see the trick more clearly when it returns in new clothes.

The Democratic donkey did not come from Franklin’s parable. It came from Jackson’s enemies calling him a jackass, an insult he embraced and cartoonists later made stick. Still, the echo is hard to miss.

If Democrats keep the jackass, they should remember Franklin’s question. The right was never in the jackass. It was never in the deed, the poll tax, the ID card, the Tuesday work schedule, the mailbox or the database.

The right is in the people. Every generation that won more democracy ultimately did so by resisting efforts by the few to divide the many. That is our work now: remember the history, reject the division, and defend the vote for every one of us.

Ben Jealous is a professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania and former national president and CEO of the NAACP.

July 6, 2026

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - As a Black man in America, if I were placed on trial for a major crime such as first-degree murder and knowing I was totally innocent, it would be impossible for me to forget the long criminal justice history of this nation, particularly when it resulted in the incarceration and sometimes execution of Black men who did not commit the alleged crime.

Therefore, my freedom and entire future would depend on having a competent and aggressive lawyer fighting on my behalf. My representative would need to be a meticulous, strategically bold, and grounded attorney - one who will hold the opposition accountable. Since my life is on the line, I would need a lawyer who has a little “bulldog” in them and is fighting for me. Someone who, at the right moments, can be highly aggressive and combative in a righteous, indignant way when shameless lies, schemes, and hypocrisy need to be exposed and destroyed. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, as a civil rights lawyer and member of the U. S. Congress, exemplifies the type of fighter I would need if my future were at stake in the courtroom, the public square, city hall, state legislatures, and throughout the halls of Congress.

America’s 250^th anniversary celebration was a reminder of how critical it is for people of color to have competent yet aggressive representatives fighting for their futures. When President Trump sidelined America 250, the long-standing bipartisan commission tasked a decade ago with planning anniversary festivities, he replaced it with his own group of political allies, called Freedom 250.

The national celebration was then redefined in Trump’s terms, reflecting his personal vision of America. What should have been a national civic milestone highlighting patriotism in inclusive and unifying terms became a MAGA campaign rally. John Pitney, a former national Republican official who now teaches political science at Claremont McKenna College, said Trump is diverging from the tradition of presidents who have used moments of national triumph and tragedy to speak as Americans first, not as partisans.

The meaning behind America’s 250^th anniversary and national patriotism differs for Black Americans, who have shown love for a country that has not always returned it. It is true that America is the “Land of Opportunity,” a phrase and theme received because of its historical promise of economic mobility, vast available land, and freedom that allowed immigrants to build a better life through hard work. This contrasted with the rigid European class structures, offering hope that anyone could succeed regardless of their background.

This description of opportunity has its caveats when it comes to the Black community. The caveats come from the fact that America is a land of denied opportunities. At other times it has become the land of opportunity gained, and then the land of opportunities taken back. Opportunities, whether they are denied, gained, or taken back, all depend on who is fighting for you and who is fighting against you. If we don’t win the fight, denied opportunities will never be gained, and gained opportunities will ultimately be taken back.  Therefore, 250 years for Black Americans means 250 years of fighting and maintaining.

We need to know who is fighting for us (Rep. Jasmine Crockett) and who is fighting against us (Rep. Byron Donalds). For example, last year Rep. Donalds authored a bill (D.C. Crimes Act of 2025) aimed at aggressively cracking down on juvenile crime in the nation’s capital, which drew sharp criticism from Democrats for rolling back judicial discretion and leniency for young offenders.

Rep. Crockett took to the House floor to publicly detail Donalds’s own criminal history as a young adult. She noted that Donalds was charged with a felony at age 21, but avoided permanent conviction due to a mercy and expungement program that he then opposed for others. “Imagine being a young man born to Jamaican and Panamanian parents who messed up not once but twice. Imagine standing in front of a judge with your whole future hanging in the balance, and instead of prison, you are given a promise of mercy,” Crockett said of Donalds, without mentioning his name. 

She continued, “Your record gets wiped clean; you get a second chance at life. Now, imagine taking that promise and turning it into a promotion. You go to college, you get a job, and even become a member of Congress. That’s what redemption looks like. That’s what America is supposed to be about, and that is exactly the story of the next wannabe governor from Florida as a young man,” Crockett said of Donalds, who is now a gubernatorial candidate in Florida.

She continued, “Now, he’s the face of a bill that would not afford young people in Washington, D.C. the same opportunities afforded to him. Let me be real, if he had grown up under Donald Trump’s America, or under the very D.C. Crimes Bill he’s pushing…He wouldn’t be standing here as a member of Congress.” Calling out the hypocrisy, Crockett said, “I will not sit quiet while a man who was saved by grace turns around and tries to snatch grace away from others….”

We should feel pride and patriotism knowing that we have Rep. Crockett fighting on our behalf. She will be missed as she leaves Congress this year.  

David W. Marshall is the founder of the faith-based organization TRB: The Reconciled Body and author of God Bless Our Divided America.

July 1, 2026

Dr. Wilmer Leon

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a "Socialist" Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform.  If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” ...”  Dr. W.E.B. DuBois - 1956

How prophetic was the brilliant American sociologist, writer, historian, Pan-Africanist, and civil rights activist, Dr. DuBois?  As we witness the backlash from the Democratic Party’s leadership, as well as President Trump’s response to the success of democratic socialist candidates in the New York City and Washington, DC primaries and anticipate backlash from the democratic socialist victory in Colorado, a couple of important questions come to the forefront.   Are we witnessing the development of a new politics in America?  If so, what should the response of the African American community and electorate be?

It is important to understand that changes in the political landscape take time.  Events such as Democratic Socialists winning over Democratic Party-backed candidates do not happen in a vacuum. One must understand the history in order to understand “the now”.

In the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) decisively defeated Hilary Clinton in New Hampshire. During the 2016 campaign Senator Sanders “came out” as a “democratic socialist (DS)” during a speech at Georgetown University.  He told the crowd that democratic socialism is not a Marxist ideology calling for the abolition of capitalism. “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal…” Democratic Party leaders were initially alarmed and strategists suggested the party distance themselves from Sanders.  They feared that the label “democratic socialist” would be politically radioactive.  Hilary Clinton said his ideas were economically unfeasible and politically unrealistic. Republicans seized on the "socialist" label to frame his campaign as a radical shift toward government control.

In the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary Senator Sanders gained more traction as his message of free tuition at public universities, campaign finance reform and single-payer healthcare resonated with more voters across the electorate. He lost a very controversial and disputed race to Pete Buttigieg in the Iowa caucuses with Sanders winning the popular vote but losing the primary. Sanders won a narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary , and won in the Nevada caucuses.  From 2016 forward, Democratic Party stalwarts and elites have watched Sanders and his message take hold. They see the growing crowds, growing energy and enthusiasm, favorable polling data, and growing fundraising from small and large doners.  The concern for them has shifted from “will he lose to Republicans?” to “what do we do if he wins?”  It’s no longer the messenger; it’s now the message.  And other than stating the obvious, that Trump is, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has told us, “Trump is a 'race-baiting, xenophobic' bigot”; what’s the Democratic Party’s message? How are   they going to make the lives of Americans better?

Building upon the momentum created by Senator Sanders we now have “The Squad” - four congresswomen of color, sworn-in in 2020. While some refer to themselves as democratic socialists, they all express support for DS policies. Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the first Somali-American member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib are the first two Muslim women ever elected to Congress. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan challenged the Democratic Party agenda when she publicly supported the pro-Palestine BDS movement. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts is very clear in her support of immigrant rights and has said, “The people closest to the pain should be closest to the power.” They have motivated the “progressive” ranks within the Democratic Party to varying degrees. These women have articulated support for ideas such as Medicare for All, a $15-dollar minimum wage, debt-free college and have called for abolishing ICE.

In last year’s Democratic Party mayoral primary, then NY Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, 56% to 44%. The Democratic Party establishment was not pleased with the outcome. Cuomo said, "Extremism, division and empty promises are not the answer to this city's problems, and while this was a look at what motivates a slice of our primary electorate, it does not represent the majority." After the primary former NY Gov. David Patterson called upon Democrats (members of Mamdani’s own party) to work together to defeat him. Democratic leadership held meetings to discuss their options in the general election. Mamdani went on to defeat Cuomo who ran as an Independent and Republican Curtis Sliwa in the general election. To that Trump said (as Dr. DuBois projected), "Look, we don't need a communist in this country…”

Based upon this brief history of fits and starts we now come to the current day. Three congressional candidates in New York City won their primary races with the support of Mayor Mamdani and his allies. In Washington, DC, Councilmember Janeese Lewis Geroge, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist won the Democratic Party primary for mayor as well.  In Colorado, democratic socialist Melat Kiros, 29, ousted 30-year incumbent from Denver. Rep. Diana DeGette, a liberal, 51% to 42%.  The Washington Posted reports, “After three candidates endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani won their congressional primaries in New York last week, establishment Democrats felt angst. Democratic socialists looked to Colorado, and the money followed.”

In New York, Brad Ladner, a Mamdani allied candidate defeated incumbent Congressman Daniel Goldman, 66% to 34%.  Goldman received over $320,000 in contributions connected to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for the 2026 election cycle.  Claire Valdez defeated Antonio Reynoso for an open seat, 58% to 33%.  Darializa Avila Chevalier, another democratic socialist unseated five-term incumbent Congressman Adriano Espaillat, 49% to 46%. Espaillat’s campaign directly received $5,000 from AIPAC itself, with an additional $140,000 to $376,000 in individual contributions earmarked or bundled by the organization. Additionally, United Democracy Project—AIPAC's super PAC—poured $650,000 into another PAC (BOLD America) that spent $2.8 million supporting Espaillat.

Are the democratic socialist politics of Mayor Mamdani and the candidates he supports proving to be the next iteration of a progressive movement within the American body politic?  If so, why is the Democratic Party establishment, including many of its African American leaders, so afraid of this shift in politics?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) says Mayor Mamdani is going to have to smooth things over with congressional Democrats.  Why? The candidates he and his allies backed won the primaries fair and square. Unless as Dr. Dubois stated, “I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names…”  NY AG Letitia James (who formerly supported Mamdani) said, "Some of the candidates that he (Mamdani) has supported are individuals who do not understand the politics of New York City, the cultural differences from district to district, who have not been part of the history and the struggle of some of these districts, and are relatively new to the body politic…" Oh, so the voters are stupid and were fooled? Does she honestly believe that establishment politicians who fill their coffers with AIPAC money know what’s best for voters more that the actual voters themselves? Really? These are the racist troupes usually used by white politicians to explain votes cast by “colored” voters.

The voters are not stupid, but many are confused.  I wrote a piece entitled, He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune, wherein I wrote, “Many voters are confused. They can’t understand why in so many instances the individuals they elect to represent their interests, get to Congress and represent the interests of outside forces.” 

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have received millions of dollars in campaign funding from AIPAC. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, AIPAC-backed members of the caucus have received at least $3.6 million—and an estimated total of nearly $9 million across several election cycles.

Specific leading recipients include:

• Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): At least $950,331.
• Shontel Brown (D-OH): At least $1,028,686.
• Glenn Ivey (D-MD): At least $775,199.

When AIPAC boasted that it was committing $100m to defeat Democratic Party incumbents in order to fight back a wave of progressive dissent over Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, did Rep. Jefferies complain? No!  When AIPAC money helped a pair of Black pro-Israel Democrats defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), did AG  James or Rep. Jefferies demand an apology or claim that representatives of AIPAC were, “going to have to smooth things over with congressional Democrats.”, as he has demanded of Mamdani?  No!  They went along to go along.

What is it about affordable housing, a living wage, and the growth of unions, that is causing establishment Democrats such consternation? What’s wrong with the idea of working people running both the economy and civil society?  Why won’t the Democratic Party clearly condemn Israel for the genocide in historic Palestine?  Aren’t these the policies and politics of Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, Ms. Ida B. Wells, Dr. King, Dr. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Malcolm X, Ms. Ella Baker and so many others?  Are these not the policies and politics of the original members of the CBC, the original corps of lawmakers dedicated to safeguarding civil rights and known as “the conscience of the Congress”? Is the conscience of the Congress now unconscious?

How prophetic was Dr. DuBois? “If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist”” No matter what you call it, no matter what you call them, those who are championing civil rights, workers’ rights, equal pay for equal work, an end to these senseless, illegal and immoral wars of choice should be listened to.

There is a new politics developing and members of the African American electorate should be paying attention because the constituents are not being paid by AIPAC to vote against their own interests and the interests of their community. Too many so-called people in positions of leadership are. Remember, it’s not the messenger, it’s the message.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is a nationally broadcast radio talk-show host. Author of Politics Another Perspective. Host of Inside the Issues w/ Dr. Wilmer Leon on SiriusXM Satellite radio channel 126. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. www.twitter.com/drwleon and Dr. Leon’s Prescription at Facebook.com.