California Black Media

Report: States Must Ban Guns at Places Where People Vote

Voting and elections have become the targets of threats and intimidation as the nation faces a proliferation of guns, more frequent gun violence, and fewer legal protections, noted Brennan Center for Justice and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in a report released this week.

Published

2 years ago

October 4, 2023

Oakland Post

The U.S. Supreme Court does stipulate that gun restrictions are allowed in what are deemed ‘sensitive’ places, like schools, government buildings and polling places, many states have not confirmed the protection by law. Shutterstock photo.

By Sunita Sohrabji, EMS
Special California Black Media

The proliferation of guns in American homes has increased dramatically since 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment allows U.S. residents to possess an operable handgun in the home for self-defense.

“This was a considerable change from what the court had long held, which was that possessing a firearm had to be related to militia service,” Robyn Sanders, counsel for the Voting Rights and Election Reform Democracy Project at the Brennan Center, told Ethnic Media Services.

The Supreme Court did caution that the rights secured by the Second Amendment are not unlimited; it identified laws that would forbid firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. “And so there, while the Supreme Court handed down what was a dramatic decision at that time, it did specify that regulations are still permissible in places that are sensitive,” said Sanders, who co-authored the report.

But the Supreme Court further weakened gun restrictions last year in its ruling on the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. vs. Bruen case. The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that the American public has the right to carry guns in public for self-defense, and that states cannot require applicants to demonstrate a need for owning a gun.

“The decision in Bruen has invited more legal challenges to gun regulations. But the court also explicitly states that sensitive places are places where states can regulate where guns can be carried, and they were unequivocal about polling locations being one of those,” said Sanders.

In a Sept. 20 interview with EMS, Sanders discussed the threat gun violence poses for U.S. elections. “We believe this report served a significant purpose in alerting states that there are ways that they could help to maintain the confidence that voters historically had in our elections as being safe and secure from violence and intimidation,” she said.

Excerpts of Conversation with Sanders:

What types of justifications are states using to allow concealed guns at polling sites and drop-off boxes?

The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its decision in Bruen that prohibiting firearms in polling places is constitutional. And so, while I can’t speak for why states have not filled the voids that we recognize in our report, what I can say is that we are offering policy proposals for states to enact laws that would better protect voters and election officials and workers from threats and help voters and the public remain confident that our elections will continue to be by and large peaceful.

Older adults traditionally account for the majority of election workers. Have you seen a drop-off of older adults choosing to work at the polls, given the uncertainty of protection from violence at those sites?

We were experiencing a global pandemic in 2020. And so there was a downturn in retired or elderly folks serving as election workers due to the vulnerabilities related with COVID -19.

Compared to anything prior, there was dramatically more harassment and threats lodged at election officials and poll workers over the last two election cycles. Poll workers have reported experiences of harassment and threats of abuse in recent years.

Are election workers of color more likely to face harassment, violence and intimidation?

We found that election officials serving what’s known as majority minority jurisdictions were more likely than election officials overall to report having been threatened, having been harassed or abused because of their job. And they were also considerably more likely to be concerned about being assaulted.

This is alarming, it’s concerning, and it’s unacceptable in a democracy.

One out of every 3 election workers have reported harassment or threats, according to the report.

As a result of the shifts in how our electoral process was being carried out, we started to observe trends in elected leaders and others who were spreading disinformation and misinformation about our elections as it relates to various methods of voting, including voting by mail and the use of drop boxes as a result of the uptick in mail voting.

And so based on that climate, we started to see an increase in threats and intimidation and threats of violence being lodged at election workers and officials.

Could you talk about some of your policy recommendations?

One of the key findings in our report is that only 12 states and Washington, D.C. have laws prohibiting open carry and concealed carry at polling places. And even fewer states have laws that prohibit guns where other sensitive election activity occurs drop boxes as well as places like election counting facilities.

And while it is illegal to intimidate voters in all 50 states, neither federal law nor any state law explicitly acknowledges that guns in or around places where people are engaged in voting or conducting election activity can constitute illegal intimidation.

In our report, we offer two main policy proposals. One: we recommend that states enact laws to prohibit guns at and around all sites of voting and vote counting. And we recommend that states strengthen their laws, protecting voters and election workers and officials from intimidation and violence, but explicitly addressing the void that is currently present and addressing the intimidating effect of guns.

I would reiterate to voters that — because our elections have remained by and large peaceful — the proposals that we offer in our report are simply action items that states can take to further strengthen legal protections that are already in place.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Black Woman Gains Post as Senate Staff Director

Don't Miss

State Assembly’s Black Caucus Played Key Role in Brokering $20-Per-Hour Fast Food Worker Pay Deal

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

1 day ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

1 day ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

1 day ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”