#NNPA BlackPress

EXCLUSIVE OP-ED — Sen. Chuck Schumer and Stacy Abrams, ‘It’s Time to Fight Back!’

NNPA NEWSWIRE — This Saturday marks the 55th anniversary of one of the most significant moments in the history of our democracy. On the morning of March 7, 1965, nonviolent activists, including a young John Lewis, set out on a 54-mile march from Selma, Alabama, to the state capital of Montgomery to bring national attention to the plight of African-American citizens who were being denied their constitutional right to vote by the racial terror of the Jim Crow South. At the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, marchers were met by state troopers and county possemen who hurled tear gas and attacked them with billy clubs and police dogs. Spectators cheered. The horrific events of this day, which came to be known as “Bloody Sunday,” shocked the conscience of the nation, and compelled President Lyndon Johnson and a bipartisan majority in Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act (VRA) less than five months later.

Published

5 years ago

March 8, 2020

Oakland Post

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Minority Leader, and Stacey Abrams. Abrams served for eleven years in the Georgia House of Representatives, seven as Democratic Leader. In 2018, Abrams became the Democratic nominee for Governor of Georgia, winning more votes than any other Democrat in the state’s history.

Voting Rights are Under Attack

By Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Minority Leader, and Stacey Abrams, founder of Fair Fight, an initiative to ensure every American has a voice in our election system

This year’s presidential election will propel many issues into the spotlight: the economy, health care, foreign policy, our education system and much more. One issue that gets far too little attention, often mentioned as just another item on a long list of priorities, is voting rights. We write to argue that voting rights in America should be at the top of that list in this election. It is from the right to vote that all our other rights as Americans derive. And today, in 2020, that fundamental right to exercise the franchise is being challenged and, in many cases, eroded, in states across the country.

It’s time to fight back.

This Saturday marks the 55^th anniversary of one of the most significant moments in the history of our democracy. On the morning of March 7, 1965, nonviolent activists, including a young John Lewis, set out on a 54-mile march from Selma, Alabama, to the state capital of Montgomery to bring national attention to the plight of African-American citizens who were being denied their constitutional right to vote by the racial terror of the Jim Crow South. At the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, marchers were met by state troopers and county possemen who hurled tear gas and attacked them with billy clubs and police dogs. Spectators cheered. The horrific events of this day, which came to be known as “Bloody Sunday,” shocked the conscience of the nation, and compelled President Lyndon Johnson and a bipartisan majority in Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act (VRA) less than five months later.

The VRA provided the federal government with the tools to finally uphold the 15th Amendment’s guarantee that no citizen can be denied the right to vote because of the color of their skin. For half a century, the law stood as a powerful force to prevent the type of racial discrimination in voting that plagued our nation’s history for generations. In the decades after the VRA, both parties in Congress worked to defend voting rights. The law originally passed with leadership from both the Republican and Democratic parties and was reauthorized under Republican presidents on four separate occasions: President Nixon in 1970, President Ford in 1975, President Reagan in 1982, and President Bush in 2006.

Only in the past few years has that bipartisan consensus around voting rights collapsed. In 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in Shelby County v. Holder gutted critical provisions in the VRA that until then had allowed the federal government to prevent states with a history of discrimination from implementing changes to their voting rules without pre-approval.

The response to Shelby was sharp and immediate. Republican-led state legislatures rushed to pass new laws and drew new legislative districts with the explicit purpose of disenfranchising minority voters. Texas legislators immediately re-imposed the strictest voter-ID requirement in the United States. North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature passed a wave of new laws designed to limit access to the ballot box, including a new photo-ID requirement, drastic cuts to early voting, and the end of same-day registration. Federal courts deemed these laws intentionally discriminatory, finding that, in North Carolina, the GOP efforts “targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

In Georgia, then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp oversaw the closure of 214 voting precincts across the state from 2012-2018. According to an analysis by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, these closures, most of which occurred after the Shelby decision, likely prevented an estimated 54,000 to 85,000 voters from casting ballots in the 2018 election. The AJC found that the impact was greater on black voters, who were 20% more likely than white voters to miss elections as a result of these closures.

Today, in state after state, Republicans are working to purge voter rolls, draw partisan district lines, and limit the impact of minority voters. Democrats have to fight back in every possible way. We must challenge these insidious attacks on our democracy in the courts and in Congress and out in the country.

The Democratic House has already passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which restores federal oversight of voting changes in states with a demonstrated recent history of repeated voting rights violations. Senate Democrats are advocating for the implementation of nationwide voter registration and an end to voter roll purges, and continue to pressure the Republican Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, to bring the Voting Rights Advancement Act up for a vote in the Senate. If Democrats retake the majority in the Senate this fall, voting rights legislation will be one of our first priorities. Outside of Congress, non-profit groups like Fair Fight (led by one of the authors of this piece), are signing up new voters, educating voters, and fighting voter suppression whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.

This is a fight that must be waged on many fronts. It is a moral travesty that support for voting rights has become a partisan issue. The ability to participate in free and fair elections is a birthright given to all Americans, something that generations of Americans have marched and fought and died to exercise, expand, and ultimately guarantee. Efforts to protect that birthright should be embraced by both of America’s major political parties. Voting rights are not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. But until that day comes, candidates up-and-down the ticket, leaders at every level of government, and above all, the American people, must make voting rights a priority in this election.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Report: Companies Owned by Women of Color Account for 89 Percent of All New Women-Owned Businesses

Don't Miss

COMMENTARY: No War on Poverty — The King Holiday and American Hypocrisy

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

Published

4 days ago

March 21, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown

BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.

To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:

A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.

Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.

Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.

“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

Published

4 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”

However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.

Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Reaction to The Education EO

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

Published

4 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.

During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”

Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”