Op-Ed
Proof that the Supreme Court Got it Wrong in Shelby
By George E. Curry
NNPA Columnist
When the Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act nearly two years ago in Shelby County v. Holder, many of us suspected that Chief Justice John Roberts in particular was distorting the severity of voting violations in jurisdictions covered by the act. As a popular GEICO commercial says, now we know.
We now know because of extensive research conducted by William R. Kenan, Jr., a professor at the California Institute of Technology, titled, “Do the Facts of Voting Rights Support Chief Justice Roberts’ Opinion in Shelby County?”
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Section 4 of the law that requires certain jurisdictions with a proven history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any changes in their elections – such as redistricting, annexations and switching to at-large elections – with either the Justice Department or the federal District Court in Washington, D.C.
Despite renewals of the Voting Rights Act by Congress in 1970, 1975, 1982 and a 25-year extension in 2006, Roberts contended that the preclearance provision was no longer needed.
Writing for the majority, Roberts said, “…. But history did not end in 1965. By the time the Act was reauthorized in 2006, there had been 40 more years of it. In assessing the ‘current need’ for a preclearance system that treats States differently from one another today, that history cannot be ignored. During that time, largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers. And yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.”
However, as Kenan points out in his research, “Neither the Chief Justice nor any scholars or civil rights proponents or opponents have systematically examined the evidence on the entire pattern of proven voting rights violations over time and space.”
Kenan examined the issue by compiling what he called the largest such database in existence, including numerous maps to make his point.
“Congress in 2006 was not presented with maps or other documents that laid out the pattern of proven voting rights infractions so starkly, but it received plentiful evidence in the form of lists and discussions of cases that showed that the problems were still overwhelmingly concentrated in the South and that discrimination continued to be widespread,” he wrote.
“And the map would have shown that the number of voting rights infractions had increased, not decreased, compared to the earlier period.”
Kenan explained, “An objective observer in 2006 comparing the number and location of all successful voting rights events in the period since the last renewal in 1982 with the events of the years from 1957 to 1981 would conclude that Section 5 needed to be renewed, and that the coverage scheme still fit the problem remarkably well, hitting the target about 94% of the time. Even among Section 2 cases, which could be filed anywhere in the country, 83.2% of the successful cases from 1982 through 2005 originated in covered jurisdictions.”
Roberts was joined by the court’s conservative majority, including Clarence Thomas. As usual, Thomas asked no questions during the proceedings. In his concurring opinion, he stated, “I join the Court’s opinion in full but write separately to explain that I would find Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional as well.”
That comes as no surprise. But what did come as a surprise, as I have written here, was that the National Black Chamber of Commerce (not to be confused with the U.S. Black Chambers, Inc.), established by Harry C. Alford and his wife, Kay, filed a brief in support of Shelby County mirroring the objections raised by John Roberts.
In its shameful friend-of-the court brief, it claimed, “Section 5 is no longer necessary to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting and now, perversely serves as an impediment to racial neutrality in voting and to the empowerment of state and local officials who represent minority constituencies.”
The research undercuts the premise advanced by John Roberts and Harry Alford’s group and notes the role courts play in undermining access to the ballot box.
Professsor Kenan wrote, “…by rendering decisions that make it easier or harder to bring and win voting rights cases or make objections, the Supreme Court can, in effect, manipulate the evidence of discrimination, which it can then use, in a second stage, to justify a decision to further weaken or strengthen the tools. It can create the reality that it subsequently reacts to. The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have done exactly that.”
George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA) and BlackPressUSA.com. He is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. Curry can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge and George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook. See previous columns at http://www.georgecurry.com/columns.
###
Activism
Life After Domestic Violence: What My Work With Black Women Survivors Has Taught Me
Survivors sometimes lack awareness about the dynamics of healthy relationships, particularly when one has not been modeled for them at home. Media often minimizes domestic abuse, pushing the imagery of loyalty and love for one’s partner above everything — even harm.
By Paméla Michelle Tate, Ph.D., California Black Media Partners
It was the Monday morning after her husband had a “situation” involving their child, resulting in food flying in the kitchen and a broken plate.
Before that incident, tensions had been escalating, and after years of unhappiness, she finally garnered enough courage to go to the courthouse to file for a divorce.
She was sent to an on-site workshop, and the process seemed to be going well until the facilitator asked, “Have you experienced domestic abuse?” She quickly replied, “No, my husband has never hit me.”
The facilitator continued the questionnaire and asked, “Has your husband been emotionally abusive, sexually abusive, financially abusive, technologically abusive, or spiritually abusive?”
She thought about how he would thwart her plans to spend time with family and friends, the arguments, and the many years she held her tongue. She reflected on her lack of access to “their money,” him snooping in her purse, checking her social media, computer, and emails, and the angry blowups where physical threats were made against both her and their children.
At that moment, she realized she had been in a long-suffering domestic abuse relationship.
After reading this, you might not consider the relationship described above as abusive — or you might read her account and wonder, “How didn’t she know that she was in an abusive relationship?”
Survivors sometimes lack awareness about the dynamics of healthy relationships, particularly when one has not been modeled for them at home. Media often minimizes domestic abuse, pushing the imagery of loyalty and love for one’s partner above everything — even harm.
After working with survivors at Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence in San Francisco, California, I have learned a great deal from a variety of survivors. Here are some insights:
Abuse thrives in isolation.
Societal tolerance of abusive behavior is prevalent in the media, workplaces, and even churches, although there are societal rules about the dos and don’ts in relationships.
Survivors are groomed into isolation.
Survivors are emotionally abused and manipulated almost from the beginning of their relationships through love-bombing. They are encouraged or coerced into their own little “love nest,” isolating them from family and friends.
People who harm can be charismatic and fun.
Those outside the relationship often struggle to believe the abuser would harm their partner until they witness or experience the abusive behavior firsthand.
Survivors fear judgment.
Survivors fear being judged by family, friends, peers, and coworkers and are afraid to speak out.
Survivors often still love their partners.
This is not Stockholm Syndrome; it’s love. Survivors remember the good times and don’t want to see their partner jailed; they simply want the abuse to stop.
The financial toll of abuse is devastating.
According to the Allstate Foundation’s study, 74% of survivors cite lack of money as the main reason for staying in abusive relationships. Financial abuse often prevents survivors from renting a place to stay. Compounding this issue is the lack of availability of domestic abuse shelters.
The main thing I have learned from this work is that survivors are resilient and the true experts of their own stories and their paths to healing. So, when you encounter a survivor, please take a moment to acknowledge their journey to healing and applaud their strength and progress.
About the Author
Paméla Michelle Tate, Ph.D., is executive director of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence in San Francisco.
Activism
Bay Area Soda Taxes Don’t Just Affect Sales: They Help Change People’s Minds
UC Berkeley researchers found that taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, coupled with media attention, coincided with significant changes in social norms around sugary drinks.
By Jason Pohl
UC Berkeley News
It wasn’t that long ago when cigarettes and soda were go-to convenience store vices, glamorized in movies and marketed toward, well, everyone.
Then, lawmakers and voters raised taxes on cigarettes, and millions of dollars went into public education campaigns about smoking’s harms. Decades of news coverage chronicled how addictive and dangerous cigarettes were and the enormous steps companies took to hide the risks and hook more users.
The result: a radical shift in social norms that made it less acceptable to smoke and pushed cigarette use to historic lows, especially among minors.
New UC Berkeley research suggests sugar-sweetened beverages may be on a similar path.
The city of Berkeley’s first-in-the-nation soda tax a decade ago, along with more recent Bay Area tax increases on sugar-sweetened drinks, have not only led to reduced sales. They are also associated with significant changes in social norms and attitudes about the healthfulness of sweet drinks, said Kristine A. Madsen, a professor at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health and senior author of a paper published Nov. 25 in the journal BMC Public Health.
Over the span of just a few years, taxes coupled with significant media attention significantly affected the public’s overall perceptions of sugar-sweetened beverages, which include sodas, some juices, and sports drinks. Such a shift in the informal rules surrounding how people think and act could have major implications for public health efforts more broadly, Madsen said.
“Social norms are really powerful. The significant shift we saw in how people are thinking about sugary drinks demonstrates what else we could do,” Madsen said. “We could reimagine a healthier food system. It starts with people thinking, ‘Why drink so much soda?’ But what if we also said, ‘Why isn’t most of the food in our grocery stores food that makes us healthy?’”
Madsen and colleagues from UC San Francisco and UC Davis analyzed surveys from 9,128 people living in lower-income neighborhoods in Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, and Richmond. Using data from 2016 to 2019 and 2021, they studied year-to-year trends in people’s perception of sugar-sweetened beverages.
They wanted to understand how the four taxes in the Bay Area might have affected social norms surrounding sugary beverages — the unwritten and often unspoken rules that influence the food and drinks we buy, the clothes we wear and our habits at the dinner table.
Although social norms aren’t visible, they are incredibly powerful forces on our actions and behaviors; just ask anyone who has bought something after an influencer promoted it on TikTok or Instagram.
Researchers asked questions about how often people thought their neighbors drank sodas, sports drinks, and fruity beverages. Participants also rated how healthy several drinks were, which conveyed their own attitudes about the beverages.
The researchers found a 28% decline in the social acceptability of drinking sugar-sweetened beverages.
In Oakland, positive perceptions of peers’ consumption of sports drinks declined after the tax increase, relative to other cities. Similarly, in San Francisco, attitudes about the healthfulness of sugar-sweetened fruit drinks also declined.
In other words, people believed their neighbors weren’t drinking as many sugar-sweetened beverages, which affected their own interest in consuming soda, juices, and sports drinks.
“What it means when social norms change is that people say, ‘Gosh, I guess we don’t drink soda. That’s just not what we do. Not as much. Not all the time,’” Madsen said. “And that’s an amazing shift in mindsets.”
The research is the latest from UC Berkeley that examines how consumption patterns have changed in the decade since Berkeley implemented the nation’s first soda tax.
A 2016 study found a decrease in soda consumption and an increase in people turning to water. Research in 2019 documented a sharp decline in people turning to sugar-sweetened drinks. And earlier this year, Berkeley researchers documented that sugar-sweetened beverage purchases declined dramatically and steadily across five major American cities after taxes were put in place.
The penny-per-ounce tax on beverages, which is levied on distributors of sugary drinks — who ultimately pass that cost of doing business on to consumers — is an important means of communicating about health with the public, Madsen said.
Researchers tallied more than 700 media stories about the taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages during the study period. That level of messaging was likely a major force in driving public awareness and norms.
It’s also something Madsen said future public health interventions must consider. It was part of the progress made in cutting cigarette smoking and seems to be working with sugary drinks. And it’s those interventions that can lead to individual action.
“If we change our behaviors, the environment follows,” Madsen said. “While policy really matters and is incredibly important, we as individuals have to advocate for a healthier food system.”
Commentary
California Respects the Power of Your Vote
As California Secretary of State, I do not take the progress we have made over the years lightly. My staff and I hold sacred the obligation to ensure that our elections are safe, free, fair, and accessible to all. Therefore, before certifying the results for this year’s election on Dec. 13, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that every vote is counted. We have also made sure that our ballot counting process is credible and free from interference.
By Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D.,
California Secretary of State
Californians can confidently claim this: California has made more significant reforms to our election laws and expanded voting rights than any other state.
The relevance of this accomplishment deepens as we prepare to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act next year. This landmark legislation began to undo our country’s long history of voter suppression, intimidation, and disenfranchisement that far too many Americans experienced at the polls for decades.
My own parents, who were sharecroppers, were denied their right to vote in the Jim Crow era South. Before moving to Los Angeles from Hope, Arkansas, my parents, David and Mildred Nash, could not vote. My father was an adult with six children before he registered to vote and was only able to exercise that constitutional right for the first time here in California.
As California Secretary of State, I do not take the progress we have made over the years lightly. My staff and I hold sacred the obligation to ensure that our elections are safe, free, fair, and accessible to all.
Therefore, before certifying the results for this year’s election on Dec. 13, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that every vote is counted. We have also made sure that our ballot counting process is credible and free from interference.
To meet that deadline without a hitch, California requires elections officials in all 58 counties to turn in their official results by a certain date. This year, that date was Dec. 6.
By law, every eligible voter in our state receives a vote-by-mail ballot. This ensures all registered voters can exercise their right to vote.
Whether you placed your ballot in a designated drop-off box, voted by mail, or cast your ballot at a polling center, votes are safe and secure. And we allow voters to sign up to receive text message, email, or voice call notifications about the status of their own ballots by using the Where’s My Ballot? tool. To learn more or to sign up, paste this URL in your web browser: https://california.ballottrax.net/voter/
The ballots of Californians who voted by mail are also protected. The United States Postal Service partners with the State to make sure ballots are delivered on time. All mailed-in ballots are sent by First Class mail with a postage paid envelope provided to every eligible registered voter.
Election Security is our No. 1 priority. That’s why my office designed and implemented a program to back up that commitment. For more information, visit this URL: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election-cybersecurity
Additionally, California takes preventive actions to make sure our voting technology keeps our elections safe and protects everyone’s votes.
For example, county voting systems are not connected to the internet, which protects them from cyberthreats. The State also performs regular and rigorous testing to make sure the voting systems are working optimally, and only authorized personnel are granted access.
Staff members are also given phishing and cybersecurity training.
VoteCal, the state’s centralized voter registration system, is also key. The system is regularly updated, and it is used as a resource for counties to verify voter signatures.
California also provides security at all counting locations and makes sure ballot drop-off boxes are secured and monitored.
And all election processes are open to observation during specified hours.
In my role as Secretary of State of California, there is nothing more important to me than defending our democracy.
I am committed to safeguarding voting rights, and to leading our state in upholding the highest democratic standards by implementing policies and practices that Californians and all Americans can trust and look to for instruction and hope.
You can contact the California Office of the Secretary of State at 1-800-345-Vote or elections@sos.ca.gov with inquiries or to report suspected incidents or irregularities. Additional information can be found at www.sos.ca.gov and the office’s social media platforms:
Instagram: @californiasos_
Facebook: Facebook.com/CaliforniaSOS
X: @CASOSVote
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Books for Ghana
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Post News Group to Host Second Town Hall on Racism, Hate Crimes
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Butler, Lee Celebrate Passage of Bill to Honor Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm with Congressional Gold Medal
-
Arts and Culture2 weeks ago
Promise Marks Performs Songs of Etta James in One-Woman Show, “A Sunday Kind of Love” at the Black Repertory Theater in Berkeley
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Delta Sigma Theta Alumnae Chapters Host World AIDS Day Event
-
Activism2 weeks ago
‘Donald Trump Is Not a God:’ Rep. Bennie Thompson Blasts Trump’s Call to Jail Him
-
Business3 weeks ago
Landlords Are Using AI to Raise Rents — And California Cities Are Leading the Pushback
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of December 11 – 17, 2024