Connect with us

Op-Ed

What Part of Democracy are Republicans Afraid of?

Published

on

Lee A. Daniels

By Lee A. Daniels
NNPA Columnist  

 

 

It’s not too soon to ask a critical question of citizens of voting age who tend to vote for Democratic candidates: Do you think you’ll be allowed to vote in 2016?

The Republican Party in numerous states across the country has been working hard to ensure that for many voters who fit that profile, the answer will be “no.”

A half century ago the Civil Rights Movement’s ultimate legislative victory – the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – guaranteed Black Americans’ right to vote. Blacks’ subsequent dedication to a democracy’s fundamental expression of responsible citizenship – voting – led directly to Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 electoral victories.

In the latter, Obama won 93 percent of Blacks’ votes, 73 percent of Asian-Americans’ votes, 71 percent of Hispanic-Americans’ votes, and the majority of votes from women as a group and voters age 18 to 29. That support, along with gaining 39 percent of votes cast by Whites, gave him a 4.7 million popular-vote and 332-to-206 Electoral College margin of victory.

Since then, American voters’ access to the ballot box has once again been threatened: by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 striking down the key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights, and the resulting blizzard of enacted and proposed acts in Republican-dominated state legislatures intended to suppress voting by those groups whose majorities vote for Democratic candidates.

The oily Republican justifications for these bills are that they’re to prevent voter fraud. But Republicans have never produced any evidence that voter fraud actually exists at any level of American politics. Indeed, during a federal court trial last year over Texas’ new restrictive voter-identification law, state officials testified that from 2002 to 2011, when a total of 20 million votes were cast in the state, just two cases of voter impersonation fraud were prosecuted to conviction. A scholar whose specialty is examining voter fraud in modern-day American elections testified that for the years 2000 to 2010 she had found fewer than 10 instances of voter fraud at polling places in the entire country.

The federal court in Texas struck down the law, but that decision was reversed by the conservative-dominated U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, an action which, to no one’s surprise, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority backed.

Those facts exposing the GOP chimera of voter fraud recall the response Jesse Jackson always had during the 1970s to Whites’ resistance to the use of busing as a tool of school integration. He would say: “It’s not the bus. It’s us.”

That point effectively answers the rhetorical question Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton posed during her June 4 speech about voting rights at Texas Southern University. Referring to the Republicans, she asked, “What part of democracy are they afraid of?”

As Clinton well knows, part of the answer lies in considering the voting statistics of the recent past, such as those cited above, on the one hand, and, on the other, America’s demographic makeup. For example, census data show that in Texas from 2000 to 2010 Hispanic Americans comprised 65 percent of its 4 million new legal residents, Blacks accounted for 13.7 percent, and other people of color another 11 percent.

True, many of the new Texans are still children, or are adults not registered to vote, and Texas’ population growth significantly outstrips most other states. But, given the GOP’s just-us hostility to inclusiveness and its continuing extremist positions on numerous issues, its only hope of again gaining the presidency depends on decreasing the potential votes the Democrats can count on.

That’s why the Clinton campaign and the Democrats’ separate political operation are challenging restrictive voter laws in such Republican-dominated battleground states as Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia. And that’s why Clinton in her Texas Southern speech proposed several specific ways to both register new voters and ensure that all registered voters will be able to vote next year.

Those include: universal automatic voter registration in order to register every American citizen at 18; legislation approving at least 20 days of early voting, including evenings and weekends, in order to make voting more convenient for all; and repeal of punitive state laws that bar ex-offenders no longer on probation or parole from voting.

This new battle for expanding the number of Americans who are registered to vote and ensuring that they can vote isn’t a small matter. It’s estimated that as many as one-third of all eligible voters – more than 50 million Americans – aren’t registered to vote.

Predictably, GOP presidential candidates and partisans slammed the speech as “divisive” – as if registering new voters and trying to convince them to vote for your party isn’t the essence of democratic-with-a-small-d politics. But then, it’s long been apparent that democratic-with-a-small-d politics is something today’s Republican Party has very little interest in. 

 

Lee A. Daniels is a longtime journalist based in New York City. His essay, “Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Great Provocateur,” appears in Africa’s Peacemakers: Nobel Peace Laureates of African Descent (2014), published by Zed Books. His new collection of columns, Race Forward: Facing America’s Racial Divide in 2014, is available at www.amazon.com.

###

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.

Published

on

Paméla Michelle Tate, Ph.D.
Paméla Michelle Tate, Ph.D.

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.

Continue Reading

Activism

Bay Area Soda Taxes Don’t Just Affect Sales: They Help Change People’s Minds

Published

on

In the years since voters in several Bay Area cities supported raising taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages like sodas, some juices and sports drinks, UC Berkeley researchers say the norms around those drinks have changed significantly. Photo by Emmanuel Edward/Unsplash.
In the years since voters in several Bay Area cities supported raising taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages like sodas, some juices and sports drinks, UC Berkeley researchers say the norms around those drinks have changed significantly. Photo by Emmanuel Edward/Unsplash.

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.”

Continue Reading

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.  

Published

on

Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., California Secretary of State. Courtesy of California Secretary of State Office.
Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., California Secretary of State. Courtesy of California Secretary of State Office.

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

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.