Opposition to First Black Female Supreme Court Nominee

By Mildred Robertson

It seems that defending the public is viewed as a strike against Supreme Court Judge Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.  At least if you are a republican. As the first Black, female nominee to the nation’s highest court, Judge Jackson has come under fierce scrutiny by Republican legislators, who among other things, said her background as a public defender may mean she is soft on crime. This outcry comes after many Republican legislators, even some who had supported her in the past, faced blowback when they unsuccessfully attempted to label Biden’s nomination as an “affirmative action” choice.

Republicans, searching for ways to oppose this stellar nominee, have flailed about attempting to reconcile past bipartisan support for Jackson with current efforts to derail her nomination. Justice Jackson, who attended Harvard University for college and law school, began her legal career with three clerkships, including one with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. She currently serves as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It was April 19, 2021, when President Joe Biden nominated Judge Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 14, 2021, by a vote of 53-44. Yet less than a year later, many of these same legislators want to question her credentials.

A deeper review of her qualifications indicates that her credentials surpass several sitting justices. Judge Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University where she was editor of the Harvard Law Review. She logged six years of service as a District, Appellate, and Supreme Court judge; serving two years in each role.  She has 8 years of private service experience and 5 years working for the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Top that off with 3 years of public service and 8 years as a District Judge. Her 32 years of service far exceed that of the last two Supreme Court Justices approved by the Senate; Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

As Republicans try to paint Jackson as a far-right liberal, her record has shown her to be a moderate Justice. Further, Jackson’s life experiences have prepared her to face decisions impartially from both sides of the spectrum. Jackson has familial connections in law enforcement, as well as family members who have had run-ins with the law. “You may have read that I have one uncle who got caught up in the drug trade and received a life sentence,” said Jackson. “That is true, but law enforcement also runs in my family. In addition to my brother, I had two uncles who served decades as police officers, one of whom became the police chief in my hometown of Miami, Florida.”

To that end, a major police chief’s organization is throwing its support behind Judge Jackson. In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, the International Association of Chiefs of Police urged senators to confirm Judge Jackson to the high court.

President Biden has clearly made an excellent choice in nominating Judge Jackson for the open seat on the Supreme Court. She is a highly qualified jurist whose record indicates that she can view issues from all sides. The record will not allow her detractors to paint her as unqualified. Her moderate record will debunk the false narrative that she will bring undue bias to the Court.  They are left with no argument other than the fact that she is a black female to oppose her appointment. It is an argument that they likely will make, nonetheless.

REDISTRICTING VICTORY FOR NC DEMS

By Mildred Robertson

North Carolinians can expect more equitable maps as they head to the polls on May 17. On Monday, March 7, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by GOP lawmakers to reinstate their gerrymandered political districts for North Carolina’s congressional elections. That means the voters will cast ballots in districts drawn by outside experts for the state’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as prescribed by NC state courts in a redistricting lawsuit brought to achieve more fair maps.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial ends the GOP lawmaker’s emergency appeal to block the redrawn redistricting maps to replace their gerrymandered maps. The NC State Supreme Court let a nonpartisan panel of experts draw the new map after concluding the Republican state legislature’s map violated the state Constitution by heavily favoring Republican voters.

North Carolina is a purple state that is fairly evenly divided between Democrat and Republican voters. Approximately 36% of North Carolinians are registered Democrats, while 30% are Republicans. Unaffiliated voters account for 33% of the North Carolina voting population. The congressional maps drawn by the outside experts will produce primary and general elections more favorable to Democrats than previous maps Republicans passed in November and February where they were drawn to guarantee a Republican victory in up to 10 of the 14 districts.

While Democrats can take a victory lap for more equitable maps in 2022, the fight is not over. Several of the Supreme Court Justices wanted to take the case. In a 6-3 decision, the Court rejected the GOP redistricting case, stating that it was too close to the election to force states to redraw maps. However, several of the justices stated that the Court will eventually have to address whether a state court has the authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for conducting federal elections.

While not viewed as ideal by many on the left, the new maps are expected to benefit Democrats more than those proposed by the Republican-controlled state legislature. Based upon the new voting map, the GOP is expected to win seven congressional seats, while the Democrats will likely win six. A new Raleigh-area congressional seat is a probable toss-up. The U.S. House map approved by a panel of judges will only be used in the 2022 election cycle.

If Republicans retake the state Supreme Court by winning at least one of two state Supreme Court races this year and GOP lawmakers retain their legislative majorities, the party could potentially enact more partisan maps that benefit them. So it is extremely important that everyone who wants to maintain fair maps register and vote in this primary and general election.

Mail-in voting begins on March 28. The civilian voter registration deadline is April 22. One-stop, in-person early voting begins April 28 and ends at 3 p.m. May 14.

NC Redraws Maps with Bipartisan Support

  By Mildred Robertson

The North Carolina Supreme Court entered a Solomonic decision regarding the drawing of district maps in the state whereby the Republicans were required to split the baby or relent. They relented...

Today a joint statement issued by House Speaker Tim Moore and House Minority Leader Robert Reives shows that Republicans apparently decided to make a good faith effort to draw maps that found common ground with the opposition. The statement read: "Today, House Leadership from both parties reached an agreement on a State House map. We are confident that this will result in a map that has bipartisan support. This agreement is the result of several days of good faith discussions between House leaders in both parties."

On February 2 in a four to three split, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that new political district maps drawn by the Republican legislature were unconstitutional. The maps would have provided a sizable advantage to Republicans for the next 10 years. Republicans say that redistricting is fundamentally political in its nature, and that the Court should not be involved. The Court, with four Democratic judges, disagreed. All three Republican justices dissented, saying the maps should not be struck down.

The Court ruled that the maps were “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause, and the freedom of assembly clause of North Carolina’s constitution.”  The maps were slanted so as to ensure a Republican victory in the state’s General Assembly and U.S. House of Representatives despite the fact that 36 % of North Carolina voters are registered Democrats and another 33 % are registered unaffiliated. Only 30% of North Carolinians are registered as Republicans. However, the gerrymandered congressional map would likely have given Republicans a 10-4 or 11-3 advantage in 2022 in the N.C. House of Representatives. Democrats would have the opportunity for victory only in the state’s urban districts.

The House produced the newly drawn political districts just ahead of the Friday deadline imposed by the Court.  The deadline was designed to give the Secretary of State the time needed to prepare for this year’s primary elections.  The Senate Committee on Redistricting and Elections will meet on Thursday, February 17, 2022, to review the proposed map and discuss several districts still in contention.

Even as the redistricting maps traverse the legislative process, the Court’s ruling allowed for the production of maps that will allow North Carolina citizens a fairer opportunity to select their legislators, rather than to have their legislators select their voters. That outcome reflects a good day for democracy.

Revised:  2/17/2022

NC Redistricting Maps Found Unconstitutional

 By Mildred Robertson

In a four to three split, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that new political district maps drawn by the Republican legislature are unconstitutional. The maps would have provided a sizable advantage to Republicans for the next 10 years. Republicans say that redistricting is fundamentally political in its nature, and that the Court should not be involved. The Court, with four Democratic judges, disagreed. All three Republican justices dissented, saying the maps should not be struck down.

The Court ruled that the maps were “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause, and the freedom of assembly clause of North Carolina’s constitution.”  The maps were slanted so as to ensure a Republican victory in the state’s General Assembly and U.S. House of Representatives despite the fact that 36 % of North Carolina voters are registered Democrats and another 33 % are registered unaffiliated. Only 30% of North Carolinians are registered as Republicans. However, the gerrymandered congressional map would likely have given Republicans a 10-4 or 11-3 advantage in 2022 in the N.C. House of Representatives. Democrats would have the opportunity for victory only in the state’s urban districts.

Now new political districts must be drawn before this year’s primary elections.  The legislature will get a second bite at the apple, but with caveats.  While the legislature awaits the full ruling, the court did hand down some scheduling instructions and guidance on how the new maps must be drawn. The Court’s ruling will allow North Carolina citizens a fairer opportunity to select their legislators, rather than to have their legislators select their voters.

Still, there is a possibility that the final map will disenfranchise many democratic voters. The new maps will go before the trial court that initially heard the case. That court has a Republican majority that originally ruled in favor of the gerrymandered maps. 

In addition to the legislature, those bringing suit against the gerrymandered maps will also be allowed to submit their own proposed maps for the court to review. All maps must be filed by Feb. 18.  The court will have until Feb 23 to rule on the new maps.

The ruling provides an opportunity for North Carolinians to have representation that reflects the wishes of its citizens. Governor Roy Cooper cautioned that the revision process must be closely monitored to ensure that the new maps reflect the full intent of the N.C. Supreme Court decision.

Update: 2/16/2022

The North Carolina Supreme Court entered a Solomonic decision whereby the Republicans were required to split the baby or relent. They relented...

Joint statement from House Speaker Tim Moore and House Minority Leader Robert Reives: "Today, House Leadership from both parties reached an agreement on a State House map. We are confident that this will result in a map that has bipartisan support. This agreement is the result of several days of good faith discussions between House leaders in both parties."

Supreme Court Vacancy Presents Biden Opportunity

 By Mildred Robertson

President Biden stands on the precipice of perhaps the most daunting task of his administration. The nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice. With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, he will have the opportunity to nominate a justice who will at least hold the status quo in an extremely conservative court. Biden has compiled an impressive list of highly qualified jurists to consider for the appointment.  He has pledged to nominate an African American female, and two North Carolina judges are on his shortlist.

Among those Biden is considering is North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls, an African-American civil rights attorney and educator and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and Cheri Beasley, former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Beasley had previously served on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and as a district court judge in Cumberland County, NC. She is the presumptive nominee for the 2022 U.S. Senate race in North Carolina.

Both of these jurists are highly qualified and would provide a much-needed balance on a court that has been skewed hard right thanks to Mitch McConnell’s manipulation of the Senate rules. Just this past July the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a severe blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act as it ruled against the Democratic National Committee in the Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee case. The court’s ruling diminished the power of federal courts to protect U.S. citizens from voting rights discrimination. It is one of the many decisions the court will address in the near future that has far-reaching implications on the daily lives of American citizens.

So as President Joe Biden prepares to make his first, and perhaps only, nomination to the court, his decision will influence this nation’s jurisprudence for years to come. Supreme Court judges receive what can amount to lifetime appointments; a constitutional design intended to ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress.

This nomination should be a slam-dunk; at least if the Democratic Caucus can hold together all fifty of its members, and Mitch McConnell doesn’t come up with some new shenanigans. But even with a successful nomination, the court is currently wildly slanted to the right. McConnell artfully blocked President Obama from seating his Supreme Court pick, rammed through a Trump nominee accused of sexual misconduct, and confirmed an ultra-conservative female just days before a presidential election.

The next nominee to the Supreme Court is but one of the issues this administration and this congress must face. The court plays a crucial role in invalidating legislation or executive actions that conflict with the Constitution. It is designed to ensure individual rights and maintain a Constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated and new situations. "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” are words written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building. They express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.

It seems, however, that the John Roberts Supreme Court has greater allegiance to preserving partisan ideals than to upholding the provisions of the constitution that validate our freedoms.  The Court no longer appears to hold to the concept of settled law and is forging its own conservative path on issues such as abortion and voting rights. Instead, it now allows states to chip away at the foundation of these long-held beliefs.

So as Biden contemplates his Supreme Court nominee, he must also ponder whether it is time to look at the overall makeup of the court. He and congress must determine whether additional seats must be added to the court in order to negate its current partisan bent. It may be the only way for all Americans to receive equal justice under the law from the highest court in the land.  

The Southern Strategy Revisited: Suppressing Minority Votes

 By Mildred Robertson

Well, as North Carolinians await an NC Supreme Court decision on litigation of recently gerrymandered redistricting maps they don’t know when they will get to cast their primary ballots. The Court has scheduled an expedited hearing on February 2 to hear challenges against the redrawn maps. North Carolina’s primary was already moved from March 8 to May 17 to accommodate ongoing litigation. Now Republicans want to move NC Primaries to June 7 in hopes of getting the Court’s approval to use gerrymandered maps in the 2022 mid-term elections. On January 19 the NC Senate will determine whether to schedule the Primary on June 7.

Plaintiffs presenting at the February 2 Supreme Court hearing oppose the redrawn district maps saying they are partisan gerrymandered, and therefore unconstitutional. While the trial court judges agree that the maps were drawn to give Republicans an advantage, they don’t see anything in the constitution that would prohibit it. They say partisanship is part of the political process and does not affect a person’s right to “cast” a ballot.

A major issue we face nationwide is the matter of voter nullification. It is not our desire just to have access to the ballot. We must also make sure that once a ballot is cast, it is counted. Republican legislatures across the nation have engaged in a series of efforts to not only manage who has access to the ballot box, but how each ballot is tallied once it is cast.   North Carolina is among the states working to quash the voice of minorities and progressives across this nation through gerrymander voting districts.

So that is the challenge in North Carolina. Voters must wait to see whether the Court will allow their votes to be nullified by maps that don’t reflect their will. By packing and cracking minorities and progressives into several districts (either packing these voters into several large districts or separating and diluting the number of like-minded voters in a target district), Republicans can reduce the number of districts that might deliver seats to the Democratic Party. The GOP maps are expected to give North Carolina Republicans a 10-4 or 11-3 majority in House and strong majorities in the state’s 2022 election.  

Republican Sen. Ralph Hise complains that the current schedule is an extremely short time frame that will cause unnecessary confusion and chaos. However, what is causing confusion and chaos is the Republican attempt to lessen the impact of minority and progressive voters. Note that Carolina Demography indicates that as July 2020 roughly 36% of North Carolinians are registered Democrats, with only 30 % registered Republican. The remainder of North Carolinians are unaffiliated or registered with another party.

The NC Court’s decision that the gerrymander districts do not impede access to the ballot box is just a clever way to ignore the fact that, while everyone may have the right to cast a ballot, the weight of each individual vote is skewed based on packing and cracking by the Republican majority that diminishes the impact of some ballots.

Let’s hope the North Carolina Supreme Court sees it differently.

_______________

Update January 19, 2022: Republican state lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday that would delay North Carolina’s primary election a second time, but that bill is facing a potential veto by Gov. Roy Cooper (D) as Democrats were united in their opposition to it.  --CBS17.com

America’s Checkered Voting Rights History

By Mildred Robertson

While this nation is known as a representative government for the people by the people, its actual history tells quite a different story. It appears the idea of America as a bastion of freedom is somewhat of a misnomer. As a young nation, we have spent more time denying citizens the right to self-govern than we have allowed them the freedom to participate.

For the disenfranchised masses, the battle has been ongoing throughout this nation’s history. That battle continues today as the Voting Rights legislation proposed by the Democratic Party languishes in a Congress that would prefer to exclude citizens rather than to gain full participation in the political process.

Even at its founding, this nation limited access to self-governance to white, landed males. During the Colonial and Revolutionary periods voting was restricted to property owners over the age of 21. When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, only landowners were allowed to vote. That translates to white males. When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787 no federal voting standard existed. That meant that states decided who could vote. That, again, generally meant white male landowners. When George Washington became the first president of the United States in 1789, he was elected with only 6% of the U.S. population eligible to cast a vote.  

It seems that our inclination was to deny access to the vote rather than to promote democratic inclusion. As more and more immigrants came to America, the 1790 Naturalization Law was passed; explicitly stating that only “free white” immigrants could become naturalized citizens, and thus have access to the ballot box.  It wasn’t until 1856 that voting rights were extended to white men who were not property owners, with North Carolina being the last state to remove the property ownership requirement. It was thirteen years later, under the 14th Amendment when former slaves were granted citizenship. Still, only males were allowed to vote.

Even though in 1870 federal legislation held that the vote could not be denied because of race, explicitly, voting rights were left in the hands of the states. That is when primarily Southern states began to use discriminatory tactics to enact measures such as poll taxes and literacy tests to restrict the actual ability of African Americans to register to vote.

While disenfranchised populations struggled against this lack of inclusion, they met with fierce opposition. Violence and other intimidation tactics were widely used to discourage those who might want to exercise their right to vote.

In 1872 the white suffragette Susan B. Anthony attempted to vote in the presidential election. She was arrested and brought to trial in Rochester, New York. At the same time the former slave Sojourner Truth, an advocate for justice and equality, attempted to cast a ballot in Grand Rapids. She was turned away at the polls.  

Native Americans remained among the disenfranchised until 1887. The vote was denied to Indigenous people under the pretext that they were not citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment.  The vote was also denied to people of Chinese ancestry. In 1887 Native Americans were granted the right to vote if they agreed to give up their tribal affiliation.

It was 1890 when Wyoming was admitted to statehood and became the first state to legislate voting rights for women in its constitution. Native Americans were still required to go through Naturalization in order to be considered citizens and gain voting rights. It was 1920 before the 19^th Amendment granted women the right to vote both in state and federal elections. Still excluded were Asian Indians and people of Japanese descent. While The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to Native Americans, many states still made laws and policies to keep them from voting. It was 1947 before legal barriers were removed to keep Native Americans from voting. It was 1952 when those of Asian ancestry were granted citizenship rights.

Citizens in Washington D.C. only gained the right to vote in the U.S. presidential election in 1961. Yet in 2022 citizens of the District of Columbia, most of whom are African American, still do not have voting representation in Congress.

As you can see, this fight is not new. But over the years those excluded from the democratic process have had victories that move us closer to the ideal governing state that we purport to be. It is time for America to become the stronghold of freedom and self-governance it professes itself to be. It is time that Congress enact the John Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2021.

________

Source: Northern California Citizenship Project Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2004 - Capacity Building Series