Policing Black Bodies Still a Lethal Business

 By: Mildred, Robertson

So, the police have killed yet another unarmed black man for an administrative infraction. Patrick Lyoya, 26, was killed outside a house in Grand Rapids, Michigan after a traffic stop for driving with a license plate that did not match the vehicle. Video shows Lyoya running from the officer and then struggling with him while an onlooker taped the interaction. We see the actual murder on video shot by that onlooker because the officer's videocam mysteriously ceased to function. 

Of course, there will be discussions about the victim's behavior. He should not have run. He should not have "allegedly" grabbed the officer's taser. Both of these statements may well be true, but they do not justify a death penalty. Other narratives suggest the officer shot Lyoya because he was afraid. If an officer is too afraid to carry out his or her duty in a legal manner that does not endanger the public then he or she should not be afforded the shield or the power that accompanies it. 

Not only did the officer kill Lyoya, but he did so while the victim was face down on the ground. He did so with a shot to the back of Lyoya's head. 

The officer, who as yet is unidentified, could have made better decisions. He could have refrained from placing his hands on Lyoya when he first interacted with him. He could have called for backup when  Lyoya ran. He could have continued to subdue him without lethal force. But his first instinct was a kill shot to the back of the head. That is an officer I would not wish to patrol in my neighborhood. That is an officer with whom I do not wish to come into contact. 

I am a 69-year-old black woman. I don't speed. I don't carry a weapon. I don't have drugs in my car. I don't commit crimes. But when I look in my rear-view mirror and see a police car behind me, it is somewhat unnerving. That should not be the case. There is something wrong when average black folks have to be wary of someone who should actually be there to protect and serve. 

Don't get me wrong. I believe we need GOOD police. I even believe that most of them are. But in policing, it is just like a box of chocolates...you never know what you are going to get. I don't believe in "defunding" the police. I think that is a misnomer. We need to "repurpose" the police and fund the ancillary services necessary that would allow us NOT to dispatch a gun-totting Rambo to every traffic stop or family squabble.

Policing in America needs to be fixed.  It needs to be fixed now! The debate about what to call it is asinine. Police who have little care for the black and brown bodies they patrol must be ferreted out of the force. Those officers who really do wish to "protect and serve," should receive adequate training and appropriate funding to do their jobs. Our police forces need to be demilitarized. They should be peacekeepers, not warriors. Until that is accomplished, none of us are safe...not even peaceful, 69-year-old black women. 

You Can Defeat Voter Suppression

 By Mildred Robertson

Many citizens across this nation are gearing up for the 2022 primary election. They will make their way to the polls this summer to narrow the field and choose who will represent their respective parties in the November general election. As the most consequential election in the life of our democracy rapidly approaches, I wonder just how many voters are prepared to do the work necessary to maintain our freedom.

Although America touts itself as the world’s premier democracy, you might be surprised to learn that there are many democracies around the world with a higher percentage of registered voters than the U.S.  According to a 2021 report by the leadership Conference on Human Rights, only 64 percent of the U.S. voting-age population is registered to vote. That compared to 90 percent of the voting-age population in the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, and Slovakia.

Low voter participation in the United States is no accident. Even at its inception, only landed white men were allowed the privilege to vote. The evolution of voting rights eventually extended to most U.S. citizens, but the process remains cumbersome and controlled by states which institute their own voting regulations. This decentralized process puts an undue amount of stress on individual voters, as they must maintain their status from state to state and municipality to municipality. In addition to being confusing, this process allows states the flexibility to manipulate voting rules and regulations to maintain the status quo.

It seems, with the browning of America that is exactly what is happening.  Many White Americans fear losing control of a nation built on the backs of black and brown people who were shipped in as slaves, or who crossed the Southwestern border. While the labor provided by these voluntary and involuntary immigrants helped to build the foundation of this great nation, many wish to deny these individuals the benefit of full citizenship offered to Europeans who came here looking for a better life.

There is no better illustration of the threat perceived by conservatives than to examine the 2020 election. Joe Biden won the election by building a majority coalition of progressives that included Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities. This coalition ensured Biden’s win and narrowly empowered Democrats in the House and Senate. This victory caused a backlash across the nation as conservative Republican-led legislatures around the country began to plot ways to disenfranchise minorities and hold on to political power.

All efforts to make voting universally accessible to qualified voters seem to be under attack. Tactics range from gerrymandering, eliminating mail-in voting and drop-boxes, voter purges, and restrictive voter identification laws, to reducing the number of voting sites and limiting early voting. These tactics are targeted to negatively impact minority voters. 

However, these tactics can’t work if U.S. citizens determine that the right to vote is more powerful than the obstacles that stand between them and the ballot box. It is a path our ancestors took; estimating the number of Jelly Beans in a jar, paying poll taxes, and withstanding physical violence. Can we do any less?

While the all-out attack on minority voting this election cycle is substantial, voters don’t have to fall prey to the attacks. Despite the conservative effort to deny the vote to every citizen, if each of us takes personal responsibility, it is an obstacle we can overcome. We must prepare to ensure that we cast our ballot in both the primary and general elections.

HOW TO MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE COUNTS

If you are registered, check your status to ensure that your name has not been purged from the voter registration rolls.

• If you are not registered, log on to your local county board of elections website to find out how, when, and where you can register.
• Know the dates and registration deadlines for the 2022 primary and general elections.
• Request a sample ballot from your county board of elections so you are familiar with candidates running in your precinct.
• Research candidates and ballot issues so you can make an informed decision.
• Vote on all municipal candidates…they are the ones that affect your day-to-day life.        
• Identify your polling place, drop-box, or early voting sites.
• Have a plan for in-person voting; i.e., comfortable clothes, seating if necessary, water & snacks.
• Plan to stay, no matter how long it takes.

If we fail to meet the challenge in 2022, we may never have the opportunity again. Democracy as we know it may well become extinct in America. So I urge every citizen to pledge to be committed to casting a vote that will count in 2022. It may be your last opportunity to participate in a free and fair election.

Expand the Supreme Court and Preserve Democracy

 By Mildred Robertson

Many Americans watched in disbelief as former president Donald J. Trump broke almost every rule established to define the boundaries of presidential power. While Democrats attempted to hold Trump accountable for his myriad infractions, on two occasions the Republican-led Congress failed to discipline the twice impeached president. Trump’s blatant disregard for the Constitution resulted in norm-busting practices which, if left to stand, may signal a failed democracy.  While both the executive and legislative branches of our government were obviously faltering, Americans maintained hope as the judicial branch continued to safeguard our democracy by ruling in favor of constitutional norms. Many courts across the country continue to stand on the watchtower to protect our freedoms…but not all.

 

As chaos overtakes every part of the American political system, the Supreme Court is the final leg of our government to buckle under the weight of partisan politics. The nation’s foundation has been shaken by this week’s revelation that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may have based his judicial decision on the release of records to the January 6^th Committee on the involvement of his wife in the planning and execution of the January 6^th insurrection.  During a Capitol news conference on March 31, 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, called for a code of ethics for the Supreme Court stating, "If your wife is an admitted and proud contributor to a coup of our country, maybe you should weigh that in your ethical standards."

 

The Founders constructed our constitution with a series of checks and balances designed to ensure that one flawed branch of government would not be able to undermine our democracy. In theory, each branch is endowed with individual powers to check the other branches and prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. In 2022, that theory seems to be failing the test. It appears our U.S. Supreme Court may be the latest casualty of partisan politics to foreshadow our nation’s possible demise.

 

The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is the final arbiter of constitutional issues with which this country must grapple. While bills passed by Congress must be signed by the president, Congress still has the power to override a presidential veto, resulting in a balance of power. However, there is no power above the Supreme Court to call its actions into question. Justices have a lifetime appointment meant to insulate them from partisan influence. However, they can also become insular, making decisions to please themselves rather than to protect the constitution.  

 

The Court has, in the past, been made up of individuals who leaned either left or right, but who could be persuaded by the facts of a particular case based on the constitution. These swing votes provided for a more fair hearing of controversial issues that came before the court. However, then-Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has manipulated Court appointments by denying both President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden the opportunity to fill Supreme Court vacancies. In 2016 he refused to bring Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland to a vote, even though there remained 8 months in his presidency. Likewise, he rushed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barret only weeks before Biden’s election in order to deny him the opportunity to fill the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed on September 18, 2020. These ideologues carry the banner for far-right issues such as anti-abortion and other conservative standards. In addition to a Court packed with rightwing enthusiasts, we now have a justice who seems to overlook rules of ethics in his decision-making.

 

Whether Clarence Thomas recuses himself from cases surrounding January 6^th, at this point, is left up to no one but him. However, there is something that can be done to restore the balance of power on the highest court in the land.  Congress has the power under Article III of the Constitution to add seats to the Supreme Court. This is not an unprecedented move. The size of the Court has changed 7 times in American history. There should also be an effort to depoliticize the Supreme Court by creating term limits. This would give each president the opportunity to appoint justices each term, thereby making it more representative. Finally, the Court should be held accountable by instituting a binding code of ethics that requires recusal in cases of proven conflicts of interest.

 

In a blog post written in 2019, I said: “America stands at a crossroads. As the President of the United States engages in an all-out attack on this nation’s constitution, it occurs to me that the boundaries of our constitution are being challenged. We are about to witness whether our constitution, as framed by our Founding Fathers, can withstand the onslaught of a lawless president.” Little did I know at that time that those challenges would lay as well at the feet of our legislature and our Supreme Court!  Unprecedented challenges to all three branches of our government threaten the very democracy that makes us unique among nations.  We must fight to maintain our democracy. We must fight to ensure our government works in the manner the Founders intended. To that end, we must expand the Supreme Court to restore balance, and preserve our nation.

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."