blac

The Supreme Court’s Decision is a Racist Attack on Women of Color

info@kerrconsulting.com (Kerr Consulting) — Tue, 24 May 2022 15:55:50 GMT

What the Draft Opinion Means: A BLAC Perspective

The recent leak of a draft opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States is the latest, and now the greatest, attack on a woman’s right to choose since Roe v. Wade was first decided. After decades of relentless attacks and whittling down by conservative attacks, the battle has reached an climax we hoped it never would – a near-total reversal on abortion that would pave the way for half the country to outright ban it and set a precedent for a national ban. The consequences for such an action would be catastrophic for all women, make no mistake, but overturning Roe means that one of our most downtrodden and vulnerable populations would become even more oppressed: women of color.

The fact is that women of color, especially Black women, have always been in a precarious position. They face double discrimination for the color of their skin and their sex, are one of the poorest demographics in our nation, and have little presence in national discussion as anything other than as political strawmen (really, strawwomen) or as a statistic to be abused come election time. Women of color are the victims of sexual assault at disproportionately higher rates compared to white women, and they are denied access to many opportunities and resources on a national scale that would help to avoid unwanted pregnancy, such as birth control. They are despised, maligned, and objectified by virtually everyone for no valid reason, and suffer disproportionately as a result.

The right to safe abortions was one of the only things that women of color had to protect themselves from becoming even further victimized by a society that regards them as unwanted. It gave them agency for their bodies, a right that we should have reasonably expected to exist in a society the prizes the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yet has not ever truly applied to people of color and especially women of color. But the draft opinion from the Court shows that the people we rely on to uphold justice in the land pay more attention to Jim Crow’s opinion then that of the people at large, and especially those that this overturning of Roe would most directly impact. It is impossible to see this as anything but an attempt to re-legitimize oppression of Black and brown women in this nation, to render them back into some racist power dynamic where rights no longer exist for them

An actual opinion has yet to be issued, and given the amount of public outcry the justices may reconsider their decision to attack Roe in this manner. That being said, the very notion shows that so long as the right to an abortion remains subject to judicial whims, there is no security for the women it matters most to. We need decisive action that would federally legalize the right, unquestionably, and fundamentally protect it for women everywhere, not just in the states that recognize it.

BLAC List – The 43rd District

info@kerrconsulting.com (Kerr Consulting) — Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:33:04 GMT

BLAC List - The 43rd District

With the departure of Diana Richardson to be the new Deputy Borough President of Brooklyn, the 43 ^rd New York State Assembly district in the Brooklyn has been in the midst of a special election to fill the seat ahead of the statewide 2022 elections. In candidates Brian Cunningham and Jelanie DeShong we have two fine individuals who would be fit to replace her, but after examination the Black Leadership Action Coalition has decided to endorse Brian Cunningham. Brian’s platform addresses many of the critical issues facing our communities not just in the 43 ^rd district, but throughout the city as well, and it is our opinion that he will be an effective assemblyman for the 43 ^rd . More details on Brian’s beliefs and background can be found on his website, https://cunninghamforny.com/.

A Setback of the Decade: The Supreme Court’s Decision on Texan Abortion Ban

Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:02:43 GMT

The decision of the Supreme Court to not block the “Heartbeat Act” is a major blow in the fight for reproductive rights

The Sad News

On September 1 ^st , 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to intervene on an emergency injunction to block the implementation of the Texan “Heartbeat Act”, which bans abortions in the state when a fetal heartbeat is detected – roughly six weeks after conception. The law, which was signed by Governor Greg Abbott in May, is one of the most draconian in the nation and is the latest effort by conservatives to further degrade the reproductive protections that women were promised in Roe vs. Wade . Other states have tried passing laws like this before, but the Texan version is the first one that has not been blocked, opening the door for other states to try and implement their own versions of the six-week ban. As reactionary lawmakers and organizations around the country celebrate this victory, progressives ought to feel not only worried for the future of reproductive rights, but ashamed of their failures to provide more protections for women of all races.

Why Does This Matter?

To be clear, this decision is not the death of Roe vs. Wade , not by a long shot. However, we are finally beginning to see the power of a re-balanced Supreme Court in action – a Court that is far more reactionary, and far younger, than any that we have seen in decades. The Texan law represents the latest and most aggressive step in a conservative strategy to keep women in our nation disempowered, second-class citizens, denying them the right to their own bodies. What makes the law so awful is that the cutoff for abortions – about six weeks after conception, when a “fetal heartbeat” is detected – is often far in advance of when most women know they are pregnant. Practically speaking, women in Texas are now denied abortions before they even have a chance to make the choice, saddling them with the material and immaterial stresses that having a child comes with. The Court’s decision not to block the implementation of the law, moreover, means that the Court is unconcerned with the enforcement of the reproductive rights afforded by Roe and in fact may be actively working to undermine the constitutionality of abortion in America. By refusing to block the law, the Court has tacitly endorsed the erosion of these protections – coming from the highest judicial authority in our nation, this is tantamount to a full-on endorsement. When abortions are de facto outlawed, it is only a matter of time before it becomes de jure .

What does it mean for women of color?

Through Roe, women gained the right to safe, legal abortions, which was a victory especially pertinent for women of color. Black women are five times more likely to seek abortions than white women according to a 2008 paper published by Susan Cohen, and it’s not hard to see why. Due to the lack of access to contraception in communities of color, whether it be cost or cultural, these women are more likely to become mothers without the resources to be mothers. There is also the real concern that minority women, especially Black women, are more often the victims of rape – a condition that makes the prospect of unwanted pregnancy far greater for women of color. The additional pressure of childcare is another tax on the already poor economic situations that many minority women find themselves in, which is why Roe was such a blessing for these women – if, despite their best efforts, a woman were to become pregnant, they now had the choice to decide whether they could afford to keep the child. The now very real possibility that the protections afforded by Roe may disappear is a critical blow to the development of generational wealth by women of color and forces them to again reckon with the possibility of raising children that they cannot care for.

The BLAC Perspective

The Black Leadership Action Coalition is, of course, incredibly frustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore the injunction and is very worried for the future of reproductive rights for women in America. The notion that women may once again lose the rights to their bodies has awful implications for all women, but none more so then women of color. It is our single Black women who need access to these services more than ever, but the example of Texas will no doubt be copied by many of the conservative states that also have high Black and brown populations, further stunting the development of these communities by saddling them with another economic ball and chain. Unwanted children will only increase the pressure on government services that many single minority mothers are forced to rely on in order to survive, an economic slavery that the right to choose had helped to alleviate. Indeed, we would consider it ironic that the conservative forces that celebrate the oppressive developments in Texas are also those that decry government benefits to poor single mothers; after all, more children born to poor women means more people on the dole! However, we know that this seeming contradiction is no contradiction at all. Rather, it is a side-effect that can be used to further promulgate the racist narrative of welfare queens and minority dependence on welfare, pointing at the increase in poor mouths as false evidence that Black and brown people are content to live off of handouts.

So it goes without saying that BLAC wholeheartedly denounces this development and demands that, in the coming months, the Supreme Court revisits this decision with their upcoming review of a similar law in Mississippi in the coming months. However, we also wish to point out that it was the short-sighted laziness of progressive strategists to not anticipate, and not truly fight, the developments that culminated in this action. The conservative conspiracy to undermine the reproductive rights of women has been known for years, and yet the left has effectively done nothing to further cement the victory of Roe at the federal level. Instead of an ounce of prevention, we are now forced to fight the nation in order to swallow a pound of cure. BLAC demands that any true progressives in the nation take a break from massaging their ego on Twitter and actually work to try and right the damage that this decision has done to the future of reproductive rights in our nation.

Redistricting: The Silent Killer of Democracy

Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:55:55 GMT

During the past few months, many people (myself included) have spoken out about the ongoing attempts by Republican-led state legislatures to implement new laws that will make it difficult for citizens – especially minority citizens – to be able to vote in future elections (Between January 1, 2021 and July 14, 2021, 18 states enacted 30 such laws). Among other things, these voter suppression laws include provisions that:

- Shorten the period of time to request a mail-in ballot;

- Shorten the deadline for delivering mail-in ballots;

- Require annual renewal of requests for mail-in ballots;

- Eliminate the distribution of mail-in ballots to voters who have not specifically requested one;

- Limit the availability, location and/or number of drop boxes for mail-in ballots;

- Impose more rigid ID requirements for mail-in ballots and/or in-person voting;

- Ban drive-thru voting;

- Expand the purging of voter rolls;

- Eliminate Election Day registration;

- Limit early voting days or hours; and,

- In Georgia, allow the state legislature to dismantle local election boards that it deems to be “unfit” – and to replace them with its own appointees.

As horrendous as these various efforts to suppress voting have been, they have at least been part of the normal legislative process – which means that they have been out in the open and capable of being tracked and documented.

But even as we continue the battle to prevent states from implementing these restrictive laws and we advocate for Congressional Democrats to pass the For The People Act of 2021and the John L. Lewis Voting Rights Amendment Act , another form of voter suppression is taking place mostly behind closed doors – and out of sight: the creation of redistricting plans that will effectively discourage minority voters from participating in future elections.

What Is Redistricting?

Redistricting is the drawing of boundaries for the districts from which citizens elect their various political representatives. In New York State, this currently includes twenty-seven (27) Congressional Districts as well as sixty-three (63) State Senate Districts, and one-hundred-fifty (150) Assembly Districts.

States currently redraw their various political districts once every 10 years. This occurs in the year following the completion of the national census (Example: In 2021, states will re-draw their various voting districts based on the results of the 2020 census).

How the 2020 Census Will Affect New York State

As a result results of the 2020 Census, New York State will lose one (1) Congressional seat starting with the 2022 elections – and the 118 ^th Congress, which will convene in January 2023. This loss would not have occurred if New York State had included an additional eighty-nine (89) residents in its 2020 Census count – and all the other states had remained stagnant in terms of their resident counts (Had that happened, New York State would have retained its twenty-seven seats and Minnesota would have lost one of its eight seats).

The 2020 Census was originally extended from its usual end date of July 31 ^st to October 31 ^st because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But at the directive of then-President Trump, the 2020 Census count was halted as of September 30 ^th despite several requests from the Census Bureau to have additional time to process forms and turn in numbers ( The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision to end the 2020 Census as of September 30, 2020 ).

The other states that lost a congressional seat as a result of the 2020 Census results are as follows:

· California;

· Illinois;

· Michigan;

· Ohio;

· Pennsylvania; and

· West Virginia.

And the states that gained congressional seats as a result of the 2020 Census results are as follows:

· Colorado;

· Florida;

· Montana;

· North Carolina;

· Oregon; and

· Texas (2 seats).

After considering its various legal options, New York State chose not to challenge the results of the 2020 Census – and the concomitant loss of one of its Congressional seats. Census experts and legal scholars had both opined that there was little chance of such an appeal succeeding because any change to the Census count in New York State would have to be replicated in every other state.

Challenging Redistricting Plans

For almost 200 years, court challenges to redistricting plans were generally denied because they were deemed to involve political issues rather than legal issues. But in 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the landmark ruling of Baker v. Carr – which held that constitutional challenges to redistricting plans did, in fact, involve legal issues and could, therefore, be adjudicated by courts.

Since the Baker v. Carr ruling, a series of cases has significantly altered how Congressional Districts are drawn. Among other things, these cases have established the following:

· Redistricting plans must embody the concept of “one person, one vote”;

· Each Congressional District must, to the greatest extent possible, contain the same number of residents;

· All Congressional Districts must comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act – which means that a redistricting plan cannot result in the suppression of voters based on their color, race, or primary language.

Independent Redistricting Commissions and Gerrymandering

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission that states can establish, via ballot initiatives, independent commissions to take over responsibility for redistricting from state legislatures.

Independent redistricting commissions offer perhaps the best hope that we can put an end to gerrymandering – which basically allows the party in power to stay in power.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand what gerrymandering can do is to study the visual portrayal that was developed several years ago by The Washington Post:

In states that have experienced significant gerrymandering, election results are often skewed in favor of the party that controlled the state legislature when the new Congressional districts were drawn.

Thus, for example, in the 2018 midterm Congressional elections in Ohio, the Republicans won the statewide vote by just 5%. Notwithstanding that result, Republicans won 12 of the state’s 16 Congressional seats in those elections because of how the state’s Congressional districts were gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

Although twenty-one (21) states have now implemented some form of redistricting commission, there is a great deal of variation in terms of who sits on these commissions – and how much power they have in terms of actually drawing the boundaries for voting districts.

In some states, these commissions set the boundaries for Congressional districts and state legislative districts. In others, the commissions only set boundaries for Congressional districts – or only for state legislative districts. In still others, these commissions merely make recommendations to the state legislature as to how voting districts should be structured.

The composition of these commissions also varies a great deal. In some states such as Arkansas, the members are all elected state officials (i.e., the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General). In others, the members of the commission are selected by the political leaders of the state legislature and the Governor.

Many proponents believe that in order to be truly effective, redistricting commissions must be composed of independent citizens who are not active members of any political party. Others believe that these commissions should have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans but be chaired by someone who is not affiliated with either party.

New York State’s Independent Redistricting Commission

In 2014, voters in New York State approved Proposition 1 – which amended the state’s constitution and created the New York Independent Redistricting Commission (NYIRC). And in 2021, the NYIRC will for the first time oversee the redistricting process in New York State.

The NYIRC has a total of ten (10) members. Of those ten, two (2) are appointed by the New York State Senate Majority Leader/Temporary President; two (2) are appointed by the New York State Senate Minority Leader; two (2) are appointed by the Speaker of the New York State Assembly; and two (2) are appointed by the New York State Assembly Minority Leader.

The final two (2) members of the NYIRC are selected by the eight (8) appointed members. In this regard, these final two members cannot have been enrolled in the Democratic party or the Republican party for at least the last five (5) years – and the eight appointed members must consult with organizations that are devoted to protecting the rights of minority voters and other constituencies before making their selections.

The initial members of the NYIRC are as follows:

· David Imamura, Esq. – Chair

· Jack M. Martins, Esq. – Vice Chair

· Eugene Benger, Esq.

· Ross Brady, Esq.

· John Conway, Esq.

· Dr. Ivelisse Cuevas-Molina

· Dr. John Flateau

· Elaine Frazier

· Charles Nesbit

· Willis H. Stephens, Jr., Esq.

Although we will need to wait and see what sorts of results the NYIRC produces, I do have major concerns about the composition of the initial panel. To begin with, it is bothersome that the panel has eight (8) men and only two (2) women. Similarly, it is bothersome that minorities are so underrepresented on the panel.

In a state in which women outnumber men by more than half a million, why do women only get 20% representation on the NYIRC?

Similarly, in a state in which minorities make up almost 40% of the population and are continuing to grow as an overall percentage of the population, why are there only three (3) minorities on the NYIRC?

But what bothers me the most about the composition of the NYIRC is that eight (8) of its ten (10) members were selected by the current political leaders in the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly – and that the other two were selected by the first eight appointees. How can we possibly expect this body to be “independent” when we allow the current “Ins” to control the process that will affect our representation in Congress – and in our state legislature – for at least the next decade?

I also find it bothersome that there was such a delay in getting the initial members of the NYIRC appointed – and in getting it to begin the arduous task of redrawing the boundaries for all the voting districts in New York State. In this regard, Proposition 1 contained detailed language that spelled out exactly when the NYIRC must complete each of its assigned tasks – and given the delay in its becoming operational, we are already seeing corners being cut and input being curtailed as it seeks to draft its plans for New York State’s Congressional districts – and its State Senate and Assembly districts – by the applicable deadline of January 15, 2022.

Given the unnecessary delay in getting the NYIRC operational, there is little chance that it will be able to undertake any meaningful efforts at community outreach and/or civic engagement – especially with regard to minority communities. Nor will it likely do very much, if anything, to educate New York State residents about the redistricting process.

If we are going to make redistricting a fair and open process in New York State, then we cannot allow the “Ins’ to control it. Instead, we need to establish requirements that will ensure that the composition of the NYIRC is consistent with the demographics of New York State – and then allow individual voters to directly select all its members.

Unless we completely change the way in which we select the members of the NYIRC, we will only be a half-step away from the smoky backrooms that have overseen the redistricting process in New York State throughout its history. And, just as before, redistricting will remain a silent killer for democracy.

Impending Legalization: A Small Start for Restorative Justice and Black Entrepreneurs

Thu, 25 Mar 2021 18:05:19 GMT

The announcement that New York is close to legalizing recreational marijuana is just the beginning, but a good one.

The Big News

Lawmakers in Albany have announced that they have reached a deal with Governor Cuomo regarding recreational marijuana, an overdue development hastened by Cuomo’s frantic attempts to maintain political standing in light of the multiple scandals he faces. You may recall that Cuomo was notoriously sluggish on weed legalization, as recently as February facing off with state leaders over multiple differences in implementation and usage of revenue, but that is in the past. It is heartening that the legislation, the Marijuana Regulation & Taxation Act (MRTA), will be voted on Tuesday, March 30 ^th .

The Outline of the Bill

While perhaps a less ambitious bill than New York could have had, the current version of the MRTA is still something to be celebrated. Possession of up to three ounces of marijuana would be legal, as well as home cultivation of up to three mature plants; a concession from Cuomo. There will be legalized pot lounges and delivery, though you can’t drink in the lounges. Expect to pay a fairly high tax, with a minimum of 9% state sales tax and up to an additional 4% in local sales tax.

And the revenue? Projected to be around $350 million annually, 40% is to go to a dedicated social equity fund to compensate communities impacted by the War on Drugs, 40% towards school funding, and the remainder to fund drug education and treatment. However, most New Yorkers will have to wait until the rules are clarified; home grow cannot legally begin until 18 months after the first commercial dispensary opens, which could be over a year away.

Furthering Equity in Relation to Marijuana

It is wonderful to see that social equity is not just in the money, but in the action; the MRTA provides for a social and economic equity plan that will help individuals from marginalized communities get licenses faster, as well as economic and planning help via incubation programs. The goal is to have 50% of licenses in New York granted to such social and economic equity applicants. More low-level weed offenses will be eligible for automatic expungement, and more offenses are eligible for automatic resentencing; a boon for many who are still serving time for re-classified offenses.

The BLAC Perspective

The Black Leadership Action Coalition (BLAC) is quite happy with the developments in New York’s legalization process. We are closer than ever to recreational marijuana, something that BLAC’s sister organization The Black Institute (TBI) has fought for years to see realized. The social equity provisions in the MRTA are an acceptable beginning to healing the amount of damage that has been done to Black and Brown communities since the racist War on Drugs began, and the legal preference for MWBE applicants is promising for allowing these communities to begin to build wealth. Expansion of automatic expungement and resentencing is likewise a step in the right direction towards ensuring the legacy of racist incarceration policies is stamped out as quickly as possible. And the allocation of 40% of the tax revenue from legalized pot towards programs that will help these communities further is by all means a welcome development.

However, we cannot afford to let ourselves become complacent with this victory. There are many months ahead to see just how far these policies will actually go, once the excitement dies down and the bureaucrats get to work. There are still uncertainties and further efforts to be made; for example, what kind of advertisement for these programs will exist to encourage minorities to apply? What happens to the individuals that have had to bear the cross of a felony for decades because their charge was on their record until now? Is there any structure in place to ensure that the Cannabis Control Board responsible for drafting the new regulations will be diverse and equitable in its decisions? And most importantly, we must ensure that the government of Andrew Cuomo lives up to the hope that this legislation inspires, without sneakily making adjustments and limitations.