Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Striving for a smooth election

By Miles Rapoport
The Boston Globe

Over the last several weeks, a fierce argument has broken out over voter registration, particularly the registration efforts of ACORN, accusations of voter fraud, and the ability of the election system to handle the surge of voters on Nov. 4.

First, the expected record turnout is a cause for celebration. When I served as Connecticut's secretary of the state in the mid-'90s, my colleagues and I bemoaned low voter participation, especially among young people, and the disengagement it reflected from politics and democratic life. Not this time. Registrations have poured in, turnout in the primaries achieved record levels, and all indications are that the wave will continue through Tuesday. Democracy is vibrant and very much alive.

It is therefore a shame that the issue of ACORN's voter registration work has dominated the news about voting.

To be sure, ACORN bears some responsibility. It had quality controls in place, but should have leaned even further backward to ensure that problems would be minimized. Still, 900,000 valid registrations, including new registrants and changes of address, is an important accomplishment. Of course, all groups doing voter registration would be better served by reporting their results with more precision and a little less hype.

But overall, this is a trumped-up controversy. There has been no attempt by ACORN to encourage fraudulent voting, and on close reading the critics do not even make such a claim. ACORN has done a service by reaching out to people who might have been left out. Why, then, the ferocity of the attack?

In part, it is an element of a coordinated campaign directed against Barack Obama, demonizing ACORN and then linking Obama to the organization as a way to raise doubts about him.

In addition, raising doubts about the validity of registrations fits a pattern of efforts to discourage people from voting - from lawsuits to shut down early voting centers in Indiana and stop same-day registration in Ohio to efforts to purge people from voting rolls because their houses were foreclosed or their names didn't perfectly match error-ridden databases like Social Security. Worse, it could lay the groundwork for wholesale challenges to the results, seeking to throw the legitimacy of the election into question and the results once again into the hands of the courts.

What is needed is action by election officials to ensure that next Tuesday goes as smoothly as possible. Many deserve real credit for doing just that. This preparation includes:

  • accurate lists from which eligible voters have not been purged
  • adequate numbers of machines to avoid long lines, and an ample supply of paper ballots as backups
  • sufficient numbers of poll workers, with trained problem-solvers at each precinct
  • preparation for extended hours if required, to ensure that every voter has a chance to vote
  • fair counting of provisional ballots, so that valid votes are not discounted
  • After the election, Congress, the new president, and state legislators and election officials need to realize it is time to get the election systems right. The nation needs an expansive and reliable voter registration system, which includes Election Day registration (which Massachusetts almost passed earlier this year), proactive implementation of the National Voter Registration Act, "pre-registration" for 17-year-olds, and steps toward universal registration.

    Voting options need to be expanded, including more accessible voting by mail and early voting. Thirty-four states have utilized early voting this year, widening voting opportunities and taking pressure off Election Day itself; others should follow suit.

    Also, strong national standards are needed for election administration, with sustained federal funding to assist states in carrying them out and the enforcement authority to make them stick. We need machines that voters can have full confidence in, list management systems that delete outdated names but protect eligible voters, clear rules for poll workers, and clear standards for counting provisional ballots.

    People care about voting as they haven't in 40 years. By taking the steps needed, officials can capture the surge in participation and give Americans the democracy they deserve.

    Miles Rapoport is the president of Demos, a New York-based public policy center.

  • Tuesday, September 23, 2008

    GA deathrow inmate Troy Anthony Davis' life hangs in the balance

    Troydavis1 At 7:00pET, the State of Georgia is scheduled to execute 39-year old African American, Troy Anthony Davis, despite protestations from such ideologically disparate public figures as former President Jimmy Carter, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, and Pope Benedict XVI.

    According to one Davis attorney (separate from his defense team), Carol Gray, the state has still not sought to find and interview perhaps the only eyewitness to the murder of a White police officer for which Mr. Davis has been convicted and sentenced to death.

    Afro-Netizen has received a press release overnight from Ms. Davis that puts forth the an argument for why a stay of execution for Mr. Davis is imperative:

    Attorney Carol Gray, who assisted the Troy Davis defense team by interviewing and taking statements from key witnesses, is urging that Davis’ Tuesday 7PM death sentence be stayed to allow time to interview a critical witness to the murder who has never been spoken to by the prosecution or defense.   

    Gray had done extensive investigation of the Davis case including interviewing and taking a statement from a lead prosecution witness, Dorothy Ferrell, who claimed at trial that she saw Davis shoot Officer Mark Allen MacPhail in 1989.   Ferrell recanted this testimony to Gray and signed a statement admitting that she never saw who killed the officer but had been pressured to identify Davis by the police who were threatening to revoke her parole if she did not cooperate. 

    In addition, Gray reports that “there is a critical witness who has never been spoken to by the prosecution or the defense.  I know this because I investigated this case in depth seven years ago assisting the defense team.”   

    According to Gray, “Davis was convicted of killing Officer Timothy MacPhail in 1989.  The shooting happened in the parking lot of a Burger King across from a motel called The Thunderbird.  Two of the people in that parking lot were Troy Davis and Sylvester Coles.   Coles went to the police department the day after the shooting with a lawyer saying that Davis shot the officer.  In the decade that followed, Coles confessed to several people that it was he (Coles) who shot the officer.  In addition, 7 of the 9 witnesses from trial who testified against Davis have recanted their testimony.”

    “But no one has spoken with perhaps the best witness of all:  the clerk at the motel right across from the Burger King parking.  According to another witness, the clerk screamed when the shooting happened.   Her office had a large window facing the parking lot, so she likely saw the shooting.  I searched at length for this witness, but was unable to find out who or where she was.  However there is a sure way to find her:  subpoena the tax records for that motel for the year Officer MacPhail was killed.  Both the state and federal tax records for the Thunderbird should have this woman listed as an employee, along with her social security number.  With her social security number, she could be located through various investigative databases.   

    Gray reported that there was no record of any attempt to interview the Thunderbird clerk in any of the police reports in the Davis case. “Either the police were completely incompetent in missing this critical witness or they did speak to her but she did not help their case so no report was created.  The hiding of such information would be a grave constitutional violation that would likely result in a new trial.“ 

    “It would be unconscionable for Troy Davis to be executed without making all efforts to interview this critical witness.  Tomorrow’s execution should be stayed and this critical witness should be found,” Gray concluded.

    Gray, now in Amherst, MA, received her JD from Northeastern University School of Law and LLM from Georgetown University Law Center.  She has a decade of criminal defense experience as an attorney or investigator, including with the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services.
     

    Listen to Troy Davis' side of the story in his own words.

    Unlike both major party candidates, Afro-Netizen opposes the death penalty -- even if it were ever to be administered in a non-discriminatory manner irrespective of defendants' race or class.

    EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES:

    Chairperson L. Gale Buckner

    gale_buckner@pap.state.ga.us

    Garland Hunt

    garland_hunt@pap.state.ga.us

    Robert Keller

    robert_keller@pap.state.ga.us

    Milton Nix

    milton_nix@pap.state.ga.us

    Garfield Hammonds

    garfield_hammonds@pap.state.ga.us

    FAX NUMBERS FOR THE GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES:

    (404) 651-8502

    (404) 651-5282

    (404) 463-6627

    Sunday, September 14, 2008

    Republicans recant plans to foreclose voters but admit other strategies

    By Eartha Jane Melzer
    Courtesy of The Michigan Messenger
    A Center for Independent Media site
    (Originally published on 9/11/08)

    The Macomb County Republican Party chair who told Michigan Messenger earlier this week that Republicans planned to challenge voters at the polls using a list of foreclosed homes has changed his story.

    James Carabelli now says the party has “no plans to do anything,” according to a story in the Macomb Daily.

    Reports of the plan for foreclosure-based challenges have spurred outrage and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) planned a demonstration today at the Macomb County Republican headquarters.

    Eric Doster is former counsel for the Michigan Republican Party and a lawyer who plans to represent GOP election challengers on Election Day.

    Doster returned a call Wednesday afternoon and in a 30-minute conversation told Michigan Messenger that while he is unfamiliar with plans to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters, he does expect party volunteers to challenge voters in other ways.

    When asked whether Michigan Republicans plan to create a challenge list based on returned direct mail, a practice known as “vote caging,” Doster replied, “I think so. I know this has been done in years past … both parties may be doing this.”

    Doster said that the party’s deputy political director, Kelly Harrigan, would have more information about the challenge lists. Harrigan did not respond to a call from Michigan Messenger.

    Voter caging” is controversial because it can be used to target certain groups of voters. Some say that a piece of returned mail should not be enough to challenge a person’s claim of residency.

    Last week Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner acknowledged that the use of mail for vote caging has disproportionately affected poor and minority communities and she instructed that returned mail should not be considered reasonable evidence that someone has moved.

    Wednesday, July 30, 2008

    Indictment sought for police Taser death in Louisiana

    H/T to AAPP/Tasered While Black for organizing today's "A Day of Blogging for Justice - Blogging Against Extra-Judicial Electrocution" with Tasers

    By Howard Witt
    Tribune correspondent
    Chicago Tribune

    HOUSTON - Seeking to defuse growing racial tensions in the small Louisiana town of Winnfield, the local district attorney announced Monday that he will seek an indictment against a white police officer for the death of a black man who was shocked nine times with a Taser device while handcuffed in police custody.

    Winn Parish District Atty. Chris Nevils said he would convene a grand jury Aug. 12 to consider possible charges against the officer, Scott Nugent, 21, who was fired from the Winnfield Police Department following the death of Baron "Scooter" Pikes.The grand jury will also examine the conduct of two other officers who were present during the incident, Nevils said.

    Pikes, 21, died Jan. 17 within 39 minutes of being arrested on a drug possession warrant. Winnfield police claimed Pikes told them he suffered from asthma and was high on crack cocaine and PCP, but the local coroner found that Pikes had been healthy and had no drugs in his system. He ruled the death a homicide.

    "Now is the time to take this case to the grand jury for a determination about whether charges should be brought," Nevils said in a statement. "I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this matter. But my obligation, and that of the grand jury, is to objectively sort through the facts and make a decision that is in the best interest of justice. That is what we intend to do."

    Nevils' decision came a little more than a week after the Tribune published the first full account of the case amid fears expressed by the victim's family and civil rights groups that the incident would be covered up in a town with a florid history of backroom dealings and political corruption.

    Nevils' predecessor as district attorney committed suicide after he came under suspicion for skimming $200,000 from his office accounts and extorting bribes from criminal suspects. The former police chief, who was Nugent's father, also killed himself, after losing a bitterly-contested election campaign marred by fraud allegations. The current police chief is a convicted drug offender who was pardoned by former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, who is currently serving a federal prison sentence for corruption while in office.

    In his own written report of the Pikes' incident, Nugent acknowledged that he had subdued and handcuffed Pikes after a foot chase and that Pikes had not struggled or resisted arrest. Instead, Nugent wrote, he began Tasering Pikes after the suspect did not respond quickly enough to Nugent's order to stand up and walk to a waiting police car.

    Witnesses reported that Pikes had pleaded with Nugent and two other arresting officers to stop Tasering him.

    Nugent's attorney has said the former officer acted according to police procedures. But the Winnfield Police Department's written Taser policy states that the device should only be used "where it is deemed reasonably necessary to control a dangerous or violent subject."

    Dr. Randolph Williams, the Winn Parish coroner, determined after investigating the death that Nugent administered a total of nine 50,000-volt Taser shocks to Pikes over a 14-minute period-and that the last two jolts were delivered after Pikes had lost consciousness.

    Nevils would not reveal the range of possible charges he will ask the grand jury to consider against Nugent and the other two officers.

    Thursday, July 24, 2008

    Taser Death of Black man by White cop near Jean, Louisiana

    Sunday, June 15, 2008

    Texas Justice in Black and White

    By Dorothy Roberts
    Guest Contributor

    Texasmormons1_2 Last April, I watched Larry King interview seven mothers whose children had been taken in the raid on a Texas polygamous ranch. Militant slogans in their defense flashed on the screen beneath them:  Moms Speak Out!  Give Our Kids Back!  I felt for the mothers and their children.  I can imagine how terrified my toddler would be if he were ripped from me by strangers.  I agreed that Texas authorities had no right to snatch hundreds of children wholesale without proving that each one was at risk and without considering less harmful alternatives.  (The Texas Supreme Court ruled as such on May 29 and returned the traumatized children to their homes.)  But my main thought was, when will grieving Black mothers appear en masse on prime time TV to recount the pain of losing their children to foster care? Will Black women ever have a chance to air the wrongs they suffered when the state took their children on far less egregious charges? 

    To listen to the media coverage, you would think this is the first and only case of wrongful child removal by state agents.  But there are more than half a million children in foster care and most are from families of color. Black children were virtually excluded from openly segregated child welfare services until the end of World War II.  As the child welfare system began to serve fewer White children and more Black children, state and federal governments spent much more money on foster care and less on in-home services to families. Today, Black children are grossly overrepresented in the child welfare system: they make up about one-third of the nation’s foster care population yet represent only 15 percent of the nation’s children.  A Black child is four times as likely as a White child to be in foster care.  In my home town, Chicago, almost all the children in foster care are Black.  Black children also spend more time in foster care and are less likely to ever be reunited with their parents than other children.  The Texas raid was extraordinary in part because it took so many White children from their homes; removing hundreds of children from Black neighborhoods is unremarkable because it is so common. 

    The reason for the Texas round up was also unusual.  Most foster care placements result from parental neglect related to poverty, not physical or sexual abuse.  The child welfare system hides the systemic reasons for poor families’ hardships by attributing them to parental deficits that require coercive intervention instead of social change.  Foster care’s racial disparity helps to maintain the subordinated status of Black people in the United States and reinforces the quintessential racist stereotype: that Black people are incapable of governing themselves and need state supervision.

    The media seem to have realized only now – when White children are at stake – that foster care has damaging effects. Reporters rarely notice that foster care routinely tears apart Black families, but they are startled when state agents haul off so many blond haired, blue eyed children. The glaring failure to value Black people’s relationships is precisely the main reason for the disproportionate placement of Black children in the first place.  When it comes to families of color, the media tend to report only on the death of children at the hands of their parents, which typically sets off a foster care panic.  Fearful of bad press, state agencies start removing children on flimsier grounds and needlessly separate thousands more children from their families while overloading the social workers charged with protecting them.  Hopefully, the public’s awakening to the plight of the Texas children will direct attention to the child welfare system’s deeper flaws that have harmed primarily children of color and that racism has long obscured.   


    Dorothy Roberts is the Kirkland & Ellis Professor at Northwestern University School of Law and a faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research.  She is author of Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty and Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare

    Monday, May 12, 2008

    Juan Crow in Georgia

    By Roberto Lovato
    Courtesy of The Nation

    Justeen Mancha's dream of becoming a psychologist was born of the tropical heat and exploitation that have shaped farmworker life around Reidsville, Georgia, for centuries. The wiry, freckle-faced 17-year-old high school junior has toiled in drought-dry onion fields to help her mother, Maria Christina Martinez. But early one September morning in 2006, Mancha's dream was abruptly deferred.

    From the living room of the battered trailer she and her mother call home, Mancha described what happened when she came out of the shower that morning. "My mother went out, and I was alone," she said. "I was getting ready for school, getting dressed, when I heard this noise. I thought it was my mother coming back." She went on in the Tex-Mex Spanish-inflected Georgia accent now heard throughout Dixie: "Some people were slamming car doors outside the trailer. I heard footsteps and then a loud boom and then somebody screaming, asking if we were 'illegals,' 'Mexicans.' These big men were standing in my living room holding guns. One man blocked my doorway. Another guy grabbed a gun on his side. I freaked out. 'Oh, my God!' I yelled."

    As more than twenty Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents surrounded the trailer, said Mancha, agents inside interrogated her. They asked her where her mother was; they wanted to know if her mother was "Mexican" and whether she had "papers" or a green card. They told her they were looking for "illegals."

    After about five minutes of interrogation, the agents--who, according to the women's lawyer, Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center, showed no warrants and had neither probable cause nor consent to enter the home--simply left. They left in all likelihood because Mancha and her mother didn't fit the profile of the workers at the nearby Crider poultry plant, who had been targeted by the raid in nearby Stilwell. They were the wrong kind of "Mexicans"; they were US citizens.

    Though she had experienced discrimination before the raid--in the fields, in the supermarket and in school--Mancha, who testified before Congress in February, never imagined such an incident would befall her, since she and her mother had migrated from Texas to Reidsville. Best known for harvesting poultry and agricultural products, Reidsville, a farm town about 200 miles southeast of Atlanta, is also known for harvesting Klan culture behind the walls of the state's oldest and largest prison. But its most famous former inmate is Jim Crow slayer and dreamer Martin Luther King Jr. His example inspires Mancha's new dream: lawyering "for the poor."

    The toll this increasingly oppressive climate has taken on Mancha represents but a small part of its effects on non-citizen immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, and other Latinos. Mancha and the younger children of the mostly immigrant Latinos in Georgia are learning and internalizing that they are different from white--and black--children not just because they have the wrong skin color but also because many of their parents lack the right papers. They are growing up in a racial and political climate in which Latinos' subordinate status in Georgia and in the Deep South bears more than a passing resemblance to that of African-Americans who were living under Jim Crow.

    Call it Juan Crow: the matrix of laws, social customs, economic institutions and symbolic systems enabling the physical and psychic isolation needed to control and exploit undocumented immigrants. Listening to the effects of Juan Crow on immigrants and citizens like Mancha ("I can't sleep sometimes because of nightmares," she says. "My arms still twitch. I see ICE agents and men in uniform, and it still scares me") reminds me of the trauma I heard among the men, women and children controlled and exploited by state violence in wartime El Salvador. Juan Crow has roots in the US South, but it stirs traumas bred in the hemispheric South.

    In fact, the surge in Latino migration (the Southeast is home to the fastest-growing Latino population in the United States) is moving many of the institutions and actors responsible for enforcing Jim Crow to resurrect and reconfigure themselves in line with new demographics. Along with the almost daily arrests, raids and home invasions by federal, state and other authorities, newly resurgent civilian groups like the Ku Klux Klan, in addition to more than 144 new "nativist extremist" groups and 300 anti-immigrant organizations born in the past three years, mostly based in the South, are harassing immigrants as a way to grow their ranks.

    Meanwhile, a legal regime of distinctions between the rights of undocumented immigrants and citizens has emerged and is being continually refined and expanded. A 2006 Georgia law denies undocumented immigrants driver's licenses. Federal laws that allowed local and state authorities to pursue blacks under the Fugitive Slave Act appear to be the model for the Bush Administration's Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS) program, which allows states to deputize law enforcement officials to chase, detain, arrest and jail the undocumented. Georgia's lowest-paid workers, the undocumented, now occupy a separate, unequal and clandestine place that has made it increasingly difficult for them to work, rent homes or attend school.

    The pre- and post-Reconstruction regional economic system centered on the stately Southern mansions that once graced Atlanta's storied Peachtree Street has given way to a more global finance-driven system centered on the cold, anonymous skyscrapers that loom over Peachtree today. And in a more hopeful sign, some veterans of the civil rights struggle against Jim Crow are joining Latino immigrants in what will likely be one of the major movements of the twenty-first century.

    These and other facets of immigrant life in Georgia, the Deep South and the entire country are but a small part of the labyrinthine institutional and cultural arrangements defining the strange career of Juan Crow.

    The immigrant condition in Georgia worsened in the wake of the failed immigration reform proposal last year. The national immigration debate had the effect of further legitimizing and emboldening the most extreme elements of the anti-immigrant movement in places like Georgia. Since the advent of what he terms "Georgiafornia," for example, D.A. King, a former marine and contributor to the anti-immigrant hate site VDARE, has leapfrogged into the national limelight to become one of the major advocates for deportation and security-only "immigration reform." Strengthened by the defeat of national reform, King, State Senator Chip Rogers and a growing galaxy of formerly fringe groups succeeded in getting some of the country's most draconian anti-immigrant laws passed. These new racial codes are disguised by the national security-infused bureaucratic language of laws with names like the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act (GSICA).

    Their efforts were egged on by the Bush Administration's implementation of the ACCESS program last August. ACCESS provided new excuses for state and local officials to pursue the undocumented in states like Georgia. In tandem with the federal government, King and Rogers led the push to pass GSICA, which requires law enforcement officers to investigate the citizenship status of anyone charged with a felony or driving under the influence. GSICA and federal efforts laid the foundation on which the other legal and social structures of Juan Crow grow.

    Georgia's estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants must think twice before seeking emergency support at hospitals or clinics because of laws that require them to prove their legal status before receiving many state benefits. "No-match letter" regulations requiring all employers to confirm the Social Security numbers of their employees have been issued by the Social Security Administration and have resulted in firings and growing fear among immigrants. But even without the no-match letters, undocumented immigrants in Georgia have many reasons to fear going to work. If they work at a company with more than 500 employees, for example (and most undocumented immigrants are employed in meatpacking, agricultural, carpet and other industries with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of workers), they must worry about laws that punish employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants and mandate that firms with state contracts check the immigration status of their employees. Similar laws denying or restricting housing, education, transportation and other aspects of immigrant life are also being instituted across Georgia.

    For a firsthand look at how the interplay of state and federal policies fuels Juan Crow, one need go no further than the immigrant-heavy area surrounding Buford Highway in DeKalb County, near Atlanta. During the weekend of October 18, 2007, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR) and other advocacy groups from across the state reported sharp increases in arrests of immigrants in the area. "This weekend alone we received more than 200 phone calls from people telling horrible stories of arrests," said GLAHR executive director Adelina Nicholls of Mexico City. "There are hundreds of Latinos who've been hunted down like animals, taken to jail, and they don't even know why or whether or not they'll be released," said Nicholls more recently.

    Nicholls and other advocates are working feverishly in response to the exponential increase in official and extra-official profiling of immigrants. Last year there were forty-four reported armed robberies of DeKalb County-area Latino immigrants in August alone. One especially outrageous incident took place just west of Atlanta, in the rural town of Carrollton, last June. Emelina Ramirez, a Honduran immigrant, called local police to report that her roommates were attacking her, punching and kicking her in the stomach. Ramirez was pregnant. Locals say that when police got to Ramirez's apartment, officers handcuffed her, took her to jail and then ran her fingerprints through a federal database. After discovering that she was undocumented, they contacted federal authorities as stipulated under ACCESS and GSICA. Ramirez was then deported.

    Nicholls says she and GLAHR staff exist in a perpetual state of exhaustion after having to expand their DeKalb County work to deal with cases like Ramirez's. Adding to their load is the situation in nearby Cobb County, where the local jail has 500 adults captured on streets, at work and in their homes. All of these people, says Nicholls, are awaiting deportation.

    Beneath the growing fear and intensifying racial tensions of Georgia lies the new, more globalized economic system that sustains Juan Crow. At the core of the economy in Dixie are the financial dealings taking place in the shiny towers of Peachtree Street, buildings constructed atop the ashes of plantation houses.

    Lining Peachtree today are SunTrust, Bank of America and other titans of global finance with major operations in downtown Atlanta. Along with the financial players of Charlotte, North Carolina, the companies occupying the towers on Peachtree are among the prime movers behind the transformation and restructuring of the Georgia economy--and of its race relations. On Peachtree you can find US banks and financial firms investing in companies doing business in post-NAFTA Latin America, where nonunion labor and miserably low wages drive immigration to Georgia and other states. The investment portfolios of many of these companies have grown fat with high-yield investments in the poultry, meatpacking, rug, tourism and other Georgia industries employing undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. The need to keep down the wages of these undocumented workers is fulfilled with the legal, political and psychological discipline of Juan Crow. Along with the most visible legacy of Jim Crow--Georgia's massive and growing population of black prisoners, housed in Reidsville and other, mostly rural prisons--the Peachtree State's undocumented immigrants find themselves at the bottom of the South's new political and economic order.

    By keeping down wages of the undocumented and documented workforce, Juan Crow doesn't just pit undocumented Latino workers against black and white workers. It also makes possible every investor's dream of merging Third World wages with First World amenities. Promotional brochures put out by the state's Department of Economic Development, for example, tout Georgia's "below average" wages and its status as a "right to work" (nonunion) state. Georgia's infrastructure, its proximity to US markets and its incentives--nonunion labor, low wages, government subsidies, cheap land--allow the state to position itself as an attractive investment opportunity for foreign companies. While the fortunes of Ford, GM and other US companies have declined in the South, the fortunes of foreign automakers here are rising. Companies like Korean car manufacturer Kia, which plans to open a $1.2 billion plant by 2009, see in Georgia and other Southern states a new pool of cheap labor. Of the $5.7 billion of total new investment in Georgia in 2006, more than 36 percent was from international companies--companies that were also responsible for nearly half of the 24,660 jobs created by government-supported foreign ventures that year.

    Also critical to the economic strategies formulated in the towers on Peachtree Street is another Latin-centered component: free trade with Latin America. "We are the gateway to the Americas," boasted Kenneth Stewart, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Economic Development. Stewart was among the more than 1,000 people, including three US Cabinet members and finance ministers, trade representatives, investors, corporate executives and politicians from thirty-three countries in the hemisphere, who attended the sold-out Americas Competitiveness Forum at the Marriott on Peachtree Street last June. As an organizer of the event, the gregarious Stewart, like many of the region's economic leaders, considers hosting the forum a critical part of Atlanta's bid to become the secretariat of the Free Trade Area of the Americas organization. Local elites support building a $10 million, privately financed FTAA headquarters complex, possibly in the area near Peachtree and the Sweet Auburn neighborhood.

    Before being rapidly gentrified by the white-collar employees working in the Peachtree towers, Sweet Auburn, the birthplace of Martin Luther King Jr., was one of the cradles of the African-American freedom struggle. Echoing the connection frequently made here between increased globalization and commerce and improved race relations, Stewart told me that free trade "will benefit citizens of Georgia and the citizens of Mexico and other Latin American countries." But when I asked him about the increased racial tensions, including the murders of some immigrants in Georgia, and about the growing repression of noncitizen Mexican workers, Stewart abruptly ended the interview.

    For her part, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin--among the most recent in a long line of African-American Atlanta mayors that includes former Martin Luther King colleague and Wal-Mart consultant Andrew Young (who has an office in a Peachtree high-rise)--also linked local freedom struggles with global free trade. Before the Americas Competitiveness Forum, she and other regional elites distributed splashy brochures promoting the city's FTAA bid. Included in the brochure was a picture of the headstone of King's grave, which bears the inscription Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty I'm Free at last. The brochure promoting "the city too busy to hate" also paints a positive, global Kumbaya picture of the plight of Georgia's migrants: "With its attractive quality of life and rapidly expanding job market, Metro Atlanta draws thousands of newcomers every year and has growing Latin, Asian and African American communities."

    "This is the home of Dr. King," said Franklin in her welcome speech at the packed forum. "It is in the spirit of peace, it is in the spirit of collaboration and it is in the spirit of fairness that we attack this issue of [economic] competitiveness," she told her audience in King-like cadences. But had Franklin taken her foreign visitors on the short stroll from their hotel to Sweet Auburn, they would not have found the racial harmony described in the glossy brochures and spirited speeches.

    Documented and undocumented Latinos dealing with the economic and political effects of Juan Crow in Georgia (and across the country) find themselves unwitting actors in a centuries-old racial drama, which they must alter if Juan Crow is to be defeated. The major difference today is that Latinos also find themselves having to navigate a racial and political topography that is no longer black and white. Young Latinos, in particular, attend schools that teach them about Jim Crow while giving them a daily dose of Juan Crow.

    High school senior Ernesto Chávez (a pseudonym) does not look forward to becoming one of the few undocumented students in Georgia to go to a university like Kennesaw State, which requires them to carry student IDs with special color coding, or to a college that denies them aid and forces them to pay exorbitant, nearly impossible-to-pay out-of-state tuition. He has already learned enough about Jim Crow--and Juan Crow--in high school.

    Chávez, who sports a buzz cut and wears baggy clothes, said that when he studied Jim Crow in school, he identified strongly with the heroic generation of African-American youth who rebelled against it. "They couldn't ride in the same trains, they couldn't drink from the same fountains," he said during an interview in a classroom at Miller Grove High School in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia. "I felt mad when I read about that, even though they weren't my people," said the soft-spoken Mexican, who is part of the small but growing minority of Latinos at Miller Grove (African-American students make up about 93 percent of the student body).

    Chávez said he came to know the limits of his physical, social and psychic mobility, thanks to the Georgia law that requires people to show proof of citizenship or legal status in order to obtain a driver's license. "It's hard to describe what it feels like to be 'illegal' here in Georgia. It's like you can't move," he said, his voice cracking slightly. "It feels scary because you know that when you go out to a public place, you might never know if you're going to come back. I'm really scared because my mother drives without a license. She's scared too."

    Chávez and other Latino students also expressed their shock and dismay at being discriminated against by some of the descendants of those discriminated against by Jim Crow.

    "When I first got here, I was confused. I went to a mostly white school in Gwinnett County and started noticing the fifth-grade kids saying things to me, racial stuff, asking me questions like, 'Are you illegal?'" said Chávez as he fidgeted nervously in one of those ubiquitous and visibly uncomfortable school desks. "But when I was in seventh grade, I went to Richards Middle School, where it wasn't the white people saying things, it was black people. They didn't like Mexican kids. They would call us 'Mexican border hoppers,' 'wetbacks' and all these things. Every time they'd see me, they yelled at me, threatened to beat me up after school for no reason at all." Asked how it felt, he said, "It's like, now since they have rights, they can discriminate [against] others."

    Chávez's family, along with many immigrant families in Georgia, will be watching closely to see how the state's justice system deals with the still-pending 2005 case of six Mexican farmworkers killed execution-style in their trailers, which were parked near the cotton and peanut farms they toiled on in Tifton. Pretrial motions began last July in the case, in which prosecutors allege that four African-American men bludgeoned five of the immigrants to death with aluminum baseball bats and shot one in the head while robbing them in their trailer home. Though the face of anti-immigrant racism in the Juan Crow South is still overwhelmingly identified as white by the immigrants I interviewed, some immigrants also see a black face on anti-immigrant hate.

    Politically, a growing divide has emerged between pro- and anti-immigrant blacks in Georgia. The African-American face of Juan Crow is embodied by State Senator and probable Democratic Atlanta mayoral candidate Kasim Reed (he's also considering a gubernatorial bid). Reed proposed a five-year prison sentence for anyone caught trying to secure employment with a false ID. Local Latino and African-American activists have criticized Reed for what Bruce Dixon of the online Black Agenda Report called his "morally bankrupt attempt to outflank Republicans on the right."

    Activists like Janvieve Williams of the US Human Rights Network, based in Atlanta, counter the anti-immigrant tide by elevating the tone of the debate and shifting the terms to human rights. As an Afro-Panamanian immigrant, Williams says she feels discrimination from many whites in Georgia, but she also experiences discrimination from mestizo immigrants. Her perception of anti-immigrant sentiments among African-Americans adds another layer to the complex racial dynamics unleashed by Juan Crow. "I'm caught between African-Americans who don't want to understand immigration and immigrants and Latinos who use words like 'moreno,' 'negritos,' 'los negros' and other terms that are not good," says Williams.

    But rather than see her Afro-Latino identity and her Latin American political experience as a barrier between communities, Williams--who co-hosts Radio Diaspora, a weekly Afro-Latino program that helped promote the 50,000-plus immigrants' rights marches in 2006--uses Latin American media and organizing experience to cross linguistic and political borders. "We need to move from civil rights to human rights. We need to start using the language and tools of human rights around the issue of immigration. It's an international issue that needs an international framework," says Williams, whose organization co-sponsored the visit to Atlanta last May by the United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Williams's organization brought together many groups who shared stories of Juan Crow with the special rapporteur, who took his report to the UN General Assembly.

    In the same way that the concept of civil rights grew as a response to Jim Crow, the human rights framework advocated by Williams and other immigrants' rights activists in the South and across the country challenges traditional approaches to race and rights. "Some civil rights leaders here don't think human rights affects us in the United States," says Williams. "A lot of the [civil rights] elders of that movement are not linked to the human rights movement, and that also gets in the way of working together."

    Revjosephlowery1 Not all of Georgia's civil rights elders fit thirtysomething Williams's description. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, the lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr., says he did not perceive the threat that some whites and African-American Georgians felt from the massive immigrant marches of 2006; instead he sees in the millions marching in Atlanta and across the country "instruments of God's will to change this country."

    Reverend Lowery, who now leads the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, has spoken eloquently and vociferously against what he considers "wicked" immigration policies and has attended pro-immigrant rallies. He believes that massive immigration to the United States came about because of the workings within the tall buildings like those in spitting distance of his office in the historic Atlanta Life building on Auburn Avenue. "We've globalized money, we've globalized trade and commerce, but we haven't globalized fairness toward work and labor. The solution to the 'problem' of immigration and other problems is globalization of justice," he said.

    Speaking of the relationship between American blacks and Latino immigrants, Lowery said, "There are many differences between our experience and that of immigrant Latinos--but there is a family resemblance between Jim Crow and what is being experienced by immigrants. Both met economic oppression. Both met racial and ethnic hostility.

    "But the most important thing to remember," said Lowery, as if casting out the demons of Juan and Jim Crow, "is that, though we may have come over on different ships, we're all in the same damn boat now."

    Roberto Lovato, a frequent Nation contributor, is a New York-based writer with New America Media.

    Tuesday, April 29, 2008

    Supreme Court voter ID ruling steeped in history of willfull negligence

    Indianafromspace_2 When I read on my cell phone this morning that the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling supported the state of Indiana's law that requires voters to present either a driver's license or passport in order to vote, I got a cold chill down my spine.

    On the surface, it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling: folks need to prove who they are when they go to vote to avoid potential voter fraud. The reality is that what is reasonable for many white collar and blue collar voters is not so reasonable for those invisible Americans who have not earned that amorphous  moniker of "middle class".

    These invisible souls are our country's poorest citizens who do not travel internationally (and thus, do no have passports) and who often cannot afford to own cars, the insurance on them or the gas in them (and thus, are far less likely to have a driver's license).

    The fact that this quietly pernicious law may become federal law one day if Democrats capitulate is one matter of concern. The other is how this may impact next month's Indiana Democratic primary (and elections beyond this season) is quite another, given that the poor tend to be disproportionately Black and Democratic.

    All this aside, the shudder of dread I felt when reading about this ruling came not from what may yet come, but what has already been inflicted on generations of marginalized Americans before and after the 15th and 19th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    In today's Washington Post article on this subject, reporter Robert Barnes quotes Justice Stevens as follows:

    Stevens noted that it is "fair" to infer that "partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in Indiana's decision to pass the law.

    "But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators," he wrote.

    "Valid neutral justifications".

    Abemiller1As a genealogist, family historian, student of history and scion of enslaved Americans, an image immediately came to mind: that of letter my great aunt Mary showed me that was addressed to my great-great grandfather, Abraham Miller of Louisivlle, Kentucky, who was denied his Civil War veteran's pension despite having served honorably, and having attained the rank of sergeant, because he could not produce his birth certificate.

    Clearly, to ensure that the U.S. treasury's funds were not depleted due to mass fraud by undeserving individuals claiming to have served in the Civil War, this measure was a "valid neutral justification".

    The problem? My ancestor was the property of his White uncle, Dr. Warrick Miller, from whom he inherited his surname, a quarter of his DNA, and the grave disadvantage of being born Black in America.

    Sgt. Miller was denied his due as one of over 200,000 Black soldiers who served in the Civil War because while he was given the "privilege" to serve his country, no such privilege was conferred to him as a veteran when seeking the promised remuneration he so desperately needed as an infirmed husband and father of nine.

    He could not produce a birth certificate because he was born into slavery, and official birth certificates were not issued to human chattel in Kentucky or elsewhere in antebellum America. The policy requiring birth certificates for veterans' pensions was a much higher standard than what was required to give one's life to save the union. This was not by accident; it was by design. And there's nothing neutral about that. His government willfully neglected him because he was Black, less-than, other, powerless. Veteran or not, he did not count (anymore). He was disposable like the lives and rights of today's poor.

    My ancestor died a miserable death and in poverty right before the outbreak of World War I, exacerbated by the "valid neutral justifications" of the government for which he fought.

    Indeed, there are "partisan" motivations, as Justice Stevens so graciously concedes, and then there are the long shadows of evil that have cast darkness on the systemic injustices these so-called "neutral" laws & policies will not soon address, let alone cure.

    So-called neutrality cannot continue to be the presumptive default for laws and public policy in a nation with such persistent inequality; such measures must be reparatory, equitable and most of all, humane.

    Thursday, April 17, 2008

    On judges, Hillary Clinton has some very bad "experience"

    By David Kairys

    Hillaryclinton1 Sen. Hillary Clinton
    has much to offer as a presidential candidate. But her main campaign theme (experience and action, rather than eloquent speeches) is troubling, particularly when it comes to the crucial question of judicial appointments.

    It would be offensive to judge Sen. Clinton based on her husband's record - if she weren't asking us to do exactly that. Her "35 years of experience" rest heavily on her eight as first lady, which she discusses as if she were co-president.  She presents the Clinton administration as what we can expect from her presidency.

    That's the problem. What we got from Bill Clinton, besides the easy jokes on late-night TV, was what she criticizes Sen. Obama for - stirring speeches on major issues but little meaningful action or improvement for middle-class and poor people. That's not Obama's record, but it sure fits Bill.

    Bill Clinton talked a good game - eloquently "feeling our pain" in speeches - but he gave us mostly pro-corporate, GOP policies and soothing rhetoric without meaningful action. His Democratic version of Republican policies lost control of Congress and set the stage on which George W. Bush could look appealing.

    It's usually assumed that President Clinton was principled and stood his ground, as he promised in campaign rhetoric, at least in the area of courts, justice and judicial appointments. He didn't.
    Clinton's appointees were diverse, but he didn't appoint judges with a record of concern for civil rights and civil liberties, the plight of working or poor people, the environment, the need for constraints on corporations.

    His best Supreme Court appointee was Ruth Ginsburg, who he said at the time "cannot be called either liberal or conservative." Instead of restoring balance after the extremely conservative picks of Reagan and Bush I, as Clinton promised, he picked centrists, and sometimes conservatives.

    He elevated to the appeals courts a number of Reagan and Bush I lower-court appointees. He left many seats vacant, and had the lowest number of appointees per term in recent times.

    Instead of fighting the GOP majority in Congress for what he told us he most dearly believed, he actually turned over the whole judge-selection process to the Republicans by having all judicial candidates vetted by Sen. Orrin Hatch, the conservative Utah Republican who chaired the Judiciary Committee. If Hatch's response was "liberal" or "activist" - terms he seemed to apply to almost anyone not as conservative as Justices Scalia and Thomas - Clinton dropped the nominations.

    For example, Clinton suggested Peter Edelman, an accomplished law professor and close friend of the Clintons. Hatch called him a "liberal activist." Clinton didn't make the nomination.

    Clinton nominated Judith McConnell, a qualified California judge with a record as a moderate. Republicans objected. A decade earlier, McConnell granted the request of a 16-year-old boy that he live in the custody of his dead father's gay partner rather than with his mother because the mother had been found unfit. Clinton withdrew the nomination.

    Laniguinier1 One of Clinton's best nominations was Lani Guinier, another friend of the Clintons, to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Guinier, a black law professor at Penn (now at Harvard), was an advocate for creative solutions to the long-standing problem of gerrymandered congressional districts.
    District lines were (and often still are) drawn so every district had a white majority, making it impossible for an African-American to win as long as whites voted for white candidates.

    In North Carolina, there had been no blacks sent to Congress since just after the Civil War, despite a large black population. Guinier proposed that instead of redrawing districts to create some majority-black districts, the winner-take-all and other undemocratic features of our existing two-century-old electoral system should be updated, which would also open the system to blacks and other minorities.

    Republicans attacked her, calling her a "quota queen." Clinton's response? He claimed, probably falsely, that he wasn't familiar with her writings and positions. He withdrew her nomination just before her Senate hearing, which would have been a great opportunity for a national discussion of these issues whether or not she was confirmed.

    Bill Clinton did what he thought was most likely to gain and maintain his power. His values, personal loyalties or principles, even those of American justice, meant little or nothing.

    If Hillary Clinton doesn't plan to walk down the same destructive path, she should put aside all the Clinton-administration experience talk and tell us where her husband went wrong, and what she would do differently.

    David Kairys is a professor of constitutional law at Temple law school. His memoir, "Philadelphia Freedom: Memoir of a Civil Rights Lawyer," is due in the fall.

    Monday, December 03, 2007

    Racial Profiling: "Wrong in America"

    By Jesselyn McCurdy
    Guest Contributor
    Afro-Netizen

    Rosaparks2 Fifty-two years ago, Rosa Parks’ quiet but determined resistance sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and a movement that would eventually end legal segregation by race in America. While the racial myths and stereotypes formerly used to justify segregation may be less obvious today, they are still a potent force in American life, and those stereotypes are perhaps nowhere more persistent and harmful than within the criminal justice system.

    Racial profiling by law enforcement agents is based on racial stereotypes. Random traffic stops and arrests and deciding who to target for criminal investigations relying on skin color and ethnicity rather than probable cause is not only morally culpable and un-American, the end result is ineffective law enforcement. This practice violates our nation's core values and our basic constitutional commitment to equal justice under the law.

    Repeated studies have shown that African-Americans, Latinos and other people of color are no more likely, and very often less likely, to be involved in illegal activity than whites. Americans began to understand the concept of racial profiling in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s as advocacy groups and the media began to uncover ways in which people of color are harassed on a regular basis by police for no reason. Millions of innocent motorists on highways across the country are victims of racial profiling. The “war on drugs” and more recently “the war on terror” have given law enforcement an excuse to target people who fit their image of a "drug courier," "gang member," or "terrorist."

    Prior to 9/11, African Americans, Native Americans and Latinos were often the targets of police profiling. And since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, law enforcement has intensified the profiling and harassment of South Asians, Muslims and Arabs based on their national origin, ethnicity and religion.

    Racial profiling is the first step down the long road of a criminal justice system that results in the heavily disproportionate incarceration of people of color, especially young men, for drug-related crimes, and of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians for suspicion of terrorism. People of color are no more likely than whites to use or sell drugs, and Arabs, Muslims and South Asians are no more likely than whites to be terrorists.

    President Bush vowed to end racial profiling, calling it "wrong in America." But current law enforcement guidelines do little to stop officials from relying on race or ethnicity when deciding to initiate traffic stops or other investigative activities. Policies primarily designed to impact certain groups, however, are ineffective and often result in the destruction of civil liberties for everyone.

    Singling out African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Arabs and South Asians for special law enforcement scrutiny without a reasonable belief that they are involved in a crime results in little evidence of actual criminal activity and wastes important police resources. Racial profiling makes us all less safe by diverting limited law enforcement resources and by targeting innocent individuals for government scrutiny. Law enforcement agents conflate race and ethnicity with criminal intent and activity. While African Americans, Latinos and other people of color, are the first victims of racial profiling, ultimately everyone is victimized when justice is color conscious.

    House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI)  and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) have announced plans to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 (ERPA), which will prohibit federal law enforcement agencies from engaging in racial profiling and encourage states to adopt the same type of ban on the practice. The legislation will also permit victims of racial profiling to take legal action and requires states to establish procedures for victims to file complaints against police officers who racially profile. In addition, the bill provides data collection demonstration and best practice incentive grants to state and local law enforcement agencies

    Congressional leaders should support Conyers and Feingold in bringing this legislation to the floor and ensuring maximum support for the bills. The Democratic leadership should be eager to move on this legislation in a year when every Democratic presidential candidate has condemned racial profiling and when even unusual suspects such as the International Association of Police Chiefs and President Bush recognize that racial profiling is both wrong and harmful. Ending legal segregation took 68 years to accomplish, from the 1896 Plessy decision to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and one of the most massive human rights movements the world has witnessed. Ending racial profiling shouldn’t take that long.


    Jesselyn McCurdy is legislative counsel at the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. She is responsible for defending civil liberties in Congress and in the executive branch in the area of criminal justice, including drug policy, capital punishment, police accountability, prisoners’ rights, mandatory minimums, racial profiling, and federal sentencing guidelines.

    Site Search

    Dimensions

    aN blogroll

    Thanx for stopping by!