SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting rights act
Running in Circles on Racial Justice
Hard-fought victories in terms of racial justice in the U.S. are always met with a vicious backlash that makes progress a circular motion where we end up, it seems, where we began.
Jan 20, 2025
We keep running in circles when it comes to addressing racial justice in the U.S. This means that with every advance we almost come back to the same place and must fight the battles all over again. It doesn't mean that progress has not been made, but the progress retrogresses due to the immediate backlash that charges any advance to rectify past racial injustices as an affront to white people. At best there is an ebb and flow when it comes to rectifying the racial harms and damages of the past.
Race history and the many initiatives to rectify past wrongs is more of a circle than a linear line. It may be an expanding circle considering advances, but for every victory won there is a vicious throw back. It is almost like the 1993 movie Groundhog Day where morning after morning we awaken to history repeating itself, and where victories of racial justice are swept away by the courts or a change in the body politic. The struggle continues, and in many cases, we must begin again.
Every racial justice victory in the United States came about because of the Civil War and the various modes of resistance employed by victims of racial injustices. Mass protests and resistance has generally forced those in power to seek easy answers to placate the anger of the victims of racial injustice. But every attempt to satisfy and pacify the various protests is met with vociferous protests that erase hard fought victories. Just a few examples over four centuries in U.S. history serve as evidence. At each juncture of political protest those in power have historically responded with various initiatives designed to calm the uprisings and unrest. However, any advance is quickly eradicated under the guise of reverse discrimination.
If the United States is ever going to create a society of real growth and opportunity, it needs to stop chasing its tail.
After the Civil War, one man, one vote was militarily imposed resulting in the elections of Black men to numerous political offices in the South. With those advances came the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865 abolishing slavery. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to people born in the U.S. This served as a response to the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision that ruled Blacks were not citizens. The 14th Amendment passed in 1868 addressed and attempted to rectify state laws that abridged the rights of Black people. In 1870 the 15th Amendment was adopted that attempted to grant the right to vote to Black men (It should be noted that it wasn't until 1920 that women had the right to vote). In 1871 another Civil Rights Act was passed, also known as the Klu Klux Klan Act, which was a response to the growing terrorism used by whites against Blacks and advances in civil rights. These acts of terror were designed to take away the vote, enforce racial codes, and re-impose restrictions on Black people that had been granted post-Civil War. The backlash turned back the clock on the numerous advances that sought to correct the racial injustices of the past.
In 1865 Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and Andrew Johnson became President. Andrew Johnson was a Southerner who worked to turn back the numerous advances made in racial justice. Under his administration amnesty was granted to Confederates. Confiscated lands (plantations) were returned to those who rebelled against the Union. The last remaining Union troops were withdrawn from the South in the Compromise of 1877 resulting in the reestablishment of pre-Civil War policies that completed the circle of restoring white Southern rule, reinstating the Black Codes, and allowing states to make policies that re-created de facto enslavement. The circle turned 360 degrees from voting rights, citizenship, anti-terrorism, social rectification, and attempts at inclusion to making it virtually impossible for Blacks to vote, live and work, or engage in the routines of life without fear and intimidation. Reconstruction, a response to racial injustices and calls to the nation to be inclusive and equitable, was short lived—from 1865-1877—and in that short time it ushered in amendments and civil rights acts. However, it was attacked from the beginning, sabotaged, and died because of white backlash. Most of the steps forward were spurned within 12 short years, and all the advances undone. The circle of racial justice took Blacks from winning to having to fight all over again.
In response to the racial justice organizing in the 20th century and the social unrest through demonstrations, sit-ins, and mass marches, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. This act prohibited discrimination in labor and attempted to end segregation in public facilities, public schools, and federally funded programs (keep in mind that 10 years prior, in 1954, the Supreme Court had already ruled segregation in public schools unconstitutional and ordered schools to desegregate). In 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed to challenge the many schemes employed by states to abridge the ability of Blacks to vote. It also required Southern states to seek permission to substantively change voting practices. However in 2013, the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holdergutted these protections arguing that they were "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day." Hence voting protections enacted in 1965 were gutted effectively rendering the act a relic of the past. This is an example of the ebb, or the circular motion, of the nature of racial rectification in the U.S.
In the 21st century white resistance to the freedoms of Blacks to move and live within the society coupled with continued fears of whites towards Black people resulted in "Stand Your Ground" laws. These were boilerplate legislation written by the American Legislative Exchange Council and offered to state legislators which produced glaring and frightening consequences for Black people. Black people were shot for ringing the wrong door bell, or for being in the wrong neighborhood. But all of this played into a larger scheme to erode equal rights and turn back the clock on racial rectification.
The reaction to racial justice is relentless and comes whenever strides are made to make the nation more inclusive. The Black Lives Matter movement emerged, trying to hold people and society accountable. The movement was spurred on by the killings of Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery by vigilantes. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Sandra Bland, and Philando Castile were examples of police killings. In the streets voices chanted, "Defund the police," and bodies blocked expressways and intersections. Political leaders and bodies across the country entertained discussions on the matter. Corporate America responded along with other entities employing "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" (DEI) measures. DEI became part of the discussion in the economic, political, and educational arena. The corporate world responded to the various outcries of disadvantaged groups that included racial and the LGBTQIA community and sought ways to demonstrate their desire to include and sell to these groups. Among those employing DEI initiatives were Amazon, Meta (FaceBook), McDonald's, Walmart, Ford, Lowe's, John Deere, American Airlines, Boeing, Jack Daniel's (Brown-Forman), Caterpillar, Harley-Davidson, Molson Coors, Nissan, Polaris, Toyota, and Anheuser-Busch.
The criticisms however grew louder as the "Turn Back the Clock" and Make America Great Again activists homed in on "wokeness" and began to attack those corporations for their support of racial justice and gay rights. The 2023 Supreme Court decision on college admissions, which struck down affirmative action programs declaring that race cannot be a factor in college admissions, was used to advance charges of reverse discrimination and of lowering standards. Then with the election of President Donald Trump the attacks on DEI found greater energy and corporations demonstrated lesser courage. Each of the corporations mentioned have since rolled back or eliminated their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. This is another example of a 360-degree turn in the struggle for racial justice and inclusion within the society, culture, and workplace.
Blacks have been historically wronged and remain disadvantaged. We continue to lag behind our white counterparts in terms of education, economics, and wealth. If progress is linear then we could surmise that at some point Blacks would catch up to whites. Instead, in most categories, the gaps and disparities have grown wider. The only way to explain this phenomenon is that we are engaged in a circle of gaining and then losing. The circle may grow larger signifying the progress being made, but the hard-fought victories in terms of racial justice are always met with a vicious backlash that makes progress a circular motion where we end up, it seems, where we began.
If the United States is ever going to create a society of real growth and opportunity, it needs to stop chasing its tail. It needs to change its belief that correcting past wrongs is somehow to penalize someone else. The irony is that those who complain about reverse discrimination are the ones who have been the beneficiaries of a system of discrimination. A strong society must come to terms with its history; tell the stories of the good, the bad, and the ugly; and muster the courage to create and maintain policies, programs, and systems that correct the sins of the past.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voting Rights Must Remain at the Top of Our List in 2024
What happens in November at the ballot box is crucial because of what must be accomplished in 2025 in Congress.
Aug 29, 2024
The freedom to vote had a big moment last week. It was not about how citizens should vote in 2024, but what might happen in 2025. It was a rousing affirmation that could lead to sweeping reform — and may signal a momentous fight ahead.
The Freedom to Vote Act would guarantee early voting and vote by mail, establish automatic registration, ban gerrymandering, bring disclosure to dark money in elections, and strengthen public campaign financing and safeguards against election subversion. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the strength of the Voting Rights Act after it was gutted by the Supreme Court.
This package would be the most significant democracy reform in two generations. It would strike a blow for racial justice. It would strengthen our system of self-government to better represent the people of a changing, growing country. H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 came within two votes of enactment in 2022. Now it is clear that bold democracy reform is at the center of the public agenda going forward.
As policy — and politics — this is a big deal.
Last Wednesday in Chicago, the Brennan Center and Democracy SENTRY held a conversation on voting rights in 2025. Hundreds filled two rooms. We heard from Rep. Joe Morelle, the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, and Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois. We heard from Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, one of the country’s foremost election officials. And we heard from top civil rights leaders Maya Wiley of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Damon Hewitt of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and Marc Morial of the National Urban League.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer keynoted. He made clear that the bills are a priority and that he hoped to pass them by February 2025, even if doing so requires changing the rules to allow their passage with a simple-majority vote. “This is vital to democracy,” he told reporters. “This is not just another extraneous issue. This is the wellspring of it all.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Rules Committee, closed the event. She movingly described stepping over broken glass in the Capitol on the evening of January 6, 2021, to ensure that the electoral votes were counted. She explained that the fight over the bills, including frustration with outdated Senate rules, galvanized senators to prepare to act when they have the chance.
The Washington Post saw the significance of lawmakers’ focus on these bills, with a lead story on its website.
And the next night, Vice President Harris promised to sign the two bills.
As policy — and politics — this is a big deal.
Voters and democracy face rising attacks as Election Day approaches. We’ve seen moves to make it easier to block the verdict of voters in Georgia and other states. Defying half a century of precedent, a federal court ruled that voters can’t sue under the Voting Rights Act. Hundreds of millions of dollars from secret donors have flooded elections. As a recent Brennan Center study noted, the racial turnout gap between white and nonwhite voters in states once covered by the Voting Rights Act has grown twice as fast as in the rest of the country. This package would stop this wave of voter suppression in its tracks.
It’s also important politically.
The health of American democracy has ranked among the top issues this year in polls. We must protect against authoritarianism and a repeat of January 6. But what matters most is not what we’re against, but what we’re for: a democracy in which every eligible citizen can vote, have their vote counted, and trust the results.
Amid partisanship and polarization, we should not let obstruction block vital legislation.
Another important audience should take note of the cheers for reform: political insiders who sometimes discount public enthusiasm for democracy reform. As I told the attendees at the Brennan Center’s event, “This is not a messaging bill. It’s for real.” Remember: voting rights failed in 1957, 1960, and 1964 before being enacted in 1965.
How will this play out? We hope leaders from all parties will work to protect the freedom to vote. The last time the Voting Rights Act was considered, in 2006, it passed the Senate unanimously. In 2022, on the other hand, only one Republican senator was even willing to consider supporting the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Sen. Ted Cruz, recognizing the broad popularity of these measures, last time called for an “under-the-dome strategy,” a euphemism for a no-holds-barred filibuster. Amid partisanship and polarization, we should not let obstruction block vital legislation.
At the Brennan Center, we’re proud that so many of the policies in these bills draw on our research and work over two decades. Here’s our commitment: if there is a chance to enact this legislation in 2025, we will do everything we can to make it happen.
As I said in Chicago, over recent years we’ve all been unnerved by the rise of the election deniers. But now there is a democracy movement — deep, diverse, and strong. If we all do our part and do it right, we can make that democracy movement the story of the coming years.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Defend Multiracial Democracy, Progressives Must Embrace Court Reform
When they have the political power to do so, progressives must immediately expand the court to reflect the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints of the nation, and impose term limits on justices.
Jul 18, 2024
As the dust continues to settle on the Supreme Court’s 2023-2024 term, the conservative majority’s existential threat to our democracy (and, in particular, our multiracial democracy) could not be clearer. But progressives have also enabled this threat by refusing to embrace the democratic reforms necessary to bring the court to heel.
Beyond the widely panned decision granting former U.S. President Donald Trump unprecedented immunity from prosecution, the court’s decisions have followed a clear trend of expanding power for the rich and connected (who will have new tools to challenge environmental and consumer protections), and diminishing it for people of color (who will have fewer tools to challenge racist gerrymanders), and the poor (who can now be incarcerated for sleeping outside even when no shelter is available).
Even in supposed bright spots, such as Rahimi, in which the court declined to overrule a federal law that bars anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from having a gun, its rulings have reified white supremacy. The court did not refrain from imposing its “history and tradition” test for gun laws, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged privileges an era “predating the inclusion of women and people of color as full members of the polity.” The court also conspicuously declined to address whether its vision of originalism includes the history of Reconstruction, which fundamentally transformed race relations and laid the foundation for multiracial democracy in the United States.
Lasting protections for the most vulnerable must be won and defended through power building at all levels of society—not in the courts alone.
In the face of the court’s sustained attack on multiracial democracy, progressive responses have so far been ineffective. Progressives arguing before the court have relied on precedent only to see those precedents tossed away in cases ending the right to abortion and outlawing affirmative action. They have grounded their arguments in history only to see the court cherry-pick research to achieve its desired results in cases diminishing the power of federal agencies. And, outside the courtroom, progressives have shone spotlights on Justices Samuel Alito’s and Clarence Thomas’ numerous conflicts of interest, only to have calls for the pair’s recusal fall on deaf ears in cases related to the January 6 insurrection.
Yet in the wake of another devastating term, President Joe Biden has announced no plan for Supreme Court reform. Instead, he seems content to patiently await a vacancy that may never arise to make his next appointment.
Let’s be honest with ourselves—efforts to influence or reshape the court short of structural reform are doomed to fail. Because justices currently have lifetime tenure, and experience has demonstrated that they will time their departures to coincide with ideologically sympathetic presidential administrations, there is no guarantee that another progressive presidency will result in any shift in the court’s ideology.
Meanwhile, as the Court places its thumb on the scale in elections, whether directly, as in Bush v. Gore, or more indirectly by diluting the Voting Rights Act, and unleashing unlimited corporate spending in campaigns, democracy may continue to erode.
When they have the political power to do so, progressives must immediately expand the court to reflect the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints of the nation, and impose term limits on justices (in line with other Western democracies).
Opposition to these straightforward ways to restore democratic accountability have laid bare progressive ambivalences about democracy itself. Some progressive elites, and particularly legal elites, who are wary of reigning in the court point to (supposedly) counter-majoritarian decisions like Brown, Roe, and Obergefell,which expanded rights for people of color, women, and LGBT people, as reasons to preserve the court’s power.
But an overly romantic view of the court risks breezing past the Supreme Court’s efforts to disempower vulnerable groups throughout its history in cases like Dred Scott, which held that Black people were not and could not be citizens, Plessy, which enshrined “separate but equal” for more than half a century, and Korematsu, which denied the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans interned during World War II, and throughout the anti-regulatory Lochner era. And it risks empowering a handful of unaccountable decision-makers above the true levers of social change—the people.
While the Supreme Court was a sometime ally to the movements of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the true heroes of change were civil rights organizers and feminist activists who dared to imagine a brighter future. They pushed the nation (kicking and screaming) closer toward equity as reflected in the enactment of landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Meanwhile, as the demise of Roe and its aftermath has made clear, victories that rely on the Supreme Court alone are fragile. Lasting protections for the most vulnerable must be won and defended through power building at all levels of society—not in the courts alone. Continued progress is possible, but only if we restrain a court that is all too happy to defang or dismantle popularly enacted legislation.
We must continue to call out the court’s insidious efforts to undermine democracy. We must also hold progressive leaders, and especially the progressive bar, accountable for their role in enabling this erosion. And we must demand that the president and Congress take action to expand the court and impose term limits. If they do not, it’s difficult to see how the court’s future terms won’t be darker mirrors of this one.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular