Boston

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares199 Views

    US supreme court allows Trump administration to freeze teacher-training grants

    by

    The US supreme court is letting the Trump administration temporarily freeze $65m in teacher-training grants that would promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in a 5-4 decision.The decision came down on Friday afternoon, with five of the court’s conservatives – Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh – in the majority. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented.In the unsigned opinion, the court said that the states made it clear “that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running”, but the Trump administration had a strong case that it would not be able to reclaim any of the funds spent while the lower court’s order remained in place.The cuts to more than 100 programs had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston, who found that they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage. The federal appeals court in Boston turned away an appeal from the administration to allow them to resume.The emergency appeal is among several the high court is considering in which the justice department argues that lower-court judges have improperly obstructed Donald Trump’s agenda.Friday’s order was the first time in three attempts that the nation’s highest court gave the administration what it wanted on an emergency basis.US district judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic-led states that argued the cuts were probably driven by efforts from Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.The Republican president also has signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the education department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.The two programs at issue – the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development – provide more than $600m in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas such as math, science and special education, the states have argued. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.Despite Joun’s finding that the programs already were being affected, the high court’s conservative majority wrote that the states can keep the programs running with their own money for now. By contrast, the majority said in an unsigned opinion, the federal government probably wouldn’t be able to recover the cash if it ultimately wins the lawsuit.
    Kagan wrote in dissent that there was no reason for the court’s emergency intervention.“Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here,” Kagan wrote.In a separate opinion, Brown Jackson wrote: “It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency.”
    The administration halted the programs without notice in February. Joun, an appointee of Democratic president Joe Biden, found that the cancellations probably violated a federal law that requires a clear explanation.The appellate panel that rejected the administration’s request for a stay also was made up of judges appointed by Democrats.California is leading the ongoing lawsuit, joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.Boston public schools have already had to fire several full-time employees due to the loss of grant funding, and the College of New Jersey has also canceled the rest of its teacher-residency program. California State University has ended support for two dozen students in a similar program, and eliminated financial assistance for 50 incoming students. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans haul sanctuary city mayors over the coals at immigration hearing

      by

      A congressional hearing designed to criticize sanctuary city policies unexpectedly shifted on Wednesday, as a planned attack by Republican lawmakers instead dissolved into a platform that amplified Democratic mayors’ arguments about immigration and urban safety.Before a packed room on Capitol Hill, the House oversight committee, led by its Republican chair, James Comer of Kentucky, sought to portray sanctuary cities – a city that touts municipal laws that protect undocumented migrants – as havens for criminal activity and foreign gangs.“The point that we’ve got to iron out today is that we have to have cooperation with federal law to turn over those illegal criminals to Ice and we’ve heard reports and many of you have said publicly that you are going to obstruct that,” Comer said. “That is against the law. And we’re going to hear more about that today.”But instead of cornering the mayors, Republican lawmakers seemed to inadvertently provide them a national megaphone to sell their approaches to local governance and immigration.“If you wanted to make us safe, pass gun reforms,” Boston mayor Michelle Wu said. “Stop cutting Medicaid. Stop cutting cancer research. Stop cutting funds for veterans. That is what will make our cities safe.”Along with Wu, Mayors Eric Adams of New York, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, and Mike Johnston of Denver were put at the center of the national debate about local governance, immigration enforcement and the balance between federal mandates and municipal discretion.In opening statements, each mayor offered a defense of their sanctuary policies. Adams emphasized that such classifications do not shield criminals, but instead ensure immigrant communities can trust local authorities. Johnson argued that welcoming city ordinances do not impede criminal investigations, while Johnston framed the issue through a moral lens of humanitarian responsibility.Wu, who brought her one-month old infant, said it was the Trump administration’s over-the-top tactics that jeopardized safety for Americans – and that the border czar, Tom Homan, should be the one that should face Congress.“This federal administration is making hard-working, tax-paying, God-fearing residents afraid to live their lives,” Wu said. “A city that’s scared is not a city that’s safe, a land ruled by fear is not the land of the free.”The hearing took a turn when Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina demanded mayors answer inflammatory yes-or-no questions, including whether they “hated President Trump more than they loved their country”.A shouting match then erupted between Representative Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Comer, with Pressley attempting to enter critical headlines about the Trump administration into the official record. Comer had been generally receptive to her prior requests up until that moment.The hearing occurred amid heightened national tensions around immigration, with Trump and Republican rhetoric focusing on linking immigrant populations to crime – a narrative sharply contested by the Democratic mayors and civil liberties advocates.Comer suggested that sanctuary policies “create sanctuary for criminals” and directly endanger public safety. He called for potentially withholding federal funding from cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities and pressed each Mayor on whether they will turn over undocumented migrants to Ice.The hearing comes as Adams faces a potential congressional investigation into the justice department’s efforts to dismiss corruption charges against him.The Democratic representatives Jamie Raskin and Jasmine Crockett – who is a member of the House oversight committee – have accused the department of attempting an improper quid pro quo, alleging that federal prosecutors have looked to drop corruption charges in exchange for Adams’s cooperation with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.At one point, Robert Garcia, the Democratic congressman of California, publicly called for Adams’s resignation, declaring he was “confident that Adams committed the crimes with which he is charged”, though Adams – who has been ducking local media on the question – firmly denied any wrongdoing. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro-Ukraine protests erupt across US after Trump and Vance ‘ambush’ Zelenskyy

      by

      Protests against the Trump administration erupted across the US on Saturday following an unprecedented Oval Office clash, wherein Donald Trump and JD Vance escalated tensions with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.Hundreds of protesters gathered in Waitsfield, Vermont, on Saturday morning to oppose the vice-president’s visit to the state for a ski trip with his family.The demonstration had been planned earlier in the week by the Mad River Valley chapter of Indivisible, a grassroots organizing group, but additional protesters said they were motivated to join after watching Vance and Trump’s combative White House meeting with Zelenskyy on Friday.Protesters held signs reading “Vermont stands with Ukraine” and “International embarrassment”, while many waved Ukrainian flags in solidarity. Fox aired video of the protesters, but blurred out signs displaying messages against Vance and in favor of Ukraine.“After what he did yesterday, he crossed the line,” protester Cori Giroux told Vermont Public Radio.On Thursday, the governor, Phil Scott, a Republican who refused to vote for Trump in any of his three runs for the White House, issued a statement calling on Vermonters to be respectful of Vance and his family during their visit.“Please join me in welcoming them to Vermont and hoping they have an opportunity to experience what makes our state, and Vermonters, so special,” he said.While Vance, who admitted Friday he has never been to Ukraine, fled to an undisclosed location to evade protesters, some commentators noted that Zelenskyy, who stayed in Ukraine during Russia’s invasion, was returning to a Kyiv still under attack.The protest followed a contentious confrontation in the Oval Office, where the US president told the Ukrainian leader to make a deal with Russia “or we’e out”. At one point, Trump accused Zelenskyy of not showing enough gratitude for US military and political aid, warning that he was “gambling with world war three”.Zelenskyy countered that he had repeatedly thanked the American people and their leaders for their support, that but Ukrainians did not want to accept a ceasefire with Russia without security guarantees, since Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, had repeatedly broken a previous ceasefire agreement.Following the exchange, European leaders, along with the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, posted messages of support for Ukraine.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLeading Democratic lawmakers also rallied to Zelenskyy’s side, with one, the senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, calling the Oval office meeting an “ambush” of the Ukrainian president by Trump and Vance.The aggressive meeting led to protests in cities and towns across the US, including New York, Los Angeles and Boston, where hundreds gathered to express their support for Ukraine and Zelenskyy.Videos posted on social networks showed hundreds of demonstrators gathered in New York’s Times Square, many carrying the blue-and-yellow flag of Ukraine on their backs. In Los Angeles county, a pro-Ukraine crowd rallied in front of a SpaceX’s facility, and protesters in Boston held an “emergency rally” for “fair peace” for Ukraine at Boston Common.“Ukraine wants fair peace. Ukraine wants the war to end,” the group Boston Supports Ukraine wrote on Facebook. “Ukraine wants all of this on fair terms with security guarantees.”For his part, Zelenskyy posted video of his warm reception in London on social networks, showing crowds of supporters lining the street outside Downing Street, where he was embraced by the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      More than 10,000 US hotel workers strike on Labor Day weekend

      by

      Thousands of US hotel workers went on strike on Sunday for improved pay and conditions in a dispute likely to disrupt many Labor Day weekend holiday travelers, amid union warnings that industrial action could escalate.More than 10,000 workers walked off the job at hotels in Boston, Seattle, Honolulu, Kauai and Greenwich, Connecticut, as well as the Californian cities of San Francisco, Sand Diego and San Jose after contract talks with the establishments’ owners collapsed.The Unite Here union, which represents workers in hotels, casinos and airports across the US and Canada, warned that staff in other city were ready to join the strike.“Strikes have also been authorised and could begin at any time,” a union statement said, adding that hotels in Baltimore, Providence, Oakland, New Haven could be affected.Staff are demanding wage increases and the reversal of pandemic era job cuts that union organisers say has increased the workload of remaining workers and imposed “painful” working conditions.“The hotel industry has rebounded from the pandemic, and room rates are at record highs,” Gwen Mills, Unite Here’s international president, said in a statement. “But hotel workers can’t afford to live in the cities that they welcome guests to. Too many hotel workers have to work two or sometimes three jobs in order to make ends meet.“We won’t accept a ‘new normal’ where hotel companies profit by cutting their offerings to guests and abandoning their commitments to workers.”The union said that, as of Sunday morning, the strike had impacted 24 cities with a total of 23,000 hotel rooms.It was taking place on a weekend which was expected to be the busiest on Labour Day records, according to Transport Security Administration forecasts.Unite Here, which has more than 275,000 members, has accused the hotel industry of using cutbacks triggered by Covid-related lockdowns to permanently cut staff and reduce guest services.It has asked traveling guests at affected hotels to cancel their visit and demand refunds.The strike, which is scheduled to last three days, follows months of talks between workers and the Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott and Omni hotel chains.Hyatt said it was disappointed by the decision to strike. “We look forward to continuing to negotiate fair contracts and recognise the contributions of Hyatt employees,” said Michael D’Angelo, the firm’s head of labour relations. More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Massachusetts court rejects Satanic Temple’s free speech case

      by

      Whenever the city council of Boston meets, a speaker gives opening remarks: sometimes a sermon, sometimes a poem – but usually a prayer, as the majority of the speakers come from Christian organizations.In 2016, the free speech group that styles itself the Satanic Temple asked to be included, offering to give an “invocation”. When it was denied, the group sued the city, arguing religious discrimination under the first amendment.On Tuesday, an appeals court ruled against it, on the basis that the speakers usually have an established relationship with a council member and are deeply involved in their community, which the Satanic Temple – based in Salem, Massachusetts – did not show.“Not every religious organization performing charitable work in any portion of the Boston community would receive an invitation to speak,” the court added.The judges did, however, offer a “cautionary note” to the city council. Although it rejected the Satanic Temple’s claims, “it is clear that Boston’s customary invocation speaker is admittedly meant to serve the interest of incumbent city councilors”.“Those interests could in the future lead to councilors favoring invitations only to those representing religious electoral majorities and explicitly proselytizing for those views or disparaging minority or unpopular groups,” the judges warned.Lucien Greaves, co-founder of the Satanic Temple, told the Boston Globe that the ruling was a “flagrant disregard for fundamental constitutional principles”.“The courts now tell us that technicalities permit public officials to stand outside of the law, and that religious liberty is dependent upon official support from corrupt public office holders,” he said.The Satanic Temple was founded in 2013 as a group to fight the religious right and intolerance. It has filed lawsuits fighting prayer in the classroom, religious holiday displays and distribution of Bibles in schools. It has also advocated for abortion rights. Members say they do not believe in Satan in the literal sense but use Satan as a symbol against authoritarianism. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans lead charge to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections

      by

      Republicans lead charge to ban noncitizens from voting in local electionsEight states have passed laws against ballot access, even as some progressive cities are extending local voting rights Louisiana voters recently approved a constitutional amendment barring anyone who is not a US citizen from participating in elections, becoming the eighth state to push back against the growing number of progressive cities deciding to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawRead moreWhile noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections and no states allow noncitizens to vote for statewide office, ambiguous language in constitutions has allowed localities to pass statutes legalizing noncitizen voting in local or school board elections. A short but expanding list of cities include two cities in Vermont, almost a dozen in Maryland, and San Francisco.Other cities are trying to join that list, including Boston and Washington DC, where the latter city’s council in October passed legislation allowing noncitizens who have lived in the city for at least 30 days to vote in local elections. New York City’s council also passed a measure in December to allow close to 900,000 green card holders and those with work authorization to vote in local elections, but a state trial court struck it down in June, finding it violated the state constitution. The ruling is currently being appealed.The potential for major cities like DC and New York to expand their electorates prompted backlash from Republican lawmakers.“This vote sends a clear message that the radical election policies of places like San Francisco, New York City and Washington, DC have no place in Louisiana,” Kyle Ardoin, the Republican secretary of state, said in a statement after the passage of the constitutional amendment, which he said will “ensure the continued integrity of Louisiana’s elections”.Louisiana law already prohibits anyone who is “not a citizen of the state” from voting, so voting rights advocates say the new amendment is an effort by Republicans in the state to limit voting based on false allegations that noncitizens are committing voter fraud by participating in elections.Louisiana’s amendment made it on to the 10 December ballot after it was passed by both chambers of the state legislature. Over 73% of Louisiana voters approved it, making Louisiana the latest in a series of states moving to explicitly write bans into their constitutions.Before 2020, just Arizona and North Dakota specifically prohibited noncitizens from voting in local and state elections, but voters in Alabama, Colorado and Florida all approved constitutional amendments in 2020 and Ohio approved one in November.Ohio’s amendment came after one town in the state, Yellow Springs, passed an initiative in 2019 to allow noncitizens to vote, giving voting rights in local elections to just a few dozen people in the small town. A few years later in 2022, Republican lawmakers proposed what would eventually become the constitutional amendment banning the practice and revoking the right from noncitizens in Yellow Springs.Fulvia Vargas-De Leon, senior counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a New York-based immigrant rights group, said the movement for ballot amendments is just one way that some lawmakers are trying to restrict voting rights.“It is a response to the expansion of the right to vote, and our concern is that since 2020, we’ve seen such attacks on the right to vote,” she said, adding that the pushback was coming because of an anti-immigrant sentiment “but also a larger effort to try to ban who has access to the ballot”.The United States allowed noncitizens to vote for much of its early history. From the founding of the country through 1926, noncitizens could vote in local, state and federal elections. But anti-immigrant sentiment led to lawmakers in most states to push for an end to the practice.“Resurgent nativism, wartime xenophobia, and corruption concerns pushed lawmakers to curtail noncitizen voting, and citizenship became a voting prerequisite in every state by 1926,” William & Mary professor Alan H Kennedy wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Policy History this year.In 1996, Congress passed a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections, making illegal voting punishable by fines, imprisonment and deportation.But on the local level, the subject has re-emerged as a topic for debate in recent decades, as the populations of permanent noncitizen immigrants has grown in many cities.Advocates for noncitizen voting argue that documented immigrants pay taxes and contribute to their local communities and should have their voices heard when it comes to local policy.“We should have a representative democracy, where everyone who is part of the fabric of the community, who is involved, who pays taxes, should have a say in it,” said Vargas-De Leon, whose group intervened in the New York litigation and has filed the appeal.But conservative groups say that allowing noncitizens to vote dilutes the votes of citizens. Republican strategist Christopher Arps started the Missouri-based Americans for Citizen Voting to help states amend their constitutions to explicitly say that only US citizens can vote. He said that people who want to vote should “at least have some skin in the game” by completing the citizenship process.“We’ve been hearing for the past five, six years about foreign interference, Russia and other countries,” he said. “Well to me, this is a type of foreign interference in our elections.”It would also be a “bureaucratic nightmare”, he said, for states to have to maintain two separate voter rolls for federal and local elections, and could lead to illegal voting if noncitizens accidentally vote in a federal election.Though noncitizen voting still has not been signed into law in DC, Republicans in Congress have already introduced legislation to block it. One bill, introduced by the Texas senator Ted Cruz last month, would bar DC from using federal funds to facilitate noncitizen voting.“Allowing noncitizens and illegal immigrants to vote in our elections opens our country up to foreign influence, and allows those who are openly violating US law or even working for hostile foreign governments to take advantage and direct our resources against our will,” Cruz said in a statement.But Vargas-De Leon pointed to the benefits of expanding the electorate to include the country’s 12.9 million legal permanent residents and other documented immigrants.“All we’re trying to do here is ensure that everyone has a say in our government,” she said.TopicsUS newsThe fight for democracyUS politicsLaw (US)LouisianaOhioFloridaVermontfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We’re redefining what leadership looks like’: Asian Americans show rapid rise in US politics

      by

      US politics‘We’re redefining what leadership looks like’: Asian Americans show rapid rise in US politicsWins this week mark significant step for community that’s been under-represented and borne the brunt of pandemic-driven racism Maya YangTue 9 Nov 2021 05.00 ESTLast modified on Tue 9 Nov 2021 05.02 ESTAfter a series of historic wins across the US last week, Asian Americans will now serve as mayors and city council members in large cities including Boston, Seattle, Cincinnati and New York, signalling the rapid rise in Asian American political power.The victories mark a significant step forward for a diverse community that has seen historically low representation in political offices and in the last two years has borne the brunt of a rising tide of pandemic-driven anti-Asian sentiments.On Tuesday night, voters chose Boston city councilor Michelle Wu to serve in the city’s top political office. The 36-year-old Taiwanese American who was Boston’s first Asian American city councilor will serve as the city’s first mayor of color.“Growing up, I never ever thought that I would or could or should be involved in politics. I didn’t see anyone who looked like me in spaces of power. We are redefining what leadership looks like,” Wu told reporters.In Cincinnati, Aftab Pureval made history by defeating former Democratic Congressman David Mann, making the 39-year-old the first Asian American to hold the city’s mayoral post.The son of a Tibetan mother and Indian father, Pureval addressed a crowd saying: “Cincinnati is a place where no matter what you look like, where you’re from, or how much money you have, if you come here and work hard you can achieve your dreams.”Meanwhile in Seattle, Bruce Harrell, 69, who is of mixed heritage, is projected to become the city’s first Asian American mayor and second Black mayor. In New York City, five Asian Americans were elected to the city council, the most the council has ever had. The record-breaking group includes the first Korean Americans, first South Asian Americans and first Muslim woman to be elected to the council.Traditionally, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) mayors have been elected in places with significant Asian demographics, such as California and Hawaii. However, the recent rise in anti-Asian racism seems to have prompted a significant portion of Asian Americans to become more involved in politics. More than 9,000 anti-Asian incidents have been reported in the US since the pandemic began.“What’s different about mayoral elections is that this is a citywide office. To win at that level requires forming a broad coalition of support that’s certainly going to cross racial boundaries,” said Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College specializing in American and ethnic politics.Sadwhani cited the spike in anti-AAPI hate as a key factor for increased political participation, saying, “The discrimination that AAPIs faced throughout the last two years during the pandemic has galvanized them politically and we’re seeing that in terms of the people who are choosing to run for office, as well as voters on the ground. When Asian Americans feel socially excluded or discriminated against, it typically does lead to greater political activism.”The AAPI population is ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse, but is under-represented in elected offices. AAPIs make up 6.1% of the national population. Yet, they consist of just 0.9% of elected leaders in the country, according to the Reflective Democracy Campaign.As one of the fastest growing demographics in the country, AAPIs also suffer from severe invisibility in the criminal justice sector. Southeast Asian Americans are at least three times more likely to be deported due to past criminal convictions than other immigrants.Of the 2,539 prosecutors that were elected across the country in 2020, only six were of AAPI heritage, or 0.24%. AAPIs also make up only 0.07% of county sheriffs.In March, after a 21-year old white man killed six Asian women and two others in the Atlanta area, many Asian American communities sought greater political recognition while vowing to stand against hate.Raymond Partolan, the national field director of APIAVote, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting civic engagement across AAPI communities, spoke of the intensity he witnessed at rallies after the deadly shooting.“I’ve been working in the community organizing space for around the last ten years or so and I’ve never seen so much interest among AAPIs to involve themselves in the decision-making processes that happen at every level of government, and it’s truly inspiring,” said Partolan.The AAPI Victory Fund, a Super Pac that mobilizes AAPI voters and candidates, endorsed Wu and Pureval. Varun Nikore, the organization’s president, attributes their victories to a ripple effect that emerged through local community building efforts.“Getting to know your communities at that micro-local level ensures more long-term successes because you are forced to discuss kitchen table issues. This provides a roadmap for our community going forward,” Nikore said.Yet despite the celebratory attitudes towards the historic wins, some remain apprehensive towards their potential “tokenization”, fearing that traditional stereotypes may pigeonhole the incoming leaders.“I think by having the focus of [Wu] being hailed as the first female mayor of Boston, she’s being held to a greater standard than any other white man. People would be looking for her to fail rather than trying to see where she can succeed,” said Yasmin Padamsee Forbes, executive director of the Commonwealth of Massachussett’s Asian American Commission.As a result, Forbes urges people to look at what leaders like Wu and Pureval can bring to their cities and evaluate them according to how much they achieve, along with their platforms.“Whenever we have elected officials that share our racial background, it’s important for us to hold them accountable,” said Partolan, who echoed Forbes’ sentiments. “People don’t get a free pass in public office just because they share our racial background. We have to ensure that we elect people that share our values and that once they are in public office, we encourage them to move policies that are beneficial for everyone.”Nevertheless, this week’s victories still prove to be a major step forward in inclusive representation across the country.“We need thousands of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to run for local office so that we have the future pipeline for a statewide office and then federal office in this country,” said Nikore.TopicsUS politicsRaceBostonSeattleNew YorknewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Michelle Wu becomes Boston’s first woman and person of color to be elected mayor

      by

      BostonMichelle Wu becomes Boston’s first woman and person of color to be elected mayorWu defeated Democrat Annissa Essaibi George in a victory for progressives, on an otherwise tough night for Democrats Gloria Oladipo@gaoladipoWed 3 Nov 2021 10.26 EDTLast modified on Wed 3 Nov 2021 15.34 EDTMichelle Wu has made history after being elected as mayor of Boston, becoming the first woman and person of color elected to the position in almost 200 years.“From every corner of our city, Boston has spoken. We are ready to meet this moment. We are ready to become a Boston for everyone,” said Wu to her supporters on Tuesday night. “I want to be clear, it wasn’t my vision on the ballot, it was ours, together.”In a victory for progressives, on an otherwise difficult night for Democrats, Wu defeated the Democratic city council member Annissa Essaibi George, who identifies as a first-generation Arab-Polish American. Essaibi George was also born and raised in Boston, with her family roots being heavily emphasized throughout her campaign.“I want to offer a great big congratulations to Michelle Wu,” said Essaibi George at her election party on Tuesday night. “She’s the first woman and first Asian American elected to be mayor of Boston.”In addition to Wu’s election as the first Asian American mayor in Boston, Cincinnati also elected Aftab Pureval, the city’s first Asian American mayor.Wu, who will be succeeding acting mayor Kim Janey, the first woman and Black person to lead Boston, is the child of Taiwanese immigrants. She moved to Boston from Chicago and is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School.After launching her political career in 2013 when she was first elected to Boston’s city council, Wu has worked as a progressive, supporting policies like a Green New Deal for Boston and has been endorsed by other high-profile Massachusetts progressives including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.Wu’s mayoral platform also included progressive proposals like free public transit, an initiative that several US cities have been implementing, improving housing in Boston through rent stabilization and rent control, as well as abolishing the Boston Planning and Development Agency, with Wu saying it was time to “empower a planning depart to create a master plan for updated zoning and clear, consistent rules”.The mayoral race between Wu and Essaibi George, two women of color, as well as Wu’s victory suggest major changes for Boston’s political scene. After 199 years of only white, male mayors, Wu’s win signals the changing values and increasingly diverse demographics in Boston. Currently, more than half of the city is made up of people of color and white populations continue to shrink.TopicsBostonUS politicsnewsReuse this content More