Race

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Derek Chauvin found guilty of George Floyd’s murder and taken away in handcuffs – video

      by

      Derek Chauvin has been convicted of murder for killing George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for more than nine minutes, a crime that prompted a wave of protests in support of racial justice in the US and across the world. The jury swiftly and unanimously convicted Chauvin of all the charges he faced – second and third degree murder, and manslaughter – after concluding that the white former Minneapolis police officer killed the 46-year-old black man through a criminal assault by pinning him to the ground so he could not breathe properly. A lack of oxygen in turn caused brain damage, heart failure and death in May last year

      Derek Chauvin found guilty of George Floyd’s murder
      Derek Chauvin verdict: ex-police officer found guilty of George Floyd’s murder – live More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Derek Chauvin verdict: ex-police officer found guilty of George Floyd’s murder – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      5.08pm EDT
      17:08

      Chauvin guilty of manslaughter

      5.07pm EDT
      17:07

      Chauvin guilty of third-degree murder

      5.07pm EDT
      17:07

      Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder

      4.25pm EDT
      16:25

      Jurors reached verdict after nine hours of deliberations

      3.38pm EDT
      15:38

      Verdict reached in Derek Chauvin murder trial

      Live feed

      Show

      5.50pm EDT
      17:50

      At a press conference after Derek Chauvin’s guilty verdict was read, Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General, has thanked the community for giving his prosecutors the opportunity to pursue the case. Ellison has emphasized, however, that more work must be done.
      “I want to thank the community for giving us that time, and allowing us to do that work,” he says. “That long, hard, painstaking work has culminated today.”
      “I would not call today’s verdict justice, however, because justice implies true restoration, but it is accountability—which is the first step towards justice.”
      “George Floyd mattered,” he says. “He was loved by his family and his friends. His death shocked the conscience of our community, our country, the whole world,” Ellison also says. “But that isn’t why he mattered. He mattered because he was a human being.”
      “This has to end, we need to justice,” Ellison later says.
      “This verdict reminds us that we must make enduring enduring, systemic, societal change.”

      5.38pm EDT
      17:38

      The Council on American-Islamic Relations’s Minnesota chapter has commented on Derek Chauvin’s guilty verdict.
      Jaylani Hussein, CAIR Minnesota’s executive director, says in a statement: “We are encouraged by the jury’s decision to convict Derek Chauvin. It is by no means the end of our efforts to build a more just and equitable Minnesota and nation, but it is an important milestone on our journey and a step to healing deep, generational traumas.”
      “While today’s verdict is encouraging, it does not diminish the urgency with which we must continue our efforts to combat the epidemic of police violence in our communities,” Hussein’s statement says. “George Floyd received justice today in that courtroom, now we must continue advocating for justice for all, everywhere: in the legislature, where we’re fighting to pass bills to increase police oversight and end qualified immunity, in our own communities, where we come together to heal and build trust and mutual understanding, and in the streets, where every day we are organizing, marching, and strengthening our movement.”
      By the way, here’s a recap on what the charges meant:

      The Recount
      (@therecount)
      Here’s a rundown of what the prosecution has to prove to convict Chauvin of three charges: pic.twitter.com/RbQnh4mXol

      April 20, 2021

      Updated
      at 5.45pm EDT

      5.35pm EDT
      17:35

      We now have a pool report detailing the scene inside Judge Peter Cahill’s courtroom for the verdict in Derek Chauvin’s case.
      Philonise Floyd, George Floyd’s brother, was sitting “with his head bowed and his hands folded in front of his face, perhaps in prayer,” prior to the reading of the verdict.
      Cahill enters the courtroom around 4:04 pm local time. The jurors walk in, “all looking serious, none appearing teary,” per the pool report. As Cahill reads the verdict, which found Chauvin guilty on all counts, the former Minneapolis police officer “stares at the empty witness podium.”
      Cahill ultimately thanks jurors for “heavy duty jury service” and they leave. Chauvin stands, hands “hands clasped behind his back.” When a deputy handcuffs Chauvin, he doesn’t resist.
      Philonise Floyd hugs prosecutor Jerry Blackwell, Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison, and the other prosecutors, the pool report says.
      Here is a tweet from Keith Boykin, which speaks for itself.

      Keith Boykin
      (@keithboykin)
      Derek Chauvin handcuffed. pic.twitter.com/D0KoTJllE6

      April 20, 2021

      Updated
      at 5.38pm EDT

      5.23pm EDT
      17:23

      The Guardian’s Lois Beckett is outside the Minneapolis courthouse where Judge Peter Cahill just announced a guilty verdict in Derek Chauvin’s murder case.
      Beckett reports that the crowd has shouted “Guilty!” once news emerged. There have been huge cheers, with people shouting “Yes!”
      The crowd has chanted “George Floyd!” and “all three counts!” People have been screaming and crying.
      “Whose victory? Our victory” the crowd has chanted. Cars driving by have honked their horns in celebration.
      “Don’t let anyone tell you protest doesn’t work,” a man has told the crowd through a bullhorn.

      5.17pm EDT
      17:17

      The attorneys for George Floyd’s family have released statements following the conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.
      Attorney Ben Crump commented: “Painfully earned justice has arrived for George Floyd’s family and the community here in Minneapolis, but today’s verdict goes far beyond this city and has significant implications for the country and even the world. Justice for Black America is justice for all of America. This case is a turning point in American history for accountability of law enforcement and sends a clear message we hope is heard clearly in every city and every state.”
      “Today’s verdict is so critical in that it not only holds Derek Chauvin accountable for his horrific actions, but it reinforces significant police reforms underway in Minneapolis including use-of-force reporting, a requirement to keep body-worn cameras on, and a policy for officers to de-escalate non-threatening encounters by disengaging or walking away. Now we call on Minnesota state lawmakers to pass ” said attorney Antonio M. Romanucci.
      Attorney L. Chris Stewart said: “Today the world had its hope and faith restored in the American justice system. All that people crave is accountability when an officer kills a Black American. For far too long that had never happened. Now George Floyd’s soul can finally rest in peace. Justice has been served.”
      Lawyer Jeff Storms similarly stated: “The impact of George Floyd’s death on Minneapolis is impossible to explain, but today’s verdict is an important step toward healing. The community here has struggled to create accountability for officers who have used excessive force over many years and too many lives and caused so much pain and suffering. This jury has sent a clear and direct message that this can never happen again.”

      5.11pm EDT
      17:11

      Derek Chauvin was directed out of the courtroom in handcuffs moments after the guilty verdict was read in his murder case.

      5.10pm EDT
      17:10

      Derek Chauvin has been remanded in the custody of the Hennepin County Sheriff.

      5.08pm EDT
      17:08

      Chauvin guilty of manslaughter

      Derek Chauvin was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

      Updated
      at 5.10pm EDT

      5.07pm EDT
      17:07

      Chauvin guilty of third-degree murder

      Derek Chauvin was found guilty of third-degree murder.

      Updated
      at 5.10pm EDT

      5.07pm EDT
      17:07

      Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder

      Derek Chauvin was found guilty of second-degree unintentional murder.

      Updated
      at 5.10pm EDT

      5.05pm EDT
      17:05

      The judge in Derek Chauvin’s murder trial has taken the bench. We expect the verdict will be read momentarily. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Maxine Waters says she won’t be ‘bullied’ by Republicans over Chauvin remarks

      by

      After Republicans launched a long-shot attempt to censure and expel Maxine Waters from Congress over comments on the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, which the judge said could provide grounds for appeal, the veteran California progressive stayed defiant.“I am not worried that they’re going to continue to distort what I say,” Waters, 82, told the Grio. “This is who they are and this is how they act. And I’m not going to be bullied by them.”Chauvin, a former police officer, is on trial in Minneapolis for murder, after he knelt on George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes in May last year. As the world awaits a verdict, tensions are high in the city.On Tuesday, comments by Joe Biden also attracted attention. At the White House, the president told reporters he was “praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think … it’s overwhelming, in my view”.Waters, who is African American, has served in Congress since 1991. She has a long record of campaigning for civil rights and confronting political opponents in blunt terms, in some quarters earning the nickname Kerosene Maxine.Long a favorite target of Republicans, she attractedfocused ire in 2018, when she said Trump aides and officials should be confronted by the public. Last week, she told the hard-right Republican congressman Jim Jordan to “shut your mouth” during a hearing with Dr Anthony Fauci, the White House medical adviser.She spoke to the media on Saturday during a protest in Brooklyn Center, the Minneapolis suburb where police shot dead a 20-year-old Black man, Daunte Wright, earlier this month.Waters said she hoped Chauvin would be found “guilty, guilty, guilty”.If Chauvin was acquitted, she said, “we’ve got to stay on the street, and we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”[embedded content]Republicans were quick to accuse Waters of inciting violence as, they said, Democrats accused Donald Trump of doing before the 6 January Capitol riot.The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy – who voted against impeaching Trump over the Capitol attack, which resulted in five deaths – said on Monday he would introduce a resolution censuring Waters for what he deemed “dangerous comments”.“This weekend in Minnesota, Maxine Waters broke the law by violating curfew and then incited violence,” McCarthy tweeted.In a co-ordinated attack, the Florida representative María Elvira Salazar said Waters had “a long history of inciting unrest and supporting dictators who use violence to get what they want”. The Texas representative August Pfluger called her rhetoric “outrageous and shameful”.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right Georgia Republican and conspiracy theorist who has expressed support for executing prominent Democrats and FBI agents, said she would try to expel Waters, whom she called “a danger to our society”.Greene claimed Waters “incited Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists”, following a shooting in which two Minnesota national guard members sustained minor injuries.The Chauvin trial is at the center of national dialogue. On Tuesday Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, told NBC he had received a call from Biden.The president, he said, “was just calling. He knows how it is to lose a family member. And he knows that the process of what we’re going through so he was just letting us know that he was praying for us, and hoping that everything would come out to be OK.”Later, at the White House, Biden told reporters: “I can only imagine the pressure and the anxiety they’re feeling. They’re a good family, and they’re calling for peace and tranquility.”The president added: “I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think … it’s overwhelming, in my view. I wouldn’t say that, lest the jury was sequestered now and not hear me say that.”The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said Biden was “moved” by his conversations with the Floyd family. Biden was “certainly not looking to influence” the outcome of the trial by commenting, she said, adding: “I don’t think he would see it as weighing in on the verdict … regardless of the outcome, the president has consistently called for peace.”Waters’ words were raised in the courtroom in Minneapolis on Monday when defense attorneys motioned for a mistrial because of them. Judge Peter Cahill denied the motion but also expressed frustration, saying Waters had been “disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch”.Cahill also told the defense: “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”But Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, defended Waters, saying she did not need to apologize.“Maxine talked about ‘confrontation’ in the manner of the civil rights movement,” Pelosi said. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It would be glorious’: hopes high for Biden to nominate first Black woman to supreme court

      by

      Joe Biden’s promise to nominate an African American woman to the supreme court for the first time holds broad symbolic significance for Darlene McDonald, an activist and police reform commissioner in Salt Lake City, Utah.But McDonald has specific reasons for wanting a Black woman on the court, too.When Chief Justice John Roberts asserted in 2013 that federal oversight of voting in certain southern states was no longer needed because “things have changed dramatically” since the civil rights era, McDonald said, he revealed a blindness to something African American women have no choice but to see.“I believe that if Chief Justice Roberts had really understood racism, he would never have voted to gut the Voting Rights Act,” McDonald said, adding that hundreds of voter suppression bills introduced by Republicans in recent months suggest things have not “changed dramatically” since 1965.“Myself, as an African American woman, having that representation on the supreme court will be huge,” McDonald said, “especially in the sense of having someone that really understands racism.”The gradual diversification of US leadership, away from the overwhelming preponderance of white men, towards a mix that increasingly reflects the populace, was accelerated by the election last November of Kamala Harris, a woman of color, as vice-president.Black women have been overlooked in terms of their values and what they have to bring to society as well as to the benchNow enthusiasm is building around a similarly historic leap that activists, academics and professionals expect is just around the corner: the arrival on the court of a justice who would personify one of the most historically marginalized groups.“Black women have been overlooked for decades and decades in terms of their values and what they have to bring to society as well as to the bench,” said Leslie Davis, chief executive of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms. “We should be able to look at our highest court in the land and see the reflection of some of the folks who have made America great. And that absolutely includes Black women.”Out of 115 justices in its history, the supreme court has counted two African American justices, one Latina and just five women. The court has no vacant seats but calls are growing for Stephen Breyer, a liberal who turns 83 this year, to retire. Last month, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden’s campaign commitment to nominating a Black woman “absolutely” holds.“This is a big moment in the making,” said Ben Jealous, president of People For the American Way, which recently launched the Her Fight Our Fight campaign to support and promote women of color in government and public service roles.“The presumption is that whomever Biden nominates, the first Black woman to the supreme court would be filling both the shoes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Thurgood Marshall,” said Jealous.The late Ginsburg, a pioneering lawyer for women’s rights, was succeeded last fall by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett. Marshall was succeeded in 1991 by the George HW Bush appointee Clarence Thomas, who “is anathema to everything that the civil rights community stands for”, Jealous said.“It would be both glorious and a relief to have a Black woman on the supreme court who actually represents the values of the civil rights community, and the most transformative lawyers in our nation’s history.”Tomiko Brown-Nagin, a civil rights historian, dean of the Harvard Radcliffe Institute and professor of constitutional law, said having qualified federal judges who “reflect the broad makeup of the American public” would strengthen democracy and faith in the courts.“It’s an important historical moment that signifies equal opportunity,” Brown-Nagin said. “That anyone who is qualified has the chance to be considered for nomination, notwithstanding race, notwithstanding gender. That is where we are. In some ways, we shouldn’t be congratulating ourselves, right?”Brown-Nagin pointed out that a campaign was advanced in the 1960s to nominate Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to sit as a federal judge, but some Democratic allies of President Lyndon Johnson opposed such a nomination because they saw it as too politically risky.“This moment could have happened 50 years ago,” Brown-Nagin said.Daniel L Goldberg, legal director of the progressive Alliance For Justice, said to call the moment “overdue” did not capture it.“It is stunning that in the entire history of the republic, that no African American woman has sat on the highest court in the country,” Goldberg said. “For way too long in our nation’s history, the only people who were considered suitable and qualified for the court happened to be white males.”The first Black woman supreme court justice is likely to be nominated at a time when a renewed push for racial justice brings renewed focus on the court, which has played a key role in enforcing desegregation and reinforcing anti-discrimination laws.I would like to see someone like Sherrilyn Ifill or Lia Epperson – a woman who comes out of Thurgood Marshall’s old law firmThe killing of Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, by a white police officer outside Minneapolis last weekend during the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin has sharpened cries for a national answer to serial injustice at the local level – precisely the kind of conflict that typically lands before the supreme court.“As we sit here today, and watch the trial of Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd, that precipitated a summer of protests for the lives of Black people to matter – it feels that it is time for there to be a Black woman on the supreme court, because of the moment that we are in right now,” said McDonald, the Utah activist.Davis said it was “imperative” the country make strides toward racial justice after the invasion of the Capitol in January by white supremacists intent on overturning the 2020 presidential election, goaded on by a former president.“That shows that there are folks who are intentional about not seeing diversity, equity and inclusion thrive,” Davis said. “Now is the time for us as a country to recognize that until we value the voices of everyone, including Black women, we are silencing a very important part of the fabric of America.”‘A significant pool’The percentage of Black women who are federal judges – a common stepping-stone to a high court nomination – is extraordinarily small.According to the federal judicial center, the US circuit courts count only five African American women among sitting judges out of 179. There are 42 African American women judges at the district court level, out of 677.Those numbers are partly owing to Republican obstruction of Black women nominated by Barack Obama, including former seventh circuit nominee Myra Selby. She was denied a hearing in the Senate for the entirety of 2016 – a year later Republicans filled the seat with Donald Trump’s nominee: Amy Coney Barrett.“There is a significant pool of lawyers, law professors, public officials who would be viable nominees for the federal courts,” said Brown-Nagin. “The problem is not the pool.”Last month, Brown-Nagin co-signed a letter to the Senate judiciary committee supporting the nomination of district court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the court of appeals for the DC district, sometimes informally referred to as the second-highest court in the land.“Her resumé virtually screams that she is an ideal nominee for an appellate court or even the supreme court, and that is because she has the combination of educational and professional experience on the federal courts that feasibly fits the mold of typical supreme court nominees,” Brown-Nagin said.“I would say it goes beyond what we’ve seen, frankly, in recent nominees to the court.”Jealous, a former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), said he would like to see a nominee “who cut their teeth defending the people, not corporations”.“I would like to see someone like Sherrilyn Ifill or Lia Epperson – a woman who comes out of Thurgood Marshall’s old law firm, the NAACP legal defense fund, with a courageous commitment to defending the rights of all Americans,” he said.McDonald said having a Black woman on the supreme court would mean American history had “come full circle”.“I feel in my heart that it’s time,” she said. “Everything takes its time. And everything happens at its time. I was raised in a church, so I’m just going to say it like that.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans demand action against Maxine Waters after Minneapolis remarks

      by

      The Republican leader in the House of Representatives and an extremist congresswoman who champions “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” have demanded action against the Democratic representative Maxine Waters, after she expressed support for protesters against police brutality.On Saturday, Waters spoke in Brooklyn Center, the Minneapolis suburb where Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, was shot and killed by police last week.The California congresswoman spoke before final arguments on Monday in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis officer who knelt on the neck of George Floyd for more than nine minutes last May, resulting in the Black man’s death and global protests.“I’m going to fight with all of the people who stand for justice,” said Waters, who is Black. “We’ve got to get justice in this country and we cannot allow these killings to continue.”Tensions are high in Minneapolis.Waters said: “We’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”Of Chauvin, Waters said: “I hope we’re going to get a verdict that will say guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don’t, we cannot go away.”On Sunday night the Republican minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, said: “Maxine Waters is inciting violence in Minneapolis – just as she has incited it in the past. If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi doesn’t act against this dangerous rhetoric, I will bring action this week.”Waters, 82, a confrontational figure sometimes known as “Kerosene Maxine”, made headlines last week by telling the Ohio congressman Jim Jordan to “respect the chair and shut your mouth” during a hearing with Anthony Fauci, the chief White House medical adviser.She regularly clashed with Donald Trump, angering some Democratic leaders. In 2018, Waters said people should harass Trump aides in public. Pelosi called the comments “unacceptable”. The Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, went for “not American”.Observers said McCarthy’s most likely course of action is to seek formal censure – a move unlikely to succeed unless enough Democrats support it.From the far right of McCarthy’s party, the Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor-Greene compared Waters’ words with those of Trump, when he told supporters to march on Congress and overturn his election defeat, resulting in the deadly Capitol riot of 6 January.“Speaker Pelosi,” she tweeted. “You impeached President Trump after you said he incited violence by saying ‘march peacefully’ to the Capitol. So I can expect a yes vote from you on my resolution to expel Maxine Waters for inciting violence, riots, and abusing power threatening a jury, right?”Trump did tell supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. He also said: “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.”In February, Greene lost committee assignments over conspiracy-laden remarks. At the weekend, she dropped plans to start an “America First Caucus” based on “Anglo-Saxon political traditions”.Some Democrats want to expel Greene from Congress. That too is unlikely to succeed. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Are US corporations really taking a stand for voting rights?

      by

      Despite a wave of public statements by corporations opposing legislation that would make it harder for people to vote, election reform advocates doubt American capitalism is really coming to the rescue of American democracy.Activists are welcoming corporate involvement in the fight against bills introduced by Republicans in state legislatures across the US to erect barriers to voting that disproportionately affect people of color and other groups that often vote Democratic.Hundreds of companies and business leaders lent their names this week to a two-page ad declaring “we must ensure the right to vote for all of us”, published in the country’s biggest papers.But past corporate interventions in social justice campaigns, including statements of solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters last summer, did not go far beyond words, activists say.The pursuit of lower taxes and lax regulations, meanwhile, has led corporations to continuously finance the Republican party’s most corrosive projects, from voter suppression to the takeover of the judiciary to the big election lie that led to the sacking of the Capitol in January, they say.“Of course we welcome corporate support against outrageous voter suppression efforts by GOP state legislatures that make it harder for voters, particularly from communities of color and other historically marginalized communities, to vote,” said Ben Jealous, president of People For the American Way.It does feel, on this one, that some of these companies are getting out ahead of a potential boycott from consumers“That reaction is no doubt driven by their fears of losing business from their customers in the midst of heated public anger over such aggressive and targeted voter suppression, and we hope they will put their money where their mouth is and take real action to stop such proposals.”Thenewspaper ad was organized by two African American business leaders – Kenneth Frazier, chief executive of Merck, and Kenneth Chenault, former head of American Express – who have said such bills are racially discriminatory, even as Republicans insist election security is their deepest concern.The corporate decision to speak out created a rare moment of discombobulation for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who warned chief executives to “stay out of politics” before clarifying a day later, with no hint of self-consciousness: “I’m not talking about political contributions.”But the surface friction between McConnell and his erstwhile patrons belies the mildness of most corporate criticism of anti-voter laws and obscures companies’ ambivalence when it comes to taking a stand on voting rights, activists said.Large Georgia-based companies including AT&T, Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola did not voice concerns last month about legislation to restrict voting in the state until they came under public pressure. Their eventual statements were measured.“We are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote,” said AT&T’s chief executive, John Stankey. “In this way, the right knowledge and expertise can be applied to make a difference on this fundamental and critical issue.”The same three companies declined to sign the ad published in the New York Times and Washington Post last week, referring media to their statements about Georgia, though similar high-profile clashes are playing out in Michigan, Arizona, Texas and elsewhere.Walmart declined to sign the ad, with its chief executive, Doug McMillon, who chairs the Business Roundtable, telling employees: “We are not in the business of partisan politics.”Walmart’s reticence was spotlighted by LaTosha Brown and Cliff Albright, co-founders of Black Voters Matter, in a statement that praised the newspaper ad as a “righteous decision to stand up to racism, disenfranchisement, and voter suppression” and criticized those who did not sign.“They – and all of these other companies – continue to issue misleading statements that create a false equivalency between securing elections and attacking voting rights,” Black Voters Matter said. “These corporations are pandering to a big lie that is being used to justify voter suppression. That’s partisan.”Michael Serazio, a professor of communications at Boston College, said corporations appeared to be taking a “proactive” approach on voting rights to protect their bottom lines.“It does feel, on this one, that some of these companies are getting out ahead of a potential boycott from consumers, before the boycott around the laws was going to kick off,” Serazio said.Corporations increasingly feel pressure from consumers and in some cases employees on social and political issues, Serazio said.“Without question, the broader trend over the last decade has been corporations responding to a perceived or real sense that consumers want them to take a stand on political issues that they wouldn’t have done before.”But corporations simultaneously shovel money into the coffers of the very politicians who engineer the policies the companies claim to detest.A report this month by Public Citizen, a government watchdog, found corporations had given more than $50m in campaign donations in recent years to legislators who advanced anti-voter laws and promoted Donald Trump’s big election lie.Josh Silver, director of Represent.us, a non-partisan elections reform group, said corporations have “an extraordinarily important role” to play in the struggle over voting rights and there was “cause for hope”.“But it’s also practical for them,” Silver said. “They have to choose whether to side with an increasingly authoritarian [Republican party], or the majority of their workers and their consumers.“This is not just altruism.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Officer who shot Daunte Wright charged with manslaughter | First Thing

      by

      Good morning.The police officer who shot a 20-year-old black man dead during a traffic stop was charged with manslaughter yesterday, officials said, after days of unrest. Police said that Kimberly Potter, 48, meant to fire her stun gun at Daunte Wright during a traffic stop in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center, but accidentally shot her handgun. Potter, who is white, has since resigned, as has her police chief.
      What sentence could she face? She has been charged with second-degree manslaughter, and a conviction carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. She was reportedly released from jail after posting bail.
      Who was Daunte Wright? Wright has been described as a doting father to his one-year-old son, with the “most beautiful smile”. Learn more about the individual behind the headlines.
      The killing triggered days of protests, with demonstrators in Brooklyn Centre alleging there had been a history of racial profiling by the local police. It comes amid existing tensions in Minneapolis during the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, over the death of George Floyd.
      A leading pathologist said Floyd was killed by his heart condition and drug use as he testified at Chauvin’s trial yesterday. Dr David Fowler, testifying for the defence, also suggested fumes from vehicle exhausts may have played a part in his death.
      Opinion: the trial won’t change US policing, writes Simon Balto, an assistant professor of African American history at the University of Iowa. He argues that while the trial is of “enormous importance” it would be a mistake to think that it alone could turn the tide.
      Biden is ending ‘the US’s longest war’Joe Biden yesterday announced that it was time “to end America’s longest war”, as he confirmed that all remaining US troops in Afghanistan would return home in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of 9/11.The president said that 2,500 US troops and 7,000 from Nato allies would begin leaving on 1 May. Minutes later, all Nato members released a joint statement confirming they would undertake an “orderly, coordinated and deliberate” removal of troops in tandem.
      We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result,” Biden said, in a late afternoon speech at the White House.
      Democrats are trying to add more justices to the supreme courtDemocrats have unveiled a plan to add four justices to the US supreme court, taking the total number from nine to 13. The new bill will be presented by the senator Ed Markey and representatives Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson and Mondaire Jones at a news conference later today.
      What do progressives think? Progressives have long been pushing to expand the court after Trump’s three appointees tipped it firmly to the right, especially as the court is due to tackle issues of voting rights, reproductive rights and the environment.
      What do conservatives think? The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the idea of expanding the court was “a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary”. Given conservatives’ control of the supreme court, they are likely to oppose any expansion.
      Biden has not adopted a clear stance on supreme court expansion, but in the past has said he is “not a fan” of the idea. However, last week, he created a bipartisan commission to look at the history of the court and the possible impact of changing its size. As for this bill, it is so politically inflammatory that it is unlikely to be approved.
      Lawmakers are also advancing a bill to create a slavery reparations commission to examine slavery and discrimination since 1619 and recommend remedies. After impassioned debate, the House judiciary committee voted by 25-17 to advance the bill last night; the first time it has acted on the legislation. It will now be considered by the House and Senate, but seems unlikely to go further given Congress is so closely divided.
      The White House is to expel Russian diplomats for US cyber-attacksThe White House is expected to announce sanctions against Russia as early as today for interfering in US elections, alleged bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan and masterminding cyber-attacks.
      What will the sanctions entail? About 10 Russian diplomats are expected to be expelled, and 30 entities are likely to be blacklisted. The White House may also ban US financial institutions from buying rouble bonds issued by Russia’s government.
      In other news …
      Capitol police were woefully unprepared for the 6 January insurrection, an internal report has found. The report described poor training and intelligence, riot shields that shattered on impact, and weapons that had expired. It comes in advance of a congressional hearing later today.
      The Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine will be in limbo for longer after US health advisers told the White House they needed more evidence to decide if the vaccine could be linked to blood clotting, and how big the risk of administering the shot was.
      All US cars and trucks could be electric by 2035, amid rapid developments in technology and the cost of electric vehicle batteries, new research has found. At present, just 2% of all cars sold in the US are electric.
      Stat of the day: only 3% of the world’s ecosystems are intact, a study has suggestedJust 3% of the world’s land is ecologically intact – meaning it has a healthy population of all its original animals and an undisturbed habitat – a study has found. The rare spots that are undamaged by humans are predominantly in areas such as the Amazon and Congo tropical forests. Previous studies had suggested about 20 to 40% of land was intact.Don’t miss this: the equal rights amendment still faces an uphill battleThe fight to get the equal rights amendment enshrined into law has been going on for almost a century, and appears close an eventual victory. But with legal difficulties and a persistent lack of urgency from lawmakers, the amendment is not over the line yet.Last Thing: magic mushrooms could be just as effective as antidepressantsMagic mushrooms could be as effective as antidepressants for treating moderate to severe depressive disorders, according to a new study. One co-author of the study said the “results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression”.Sign upSign up for the US morning briefingFirst Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If youare not already signed up, subscribe now. More

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Georgia is updating Jim Crow. Now, he’s Dr James Crow | David Daley and Rev Jesse Jackson

      by

      Georgia has a long history of racial inequity at the ballot box. Voters wait an average of just six minutes in line after 7pm in precincts where 90% of residents are white. But when 90% of voters are Black? The wait soars to 51 minutes.Between 2012 and 2018, Georgia shuttered 8% of all precincts statewide, and moved 40% of them. According to a study by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the combination of fewer precincts and longer commutes could have kept as many as 85,000 people from casting a ballot in 2018. This disproportionately burdened Black voters, who were 20% less likely to make it to the polls as a result.Now Georgia’s GOP legislature has enacted another 92 pages of voting restrictions and regulations that will make voting much more complicated and burdensome. It’s harder to register to vote. It’s more difficult to get a ballot. And it will be tougher to cast it.The new law cuts the amount of time that voters have to request an absentee ballot in half. It adds additional new voter ID provisions for requesting and casting an absentee ballot; studies show that voters of color are much more likely than white voters to have their ballots disqualified for missing that step.It limits four of the state’s most populous, and predominantly Black counties, to just 23 drop boxes – down from 94 during the 2020 election – and makes them available only during government office hours, rather than around the clock. Mobile voting centers have been banned. Early voting hours have been sharply curtailed.The right to vote is the foundation of every right we hold as a citizen. It should be simple for everyone to make their voice heard. That should be the goal of every election. We should be able to register easily, request a ballot without unnecessary complications, and cast that ballot without waiting in long lines or driving long distances. When you limit the ways in which people can vote, you are limiting the number of people who can vote. All of this is common sense. None of it should even be controversial.The supporters of these provisions suggest that they are necessary because of widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election – a baseless assertion for which they are unable to provide any evidence. Or they suggest that they’re needed to restore faith, especially among Republicans, in the legitimacy of our elections. This is especially convoluted, since nothing has done more to damage that sense than month after month of these unfounded “fraud” allegations. It’s also hard to accept these arguments in good faith, since these new voting laws arrive so quickly after an election many of these same lawmakers refuse to admit they lost.Yet in recent days, as Republicans race to enact similar new restrictions in Texas, Arizona, Florida and elsewhere, many conservative lawmakers have suggested that these tough laws they are so hurriedly passing won’t actually affect turnout at all. Some in the media have shrugged as well, and in a particularly egregious “both sides” framing, have criticized President Biden for being too hyperbolic in calling the Georgia law “Jim Crow on steroids”. The New York Times pointed to political science research that purports little connection between turnout and convenience, and suggests that the partisan impact of easier mail-in voting is negligible. Those who really want to vote will find a way, some suggest. Others argue that expanded absentee voting makes no real difference, and may have provided Democrats with as little as a 0.2 percentage-point increase in turnout last November.These arguments fail to understand how voter suppression works, and how it has been used to hold back the Black vote, especially across the south, for decades.Those who want to keep people from voting can’t rely on fire hoses or crude Jim Crow tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests any longer. They need to modernize Jim Crow, so that he becomes Dr James Crow, a specialist in statistics, expert at layering traps for Black voters while pretending they’re race neutral. Then they raise the barriers for Black voters and other communities of color by demanding the particular forms of ID lawmakers know they’re least likely to have, or assign more voters and fewer machines to some precincts, generating lines just a little bit longer, perhaps carefully positioning other voting centers a few miles away, maybe just too far for convenient public transportation. The intent and the effect are the same: creating restrictions that keep Black voters away from the polls.This is voter suppression by skimming: discourage some people from voting with longer lines. Knock others off the lists through a roll purge, often after incorrectly determining that voters had moved, and force them to cast a provisional ballot. Pass an ID requirement, then close the department of motor vehicles offices in Black counties. Make it more difficult for others to get an absentee ballot. Standardize the early voting hours from 9am to 5pm, rather than 7am to 7pm, to make it that much harder for working people. Make fewer drop boxes available, and limit those hours to the workday as well.Pretty soon all of that adds up. And in Georgia, it doesn’t need to add up to that much to make a major impact.56 years after Selma, we are still debating whether some citizens in a democracy are second-classAfter all, 0.2% in Georgia isn’t statistical noise at all. President Biden defeated Donald Trump in Georgia last November by fewer than 12,000 votes. He earned 49.5% of the vote. Trump captured 49.3. The difference? That’s right: 0.2%.The then incumbent senator David Perdue fell just 13,470 votes short of the 50% needed to avoid a runoff with Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff – a race Perdue would lose nine weeks later, handing Democrats control of the US Senate. The difference between a runoff or a Perdue victory? That’s right: 0.27%.In 2018, Governor Brian Kemp defeated Stacey Abrams by fewer than 55,000 votes. That’s within the range that the Journal-Constitution study suggested could have been dissuaded by longer commutes to the polls. Kemp’s office – he made the rules for his own race as the state’s then – secretary of state – also reportedly stalled 53,000 voter registration applications ahead of the election; 80% of those belonged to Blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, according to the Associated Press.Then, when activists like Abrams’s Fair Fight and Black Voters Matter redouble their efforts to overcome suppression by working even harder to register and turn out voters, academics and New York Times analysts reach the clueless conclusion that these restrictive efforts don’t really matter, or that they could inspire a backlash that raises Black turnout. Stop, please. Sometimes a runner lugging an extra 10-pound weight might finish ahead of a competitor carrying none at all. That hardly makes the race fair, or the extra burden negligible. It means they had to work harder for the same opportunity.Just as importantly: voting rights aren’t about partisan outcomes. They’re about fairness and equality for all.We all deserve the same access to the polls. No matter what hours we work. No matter where we live, or whether our ID is up to date from a recent move. No matter if we want to vote by mail or in-person. Yet almost 56 years after Selma, after the Voting Rights Act, we are still debating whether some citizens in a democracy are second-class. On the simplest of questions, in much of America, we still have so very far to go.
      The Rev Jesse L Jackson Sr is the founder and president of the Rainbow Push Coalition
      David Daley is the author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count and Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy More