A+ R A-

Julianne Malveaux

The Conspiracy to Steal the 2012 Election

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) Attorney Barbara Arnwine, leader of the D.C. based Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, is on a mission. She wants to make sure that every citizen has the right to vote. On its face, it seems like a retro mission, since the right to vote has long been established. But one look at her Map of Shame, a map she shared at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s 40th Anniversary and annual conference, and the mission becomes quite urgent.

States are passing laws that require people to have a government issued photo ID in order to vote. Arnwine’s Map of Shame shows 8 states – Kansas, Texas, Wisconsin, Indiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina --that require a government-issued photo ID for voting. Several other require proof of citizenship, which may mean the birth certificate President Obama was challenged with producing. Sounds suspiciously close to a passbook to me. Often when these laws are enforced, the government issued photo ID must include a “current” address, which poses barriers to those who have moved. Americans have a mobility rate of 14 percent, and African Americans have a mobility rate of 18 percent. In the middle of a move, many do not return to the Department of Motor Vehicles to change the address on their driver’s license.

Government-issued photo ID does not include a Social Security card, but is usually restricted to a driver’s license or a passport. Eleven percent of all Americans, and 25 percent of African Americans, does not have driver’s licenses. In Georgia, 36 percent of those over 75 do not have a driver’s license. What about passports? The process of obtaining a passport often takes weeks, and costs upwards of $100. Requiring a government-issued photo ID may be a burden for some Americans. Yet that is precisely the intent that legislators that are assaulting voting rights have. When elections are close, it is in their interest to exclude young people, seniors, and African Americans. These voter ID laws do exactly that. Additionally, in some high unemployment states, those who owe child support cannot get a driver’s license. Talk about a double whammy. You may need a car to get to work or look for work to pay child support, but without a car you can’t look for work or get to work.

The Map of Shame shows that more than 20 states are considering the repressive laws that have been passed in the eight states that have frontally attacked voting rights, along with the two, Ohio and Florida that require proof of citizenship. Is it any coincidence that these are “swing states”? How much does this have to do with the upcoming 2012 election, where the stakes are high and the Tea Party seems determined to push our country backwards?

This attack on voting surely has nothing to do with real voter fraud. A five-year investigation by the Bush Department of Justice showed a scant 86 voter fraud conviction, and most of these cases could not have been prevented by voter ID laws. Another study showed that only 24 people were convicted of or pled guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005. Again, photo ID laws would not have prevented this fraud. Instead of attempting to suppress the vote, we ought to be encouraging it – we have one of the lowest levels of voter participation in the world.

In the middle of an economic crisis, legislators are passing laws that it will cost millions of dollars to implement. Is this the price of democracy, of voting integrity? Hardly. It is the price of chicanery. It is officially sanctioned voter suppression that, when combined with informal intimidating tactics already keep millions from the polls. For example, in Georgia, at the cusp of an election, those who owed child support were sent letters warning them that their status might be checked at the polls. In an urban center, during an anticipated close election, voters in some precincts were called and told the election had been decided (it had not been) and they did not need to vote. Furthermore, efforts that have been made in the past to expand the electorate are now being eliminated. In some states, early voting and Sunday voting has been eliminated; in others, churches and community centers can no longer register voters. Civic organizations that once registered voters now will not because laws have been passed that make it difficult to comply with laws (such as registrations must be turned in within 24 or 48 hours), and that impose harsh penalties for noncompliance.

Some states are eliminating precinct voting. When you voted in your precinct you could walk down the street or around the block to vote. With “regional voting centers” several precincts are combined and it may be necessary to take public transportation, if there is such a thing in your area, to get to a polling place. If there is such a thing. Repressive states are refusing federal funds for public transportation because they have absolutely no interest in a mobile African American population.

The bottom line – many are planning to make voting harder in 2012 than it was in 2008. They are planning to steal the 2012 election, and activist lawyers like Barbara Arnwine are passionately fighting back. Check out the Map of Shame at www.lawyerscommittee.org.

Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Debilitating Diversions

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) What do Congressional representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-FL), and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have in common? Each of them has taken time to comment on the predicament of New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, but none of them has mentioned the fact that the average unemployed person has now (as of May) been out of work for a whopping 40 weeks. Somehow, our Democratic leaders have allowed themselves to get caught up in the minutiae of the misadventures of their clearly disturbed colleague, without referencing the economic disturbances that too many Americans are living through. Should they have said nothing and risk the ire of Republicans? Probably not. But I’d have liked to hear Congressional leaders say that Mr. Weiner’s problems are simply not the nation’s most pressing problems. As Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) mentioned, Weiner’s actions, however reprehensible, are not law breaking. But there ought to be a law against fiddling while Rome burns, running our economy to the ground and doing absolutely nothing about it.

President Obama is being blamed for this economy, and he is in the position of attempting to fight a war without any weapons. With stimulus, he could do more job creation, but with a debt ceiling looming (and no action taken on that) there is no money for job creation. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke has little to offer – the federal funds rate is so low that he can’t dare lower it again, and the Quantitative Easing (QE2) program designed to pump $600 billion in the economy is coming to a close with $50 billion of Treasury Bills being purchased this month. All President Obama and Chairman Bernanke are left with are the bully pulpit, the microphone, and the power to urge the private sector to get involved in job creation. There are no more policy tools to stimulate job creation, yet this is our nation’s most pressing problem. If Democrats don’t watch out, the whole lot of them will be turned out from Congress a year or so from now. Yet leaders have been caught up in debilitating distractions instead of essential urgencies.

Dr. Ron Daniels, of the institute of the Black World, has referenced “non urgent emergencies.” His comments quite clearly capture the national condition. We are in economic crisis, but paralyzed by partisanship, unable to deal with it. Instead, we are caught up in the minutiae that emerge from the 24-hour news cycle and by our own prurient curiosity about other people’s business.

It is tempting to blame the debilitating distractions on the media, but the fact is that “the media” is as capitalistically driven as every other institution in our nation. If we didn’t watch garbage, they would not broadcast garbage. If we collectively said that we are not interested in those members of Congress who behave badly personally, focusing more importantly on those who behave badly professionally, the media would let it go. Congressman Weiner ought to be the fodder of the late night talks that feature comedians like Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien, not serious conversations on programs like Meet the Press.

I am far more disturbed about the state of our economy than I am about these men behaving badly. After all, don’t we get at least one every season? And don’t we spend millions of dollars (see John Edwards) attempting to indict those with poor judgment, instead of using those millions, perhaps, to generate some jobs. What if we put all of the debilitating distractions on “never mind”? What if we failed to be titillated by grown folks acting like adolescents, and instead got agitated by the economic challenges so many of our fellow Americans face.

If you have a job, can you imagine being unemployed for 40 weeks? Forty weeks is almost 10 months; about the same amount of time it takes for someone to gestate a baby. Most people don’t have enough savings to take them through 40 weeks of unemployment, so how do they survive? Suppose these were the stories that led the news, not this Weiner thing. Come on, people! Can’t we get our priorities straight? If we made the economy a populist issue, our Congress would feel more motivated to deal with it.

I am not suggesting any abdication of morality, but I am suggesting that there is a morality that says we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, employ the jobless, house the homeless. This is the essential morality, the Biblical morality that says we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. That means we must look at those who are economically disadvantaged with more scrutiny than we choose to look at those who are woefully and publicly morally flawed.

Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Work is a Necessity

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) I consider myself something of a wordsmith, so I am always amazed in the work of others, especially when they are government bureaucrats. The most recent unemployment figures, which show the unemployment rate rising, and the pace of job creation slowing, are interesting and incisive. The Employment Situation says that the unemployment rate is “essentially unchanged” as it has moved from 9 to 9.1 percent. In April more than 200,000 jobs were created; in May it was a scant 54,000. Still, the situation was “essentially unchanged”. Give me a break. That means someone is fudging and smudging the fact that our economy is sputtering.

This could well be expected given the fact that most cities and states are now grappling with ways to balance their budgets, and that includes layoffs of government workers. Furthermore, we can expect a sputtering economy given the drama that is taking place in Washington around increasing the debt limit. The Tea Party folks, if they had their way, would fully dismantle government, throwing hundreds of thousands of workers into the streets. Rising unemployment? That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Yet in a society where most people work for a living, public policy must embrace work as a necessity. We have to ensure that any able bodied person who wants to be gainfully engaged in the capitalistic system has an opportunity to do so. That means that work has to work that people have to work, that people have to have the opportunity to work, that government must promote the creation of work, and that when necessary government subsidize the development of working opportunities.

Instead, we have seen a recession and a so-called recovery that has not embraced the centrality of work in our society. Too many people are living at the periphery of the economic mainstream. Those people were told, when the May unemployment rates were released, that their misery is none of the government’s concern. Yet they are homeowners and taxpayers, parents and producers, people who didn’t plan for their factory to close or for the demand for their products to simply dry up. Economic recovery is a bitter pill for some to swallow when their lives have not recovered from the drama also known as a massive shift in the ways that Americans deal with work and economic integrity.

It seems that we have all sipped on the Kool-Aid that deifies the rich. They must have it going on, and why don’t we? Why can’t we spur a populist economic movement that says something else, instead? Why can’t we embrace Dr. Martin Luther King’s message when he said “I have the audacity to believe that people everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, peace and freedom for their spirits." In other words, how come we can’t decide that everyone can eat and be educated? How come we can’t make eating and educating a cultural imperative?

To put some meat on the official numbers we should note that nearly 14 million people are officially unemployed, with 6.5 million (45 percent) of them being unemployed for more than half a year. These are just the official numbers. The unofficial numbers make these look miniscule. This is not a double the flavor, double the fun situation. It’s called double the pain.

What do we do with all this pain? How do we begin to respond to our fellow citizens? The future of our nation hinges on our ability to engage more people in the business and the work of this economy. We engage people by involving them, educating them, empowering them. Yet, we are cutting education funds because we can’t raise the debt ceiling, because we are broke.

At the end of the day, here is what we need to know. When work doesn’t’ work, life doesn’t work for too many Americans. When work doesn’t work, too many people are kicked to the curb, told they are usefulness and left to their own devices. In an entrepreneurial culture that can be a good thing. If we encourage entrepreneurship, people can invent, and promote their ideas. But when there are no open arms for those who have been sidelined, they are likely to engage in actives that can be interpreted as less than wholesome. Too many people speak of the centrality of work without understanding how to make work happen. The most recent unemployment rates remind us that too many of our friends and neighbors have been placed outside the economic mainstream. What must we do to make it better, especially when this is a burden that falls heavy on the African American community?

Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Show Me Your Passbook

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) I am glad that President Barack Obama has a sense of humor about the birthers. I don’t, and I am disgusted that Donald Trump, lacking in both sense and scruples, was able to push the President to releasing his “long form” birth certificate. Now that the birth certificate has been released, perhaps, we can get back to some of the business of government, except for the fact that those who want to embrace their racism and believe that President Obama was not born here, did not star at Harvard (despite his position on the competitive Law Review), did not “deserve” his election (which did not depend on hanging chads”), will continue to promulgate their nonsense.

Meanwhile, President Obama was maneuvered into analogously showing his passbook, the very same passbook that Black South Africans had to show before the end of apartheid to prove their citizenship. They could be forced to show the passbook at any time, by any White person who questioned their right to be somewhere. While I never quite saw Mr. Trump as one of the arrogant Afrikaners who perpetrated the apartheid system, his use of birther logic was similar to the logic that White South Africans used to maintain their supremacy.

The birther demands remind me of the grandfather clauses of the post-Civil War era, when people of African descent were only allowed to vote if their grandfathers could. Since most of our grandfathers were enslaved and lacked birth certificates, the grandfather clauses were an effective way to limit, if not completely exclude, the Black vote. The Trump cry to “show me your birth certificate” is reminiscent of the grandfather clauses that impeded equal rights.

The birthers who wanted to see President Obama’s passbook are not only challenging his legitimacy, but the legitimacy of many of African descent who live in these United States and have achieved positions of power and influence. In their minds, African Americans are not “real” Americans, those who have immigrated here are not “real” Americans, and (gasp!) those of different religions are not “real” Americans. Thanks, President Obama, for skewering them with humor and with a bit of an edge. Masterful, to suggest that Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is Canadian. But, Canadians are White, and they’d never be asked, as Latinos often are in Arizona, to show their passbooks. They can pass.

If the birthers want to see the passports of those who have come to this country from the African continent, they might try looking at the footprints of our nation’s capital, the same capital that enslaved people built, the capital from which they spew their distortions. If birthers want to see passports, they might want to go to the Underground Railroad Museum to look at the chains slaveholders used to contain others. In showing the chains, we show the passports.

These birthers have a lot of nerve. They attack immigration, but they, too, are the descendants of immigrants. Just because they rode on the top of the boat (not in the hold, as cargo), does not mean they can claim superiority to those who have become immigrants just because they changed borders (remember, Texas and Arizona used to be Mexico). In demanding that President Obama show his birth certificate/his passbook, they are challenging the roots of our nation’s already flawed immigrant history.

President Obama is a better American than I am. He put Trump and his birthers in their place with an incisive and biting humor while I have been hammering them with a silent rage. That Mr. Trump could not manage to crack a smile speaks volumes for his nature, and that he would take credit for pushing the President into releasing his birth certificate shouts out his shallowness.

Now, that passbooks have been shown, it is time to get back to the salt mines. Debt ceiling, anyone? Budget cuts? Back in the day Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Today, candidate Trump talks trash and incites invective while the real issues around the future of our nation are neglected. Now that the long form birth certificate has trumped Trump, are there legislators who will deal with education, employment, health care, and human services?

Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina. Her most recent book is Surviving and Thriving: 365 Days in Black Economic History (www.lastwordprod.com).

Women in Prison: What About the Children?

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) There are more than 200,000 women who are currently incarcerated, 115,000 in federal or state prisons and 99,000 in local jails. Nearly one million women are on probation – representing 26 percent of those on probation and 98,000 are on parole. Women’s incarceration has grown by more than 800 percent in the last three decades, while men’s incarceration has not grown as rapidly. African American women’s incarceration has grown more quickly than the incarceration of other women, at 838 percent.

Why do women collide with the criminal justice system? Twenty-eight percent are there because of drug-related offenses, often associative offenses (they were in the car with the drugs, but they weren’t theirs); an equal number are in jail for property crimes – stealing, shoplifting, kiting checks, all crimes that are crimes of poverty. If these women were rehabilitated and given good jobs instead of incarcerated, we might save both money and lives.

Between 66 and 80 percent of the women who are incarcerated are mothers. Most of them provided primary care to their children before they were locked up. Many of the children whose mothers are incarcerated are in foster care, although some remain with relatives. Some are allowed to visit their mothers in jail, but what kind of maternal bonding experience is that? The children of the incarcerated are likely to be incarcerated themselves a generation later. In some ways they serve time for their mama’s crimes. Why, in some of these cases, is rehabilitation not an option?

White women are the majority of those incarcerated, at 45 percent. African American women, just 13 percent of the population, are 33 percent of those incarcerated. Latina women are 16 percent of those incarcerated. This is not a “Black thing” though Black women are so disproportionately incarcerated that it is striking. Why? Perhaps because the criminal justice system is a system that is mostly White male, and there is little sympathy for women of African descent.

The well-documented reality of prosecutorial discretion cuts a break for some women, but not for Black women. Police officers, prosecutors, parole officers, and judges are disproportionately White male. They bring all their biases about Black women to the table when they arrest, charge, and sentence Black women. Why else would an Ohio court (thank you Boyce Watkins for lifting this case up) sentence Kelley Williams Bolar to days in jail because she sent her children to the “wrong” school, using her dad’s address to allow them access to a better education? Had Williams Bolar been a White woman, she would be a poster child for the school choice movement. Instead, this sister will not be able to pursue her dream to teach (as she completes her education), if she is convicted of the crime she is accused of. How dare Connecticut prosecutors go after Tonya McDowell for grand larceny because she used a friend’s address to send her child to school? Homeless, what was she supposed to do? Keep her child out of school and support ignorance? Again, a White woman might be described as enterprising for taking these steps. A Black woman is incarcerated.

What about the children? What happens when a child sees her mother fighting for her rights only to end up in prison? What kind of bitterness and anger does this engender? What does it mean for the next generation? When mothers choose to fight for their children they should be affirmed, not jailed, for their tenacity. When we choose to recklessly disregard the power of mother advocacy and motherlove, the result is a multi-generational cycle of societal indifference.

Michigan State University’s African American Studies Department produces a biennial race conference, and this year’s theme was Race and the Criminal Justice System. In preparing my closing keynote on the Economic Impact of Women in the Criminal Justice System, I had the opportunity to revisit some of my old work, and to think about the many complex ways that gender collides with a “just-us” system that is replete with bias. I am grateful to colleague Curtis Stokes for the opportunity to review this issue once again, but I am mostly chagrined that things have gotten worse, not better, for women who connect with the criminal justice system.

The United States incarcerates more people than any other country – about 753 people per 100,000 in 2008. The next highest countries are Poland, at 224 per 100,000, and Mexico at 209 per 100,000. Ten percent of those we incarcerate are women, and too many of them have children. Can we do better? If we prioritized rehabilitation over incarceration we could. And if we can’t, we will have hell to pay next generation.

Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women and author of Surviving and Thriving: 365 Facts in Black Economic History (www.lastwordprod.com).

Page 24 of 29

BVN National News Wire