Black Attorney to Fight Confederate-Themed Flag in US Supreme Court

By the Associated Press,

JACKSON, Miss (AP) — A Black Mississippi citizen is taking his case  against the state’s Confederate-themed flag  to the U. S. Supreme Court….

A Mississippi state flag is unfurled by Sons of Confederate Veterans and other groups on the grounds of the state Capitol in Jackson , Mississippi. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)

Attorneys for Carlos Moore said lower courts were wrong to reject  his argument that the flag is a symbol of white supremacy that harms him and his young  daughter by violating the Constitution’s guarantee  of equal protection to all citizens….

That under the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against Moore, “a city  could adopt ‘White Supremacy Forever’ as its official motto; or a county could incorporate an image of white hooded figures and a noose hanging from a tree into its county seal; or a state could incorporate  a Nazi swastika, as an endorsement of Aryan/white supremacy, in its state flag .”

Mississippi’s is the last state flag to feature the Confederate battle emblem. Critics say the symbol is racist. Supporters say it represents history .

Mississippi has used the flag  since 1894….

However, several cities and towns and all eight of the state’s public universities have stopped flying the flag amid concerns that it is offensive  in a state where 38 percent of the population is Black. Many took action  after the June 2015 massacre of nine Black worshippers at a church in Charleston, S.C., by an avowed white supremacist who posed with the Confederate battle  flag  in photos posted online…

The lawsuit Moore filed in February 2016 says the Mississippi flag  is “state-sanctioned hate speech,” and seeks to have  it declared an unconstitutional relic of slavery.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves dismissed it in September without ruling on the merits, saying Moore lacked legal standing to sue because he failed to show the emblem caused an identifiable legal  injury.

But despite ruling against Moore, Reeves devoted nine pages of his decision  to historical context, noting the racial terror intended to maintain  segregation and white supremacy in the Deep South in the years leading up to Mississippi’s adoption of the flag  with the Confederate emblem….

Moore, himself an attorney, is now asking the Supreme Court to send the case back to Reeves’ federal courtroom for a full trial on the merits of his arguments. Ultimately, Moore wants the Confederate symbol removed from the flag.

“While acknowledging that the Establishment Clause prohibits a state  from expressing the view  that one religion  is superior to, or preferred over, others, the court  of appeals reached the remarkable  and unwarranted  conclusion  that the Equal Protection Clause does not similarly prohibit a state from expressing the view  that one race is superior to, or preferred over, another, ” wrote Michael Scott and Kristen Ashe, who represents Moore..

It will be  October, at the earliest, before the Supreme Court will say  whether it will take the case….

Republican Gov. Phil Bryant has said if the flag design is to be reconsidered, it should be done in another statewide election. Legislators filed several bills in 2016 and this year, to either change  the flag or financially punish  universities that refuse to fly it. All failed because leaders said they couldn’t reach  consensus.

Read more Breaking News here.

Read the full article here.

After Changing the Rules of Engagement, Senate Republicans Vote Neil Gorsuch Onto the U.S. Supreme Court

From: Colorlines

By: Deepa Iyer

In the article “After Changing the Rules of Engagement, Senate Republicans Vote Neil Gorsuch Onto the U.S. Supreme Court,” contributing writer Deepa Iyer talks about the reaction of racial justice, women’s rights, and LGBTQ organizations to the confirmation of the 113th justice, Neil Gorsuch.

She writes:

“Democrats filibustered the nomination yesterday, denying Gorsuch supporters the 60 votes they needed to move to a final vote. In a move observers and individual lawmakers have characterized as the death knell of any possible bipartisanship in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) changed the body’s rules of Supreme Court nominations, using what is called the “nuclear option.””

WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 20: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) (back to camera) swears in Judge Neil Gorsuch during the first day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill March 20, 2017 in Washington, DC. Gorsuch was nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy left on the court by the February 2016 death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

She continues:

“Civil society organizations have consistently opposed Gorsuch’s nomination for his conservative viewpoints on reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, and criminal justice.”

Read More About Past Supreme Court Decisions That Changed History here. 

Visit our Breaking News Page here. 



This Day in History: Richard and Mildred Loving Plead Guilty to the Crime of Interracial Marriage

Photograph of Mildred Loving and Richard Loving dated June 12, 1967

By the Equal Justice Initiative

After marrying in Washington, D.C., in 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving returned to their native Caroline County, Virginia, to build a home and start a family. Their union was a criminal act in Virginia because Richard was white, Mildred was black, and the state’s Racial Integrity Act, passed in 1924, criminalized interracial marriage.

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to both charges. After their conviction and release, the Lovings fought the law that had branded their love a crime and, on June 12, 1967, won a United States Supreme Court decision that would change the nation.

Read more here

Read about the film adaption of their life here 

Read more Breaking News here

Efforts by Counties and Towns to Purge Minority Voters From Rolls

SPARTA, Ga. — When the deputy sheriff’s patrol cruiser pulled up beside him as he walked down Broad Street at sunset last August, Martee Flournoy, a 32-year-old black man, was both confused and rattled. He had reason: In this corner of rural Georgia, African-Americans are arrested at a rate far higher than that of whites.

 Downtown Sparta, about 100 miles southeast of Atlanta. The Board of Elections and Registration that oversees Sparta systematically questioned the registrations of more than 180 of its black citizens. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

Downtown Sparta, about 100 miles southeast of Atlanta. The Board of Elections and Registration that oversees Sparta systematically questioned the registrations of more than 180 of its black citizens. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

But the deputy had not come to arrest Mr. Flournoy. Rather, he had come to challenge Mr. Flournoy’s right to vote.

The majority-white Hancock County Board of Elections and Registration was systematically questioning the registrations of more than 180 black Sparta citizens — a fifth of the city’s registered voters — by dispatching deputies with summonses commanding them to appear in person to prove their residence or lose their voting rights. “When I read that letter, I was kind of nervous,” Mr. Flournoy said in an interview. “I didn’t know what to do.”

The board’s aim, a lawsuit later claimed, was to give an edge to white candidates in Sparta’s municipal elections — and that November, a white mayoral candidate won a narrow victory.

 Marion Warren, a Sparta elections official who documented the purges and raised an alarm with voting-rights advocates. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

Marion Warren, a Sparta elections official who documented the purges and raised an alarm with voting-rights advocates. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

“A lot of those people that was challenged probably didn’t vote, even though they weren’t proven to be wrong,” said Marion Warren, a Sparta elections official who documented the purges and raised an alarm with voting-rights advocates. “People just do not understand why a sheriff is coming to their house to bring them a subpoena, especially if they haven’t committed any crime.”

The county attorney, Barry A. Fleming, a Republican state representative, said in an interview that the elections board was only trying to restore order to an electoral process tainted earlier by corruption and incompetence. The lawsuit is overblown, he suggested, because only a fraction of the targeted voters were ultimately scratched from the rolls.

“The allegations that people were denied the right to vote are the opposite of the truth,” he said. “This is probably more about politics and power than race.”

But the purge of Sparta voters is precisely the sort of electoral maneuver that once would have needed Justice Department approval before it could be put in effect. In Georgia and all or part of 14 other states, the 1965 Voting Rights Act required jurisdictions with histories of voter discrimination to receive so-called preclearance before changing the way voter registration and elections were conducted.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court declared the preclearance mandate unconstitutional, saying the blatant discrimination it was meant to prevent was largely a thing of the past.

But since the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling in the voting-rights case, Shelby County v. Holder, critics argue, the blatant efforts to keep minorities from voting have been supplanted by a blizzard of more subtle changes. Most conspicuous have been state efforts like voter ID laws or cutbacks in early voting periods, which critics say disproportionately affect minorities and the poor. Less apparent, but often just as contentious, have been numerous voting changes enacted in counties and towns across the South and elsewhere around the country.

 Martee Flournoy, 32, was one of many black Sparta, Ga., residents whose voter registration was challenged last year. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

Martee Flournoy, 32, was one of many black Sparta, Ga., residents whose voter registration was challenged last year. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

They appear as Republican legislatures and election officials in the South and elsewhere have imposed statewide restrictions on voting that could depress turnout by minorities and other Democrat-leaning groups in a crucial presidential election year. Georgia and North Carolina, two states whose campaigns against so-called voter fraud have been cast by critics as aimed at black voters, could both be contested states in autumn’s presidential election.

Kristen Clarke, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a leading voting-rights advocacy group, said that before the Supreme Court’s Shelby County ruling, discriminatory laws and procedures had been blocked by the preclearance provisions.

Now, she said, “We’re seeing widespread proliferation of these laws. And we are left only with the ability to mount slow, costly case-by-case challenges” to their legality….

The local voting changes have often gone unnoticed and unchallenged. A June survey by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund found that governments in six former preclearance states have closed registration or polling places, making it harder for minorities to vote. Local jurisdictions in six more redrew districts or changed election rules in ways that diluted minorities’ votes…..

vote-suppression12But perhaps none of the battles is more striking than the one in Hancock County, about 100 miles southeast of Atlanta, where three in four of the roughly 10,000 residents are black. The racial divide here is deep and prolonged; the white mayor of the county seat, Sparta, made headlines in 1970 after responding to black citizens’ school-desegregation protests by equipping the town’s six-member police force with submachine guns.

By the 1990s, the Justice Department had invoked its preclearance authority to block measures that it said would weaken minority representation on the Sparta City Council, but political control of the county was frequently split. By last year, black politicians ran Sparta, a white majority controlled the Hancock County commission, and a furious contest was underway between black and white slates to control the next Sparta administration.

The five-member Hancock County Board of Elections and Registration was controlled by three white members — the chairwoman, appointed by a local judge, and two members appointed by the Hancock County Republican Committee — one of whom, curiously, is a Democrat. According to documents filed in a federal lawsuit in nearby Macon, the board began taking steps last August that seemed destined to tilt the playing field to the white slate’s advantage.

This Nigger Voted

During Jim Crow, blacks who voted – or tried to vote – were likely to be intimidated, beaten, or worse.

The board first proposed to close all but one of the county’s 10 polling places, a move the N.A.A.C.P. and other minority advocates argued would disenfranchise rural blacks who could not travel long distances to vote. Board members eventually chose to eliminate just one predominantly black precinct. But around the same time, they began to winnow the county’s roll of registered voters, ordering an aide to compare the registrants’ stated addresses with those on their driver’s licenses to spot voters who had moved after registering to vote.

By October, a month before the city election, the board and a private citizen who appears to have worked with its white members had challenged the legality of 187 registered voters in Sparta. The board removed 53 of them, virtually all African-Americans — roughly one of every 20 voters. As a “courtesy,” court papers state, county sheriff’s deputies served summonses on the targeted voters, commanding them to defend themselves at election board meetings.

Some did, and were restored to the rolls. Others reacted differently to a police officer’s knock on their door.

“A lot of voters are actually calling to say they no longer wish to be on the list, so now we have people coming off the list who no longer want to vote,” Tiffany Medlock, the elections supervisor for the Hancock County elections board, told a Macon television reporter in late September. “It’ll probably affect the City of Sparta’s election in a major way….”

Full article here.

More Breaking News here.

Federal Court Strikes Down NC Voter ID Requirement

A federal appeals court decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on Friday, saying its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls.

Election workers checked voters’ identification in Asheville, N.C., in March. Credit George Etheredge for The New York Times

Election workers checked voters’ identification in Asheville, N.C., in March. Credit George Etheredge for The New York Times

The sweeping 83-page decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upended voting procedures in a battleground state about three months before Election Day. That ruling and a second wide-ranging decision on Friday, in Wisconsin, continued a string of recent court opinions against restrictive voting laws that critics say were created solely to keep minority and other traditionally Democratic voters away from the polls.

The North Carolina ruling tossed out the state’s requirement that voters present photo identification at the polls and restored voters’ ability to register on Election Day, to register before reaching the 18-year-old voting age, and to cast early ballots, provisions the law had fully or partly eliminated….

In the Wisconsin decision, Judge James D. Peterson of Federal District Court ruled that parts of Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law are unconstitutional. He ordered the state to make photo IDs more easily available to voters and to broaden the range of student IDs that are accepted at the ballot box.

A rally against voter suppression at Centennial Park in Tampa Bay, Florida, on August 28, 2012. Photo by George Zornick

A rally against voter suppression at Centennial Park in Tampa Bay, Florida, on August 28, 2012. Photo by George Zornick

The decision also threw out other rules that lengthened the residency requirement for newly registered voters, banned distributing absentee ballots by fax or email and sharply restricted the locations and times at which municipal voters, many of them Milwaukee blacks, could cast absentee ballots in person.

Judge Peterson’s sharply worded 119-page ruling suggested that Wisconsin’s voter restrictions, as well as voter ID restrictions in Indiana that have been upheld in the Supreme Court, exist only to suppress votes.

“The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” he wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections.’’

Voter-ID-Nick-AndersonThe court decisions — the third and fourth federal rulings in recent weeks against Republican-enacted voting restrictions — were made as the two political parties raced from their summer conventions into the critical final months of the campaign, with Wisconsin, like North Carolina, considered a contested state.

North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature rewrote the state’s voting rules in 2013 shortly after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had given the Justice Department the power to oversee changes in election procedures in areas with a history of racial discrimination….

Civil rights advocates and the Justice Department had sued to block the law, but a Federal District Court judge upheld it in April, writing that the state’s “significant, shameful past discrimination” had largely abated in the last 25 years.

On Friday, the three-judge panel emphatically disagreed, saying the lower court’s amply documented ruling had failed to consider “the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”

The judges noted that Republican leaders had drafted their restrictions on voting only after receiving data indicating that African-Americans would be the voters most significantly affected by them.

Read the full article here.

More Breaking News here.

Room4Debate: Does the Supreme Court Arizona Ruling Pave Path To Racial Profiling?

By Laurie Kellman of the Huffington Post

Reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling

Reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling

Congressional Democrats and Republicans scrambled for election-year gain from the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday that threw out key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law but upheld one that requires police to check the status of people who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally.

Democrats said the ruling risks encouraging racial profiling, while Republicans said it strengthens the right of states to make and enforce their own immigration policies. In hot pursuit of Hispanic voters this presidential and congressional election year, members of both parties said the elected branches of the federal government need to overcome deep divisions and enact long-term laws affecting the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

The court unanimously upheld the “show me your papers” requirement of the state’s law. But even there, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges, and they blunted somewhat its effectiveness by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges.

The court struck down three major provisions of the Arizona law, including one requirement for all immigrants to obtain or carry registration papers, another making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and a third allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

Democrats said the decision shows President Barack Obama was right to challenge the law’s constitutionality and praised him for deferring the deportation of some young illegal immigrants. But they also said the decisions could encourage discrimination.

“I am greatly concerned that the provision putting American citizens in danger of being detained by police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will lead to a system of racial profiling,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from swing-state Nevada.

Republicans, meanwhile, chastised Obama for his executive order and said the court appeared to validate some of the controversial law.

“The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, ” Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement.

Read more of the story here.

Ask the Readers: What are your views on the Supreme Court ruling?