For most Americans today, that principle is expressed most directly at the ballot box. But the right to vote, and the ability of communities to translate votes into meaningful representation, has never been guaranteed without struggle.

The promise outlined by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 took generations to broaden. It required war, constitutional amendments, civil rights organizing and continuing public pressure to extend voting rights beyond the narrow group originally allowed to participate. Women, communities of color and immigrants have long understood that political rights were not freely handed down; they were won, protected and, at times, reclaimed.

That history matters now because voting rights are facing new threats. In Washington, proposals continue to move forward that could make voting more difficult. The U.S. Supreme Court is also weighing questions that could affect how ballots are submitted and counted. In April, the court dealt a serious setback to the federal Voting Rights Act, weakening protections that have been especially important for Latino and Black voters.

California is not immune from these debates. A proposed proof-of-citizenship voting requirement has qualified for the November ballot, placing the state in the middle of a national fight over access to elections.

California’s own history shows why vigilance is necessary. For decades, women were barred from voting, Chinese immigrants were excluded from full civic participation, and the state used poll taxes and English literacy requirements to keep many residents of color from the ballot box.

The state has also made major progress. California is widely viewed as a leader in expanding voter access, and more women and people of color now serve in public office than in previous generations.

A major part of that progress came through the California Voting Rights Act. Over the past 20 years, the law has pushed more than 600 local governments away from at-large elections and toward district-based systems intended to better reflect the communities they serve.

Civil rights attorney Joaquin Avila, who helped shape the law, argued that voting rights must be measured not only by whether people can cast ballots, but also by whether communities have a fair chance to elect candidates who represent them. The state law helped increase Latino political participation and representation, leading in many places to government decisions more closely aligned with the needs of working families.

Still, the California Voting Rights Act does not address every problem. It does not stop discriminatory district maps before they are adopted. In some jurisdictions, voting lines can still be drawn in ways that weaken the influence of Latino communities. With federal protections diminished, California can no longer assume Washington will provide a reliable safeguard.

Advocates are now calling for the state to strengthen and update its voting rights laws. The California Democracy Partnership, a coalition focused on election protections, is seeking changes that would expand language access for voters, prevent discriminatory election changes before they take effect and give residents stronger tools to challenge maps that dilute their political voice.

California once helped lead the country in voting rights policy, and other states have since adopted protections that go further in some areas. At a time when confidence in democratic institutions is under strain, supporters argue the state has a responsibility to act again.

The idea of government by the people does not sustain itself automatically. It depends on each generation choosing to protect and expand participation. Strengthening California’s voting rights laws would be one way to honor the country’s founding promise and help ensure that all communities have a meaningful voice in their government.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Must Act to Safeguard Voting Rights as Nation Nears 250 Years appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — California voters could decide whether to reinstate voting rights to people in prison on felony convictions under a newly proposed constitutional amendment.

It would be a major expansion of suffrage for incarcerated people if passed. California would join Maine and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, as the only states where felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are in prison, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The California bill, introduced Monday by Assembly Member Isaac Bryan, proposes an amendment to the state constitution. Bryan’s proposal doesn’t include any exemptions based on the crime committed. After decades of disenfranchisement, he said it’s time to open up voting for everyone.

“I think we’re having a deep discussion on what it means to have voting as a right for every citizen,” Bryan said Wednesday.

Two-thirds of each chamber of the state legislature must vote yes for the bill just for it to appear on the ballot as a proposition. Voters must then approve it by a simple majority for it to become a constitutional amendment.

California is currently among 21 states where felons only lose their right to vote while they are incarcerated, the conference says. The right is automatically reinstated upon release.

Some states’ laws require probation and parole to be completed for the restoration of voting rights. In other states, people incarcerated on certain crimes lose their rights indefinitely after release.

The California Constitution currently disqualifies people who are incarcerated in state or federal prison from voting and restores the right upon their release. The law previously required felons to complete their parole period before getting back their right to vote; Californians approved the change to get rid of that requirement in a 2020 constitutional amendment.

David Cruz, an organizer with nonprofit Initiate Justice who was released in September after 13 years in state prison, said he wanted to have his voice heard while he was incarcerated.

“Despite what many people assume, people in prison care about the same political issues that we outside do,” he said Wednesday during a news conference supporting the legislation.

Bryan, a Los Angeles Democrat and the chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Elections, faces a tough sell for the two-thirds vote. While the Legislature is controlled by Democrats, the party has conservative representatives from rural areas and major progressive policies aren’t guaranteed to pass.

The committee’s Republican vice chair, Assembly Member Tom Lackey, opposes the bill and said Wednesday it is a “betrayal” of crime victims.

“The perpetrator is automatically given a blanket of forgiveness,” under this legislation, said Lackey, who represents part of Southern California. “Criminal conduct deserves a price to be paid.”

Bryan disagreed that giving offenders the right to vote is an affront to victims.

“The voice of victims matters in the criminal legal system, but what we’re talking about right now is democracy as a whole,” he said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California proposal would reinstate prisoners’ voting rights appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

S.E. Williams | Contributed

Last week Black Americans received another of those undeserved slaps in the face by the political party we continue to show up for at the polls–a loyalty built over time beginning with the promises of the celebrated President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1920s New Deal. Roosevelt was a Democrat.

Then, like now, it did not take long to figure out that when it came to dealing equitably with the needs of Black people, the New Deal was not a Bad Deal for Black people, in truth, it was No Deal at all when it came to equal access to benefits offered through its programs.

Forty years in its wake (there is something about the number 40, in relation to America and Black people that is strangely eerie). So, 40 years after the New Deal there was the welcomed passage of the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act (VRA)–thank you Democrats—that created an opening for Black progress. But, just like the 40 acres and a mule promised newly freed slaves and then reneged on by the federal government, the same thing happened more than 40 years later to voting rights when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the core provision of the voting legislation (Section 5) in 2013, and put the onus on Congress to make it right.

Had it not been so impactful on the lives and future of Black people, the idea of handing this responsibility off to a Republican led Congress in 2013—when members of the party remained infuriated and vindictive over the election of the nation’s first Black president, Barack Obama.

From the outset, Republican congressional leaders boldly announced their intent to make him a one term president and to block every piece of legislation he proposed. After initially having failed in that mission (Obama was re -elected and he passed the historic Affordable Care Act), for the Supreme Court to then expect these same Republican party leaders (who at that point had gained control over both houses of congress) to work toward reinvigorating the VRA, was preposterous.

For this and other reasons, whether disappointed, dissatisfied, disillusioned, disheartened, or more, Black voter turnout pulled back in 2016. Debate continues over what part this played in the ultimate election of Donald Trump is unclear, what is clear, however, is when Black people don’t vote—it matters.

Beginning in 2017, the nation witnessed the rise, fall and ongoing threat of a racist leader striving to build an Aryan Nation.

This looming threat coupled with an out of control pandemic killing people of color in unprecedented numbers, and the continued indiscriminate murder of Blacks by rogue cops and vigilantes led Black voters back to the polls in 2020 where they were forced between a rock (Donald Trump) and a hard place (Joe Biden) who by comparison was served up as the great white hope despite his buddy relationships with segregationist or the lack of protection and respect he showed our Black sister Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings or his avid support (along with many Congressional Blacks) for passage of the 1984 Crime Bill. For Black people it was another of those election cycles where we knew we were voting for our children’s future and as flawed as Biden is—we had no other choice because another four years of Trump would most assuredly have proved disastrous for Blacks and other underserved communities. Following Trump’s actions since his 2020 defeat it is obvious that electing Biden, though not the ideal choice, was the right choice between the two candidates.

I know it’s only been a year and I would never disregard Biden’s accomplishments to date, yet in my estimation for the president to pretend he can sway Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats when he failed so miserably at this when he was Obama’s wing man, appeared to me as a hyped-up overpromise. He did not deliver in this regard for Obama and there was no reason to believe he would do any better when he became president despite his many promises.

What American Democracy Allows

To date, Biden’s agenda has not unfolded as planned—no criminal justice reform—no immigration reform—and importantly, no voting rights legislation, the foundation on which democracy rests. But he did strike a deal for infrastructure—certainly something warranted, necessary and of course a priority for Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats but not at the top of the list for Black and Brown voters. Biden even broke a promise to the progressive caucus related to the passage of Build Back Better filled with relief for issues of importance for these constituencies to get them to move on infrastructure.

Biden spent countless hours meeting with moderate democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. How many hours did he spend with progressive legislators? How many hours did he meet with members of the Black Caucus, the Latino Caucus?

What is so utterly gross and disturbing about Biden’s pandering to Manchin specifically (Sinema has her own issues) is that Manchin is a multi-millionaire from a state where the total population is 1.79 million compared to 39.5 mil in CA for example. California’s population alone is equivalent to more than 23 West Virginia’s. There is something wrong with a democratic system where one man elected by .5% of the nation’s population can wield such power considering Manchin was elected in 2018 with a fraction of that .5%. That year in a three person race Manchin was reelected by less than 50% of the state’s voters. His state has a poverty rate hovering around 16%, a median income of $26,354 yet only about five percent of West Virginia’s population are people of color.

So, American democracy allows for one, marginally elected Senator to strut around like he’s “King of the Stardust Ballroom” putting the future of our kids at risk in the process. The truth of it all is appalling—but then again, this is the nature of American democracy.

When tracing my family roots, I met a woman named Cora. I don’t know much about her or where she was from other than in the 1790s, she was gifted by her owner to his son who moved her from North Carolina to settle in Tennessee. She, her children, and her children’s children labored on that plantation until freedom came. Sometimes it is humbling for me to realize I am only the third generation on this branch of my family tree to be born free.

Staying Committed to the Struggle

At times like this when Blacks are once again at risk of losing the one tool that gives us an opportunity to build a better life for ourselves and our progeny. I, like I am sure many others, sometimes feel weary in the continuing quest for full citizenship for Black people that seems unending–afterall, Republican leader Mitch McConnell just reminded usagain the other day that they still do not see Black people as citizens–he called it an unintentional error, I call it a Freudian slip.

I know although we may be discouraged, we must remain committed to this struggle in whatever way we can. I imagine what my great-great-great grandmother Cora might advise me and others about this dilemma. I imagine she would say something like… ‘Don’t ever give up…If you have to stand in line for hours to vote—then stand. If you must show identification to vote—then find a way to get identification, show it, and vote. If you get purged from the voting rolls—Reregister and then vote. If they refuse to pass Voting Rights legislation, then vote them out of office or vote and elect more representatives to make their resistance mute. No matter what obstacles they put in your way—make a way and overcome it.’

In the final analysis, voting is the only way forward. It is the only way to put people in place to establish the laws to protect our access to the ballot.

Cora would probably remind me that my today is far better than her yesterday and through perseverance and determination to secure and maintain the franchise, tomorrow will be better still for our great-great-great grandchildren.

We owe a debt to past generations to persevere in this struggle. We have an obligation to pay it forward.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I’m keeping it real.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post After Voting Rights Legislation Failed, I Thought About What Cora Might Say appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden has gotten the same troubling questions from worried world leaders, ones that he never thought he would hear.

“Is America going to be all right?” they ask. “What about democracy in America?”

While Biden has tried to offer America’s allies assurances, he has only occasionally emphasized the gravity of the threat to democracy from the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and the repeated lie from the man he defeated, Donald Trump, that the 2020 election was stolen.

Now, as the anniversary of that deadly day nears, the president is being urged to reorder priorities and use the powers of his office to push voting rights legislation that its adherents say could be the only effective way to counter the rapidly emerging threats to the democratic process.

The tension in Biden’s approach reflects his balancing of the urgent needs of Americans to make progress on the highly visible issues of the pandemic and the economy and the less visible, but equally vital, issue of preserving trust in elections and government.

The president plans to deliver a speech on Jan. 6 focused on sustaining democracy — voting rights won’t be part of the remarks but will be the topic of another speech soon, White House aides said.

In his recent commencement address at South Carolina State University, Biden’s tone on the need for voting rights legislation took on added urgency.

“I’ve never seen anything like the unrelenting assault on the right to vote. Never,” Biden said, adding, “This new sinister combination of voter suppression and election subversion, it’s un-American, it’s undemocratic, and sadly, it is unprecedented since Reconstruction.”

And the world is taking notice. Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, also has said that the riot at the Capitol has altered the view many countries have of the United States.

“Jan. 6 has had a material impact on the view of the United States from the rest of the world, I believe from allies and adversaries alike,” Sullivan said recently at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Allies look at it with concern and worry about the future of American democracy. Adversaries look at it, you know, more sort of rubbing their hands together and thinking, How do we take advantage of this in one way or another?”

In contrast, Republicans in numerous states are promoting efforts to influence future elections by installing sympathetic leaders in local election posts and backing for elective office some of those who participated in the insurrection.

White House officials insist Biden’s relative reticence should not be interpreted as complacency with the growing movement to rewrite history surrounding the Jan. 6 riot. Rather, they say, the president believes the most effective way to combat Trump, election denialism and domestic extremism is to prove to the rest of the country — and to the world — that government can work.

“I know progress does not come fast enough. It never has,” Biden said last fall. “The process of governing is frustrating and sometimes dispiriting. But I also know what’s possible if we keep the pressure up, if we never give up, we keep the faith.”

In Biden’s view, many of Trump’s voters didn’t wholly embrace Trumpism. Instead, Trump exploited long-standing dissatisfaction with the nation’s political, economic and social systems to build his coalition.

So Biden tailored his first-year domestic agenda to combating what he believed to be the root causes of the unease — the shaky economy and the pandemic’s drag on it — essentially to prove that government can work effectively.

He has directed federal law enforcement to shore up security at national institutions and improve communication systems and procedures that were in part to blame for U.S. Capitol Police being left overwhelmed for hours during the mob assault.

The Justice Department has undertaken the largest prosecution in its history, charging more than 700 defendants and still looking for more.

But it is voting rights that many Democrats and activists concerned about what may happen in 2022 and beyond are urging the president to make a key priority.

“The insurrection was part of a larger movement to suppress elections and overthrow our democracy,” said Christina Baal, a longtime organizer and the executive director of Public Wise, a group that researches and publishes information on candidates running for office who support the election lies.

Baal said efforts to discredit election integrity not only galvanize Trump supporters, they also make other voters less likely to vote. “We know — we’ve done some research on trust in the system — if voters don’t trust elections, they may not vote. This is part of a larger movement of voter suppression and why it’s so necessary for Biden to speak out.”

The House has approved far-reaching voting rights legislation, but Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia have been impediments, saying they oppose changing Senate rules to get around a GOP filibuster of the bill.

That legislation would restore the Justice Department’s ability to review changes to election laws in states with a history of discrimination, a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. According to the Brennan Center, 19 states have recently passed laws making it harder to vote.

Manchin and Sinema have helped draft separate voting rights legislation, but it lacks enough Republican support to overcome the filibuster.

“People are taking sides as opposed to looking at what the institutional threats are to maintaining our democracy,” said Democratic Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, a candidate to replace Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, who announced his retirement.

Welch was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and the violence that day is etched in his memory.

“The norms that have been the bedrock of our democracy, the free and peaceful transition of power and the renunciation of violence, they’ve been shattered,” he said.

After Biden’s speech in South Carolina, Senate Democrats renewed their push to pass voting rights legislation early in 2022. And the president said in an interview with ABC that he supported creating an exception to the Senate filibuster if that’s what it takes to pass voting rights legislation.

For Biden, who served four decades in the Senate, it was a remarkable concession and underscored the gravity of the threat. And, he acknowledged, he knows the world is watching to see how the nation responds — and wondering if the country’s democracy will survive.

“Did you ever think you’d be asked that question by another leader?” Biden said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden’s words on voting rights meet call to action after 1/6 appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.