Burning Walls, Building Bridges: Voter Disenfranchisement

I normally do these posts every other week, but with the news this past week of various voter disenfranchisement coming to light in places like North Dakota and Georgia, I thought I would do a "special edition." Or maybe it's more of an "emergency edition." With the election less than a month away, we all need to know as much as we can about voter disenfranchisement and what is has to do with racism in this country.

Changing the rules to ensure that only one group of people (white Republicans) can vote and remain in power, is the very literal definition of institutional racism. Add to this, when other white people choose not to fight against it, they are aiding in the maintaining of institutional racism. Sorry if that sound harsh or guilt-trippy, but it's the truth. Even if white people are good, kind people, they can and usually are, racist in the sense that they don't mind living in a racist system. It works for us. I don't have to worry about my vote being purged from the system. I'm a white Democrat voter in Seattle. We're all pretty much white Democrats here, so it's all good. But the entire nation isn't comprised like that. Much of the country is comprise of white Republicans, and as the discussion is ongoing since the Weepy McDrunkface Kavanaugh confirmation, Republicans seem to be fans of using cheating, bending the rules, or doing literally anything it takes to remain in power, while the Democrats are debating what level of "dirty" fighting we should engage in to combat it.

Maybe this is how I "fight dirty". I call out people on things I would normally hold myself back on. It's not polite to tell somebody they're racist or a bad person for trying to cheat the system to remain in power, right? I might hurt somebody's feelings, and they're probably generally a good person as long as you ignore the racism part. But compared to the cheater, is it really all that rude? Isn't it rude of me not to point it out? It's definitely helping to maintain a racist system not to...So, no more sitting back and thinking, wow that sucks, but what can I do? I might not be able to fix the country and make it more fair for everybody, but I can at least use my words to put together a blog post to express my fury over the situation.

I have two thoughts for how to combat voter disenfranchisement, but no way to enact them. First: I think all states should move to a mail-in ballot system like my state has. It makes it stupid easy to vote, and voting should be stupid easy to do. This of course is probably why some states don't want to do this. It makes it more difficult to find ways to disenfranchise voters when you don't have the chance to turn them away at the polling places and can see what color their skin is. Second: I think activists need to organize a system where we can donate money to give to people in places with ID laws. When a person would otherwise lose their ability to vote because they can't afford an ID or the time it takes to get it or the transportation to get to the DMV, then this organization would provide money to pay for it. And/or help arrange for transport for the person as well. If we have to play the cheaters' game while we work on legal means to undo their unethical laws, then I think we should. If anybody out there knows how to make this happen, please do so!

I don't really know how to make the voting system more fair for everybody. I don't know how to make people care about others enough to get them to do the right thing. All I can do is help amplify people who have studied this more than I have or have been victimized by it. So that's what I'm going to do today. I am going to put links to articles that explain all of this better than I can.

Article 1
This ACLU article from last month gives information on the disenfranchisement in Georgia that we heard so much about this past week. Read about the tactics the state is using to "follow" the rules while working to maximize the people disenfranchised.

Article 2
A two-year old article from The Root explains various forms of voter suppression and how to combat them. Sadly, the article is still completely relevant today.

Article 3
Here's an article from July of this year with even more ideas on how to fight voter suppression.

Article 4
Here's one from the Washington Post in 2014 with ideas on how to reduce voter fraud while increasing voter participation as well. I'm not sure I agree with the premise of this article and I think it comes from a very white-privileged place, but there are some good ideas in it, regardless. Just go into it knowing it's coming from a privileged place.

Article 5
This has good information for people who have been disenfranchised to be able to vote next month. If you or somebody you know is dealing with this, please share this information with them.

Article 6
This is a very old article, but it's still relevant today. Disenfranchisement of felons in this country might not be racially-motivated in a technical sense, but the people convicted of felonies in this country is definitely racially-motivated. It's time to change the rules.

Article 7
Another article about felony disenfranchisement from May of this year. There are some very compelling reasons listed as to why we should reconsider this practice and reinstate these people's right to vote.

I think one thing that's important to remember is that since there are so many people who will be unable to vote in this next election, those of us who have not been disenfranchised have an obligation to exercise our right to vote. Vote for the people who aren't allowed to. Vote so that the right people can be elected who will do something about this. And we continue to protest and speak out and talk about it. We demand that our elected officials care enough to do something about it. We expect our elected officials to create laws to protect voters and if they refuse, then they no longer get our votes. We fight, however we can so that one day, we really can be a democracy in this country.

Burning Walls, Building Bridges: The Supreme Court

In light of the Weepy McDrunkface Kavanaugh confirmation yesterday, I thought I would take a look at the Supreme Court and its role in either upholding or dismantling racism in this country. I am not a lawyer and I have no expertise at all in the subject of the law, so everything I write is just my personal interpretation of the cases. I stayed up until 12:30am today reading through all the different Supreme Court cases from the era of the Civil War, until present day. I focused on cases that pertained to people of color and/or civil rights specifically. There are actually a huge amount of cases from over the centuries, and I read through all of them.

There have been a lot of landmark cases that we know about from over the years, but I think we either forget or just don't know how many cases they weigh in on in the course of a year. Some of them are isolated cases. Some pertain to a particular city or state. But almost all of them can be used as a precedent for future cases. Some lost relevance when another case came along that overrode a previous ruling.

A refresher on how the Supreme Court functions. The Supreme Court is one of the three branches of government. Laws are created in a few different ways in this country. Cities and states can pass their own laws. For laws on the federal level, they are created and passed by Congress, another of the three branches of government. The Supreme Court's function is to interpret laws. Justices are nominated by the President, the third branch of government, and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hear cases not just on a federal level, but on a local and state level as well. Their main aim is to determine whether or not a law is within the confines of the Constitution. Generally-speaking, they don't rule based on the ethics/morals of an issue, which is why there are plenty of examples of them upholding laws that most of us would find reprehensible.

Theoretically, Supreme Court justices are impartial. They interpret the law as it pertains to the Constitution and use only their knowledge and intellect. The problem though, is that Supreme Court justices are humans who interpret the law based on their own life experiences and opinions. They have feelings and those play a part in their decision-making. This is why we see conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning judges and why a balanced group would be considered ideal. When the Court leans one way over the other, the rulings tend to follow whatever the majority is.

My research of the rulings regarding people of color and civil rights showed two distinct patterns. For black, Latinx, Asian, and Arab Americans, the Supreme Court rulings have largely been a case of "two steps forward, one step back." But they have ultimately, pressed forward, towards greater equality for all Americans. It has been a "slow but steady" pace, but it has moved forward, thus far.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins
In this case from 1886, we have a case where institutional racism on a local level(San Francisco), was challenged and successfully dismantled by the Supreme Court. San Francisco had passed a law about the need for people running laundry businesses in wooden buildings to have a license to be in business legally. Then in order to exclude Chinese Americans from running the businesses, the city refused to issue licenses to them, thus allowing the city to shut them down for running illegal businesses. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment for such a practice by the city, and San Francisco was forced to stop. This is a great example of something seemingly race-neutral, the need for licenses, being enforced in a racist manner, and adversely affecting one group of people over another.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind
In 1923, an Indian man sued the United States in order to become a naturalized citizen. Based on an act from 1906, only white people and people of African decent could qualify to become naturalized citizens of the United States. Thind argued that as a person of Aryan decent, he was in fact, white. The Supreme Court ruled that although he was Aryan, he wasn't Caucasian, and that was what truly determined whiteness in this nation. Therefore, Thind was not white and did not qualify for naturalization.

Smith v. Allwright
This 1944 case deals with voter disenfranchisement in the state of Texas for voters of color. The Democratic party had long ruled the state of Texas and had determined themselves to be a private organization who could make their own rules of who was allowed or not allowed to participate in the primaries. Because of other forms of disenfranchisement, the Democratic primary was the only one available to voters of color. The Supreme Court ruled that this was in fact discrimination based on race and the Democratic party was forced to open the primaries to all voters.

The above are examples of the give and take of fairness and movement forward for most people of color in the United States. For Native Americans, however, with a very few small exceptions, the Supreme Court has been used to further oppress and marginalize them. One could even say that it's been weaponized to inflict maximum harm to them. My personal theory is that in order to continue justifying our presence here and what we did in order to take over this land, laws and their interpretation have always erred on the side of the United States. To give too many rights to Native Americans would have been seen as de-legitimizing our presence here.

Elk v. Wilkins
This case from 1884 declared that Native Americans could not be considered citizens of the United States because they lived on reservations and were therefore loyal only to their tribes. The citizenship of Native Americans would be permanently decided by other means, but it is still technically on the books as the only ruling the Supreme Court has ever made regarding citizenship of Native Americans.

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
A 1955 case determined that a subtribe of the Tlingit people of Alaska had no right to financial compensation from the materials taken from their land by white people, because they weren't a tribe of their own.

Menominee Tribe v. United States
In a rare victory in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a tribe even though they were no longer legally recognized by the federal government.

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones
This case from 1973 was a bit of a draw. The Court concluded that the federal government had the right to tax forms of business on tribal land, but that they could not tax the actual land itself.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
In what I could consider an extremely dangerous precedent set in 1978 in this case, the Supreme Court ruled that tribes were not allowed to prosecute non-tribal members on reservations, regardless of whatever crimes they may have committed on the reservation. This has effectively given non-Native people carte blanche to go onto reservations and commit whatever crimes they desire, without facing prosecution. When we hear stories of Native women being murdered or disappearing from their land, we can most likely thank this ruling for why it happened and why, if a person is ever caught, very little is bound to be done about it.

Though the Supreme Court hasn't made as many civil-rights-related rulings in the last couple of decades compared to the 1950's and 60's, there are still some being made. There will most likely always be race-based cases to be heard, sadly. Just last year, the Supreme Court upheld Trump's ban on several predominantly Muslim nations. While Muslims are not a race of people, the fact that all of the nations on the list are largely non-white nations, I am including it as an example. The Supreme Court voted along their liberal/conservative leanings to uphold the majority of Trump's ban.

With the retirement of one liberal justice and the confirmation of a conservative justice in his place, the court now leans conservative. This doesn't bode well for people of color hoping to find justice in the highest court in the land. Of course, only time will tell how all of this plays out. From what I read of the cases, so much of it depended not on the actual rightness or wrongness of the case, but in how well the case was presented. People fighting for civil rights will have to make sure to present air-tight cases that leave little to refute.

This brief look at the Supreme Court and some of their rulings over the centuries has made a couple points stand out to me. First: While the president is an important figure in this nation, who we elect to the Senate is just as important, if not even more important, in the long run. Congress is often a balancing act for the POTUS so that the Supreme Court doesn't even have to get involved for most of it. Electing people who will confirm the best candidates to the highest court in the land is vital to our nation. Second: The people making the laws will always make them so they work out in their own favor. This means that it's also extremely important for people of color to be a part of every decision-making process in this nation. From city councils all the way up to the Supreme Court.

I know people talk about destroying this system, and I understand to an extent. But I don't think it's the system that's broken. I think it's the people in the system that need to be switched out for better people. People who use the system the way it was set up, instead of finding ways to cheat it. If the system was actually used the way it was supposed to be used, it would be as revolutionary as burning it to the ground. We have to keep fighting to make that happen.