Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts

Saturday, July 18, 2020

Civil Rights Icon Rep John Lewis Dies

Rep. John Lewis in Alexandria, Va., in November 2015. His advocacy for equal rights ultimately led him to the political arena, where he spent the final chapter of his life.
We knew this sad day was coming, but it still doesn't lessen the devastation we feel at it happening.

Rep. John Lewis has died at age 80 from stage 4 pancreatic cancer. 

He was the sharecropper's son from Alabama who became a leading figure in the fight against Jim Crow segregation.  He was a major leader in the African American Civil Rights Movement at just age 23, and one of the last surviving (and youngest) speakers from the 1963 March on Washington. 



He later was elected to Congress in 1986, and served for 17 terms as the congressman repping Georgia's Atlanta centered 5th District.   He not only voted against Desert Storm and the Iraq War, but led protests on the House floor against apartheid and gun violence., and testified against the nomination of Jeff Sessions to become Attorney General.

He was also a passionate and determined fighter and eloquent voice for voting rights..

John Lewis was demonstrating through his words and actions that all Black lives matter even before it was cool or trendy to do so.      He was aloud and eloquent voice for marriage equality.   More recently we spoke against the trans military ban.

Jonathan Roque (@Jonathan7R) | Twitter
I have fought too long and hard to end discrimination based on race and color to allow discrimination based on gender identity to be considered acceptable. 
“This mean, misguided policy takes us back to another place, a darker time.  How is it acceptable to target those who love our country so much that they put their bodies and livelihood on the lines for its defense?  This is a sad and dark day. 
“As a nation and as a people, all Americans should expect and deserve better.  There is no place in our society for hate or bigotry.  To punish any person based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is a shame and a disgrace, but to penalize those who pledge to serve and protect our country is unconscionable. 
“I stand with our transgender service members, and I pray that they will not lose heart.  They must know that we love them.  We respect them.  We are grateful for their service and sacrifice, and most importantly, we will stand for their rights, just as they have stood for ours.”
Image

During the May 2007 NTAC Lobby Day, I was tasked with hitting as many CBC offices as possible.
Of course one of the first offices I decided to visit was Rep John Lewis.   I wan't to find out where he stood when it came to trans rights, since he had been a loud consistent voice for marriage equality. 

Unfortunately, because the House was doing a lot of procedural voter at the time I was in his office, I spent an hour there talking to his then staffers until I had to leave for an appointment in another CBC office. 

But had I had the blessing of talking to him, I would have thanked him for his work in the Civil Rights Movement, and continuing to be a role model for those of us fighting for a better America.

Then I would have asked him my question.

Rest in power, sir   All of us who call ourselves activists have you as an amazing possibility model to follow. It's also our task now to get into 'good trouble'  to get us closer to the Beloved Community that you and Dr King dreamed about.

Tuesday, October 08, 2019

Major TBLGQ Rights Cases Being Argued At SCOTUS Today

Related image
Just wanted to remind the five conservafools on the SCOTUS as they do oral arguments in the two cases that will determine our human rights that  TBLGQ, and especially trans Americans are Americans.

Those cases being argued by the way if you haven't heard are Zarda v. Altitude Express and Bostock vs Clayton County Georgia, which have been consolidated in a single case to determine whether gay peeps can be discriminated against, and Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC, the trans case.

No photo description available.
These cases are being argued on the basis of whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to anti-TBLGQ discrimination. They will also affect all federal laws banning discrimination on the basis of sex including Title X of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fair Housing Act.  Just wanted to leave y'all with this reminder courtesy of the season 2 finale of POSE.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

DC Security Guard Charged With Assault After Playing Potty Police

I've been expressing my concerns that all this negative anti-trans hatred being put in the atmosphere by the Republican Party and the conservafool movement would eventually start having negative consequences for cis and trans women.

Yesterday that played out in Washington DC when a security guard took it upon herself to play potty police and forced trans woman Ebony Belcher out of the restroom of a Giant Foods store in NE DC.

Giant, gay news, Washington BladeThe 32 year old Belcher was at the store on 3rd and H Streets to pick up a Western Union delivery with a friend and asked a store employee to point her to the restroom.  She passed the security guard while en route to it, and said the security guard entered the restroom making derogatory comments while telling her to get out.

The security officer then grabbed her by the shoulder and arm and shoved her out of the store.. Belcher alleges the guard said, "You guys cannot keep coming in here to use our women's restroom.  They did not pass the law yet."

Wrong, boo boo kitty. The human rights of trans people in the District of Columbia have been covered and protected under the DC Human Rights Law since 2006.

Giant has issued a press statement:
"As this matter involves a third party that provides security services for Giant and there's an ongoing criminal investigation, all inquiries related to the incident at the H Street Giant should be directed to the local police for a comment at this time."
The unidentified guard in question was arrested and charged with simple assault.  We'll see how this plays out in court..  

TransGriot Update:  The security guard busted for her transphobic crime is 45 year old Francine Bernice Jones according to a Washington Blade report by Lou Chibbaro,Jr.  After spending the night in jail was released by Superior Court Judge Renee Raymond on personal recognizance pending a July 21 status hearing. 

Friday, May 13, 2016

Jillian Weiss Appearing Again On CNN Legal View

I guess CNN loves Dr. Jillian Weiss as much as I and the trans community does.

After her May 9 appearance on Legal View With Ashleigh Banfield to discuss the legal issues surrounding HB 2, Dr Weiss will be back on CNN again at 12 noon EDT/11 AM CDT to discuss not only HB 2, but the recent declaration by the DOJ that they will do everything possible to protect trans people and today's Department of Education decree..

Should be an interesting and informative discussion from one of our community's wonderful attorneys.  If you want to hear how this affect us trans folks legally from someone who has tried and won trans civil rights cases, then you need to tune in if possible..  

Once CNN posts the video from this latest conversation, I'll post it on the blog.,

Department Of Education Issues Decree Protecting Transgender Students

It's been a great week for the American trans community thanks to the attorney general's declaration that they and the Obama Administration will do everything possible to protect trans Americans going forward, and we have even more evidence of this morning.

The Department of Education this morning is issuing a directive in a letter signed by officials from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice's Vanita Gupta  that states all public schools across the nation must be allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.

The letter will also state that under federal law a school's obligation to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents or community members raise objections or concerns..

'As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others discomfort cannot justify  a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.'

“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” said Secretary of Education  John B. King Jr.in a statement. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”


the decree does not have the force of law, but schools that continue to discriminate against transgender students may face loss of federal funding.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Vanita Gupta's Remarks On The NC HB 2 Federal Countersuit

After US Attorney General Loretta Lynch made her eloquent remarks body slamming HB 2 and telling the trans community the DOJ and the Obama Administration had their backs, Vanita Gupta, the head of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ spoke.

And yes, Trans World, her remarks deserve just as much attention as AG Lynch, since it's discussing and explaining the basis for the upcoming lawsuit.

So here's Gupta's May 9 remarks concerning the lawsuit filed by the DOJ against the state of North Carolina, Gov Pat McCrory, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina against the unjust HB 2.. .

***

Thank you, Attorney General [Loretta E.] Lynch, for those powerful words.  Throughout the arc of our country’s history – from tragedies of injustice to marches for equality – there have been pivotal moments when America’s leaders chose to stand up and speak out to safeguard the ideal of equal justice under law.  And history will record your inspiring words and our forceful action today as one of these moments. 
I also want to take a moment to thank the entire team throughout the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Justice, who have worked tirelessly over the last several weeks to ensure that everyone in North Carolina has the full protections of our laws.
Today, we filed a federal civil rights complaint in federal court in the Middle District of North Carolina.  Before I discuss the details of our legal argument, I want to make one thing clear.  Calling H.B. 2 a “bathroom bill” trivializes what this is really about.  H.B. 2 translates into discrimination in the real world.  The complaint we filed today speaks to public employees who feel afraid and stigmatized on the job.  It speaks to students who feel like their campus treats them differently because of who they are.  It speaks to sports fans who feel forced to choose between their gender identity and their identity as a Tar Heel.  And it speaks to all of us who have ever been made to feel inferior – like somehow we just don’t belong in our community, like somehow we just don’t fit in.  Let me reassure every transgender individual, right here in America, that you belong just as you are.  You are supported.  And you are protected.       
Our complaint brings legal claims under three different civil rights statutes.  Two of these statutes are long-standing protections against discrimination in the employment and education contexts: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  It is fitting that these statutes – which emerged from our nation’s long struggle to banish a legacy of legal discrimination – are now being used to defend, to uphold and to reaffirm the progress that resulted from that struggle; progress that represents America at its best, at its brightest and at its strongest.        
Title IX and Title VII prohibit discrimination based on sex.  The Department of Justice has for some time now made clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination against transgender people – that is, discrimination based on gender identity.  That is consistent not only with the language of the statutes, but also with the legal interpretations adopted by federal courts – including the appellate court with jurisdiction over the state of North Carolina.  There is nothing radical or even particularly unusual about the notion that the word “sex” includes the concept of “gender.”  Transgender people are discriminated against because their gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth.  H.B. 2 denies transgender people something that all non-transgender people enjoy and take for granted: access to restrooms consistent with their gender identity.  That’s sex discrimination, plain and simple.  This view is only confirmed when proponents of measures like H.B. 2 misinterpret or make up facts about gender identity.  Here are the facts.  Transgender men are men – they live, work and study as men.  Transgender women are women – they live, work and study as women.
Our Title VII claim is brought against the state and governor of North Carolina, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina because of sex discrimination in employment.  Our Title IX claim is brought against the University of North Carolina because of sex discrimination in its education programs.
We also bring a claim under the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, a more recent statute specifically designed to prevent discrimination against transgender people by entities that accept certain federal funds.  As with Title IX, entities that accepted federal funds under VAWA – including UNC and the North Carolina Department of Public Safety – pledged that they would not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity.  Our complaint seeks to enforce that pledge and hold those entities accountable for the discrimination required by H.B. 2.
Even as we seek that compliance, we remain committed to working with any agency receiving federal funding to develop a plan to ensure their compliance with federal law.
For the reasons I just highlighted, H.B. 2 violates the law.  But H.B. 2 also threatens the values that define us as a people.  These values are timeless.  These values say to all people that you can be who you are, and you deserve to live with dignity.
The complaint filed today seeks to enforce these laws and protect these values.  At this time, the Attorney General and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

***

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

1965 Baldwin vs. Buckley Debate


"It is a terrible thing for an entire people to surrender to the notion that one-ninth of its population is beneath them.  Until the moment comes when we, the Americans, are able to accept the fact that my ancestors are both black and white, that on that continent we are trying to forge a new identity, that we need each other, that I am not a ward of America, I am not an object of missionary charity, I am one of the people who built this country-- until this moment comes there is scarcely any hope for the American dream.  If the people are denied participation in it, by their very presence they will wreck it.  And if that happens it is a very grave moment for the West."
-James Baldwin, 1965 Cambridge University debate    


50 years ago writer James Baldwin  accepted an invitation from Cambridge University's Cambridge Union Society to debate William F. Buckley, Jr., the father of modern conservatism and the young founder of the conservative leaning National Review magazine.

The debate topic was 'Has the American Dream Been Achieved At The Expense Of The American Negro?' 

Baldwin in addition to being a prominent writer, was one of the intellectual voices of the Civil Rights Movement.  Buckley was had voiced his opposition to desegregation in the pages of the National Review in 1961 but was a few years from his status as 'The Father of Modern Conservatism'.

Both got their opportunity to argue their points, and when it was over the Cambridge Union Society members voted on the proposition.   Baldwin trounced Buckley 540-160.  

Enjoy this debate, because sadly, many of the points Baldwin makes are still valid in 2015 and explain much of the racial animus we are currently dealing with.


Sunday, March 01, 2015

HERO Protects You!

Since some of you or your friends and relatives may be going to church services this morning in which the lying sack of feces  pastor isn't being truthful about what the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance actually covers, here's this handy graphic that you can show peeps the 15 categories the much needed human rights law covers.

Remember, only you can prevent sellout pastors from bamboozling you into believing a human rights law doesn't cover you.

And once again Steve Riggle, no bakers in the Houston city limits have been forced before or since the May 28 passage of the ordinance to bake a swastika cake.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Know Your Rights With The Police Event At Resurrection MCC Today

The latest Know Your Rights With The Police event will be taking place at Resurrection MCC at 12:30 PM CST.

It is organized and presented by Ashton Woods, with the #KYRWTP  training taught by former Houston city councilmember and longtime 20 year attorney Jolanda Jones,

It is designed to give you an overview of what your constitutional rights are if you get pulled over in a traffic stop, or live in a home or apartment.   Knowing those rights can head off potential police harassment that could escalate into something more serious.   They could be the difference between life or death or proving who's telling the truth between you and the police in a court of law

So check out this free event at The Gathering Place on the Resurrection MCC campus.  The address is 202 W.11th St  in Houston, and the METRO 40 Pecore/Ella line runs past the church for you public transportation peeps.

Gratis refreshments are also being provided starting at 12:15 for attendees. 

Hope to see you there.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

HERO Updates, Notes and News- July 24

Photo: Parker has really hit her stride as a dynamic speaker! Wow.
It's time for another HERO news update.  

Since my last one, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is a few days short of being two months old on Monday.  It's still in effect, our opponents are still hatin' on it, and  no Houston bakers have been forced to bake swastika cakes. 

We are still in signature verification mode on the haters petitions to force a referendum on the HERO, and yes they are the jacked up convoluted mess we thought they would be.

Speaking of those signatures, another verification work group event is jumping off from 3-9 PM today sponsored by the GLBT Caucus.  Location for it is 4617 Montrose Blvd, Suite C222.   You can stop by at anytime that you're available during those hours and bring your laptop or fave computing device.

On Tuesday the Meyerland Democrats held their monthly meeting in which the guest speaker was none other than Mayor Annise Parker and the city council  members who passed our long awaited human rights ordinance.  They received a well deserved standing ovation from the assembled crowd for their efforts.    During that meeting Ashton Woods announced the anti-HERO petitions were now online and public record

Out of the closet you come H-town transphobes and homophobes


Since there was a lot of shady and illegal behavior by the faith-based haters in collecting these petitions, you may wish to check and see if your name wasn't placed on them illegally.   If you didn't sign that petition but find your name on it, you can submit an affidavit and mail it to city secretary Anna Russell's office.

In addition to the petition check event tonight, the Houston African-American SGL, trans and bi community and our allies will hold a HERO Civil Rights Strategy meeting at Resurrection MCC starting at 7 PM CDT.

I'm looking forward to it, and according to the organizers, invitations to African-American political and community organizational leaders were sent out.  

We'll see who shows up because intersectionality works both ways, Houston Black community.   You don't get to gripe and point your critical fingers at the Houston LGBT community asking the justified questions of why LGBT peeps aren't showing up for your issue concerns and you hypocritically not reciprocate when we ask you to show up for one of our events to discuss our concerns as unapologetically Black TBLG people. 

This initial community meeting will provide an overview of the HERO, its history and the 15 categories of people it protects.  It will discuss the opposition and their arguments.  It will outline who is providing the most opposition  It will cover the attacks against the transgender community do some myth busting.

We'll also at that meeting come up with strategies for coalition building, stress the importance of participation by communities of color, and how can we better educate our community about the HERO
so the don't get hoodwinked and bamboozled should it go to a referendum into voting against their own human rights.  

I got an opportunity last Thursday along with Noel Freeman, Christina Gorczynski and Daniel Williams to appear on a Houston Media Source TV presentation concerning the HERO.   The second half of it Christina and I got to battle King HERO Hater Dave Welch and HERO opponent (why?) Kathy Blueford-Daniels. 

Thanks to Fran Watson and Durrel Douglas for the invite, and I understand there will be more of these HERO shows on HMS-TV soon.
Next Monday will be the HERO forum sponsored by one of our oldest African-American newspapers in town, the Forward Times.   Mayor Parker and several council members were invited to participate, and I plan to be there along with a few friends in the CWA Hall that evening located at 1730 Jefferson St.   

It's scheduled on the deadline day for the City Secretary's office to complete their anti-HERO petition count, and we'll probably know at that time whether the haters succeeded or failed in putting the HERO on the ballot.   Still have time to submit your questions to the Forward Times for the upcoming forum at forwardtimes@forwardtimes.com   
 
And yeah Majic 102, still waiting for pro-HERO people to be invited on Sunday Morning Live to tell the truth about the ordinance. 

The struggle to keep the HERO continues.

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Colorado Civil Rights Division Lets Coy Pee In Peace

Coy Mathis - Cover
The Colorado Civil Rights Division has ruled in favor of 6 year old trans kid Coy Mathis, who was barred from using the girls' restroom at her elementary school despite a statewide law banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations.


The Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8 told Coy's parents in December that the first grader would not be able to continue to use the girls' restroom after the holiday break
.
The family then filed a civil rights complaint in February.   The Civil Rights Division eventually ruled that the district's solution of letting Mathis use staff bathrooms was a violation of the young girl’s rights and was similar to discriminatory “separate but equal” laws.

"Schools should not discriminate against their students, and we are thrilled that Coy can return to school and put this behind her," Kathryn Mathis, Coy's mother, said in a statement published in the Denver Post. "All we ever wanted was for Coy's school to treat her the same as other little girls. We are extremely happy that she now will be treated equally.

And all any transperson wants, no matter what their age is to be treated as a first class citizen and be able to pee in peace.



Saturday, June 15, 2013

Anniversary Of The 1959 Bermuda Theatre Boycott

One of the consistent themes for those of us of African descent living in our various parts of the Diaspora is having to deal with anti-Black bigotry, racism and racial segregation.

We have the common thread in various nations across the African Diaspora having a person or persons who either by circumstances or through group coordinated action participated in events that served as tipping point moments for oppressed African descended people in their nation to rally around and eventually achieve or start down the path of getting racial justice.  

In Canada that person was Viola Desmond.   In the United States it was Rosa Parks December 1, 1955 arrest that triggered the 381 day Montgomery Bus Boycott, gave national prominence to an eloquent young minister and gave birth to the African-American civil rights movement.  In South Africa that person was Nelson Mandela.  

In Bermuda the seminal event that ended segregation there was the June 1959 Theatre Boycott that put the British colony on track to beginning the process of creating a better, more racially harmonious society.   

File:Flag-map of Bermuda.pngIn 1959 Bermuda was approaching the 350th anniversary of its founding as a British colony and was a thriving travel and tourist destination for wealthy Americans, people that lived on the US east coast and other international travelers wishing to escape their cold climates.  

And for many of those upscale American tourists Bermuda reminded them of all the Jim Crow comforts back home. 

But the 28,000 Black Bermudians living there at the time chafed at the Jim Crow like segregation they were subjected to in its hotels, restaurants, schools, theaters, hospitals and other aspects of Bermudian life.

Borrowing from the example of the African-American civil rights movement now playing out before the world's press, they decided it was past time to end that discriminatory paradigm. 

Since the entire island attended the six white-owned segregated Bermuda General Theatres, a group of Bermudians desiring a better government, universal suffrage and an end to segregation held a series of meetings to coordinate a boycott of those segregated theaters timed to start on June 15. 

The Progressive Group as they called themselves was comprised of Vera and Rudolph ­Commissiong, Izola and Gerald Harvey, William Francis, Florenz and Clifford Maxwell, Stanley Ratteray, Marva Phillips, Esme and Lancelot Swan, Erskine Simmons, ­Clifford Wade, Eduord and Rosalind Williams, Coolridge Williams, Eugene Woods and William Walwyn.

The Progressive Group was also an airtight secret one that would remarkably maintain that secrecy until they revealed their identities 40 years later.  They feared not only retribution from the ruling white oligarchy on the island, they were worried about retaliation against their parents and their future employment prospects in Bermuda.  There was also the concern that since some of the group members were young people, they wouldn't be taken seriously by their elders. 

In addition to the other concerns, secrecy and surprise were key elements in getting this protest started and having the desired effect.  The members of the Progressive Group were rigorously vetted before being allowed to join.  In order to maintain the strict operational security they were barred from revealing even to their spouses what they discussed at the meetings held at Rosalind Williams' home.

Canadian visitors Anna Wheal and Ruth Cordy, who were staying with the Harvey's while visiting their college classmate Betty Kawaley, bought the printing press the Progressive Group used to create the flyers that later blanketed the island.  They also kept their roles in the boycott secret until 2009.   

At 10:30 PM on June 11 the members of  the Progressive Group began the first nerve wracking phase of the protest.  They synchronized their watches, scattered to different locations on the island and without being detected executed a coordinated drop of the flyers and posters across various locations around Bermuda announcing the boycott and its start date. 

Richard Lynch and Kingsley Tweed didn't have those secrecy reservations.  Once the boycott started on June 15, they appeared at the rallies organized to exhort Black Bermudians to support it and energized the crowds with their fiery street corner speeches.   .

After the posters and flyers appeared, the boycott began
slowly and was arrogantly dismissed as a 'storm in a teacup' by the white ruling class.   But they were premature in their smug assessment of the situation. 

Over the next eight days the Theatre Boycott gathered steam thanks to Lynch and Tweed's rally oratory and the determination of Black Bermudians.  The boycott crippled the movie theaters to the point they had to shut down on June 23.  The rattled theater owners and white establishment demanded that the Progressive Group come out of hiding to negotiate with them but they refused as Black Bermudians continued in solidarity to adhere to the boycott. .  


The theater owners capitulated on July 2 and desegregated the theaters.  The hotels, shops, banks and other public establishments in Bermuda soon followed in rapid succession.

The Theatre
Boycott succeeded beyond the wildest hopes of the organizers.  It ended segregation in Bermuda's public places in a matter of days.  A year later the Committee for Universal Adult Suffrage was formed with the twin goals of extending the right to vote for people ages 21 and older and eliminating the property requirement and implemented in 1961. 

It also jump started a long debate on the future social direction of Bermuda and despite some bumps along the way toward achieving it, helped Bermuda evolve toward a society that was was cognizant of the hopes , dreams and expectations of the majority of Bermudians.

The Theatre Boycott also emphatically demonstrated the value of nonviolent protest as the primary means to accomplish that systemic change. 

TransGriot Note: The photo is of four members of the Progressive Group that organized the Theatre Boycott.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

50th Anniversary Of Medgar Evers Assassination

gty medgar kb 130611 blog Medgar Evers Murder: 50 Years Later
It didn't take long for reaction to come from the Southern segregationists and Klan terrorists to come in reaction to President Kennedy's civil rights speech the previous night

50 years ago today civil rights leader and NAACP Field Secretary Medgar Evers was shot and killed in the driveway of his Jackson, MS home by white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith as he returned from a meeting with NAACP lawyers in the early morning hours of June 12, 1963.

After his funeral in Jackson, the Army veteran was buried with full military honors June 19 in Arlington National Cemetery as President Kennedy and other leaders of the time condemned the murder.

De La Beckwith was arrested for murder within weeks of Evers’ shooting but his first trial in 1964 ended with a hung all-white male jury. When a second all-white male jury also failed to reach a decision, De La Beckwith was set free. 

With the persistence of his widow Myrlie Evers-Williams, who later became the chair of the NAACP herself in 1995, pressure was applied three decades later by the Evers family and civil rights leaders to force the state of Mississippi to reopen the case based on new evidence.   

Evers body was exhumed from his grave for autopsy during the trial and on February 5, 1994 a racially mixed jury convicted the then 73 year old unrepentant white supremacist De La Beckwith for the 1963 assassination of Evers and sentenced him to life in prison, where he died in January 2001 at age 80.
.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

50th Anniversary of JFK's Civil Rights Speech

President John F. Kennedy on this night 50 years ago addressed the nation on African-American civil rights issues.   While we have come a long way since June 11, 1963, we still have a long way to go.

We have far too many people (including a few Supreme Court justices) in this country that think the progress we African-Americans and our allies have paid for in blood to the country that Dr. King envisioned needs to be rolled back or is 'racial entitlement'.

To remind you TransGriot readers the struggle continues, here is the speech President Kennedy made on that June evening 50 years ago.







***
Good evening, my fellow citizens:
This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro. That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
Today, we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Vietnam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops. It ought to to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal. It ought to to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.
The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the State in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.
This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right. We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.
The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?
One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.
We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?
Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them. The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.
We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives. It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the facts that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame, as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right, as well as reality.
Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The Executive Branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing. But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is the street.
I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public -- hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments. This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.
I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination, and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last two weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.
I'm also asking the Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to desegregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today, a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.
Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court's decision nine years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.
The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.
Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country. In this respect I wanna pay tribute to those citizens North and South who've been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency. Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom's challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.
My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all -- in every city of the North as well as the South. Today, there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or a lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.
This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents. We cannot say to ten percent of the population that you can't have that right; that your children cannot have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go in the street and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.
Therefore, I'm asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.
As I've said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.
We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.
This is what we're talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Domaine Javier Files Discrimination Suit Against Cal Baptist

25 year old trans woman Domaine Javier, who was expelled from California Baptist University in August 2011 after appearing on an episode of MTV's “True Life”and revealing she was trans, has now filed a lawsuit against the Riverside, CA based school.

Javier was enrolled in CBU's nursing program, had been awarded a $3,500 academic scholarship and a $2,000 music scholarship until the show aired and they expelled her, claiming fraud and concealing her identity.  

CBU claims they discovered it in a routine background check, but neither they or their attorney would issue statements commenting on this case..   

Discrimination based on gender identity is barred in California under the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act.  While private institutions like CBU aren't covered under the act, because CBU is open to students of all faiths and offers degrees in secular fields, Javier's attorney Paul Southwick argued that because California Baptist is open to people of all faiths, functions as a business establishment offering services to the general public and primarily offers degrees in secular fields, it is covered under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

“We’re not talking about a private seminary or Bible college,” he said. “Just because Cal Baptist is a religiously affiliated institution doesn’t give it a right to discriminate.”
 
Javier's suit that was filed in Riverside County Superior Court on February 25 accuses Cal Baptist of violations of California anti-discrimination laws, breach of contract and asks for $500,000 in damages.



She is now enrolled in the Riverside Community College nursing program

Stay tuned, this case is going to get interesting.  I've always argued that all institutions need to be covered under civil rights laws whether they are secular or religious.   Religious liberty does not give you the right to ignore local, state and federal state and human rights laws or hide behind Scripture to discriminate against people you don't like.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Joanne Cassar Is Still Fighting For Her Human Rights

I've been curious to find out what has been transpiring in Joanne Cassar of Malta's life since I wrote my last post on her now seven year roller coaster battle for her right to marry that started in 2006.  

She took her case to the European Court of Human Rights where it was heard in July 2012, and she is now awaiting a ruling on it. 

Still haven't seen anything yet concerning a ruling from the ECHR, but did stumble across a recent Times of Malta article featuring her and detailing some of the foul transphobic crap that has been aimed her way in that European island nation as she fights for her human rights.

In the past the 31-year-old, who underwent gender reassignment surgery nine years ago, has even been beaten up because of who she is. The latest violent episode was three years ago when she was at a carnival party in Gozo.  

“I was walking off the dance floor. I was hit on the head with a bottle and kicked in my chest and stomach. They stole my bag,” she recalled, adding she did not see the point in filing a police report.
“What would I get out of it? I’d end up having to go to court repeatedly… and if I had to file a report each time I’m insulted, I might as well move into the police station,” she said.

“When I sense trouble I tell the bouncer or leave the club, even if it means crying myself to sleep. I try to make it look like I don’t care, but I do. Some people hate people like me and I don’t know why,” she said.

“But my greatest disappointment is that we are in 2013 and I’ve been fighting for a human right for seven years,” she said, referring to a pending case before the European Court of Human Rights where she is fighting for the right to marry.

Yeah, I feel your pain Joanne.  And that's why we're fighting all over the globe to make trans human rights a reality all over the planet so our transkids don't have to endure the crap we've had to deal with.  .

 

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Operation Lemonade Has Commenced In Florida

Florida Teapublicans went to a lot of trouble, effort and spent cash to suppress the Black vote in the state by employing shady methods to attempt to make it harder to execute that hard won constitutional right.  

Their goal was to shave enough votes like they did in 2000,  to swing the state in Mittens favor.

Since today was the first day of the Florida early voting period they tried to either eliminate or severely cut back, Black clergy and the Rev. Al Sharpton led National Action Network organized a massive GOTV effort in the Sunshine State they are calling Operation Lemonade.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


This was triggered by President Obama's historic 2008 election.   In Florida African-American voters swamped the early voting polls, prompting then-Gov. Charlie Crist (R) to issue an executive order to keep the stations open longer.   Early voting in Florida lasted a total of 120 hours over 14 days in 2008 and Obama carried Florida and subsequently won the presidency as a result of that victory.

The conservafools were determined not to have that happen in 2012, so the Republican controlled Florida Legislature responded by capping early voting hours to a maximum 96 hours over eight days. It also eliminated early voting the Sunday before Election Day, when African Americans would vote in droves as part of their “souls to the polls” turnout tradition that began with the advent of early voting in 2002.

What that blatant racist attack on our voting rights did was piss off and motivate us instead  

Florida Black people considered it an insultingly bitter lemon they were handed by their legislature, so as Rev. Victor T. Curry said, “They gave us a lemon by taking away the Sunday before the election, but we’ve decided to make lemonade.”

The Republican early vote limitations have black voters fired up — and ready to vote, Curry said.
"Last time it was about making history," Curry said. "This time it’s personal."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/15/3051419/operation-lemonade-started-by.html#storylink=cpy

Yes Florida voters, get mad, get angry, be offended by it, take it personally.   Then take that righteous anger and make it your mission to take your soul to the polls and a few other friends as well.

Make it your mission to fire every Republican legislator who voted for those restrictions and support Florida ones who stood up for our community.   

And when you're done voting Florida peeps, have a tall cold glass of lemonade after you do so to celebrate.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Rep John Lewis Calls Out Rep. Paul Broun

The GOP effort to suppress the vote is well underway, and Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tried to offer an amendment Wednesday night that would strip the funding from the Department of Justice allocated for it to enforce Section V of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

What Broun didn't count on when he tried to pull this stunt was civil rights warrior and American hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) being in the room.  Rep Lewis then proceeded to call his azz out about it to the point where Broun's bigoted behind withdrew the amendment. 

Take notes liberal-progressives and Democrats.  This is how you confront a conservafool.



transcript courtesy of Think Progress.

It is hard, and difficult, and almost unbelievable that any Member — but especially a Member from the state of Georgia — would come and offer such amendment. There’s a long history in our country, especially in the 11 states that are old Confederacy — from Virginia to Texas — of discrimination based on race, on color. Maybe some of us need to study a little contemporary history dealing with the question of voting rights.

Just think, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was almost impossible for many people in the state of Georgia, in the state of Alabama, in Virginia, in Texas, to register to vote, to participate in the democratic process. The state of Mississippi, for example, had a black voting age population of more than 450,000, and only about 16,000 were registered to vote. One county in Alabama, the county was more than 80 percent [black], and not a single registered African-American voter. People had to pass a so-called literacy test. . . . one man was asked to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. Another man was asked to count the number of jelly beans in a jar.

It’s shameful that you would come here tonight and say to the Department of Justice that you must not use one penny, one cent, one dime, one dollar, to carry out the mandate of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

. . . People died for the right to vote. Friends of mine. Colleagues of mine. I speak out against this amendment. It doesn’t have a place.

***

Note to conservafools and Tea Klux Klan, some of those tax dollars you rail about come from the hard work of African-Americans.   We damned sure want the DOJ properly funded to enforce Section V against your white supremacist and ALEC inspired thuggish vote suppression tactics. 

Thanks Rep. Lewis for reminding the nation and the Republifools why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary.



Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Attorney General Holder's Speech On Voting Rights


TransGriot Note: Been extremely concerned about the coordinated GOP attacks on voting rights and their potential to disenfranchise voters, and so is AG Holder and the Obama Administration.  He spoke about the issue tonight at the LBJ Presidential Library and Museum on the UT campus in Austin, TX

Thank you, Mark [ Updegrove] .   It is a pleasure to be with you – and to join so many friends, colleagues, and critical partners in welcoming some of our nation’s most dedicated and effective civil rights champions – as well as the many University of Texas law students who are here, and who will lead this work into the future.  
I’d also like to thank Mark and his staff, as well as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum’s board members and community of supporters, for providing a forum for today’s conversation – and for all that you do, not only to honor the life and legacy of our 36th Commander-in-Chief, but also to build upon his historic efforts to ensure the strength, integrity, and future of our democracy.

Nearly half a century has passed since a national tragedy catapulted Lyndon Johnson to the Presidency, and at the same time `launched a new chapter in America’s story.   Those of us who lived through those painful days will never forget LBJ’s first Presidential speech – to a nation in mourning, and in desperate need of strong and steady leadership.   After quoting the 1961 inaugural address in which President Kennedy famously declared, “Let us begin,” President Johnson outlined the unfinished business of the civil rights agenda.   Then – with three simple words – he gave voice to the goals of his Presidency, and issued a challenge that has echoed through the ages: “Let us continue.”
In fulfilling this directive, President Johnson – and the many leaders, activists, and ordinary citizens who shared his vision and determination – set our country on a course toward remarkable, once-unimaginable, progress.   Together, they opened new doors of opportunity, helping to ensure equal access to schools and public spaces, to restaurants and workplaces, and – perhaps most important of all – to the ballot box.   Our great nation was transformed.

In 1965, when President Johnson signed the landmark Voting Rights Act into law, he proclaimed that, “the right to vote is the basic right, without which all others are meaningless.”
Today, as Attorney General, I have the privilege – and the solemn duty – of enforcing this law, and the other civil rights reforms that President Johnson championed.   This work is among the Justice Department’s most important priorities.   And our efforts honor the generations of Americans who have taken extraordinary risks, and willingly confronted hatred, bias, and ignorance – as well as billy clubs and fire hoses, bullets and bombs – to ensure that their children, and all American citizens, would have the chance to participate in the work of their government.   The right to vote is not only the cornerstone of our system of government – it is the lifeblood of our democracy.   And no force has proved more powerful – or more integral to the success of the great American experiment – than efforts to expand the franchise.

Despite this history, and despite our nation’s long tradition of extending voting rights – to non-property owners and women, to people of color and Native Americans, and to younger Americans – today, a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions, and problems that – nearly five decades ago – LBJ devoted his Presidency to addressing.   In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from many Americans, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble, and essential, ideals.
As Congressman John Lewis described it, in a speech on the House floor this summer, the voting rights that he worked throughout his life – and nearly gave his life – to ensure are, “under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.”   Not only was he referring to the all-too-common deceptive practices we’ve been fighting for years.   He was echoing more recent concerns about some of the state-level voting law changes we’ve seen this legislative season.  
 
Since January, more than a dozen states have advanced new voting measures.   Some of these new laws are currently under review by the Justice Department, based on our obligations under the Voting Rights Act.   Texas and South Carolina, for example, have enacted laws establishing new photo identification requirements that we’re reviewing.    We’re also examining a number of changes that Florida has made to its electoral process, including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, as well as changes to early voting procedures, including the number of days in the early voting period.  
 
Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes, I can assure you that it will be thorough – and fair.   We will examine the facts, and we will apply the law.   If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change.   And where a state can’t meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  
 
As many of you know – and as I hope the law students here are learning – Section 5 was put in place decades ago because of a well-documented history of voter discrimination in all or parts of the 16 states to which it applies.   Within these “covered jurisdictions,” any proposed change in voting procedures or practices – from moving a polling location to enacting a statewide redistricting plan – must be “precleared” – that is, approved – either by the Justice Department, or by a panel of federal judges.  
 
Without question, Sections 5’s preclearance process has been a powerful tool in combating discrimination for decades.   In 2006, it was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support – passing the House by a vote of 390 to 33, and the Senate by a vote of 98 to zero – before being signed into law by President Bush.
Despite the long history of support for Section 5, this keystone of our voting rights laws is now being challenged five years after its reauthorization as unconstitutional in no fewer than five lawsuits.   Each of these lawsuits claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2011 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary.  
I wish this were the case.   The reality is that – in jurisdictions across the country – both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common.   And we don’t have to look far to see recent proof.
For example, in October, the Justice Department objected to a redistricting plan in East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, where the map-drawer began the process by meeting exclusively with white officeholders – and never consulted black officeholders.   The result was a map that diminished the electoral opportunity of African Americans.   After the Justice Department objected, the Parish enacted a new, non-discriminatory map.
And, here in Texas, just two months ago, the Department argued in court filings that proposed redistricting plans for both the State House and the Texas Congressional delegation are impermissible, because the state has failed to show the absence of discrimination.   The most recent Census data indicated that Texas has gained more than 4 million new residents – the vast majority of whom are Hispanic – and that this growth allows for four new Congressional seats.   However, this State has proposed adding zero additional seats in which Hispanics would have the electoral opportunity envisioned by the Voting Rights Act.   Federal courts are still considering this matter, and we intend to argue vigorously at trial that this is precisely the kind of discrimination that Section 5 was intended to block.
To those who argue that Section 5 is no longer necessary – these and other examples are proof that we still need this critical tool to combat discrimination and safeguard the right to vote.  
As concerns about the protection of this right and the integrity of our election systems become an increasingly prominent part of our national dialogue – we must consider some important questions.   It is time to ask: what kind of nation – and what kind of people – do we want to be?   Are we willing to allow this era – our era – to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?   Are we willing to allow this time – our time – to be recorded in history as the age when the long-held belief that, in this country, every citizen has the chance – and the right – to help shape their government, became a relic of our past, instead of a guidepost for our future?
For me – and for our nation’s Department of Justice – the answers are clear.   We need election systems that are free from fraud, discrimination, and partisan influence – and that are more, not less, accessible to the citizens of this country.
Under this Administration, our Civil Rights Division – and its Voting Section – have taken meaningful steps to ensure integrity, independence, and transparency in our enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.   We have worked successfully and comprehensively to protect the voting rights of U.S. service members and veterans, and to enforce other laws that protect Americans living abroad, citizens with disabilities, and language minorities.   As part of our aggressive enforcement of the “Motor Voter” law, this year alone, we filed two statewide lawsuits to enforce the requirement that voter registration opportunities be made available at a wider variety of government offices – beyond just the local department of motor vehicles.   And we’re seeing promising results from this work.   For example, after filing a lawsuit in Rhode Island, we reached an agreement with state agencies that resulted in more voters being registered in the first full month after our lawsuit than in the entire previous two-year reporting period.


We’re also working to ensure that the protections for language minorities included in the Voting Rights Act are aggressively enforced.   These protections now apply to more than 19 million voting-age citizens.   These are our Spanish-speaking friends and neighbors, our Chinese-speaking friends and neighbors, and a large and growing part of all our communities.   In just the past year, we’ve filed three lawsuits to protect their rights.   And, today, we’re actively reviewing nationwide compliance.

But the Justice Department can’t do it all.   Ensuring that every veteran, every senior, every college student, and every eligible citizen has the right to vote must become our common cause.   And, for all Americans, protecting this right, ensuring meaningful access, and combating discrimination must be viewed, not only as a legal issue – but as a moral imperative.

Just as we recently saw in Maine – where voters last month overturned a legislative proposal to end same-day voter registration – the ability to shape our laws remains in the hands of the American people.
Tonight, I’d like to highlight three areas where public support will be crucial in driving progress – and advancing much-needed reforms.   The first involves deceptive election practices – and dishonest efforts to prevent certain voters from casting their ballots.

Over the years, we’ve seen all sorts of attempts to gain partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls – from literacy tests and poll taxes, to misinformation campaigns telling people that Election Day has been moved, or that only one adult per household can cast a ballot.    Before the 2004 elections, fliers were distributed in minority neighborhoods in Milwaukee, falsely claiming that “[I]f anybody in your family has ever been found guilty [of a crime], you can’t vote in the presidential election” – and you risk a 10-year prison sentence if you do.   Two years later, 14,000 Latino voters in Orange County, California, received mailings, warning in Spanish that, “[If] you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in jail time.”   Both of these blatant falsehoods likely deterred some eligible citizens from going to the polls.
And, just last week, the campaign manager of a Maryland gubernatorial candidate was convicted on election fraud charges for approving anonymous “robocalls” that went out on Election Day last year to more than 100,000 voters in the state’s two largest majority-black jurisdictions.   These calls encouraged voters to stay home – telling them to “relax” because their preferred candidate had already wrapped up a victory.


In an effort to deter and punish such harmful practices, during his first year in the U.S. Senate, President Obama introduced legislation that would establish tough criminal penalties for those who engage in fraudulent voting practices – and would help to ensure that citizens have complete and accurate information about where and when to vote.   Unfortunately, this proposal did not move forward.   But I’m pleased to announce that – tomorrow – Senators Charles Schumer and Ben Cardin will re-introduce this legislation, in an even stronger form.   I applaud their leadership – and I look forward to working with them as Congress considers this important legislation.  
The second area for reform is the need for neutrality in redistricting efforts.   Districts should be drawn to promote fair and effective representation for all – not merely to undercut electoral competition and protect incumbents.   If we allow only those who hold elected office to select their constituents – instead of enabling voters to choose their representatives – the strength and legitimacy of our democracy will suffer.

One final area for reform that merits our strongest support is the growing effort – which is already underway in several states – to modernize voter registration.   Today, the single biggest barrier to voting in this country is our antiquated registration system.   According to the Census Bureau, of the 75 million adult citizens who failed to vote in the last presidential election, 60 million of them were not registered and, therefore, not eligible to cast a ballot.
All eligible citizens can and should be automatically registered to vote.   The ability to vote is a right – it is not a privilege.   Under our current system, many voters must follow cumbersome and needlessly complex voter registration rules.   And every election season, state and local officials have to manually process a crush of new applications – most of them handwritten – leaving the system riddled with errors, and, too often, creating chaos at the polls.
Fortunately, modern technology provides a straightforward fix for these problems – if we have the political will to bring our election systems into the 21st century.   It should be the government’s responsibility to automatically register citizens to vote, by compiling – from databases that already exist – a list of all eligible residents in each jurisdiction.   Of course, these lists would be used solely to administer elections – and would protect essential privacy rights.
We must also address the fact that although one in nine Americans move every year, their voter registration often does not move with them.   Many would-be voters don’t realize this until they’ve missed the deadline for registering, which can fall a full month before Election Day.  Election officials should work together to establish a program of permanent, portable registration – so that voters who move can vote at their new polling place on Election Day.

Until that happens, we should implement fail-safe procedures to correct voter-roll errors and omissions, by allowing every voter to cast a regular, non-provisional ballot on Election Day.   Several states have already taken this step, and it’s been shown to increase turnout by at least three to five percentage points. 
These modernization efforts would not only improve the integrity of our elections, they would also save precious taxpayer dollars.
Despite these benefits, there will always be those who say that easing registration hurdles will only lead to voter fraud.   Let me be clear: voter fraud is not acceptable – and will not be tolerated by this Justice Department.   But as I learned early in my career – as a prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, where I actually investigated and prosecuted voting-fraud cases – making voter registration easier is simply not likely, by itself, to make our elections more susceptible to fraud.   Indeed, those on all sides of this debate have acknowledged that in-person voting fraud is uncommon.   We must be honest about this.   And we must recognize that our ability to ensure the strength and integrity of our election systems – and to advance the reforms necessary to achieve this – depends on whether the American people are informed, engaged, and willing to demand commonsense solutions that make voting more accessible.   Politicians may not readily alter the very systems under which they were elected.   Only we, the people, can bring about meaningful change.

So speak out.   Raise awareness about what’s at stake. Call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success and, instead, encourage and work with the parties to achieve this success by appealing to more voters.   And urge policymakers at every level to reevaluate our election systems – and to reform them in ways that encourage, not limit, participation.
Today, we cannot – and must not – take the right to vote for granted.  Nor can we shirk the sacred responsibility that falls upon our shoulders.

Throughout his Presidency, Lyndon Johnson frequently pointed out that, “America was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose – to right wrong, [and] to do justice.”   Over the last two centuries, the fulfillment of this purpose has taken many forms – acts of protest and compassion, declarations of war and peace, and a range of efforts to make certain that, as another great President said, “government of…by…[and] for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”

Today, there are competing visions about how our government should move forward.   That’s what the democratic process is all about – creating space for thoughtful debate, creating opportunity for citizens to voice their opinions, and ultimately letting the people chart their course.   Our nation has worked, and even fought, to help people around the world establish such a process – most recently during the wave of civil rights uprisings known as the Arab Spring.   Here at home, honoring our democracy demands that we remove any and all barriers to voting – a goal that all American citizens of all political backgrounds must share.

Despite so many decades of struggle, sacrifice, and achievement – we must remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our most basic and important right.   Too many recent actions have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us – and has made this nation exceptional, as well as an example for all the world.   We must be true to the arc of America’s history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise.   And we must never forget the purpose that – more than two centuries ago – inspired our nation’s founding, and now must guide us forward.
So, let us act – with optimism and without delay.   Let us rise to the challenges – and overcome the divisions – of our time.   Let us signal to the world that – in America today – the pursuit of a more perfect union lives on. 

And, in the spirit of Lyndon Baines Johnson, let us continue.

\n"; document.getElementById('resselect').value=zoomres; } -->

\n"; document.getElementById('resselect').value=zoomres; } -->

\n"; document.getElementById('resselect').value=zoomres; } -->