14 March 21
Struggling on a Sunday? We Have the Balm.
Daylight Saving Time ... Why? Why? Why?
Despite my feelings of frustration and a case of serious brain fog, I'm committed to ensuring our team brings you the latest in progressive news and opinion.
Our content will wake you up.
Have you noticed our latest feature, "The Sunday Song”? Each Sunday we bring you both progressive classics and maybe some hidden gems that you haven't heard in years. Today, we brought you a Joan Baez classic.
Please contribute to RSN.
Best wishes.
Angela Watters
Managing Editor, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
14 March 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Joe Manchin Is the Poster Boy for a Doomed Centrist Politics
Ross Barkan, Jacobin
Barkan writes:
West Virginia senator Joe Manchin is an embodiment of centrist Democrats’ worst instincts. He says he wants to win over Republican-voting workers, but he is consistently on the wrong side of populist economic issues like a minimum wage hike that are wildly popular among those workers.
here has always been something particularly vexing about Joe Manchin. The West Virginia Democrat, a longtime enemy of the poorest in his own state, has perpetually frustrated anyone attempting to implement economic populism in America.
If you are for it, Manchin is probably against it. Unemployment insurance is too high, a $15 minimum wage is too generous, the stimulus checks can’t be $2,000, though that’s apparently good enough for Donald Trump. In the pockets of the oil and mining interests that have decimated the lands he represents, Manchin is a living caricature of a corroded, compromised Washington, existing to placate his richest donors.
It’s at this point when the Beltway operatives and think tank apparatchiks chime in from the sidelines: Don’t you understand what Manchin’s doing? He represents a state Trump won with almost 70 percent of the vote! He does what he needs to do to survive! Without Manchin, there is no Democratic majority, no $1.9 trillion stimulus, no chance to bolster the welfare state you big city leftists claim to care so much about.
On the surface, like most political arguments, there is a logic to this. Manchin survived reelection in 2018 in a blue wave year that nevertheless took down other centrist colleagues. It is easy to read him as a canny survivor, even a mild genius. He’s great with constituent work, apparently.
But Manchin’s got it all backward. If Democrats have any hope of winning back rural states and voters without college degrees — it’s not just working-class whites trending away from them anymore — they will need to recommit to much of the policy that the allegedly wise centrists like Manchin have scorned.
If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that the neoliberals are losing. America is far away from becoming a socialist state, but it’s now a place where Larry Summers can whine about the stimulus bill being too big and get blown off entirely. Trump was a venal, right-wing president, but he managed to oversee more stimulus spending than Barack Obama ever did, sending out free money to millions of Americans. Biden, a tired centrist in the Manchin mold, has nevertheless been reactive enough to the zeitgeist to understand that the mistakes of 2009 cannot be repeated.
Democrats have created a generous childcare welfare policy that is not dependent on punishing work requirements favored by Bill Clinton and his ilk. If it becomes permanent, it has the ability to cut deeply into child poverty.
As with all welfare expansions, it can always be weakened but will be difficult to revoke entirely. Austerity-hungry Republicans know this; it’s why they fear progressive ideas so much. Social Security, despite their best efforts, was not privatized. Neither was Medicare nor Medicaid.
If Manchin wants to survive 2024, with Trump potentially on the ballot again, he will need to start promising the vast working class and poor of his state tangible gains. He will need to pump more money directly into their pockets, attempt to give them better health care, and guarantee them, in some way, access to decent-paying jobs. That was the idea behind the $15 minimum wage, a policy popular enough to pass in Florida as Trump won the state handily and Democrats were obliterated.
If a Democrat wants to survive in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, they will probably have to make concessions on cultural issues that take up the most oxygen in right-wing media. Republican voters are firmly opposed to gun control and more generous immigration policy, for example, but they have no problem with the government spending more lavishly on their behalf.
Manchin has sought to appease Democrats on gun control while shrinking unemployment benefits and no-strings-attached stimulus checks. A savvier politician would likely attempt the opposite: increase the size of the check, to $2,000 or more, while ditching his goal to establish universal background checks for gun purchases. Though he would be pilloried for this posture when he ran for president, Sanders took a version of this approach in Vermont, where Republicans held far more power in his early years than they do today.
Manchin’s politics make little sense in a world where even the most outwardly conservative voters want cheaper health care, higher wages, and more cash from the government. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which sent $1,200 checks to poor and middle-class Americans alike, likely helped bolster Trump’s reelection campaign, which defied public polling that showed Biden blowing him out. The Democrats’ victory in the Georgia Senate runoffs seemed almost entirely predicated on the promise that Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock could deliver $2,000 checks to Georgians and the Republican incumbents could not.
Remarkably, Manchin has remained committed to foiling the ambitions of Ossoff and Warnock, who similarly need to worry about a Republican vote while bolstering material conditions in Georgia before tough reelection bids. Too deluded by his newfound power in the Senate, Manchin can’t seem to grasp how much he is dooming his own party. And he has no singular vision for helping those in his own state.
A Republican may wipe him out in 2024 regardless, but he can be so much more valuable before that day comes. By choosing not to, he punishes the rest of us.
The shadows of asylum-seeking unaccompanied minors from Central America, along with adult migrants, as they await transport after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States from Mexico on a raft in Penitas, Tex., on March 12. (photo: Adrees Latif/Reuters)
Biden Will Deploy FEMA to Care for Teenagers and Children Crossing Border in Record Numbers
Nick Miroff, The Washington Post
Miroff writes: "The Biden administration is deploying the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Mexico border to help care for thousands of unaccompanied migrant teens and children who are arriving in overwhelming numbers and being packed into detention cells and tent shelters, the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday evening."
The deployment marks another escalation in the administration’s response to the growing crisis at the border. It is part of what DHS said would be a 90-day government-wide effort at the border, where an unprecedented number of minors are arriving without their parents each day and must be sheltered and cared for until they can be placed with a vetted sponsor, usually a parent or relative already living in the United States.
About 8,500 teens and children are living in shelters run by Health and Human Services, and unaccompanied minors are arriving more quickly than HHS officials can place children with sponsors. They have been unable to quickly add capacity to accommodate the new arrivals, which means nearly 4,000 minors are jam-packed in Border Patrol station holding facilities and jail cells designed for adults. These sites have become dangerously overcrowded in recent days, according to lawyers who represent migrant children.
Soon after taking office, President Biden said his administration would no longer turn back unaccompanied minors who cross the border without their parents, a policy that the Trump administration implemented using an emergency health order. Immigrant activists and child advocates denounced that practice for denying minors the opportunity to apply for asylum in the United States while exposing them to potential risks in Mexico.
Biden officials have not said why they did not anticipate or better prepare for the unprecedented surge that has followed the policy change. As many as 700 teens and children have crossed the border without their parents in recent days, and the strain has been most acute in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, where emergency shelters are filled beyond capacity.
During the first major influx of migrant teens and children in 2014, the Obama administration also deployed FEMA, which helped set up temporary housing and processing stations on military bases. Biden officials have not said whether the Defense Department has agreed to help with the current surge, and the DHS statement did not indicate where FEMA might find shelter beds for the teens and children.
Officials have used hotels along the border since the start of the pandemic to hold minors, but attorneys sued the Trump administration to halt the practice. The government will “look at every available option to quickly expand physical capacity for appropriate lodging,” the DHS statement said.
While FEMA can help provide logistical support, it would not be able to leverage disaster funding without the assent of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who has blasted the Biden administration’s immigration policies. Abbott has also balked at a DHS proposal for FEMA to handle coronavirus testing for migrants as well as isolation procedures for those who test positive.
Under U.S. law, minors are supposed to be transferred from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to HHS within 72 hours. HHS holds the minors in child-appropriate shelters while refugee officials identify a sponsor who is eligible to take custody. In nearly 90 percent of cases, the sponsor is one of the child’s parents or immediate relatives already living in the United States.
That process takes more than a month on average, and with teens and children arriving faster than HHS has been able to release them, the Border Patrol facilities have been backed up.
“A Border Patrol facility is no place for a child,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in the agency’s statement. “We are working in partnership with HHS to address the needs of unaccompanied children, which is made only more difficult given the protocols and restrictions required to protect the public health and the health of the children themselves.”
DHS continues to use the public health order to “expel” single adults and some of the families that have also begun arriving in soaring numbers. In February, border agents made more than 100,000 arrests and detentions along the border, and this month they are on pace to reach more than 130,000.
The latest HHS and DHS statistics show about 75 percent of the minors are ages 15 to 17. But some of those in custody are age 6 or even younger, and the specialized care they require has placed significant strain on federal agencies.
Homeland Security officials have requested that employees volunteer to go to the border immediately to help care for the minors and assist with administrative duties and security functions.
Protest in Louisville over the death of Breonna Taylor. (photo: Micheal Clevenger/Louisville Courier Journal)
Kentucky Senate Passes a Bill Criminalizing Insults to Police
Joe Sonka and Kala Kachmar, Louisville Courier Journal
he Kentucky state Senate passed a bill Thursday evening to enhance penalties for crimes related to rioting after more than an hour of heated debate, including criticism that it would criminalize insulting police officers and chill protected free speech.
Sen. Danny Carroll, R-Benton, a retired police officer, said his Senate Bill 211 would crack down on and send a message to those who "tried to destroy the city of Louisville" in the civil unrest last year.
In addition to raising punishments on crimes related to rioting and prohibiting early release on such offenses, SB 211 would make it a crime to provoke an officer verbally to the point it could provoke a violent response.
Though Carroll said "insulting an officer is not going to cause anyone to go to jail," his bill states a person is guilty of disorderly conduct – a Class B misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 90 days imprisonment – if he or she "accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person."
The bill passed by a 22-11 vote, with six Republicans joining Democrats to vote 'no.'
Sen. Gerald Neal, a Democrat who represents a majority-Black district in west Louisville, said he was insulted by Carroll's bill, which he viewed as a direct attack on his constituents who protest for and demand racial justice.
"This is another hammer on my district," Neal said. "This is a backhand slap. And I resent it. I personally resent it."
An angered Neal twice said "how dare you," calling the bill "beneath this body. It's unwise. It's provocative. It's unnecessary. It's unreasonable."
Neal added he was "befuddled" by the legislation, as laws are already on the books to deal with violent rioters, saying it could harm the city's efforts to come together and heal after the tumultuous months of protests kicked off by the fatal police shooting of Breonna Taylor.
Meanwhile, law professors and attorneys said the bill violates the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, including free speech, equal protection and due process.
If it were to pass, it's likely too vague and broad to uphold a conviction against an appeal, they said.
If challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court could rule based on the Vagueness Doctrine, or the idea that a law is unenforceable if it's too vague for the average citizen to understand, said Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
The bill would "chill" permissible, protected speech because a reasonable person wouldn't know what behavior was prohibited or permitted, Stone said.
"When you start putting criminal offenses on insulting a particular type of government employee, that law is going to be unconstitutional in all its applications," said Michael Abate, a First Amendment attorney who has represented The Courier Journal, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.
"It gives far too much discretion to individual police officers to make arrests when their feelings are hurt," he said.
Abate said the bill presents "incredibly serious" First Amendment problems that go "far beyond" what the Constitution would permit. Senate Bill 211 is so vague and so broad that someone could be criminally charged for saying they don't like the police, he said.
"I think it's dangerous because we see police already using existing laws to overcharge protesters. This new statute could open the door for them charging based on their own feelings and how threatened they perceive themselves to be," Abate said.
Carroll stood by his bill amid the criticism by Neal and other Democrats Thursday evening, saying the legislature would take the steps necessary to protect police officers and property in Louisville that Mayor Greg Fischer failed to take last year.
"The silent majority in this state supports this legislation," Carroll said. "They are as troubled by what has happened in this country, by what happened in Louisville, as I am. I will not apologize for this bill."
According to a Courier Journal review of data, Louisville Metro Police recorded 871 protest-related arrests – including 252 with at least one felony charge – between May 29 and Sept. 28. Black people made up 53% of the total arrests and 69% of arrests with a felony.
Sen. Reggie Thomas, D-Lexington, said the passage of a bill like SB 211 could overshadow the goodwill and positive racial justice work of the session to advance legislation banning certain no-knock warrants, giving subpoena power to Louisville's police civilian review board and creating a new TIF district in west Louisville.
Sen. Morgan McGarvey, D-Louisville, criticized the section criminalizing taunting police, noting those arrested on such a charge must be held in jail for at least 48 hours – a penalty that does not automatically extend to those arrested on murder, rape and arson in Kentucky.
"This bill shatters what we're working toward healing," McGarvey said. "This furthers the divide and it puts us legally down a road where I cannot believe this body wants us to go."
Several of the Republican members to vote against the bill – including Sen. Julie Raque Adams of Louisville – explained their opposition to the mandatory 48-hour holds and the provision on insulting or taunting police, hoping the House sends back an amended bill striking those sections.
A sign points toward the women's section of the Huntington Beach jail. (photo: Jeff Gritchen/Orange County Register/Getty Images)
#FreeHer Campaign Wants Clemency for 100 Women in Biden's First 100 Days
Cheryl Corley, NPR
Corley writes:
ore than 200,000 women and girls are incarcerated in this country — 10,000 of them in federal prisons — and Danielle Metz used to be one of them.
Metz was married to an alleged drug kingpin and had two small children, 3 and 7 years old, when she was sentenced in 1993 for drug conspiracy and money laundering convictions. She had never been in legal trouble before, "not even a traffic ticket," she says. "I was sentenced to three life sentences and when I came in the system they didn't have parole or anything like that anymore. So I was just doing time day for day. The process was really hard. My family didn't know what to do in the beginning. I had exhausted my appeals. Clemency was my only hope."
Nothing came of Metz's first clemency petition, however things started to change when prosecutors wrote a letter to the Office of the Pardon Attorney on her behalf. In August 2016, President Barack Obama commuted her sentence.
"That was after 23 years and 8 months of serving," Metz says.
The U.S. Constitution gives the president power to grant clemency for a person who committed a federal crime. Typically that's either a commutation, which reduces a person's sentence, or a pardon, which absolves them of a crime. Metz works now with the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls. As part of a clemency campaign, the group is asking President Biden to grant clemency to 100 women during his first 100 days in office.
The Council's founder and executive director Andrea James says draconian penalties and mandatory minimum sentences that escalated the country's "war on drugs" including the 1994 crime bill and the government's increased use of drug conspiracy charges swept up too many people who had marginal if any roles in drug trafficking.
"When I was in federal prison, there were women that were there for conspiracy who never touched a drug, they didn't see a drug," says James, who was incarcerated for two years on a wire fraud conviction. "If you took conspiracy out of the equation, you could not justify these women sitting in prison for 10, 15, 20, 25 years and life without parole sentences and it's just absolutely heartbreaking."
During his days in the U.S. Senate, Biden authored or supported many of the tough on crime bills that critics say have had a disparate impact on Black neighborhoods and increased the prison population. He has since offered criminal justice reforms that counter some of the earlier legislation. James and the National Council say the president should continue righting wrongs by granting the clemency requests of the 100 women they believe should be released.
The group's primary focus is on the elderly and women serving life without parole for drug cases.
"The second category are women who are sick," James says. "They have chronic or terminal illness and they are in prison during COVID-19.
The U.S. Department of Justice publishes clemency statistics going back to the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt in the 1900s. The numbers from recent years show President George W. Bush pardoned 189 people and commuted 11 sentences. Obama, who encouraged people to file petitions during his administration's clemency initiative, granted 212 pardons and commuted the sentences of 1,715 people. President Donald Trump, who largely bypassed the traditional Justice Department process for some of his clemency decisions, granted 143 pardons and commuted 94 sentences during his presidency. The Justice Department also shows, at last count, nearly 400 clemency petitions asking for President Biden to pardon or commute sentences have been filed.
Rachel Barkow, a New York University law professor and an expert on clemency, says there's certainly a need to grant thousands of clemency petitions. The problem she says is that the system is broken with no transparency about how requests are handled.
"It's a black box," Barkow says, "so there's no telling where those 100 women would fit in the clemency process or the Biden administration's priorities."
As part of Obama's clemency initiative, Barkow co-founded a clemency resource center that obtained commutations for 96 people. However, Barkow says the Obama initiative is also, in part, the reason why there is a 14,000 person clemency backlog since a deluge of women and men — more than 36,000 — filed clemency petitions during that time. And that backlog grew during the Trump administration.
Also at fault says Barkow is the slow, bureaucratic process of how clemency applications are approved or denied. It's a procedure that begins at the U.S. Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney. Barkow says its long past due to take the process out of the Justice Department and to let an independent body review clemency petitions and make recommendations to the president.
"It just does not make sense to ask prosecutors to make these decisions. There's a bias there," Barkow says. "The prosecutor who looks at is really focused on the initial crime and what the person did, but clemency is so much more about who that person is today."
So as the countdown on President Biden's first 100 days continues, incarcerated women, their families and supporters say they will continue to implore the president to grant 100 women clemency over the next few months. They will also urge him to ignore the presidential practice of offering clemency as a gift near the end of a term in office.
An elderly Palestinian protests against the demolition of a temporary health clinic by Israeli forces in the West Bank village of al-Mufagara, 27 January. (photo: AFP)
'Winds Are Shifting': US Lawmakers Criticize Israel in Two Rare Letters
Ali Harb, The Middle East Eye
Harb writes:
Dozen House members slam range of Israeli policies, and five senators call on Israel to vaccinate Palestinians in separate letter
S lawmakers from both chambers of Congress have sent letters to the Biden administration criticising the Israeli government and urging it to vaccinate Palestinians living under its control.
In two separate letters sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday, progressive senators and members of the House of Representatives called on the US administration to resume funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) and push to ensure the rights of Palestinians.
The documents signal the growing willingness to criticise Israel amongst Democrats in Congress, a branch of the US government where unquestioning support for Israel is the norm.
The House letter, signed by 12 legislators and led by Rashida Tlaib and Mark Pocan, said the State Department should investigate and condemn the recent demolition of Palestinian homes in the West Bank by Israeli forces.
"We are greatly heartened that the Biden Administration is opposed to Israeli annexation; however, Israel's ongoing colonization of the Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem, alongside its demolition of Palestinian homes, is a form of ongoing, de facto annexation which needs to be unequivocally opposed by the United States," the House members wrote.
"The message from this Administration must be clear: settler colonialism in any form - including Israel's settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank - is illegal under international law and will not be tolerated."
'Legally obligated'
The Senate letter, which was signed by five lawmakers - Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Carper, Sherrod Brown and Jeff Merkley - mostly focused on the inoculation of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
"As the occupying power under international law, Israel is legally obligated to provide for the health and well-being of all people under its control," the senators said.
Israel, whose vaccination campaign for its citizens is leading the world per-capita, cites the Oslo Accords to argue that the Palestinian Authority is responsible for health care in the occupied territories.
The senators wrote that Oslo does "not supersede Israel's responsibilities under the 4th Geneva Convention". International law states that the occupying power is responsible for the health of the occupied population, including "the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics".
Moreover, legal experts say that Israel, which regularly violates the Oslo Accords, controls all the infrastructure needed to import and administer the vaccines in the West Bank and Gaza.
The House letter voiced concerns about a range of Israeli policies that lawmakers said violate Palestinians' human rights.
"We remain concerned about Israel's policy of demolishing Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem," the lawmakers said.
"We request that the State Department undertake an investigation into Israel's possible use of US equipment in these home demolitions and determine whether these materials have been used in violation of the Arms Export Control Act or any US-Israeli end-use agreements.
"We believe the State Department should condemn Israel's home demolitions in unequivocal terms and take effective and timely diplomatic action to end this policy."
Signatories to the letter include freshman Representative Marie Newman who defeated staunchly pro-Israel Dan Lipinski in a Democratic primary last year; Jim McGovern, who co-chairs the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission; Betty McCollum, an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights; Ilhan Omar; and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
House members also called on President Joe Biden to officially revoke Donald Trump's "deal of the century," a plan to end the conflict that was overwhelmingly rejected by Palestinians for proposing that Israel keep all of its West Bank settlements and the entire city of Jerusalem.
"We believe that the Biden Administration should officially take this plan off the table and make clear to Israel and the Palestinian people that no part of it will constitute the basis for any future US-backed plan," the letter said.
'Equitable resolution'
For their part, the senators called on the administration to revive hopes of peace and ensure the security and well-being of both Israelis and Palestinians.
"The occupation will continue to present problems such as those articulated above, so we urge the administration to work towards an equitable resolution to ensure the rights of all people," it said.
"Ultimately these issues will not be fully resolved until both parties agree to a fair solution that ensures full citizenship rights for both Israelis and Palestinians."
Beth Miller, government affairs manager at JVP Action, a political advocacy group linked to Jewish Voice for Peace, said Friday's letters "sign that the winds are shifting" in the debate around Israel-Palestine in Washington, underscoring the significance of both documents.
"These letters show that the movement that has been pressuring Congress around Palestinian rights is finally breaking through," she said.
Still, the Biden administration is yet to voice any criticism of Israeli government policies, including on the issues of settlements and vaccination.
Blinken has also rebuked the International Criminal Court for deciding to investigate alleged war crimes committed in Palestine, and the administration regularly condemns the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to pressure Israel to end abuses against Palestinians.
"The Biden administration's policy toward Palestine-Israel so far has been incredibly disappointing," Miller told MEE.
"They have essentially come out against every possible mode of holding the Israeli government accountable for human rights violations against Palestinians, and they are sending a really clear signal that they don't intend on making much of a shift from what Trump's policies were."
But she added that Friday's letters demonstrate the difference between progressives in Congress and the administration when it comes to the approach to Palestinians' human rights.
"And that's really important because that's how we build pressure over time to force the White House to take real action," Miller told MEE.
"And so, it matters that more and more progressives in Congress are responding to the pressure of the grassroots in their districts who want to see the Israeli government held accountable for human rights violations against Palestinians."
Sunday Song: Joan Baez | With God On Our Side (1965)
Joan Baez, YouTube
Excerpt: "But now we got weapons of chemical dust. If fire them, we're forced to then fire, them we must."
June 5, 1965 Folk Singer and American Treasure Joan Baez performed at the BBC Theatre in Shepherd's Bush, London.
Oh my name it ain't nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I was taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side
Oh, the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh, the country was young
With God on its side
The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War, too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I was made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side
The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side
The Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now, too
Have God on their side
I've learned to hate the Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side
But now we got weapons
of chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to,
Then fire, them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side
Through many a dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was
Betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
That if God's on our side
He'll stop the next war
First responders gather a water sample from the Dan River in Eden, NC after a 2014 coal ash spill. (photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
How Gerrymandering Silences the Environmental Vote
Jeremy Deaton, Nexus Media
his year, state legislatures will redraw the electoral map. The GOP controls most state legislatures, and they are expected to draw congressional districts to favor Republicans, which will make it easier for them to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, even if they fail to win the most votes overall. This dynamic will influence policymaking on a number of issues, including the environment. Recent events in North Carolina give some idea of what to expect.
In North Carolina, coal-fired plants historically dealt with the leftover ash by mixing it with wastewater and dumping it into an open pit nearby. Because coal generators need a lot of water, power plants and coal ash ponds usually sit next to a lake or river.
This arrangement can have disastrous consequences. In 2014, a pipe under a coal ash pond owned by Duke Energy in Eden, North Carolina cracked open. The pipe carried wastewater from the nearby coal plant to the Dan River. When it broke, upwards of 30,000 tons of soggy, toxic coal ash seeped into the pipe and drained into the river.
In the aftermath, the Obama administration created the first-ever regulation on coal ash ponds, though it was remarkably weak. Michael Yaki, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, later said it was "practically toothless in its ability to protect the poorest and minority population of our country from things such as coal ash." Despite this, in 2015, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would water down the regulation even further in ways that could lead to a repeat of the Dan River spill or allow coal ash ponds to leak toxins into drinking water.
Every single Republican member of North Carolina's congressional delegation voted in favor of the bill — including Rep. Mark Walker, whose district included the site of the Dan River spill — even as North Carolina residents living near coal ash ponds were being told not to drink well water. Every Democrat voted against it. The bill ultimately died in the Democratically-controlled Senate.
To understand why North Carolina Republicans would vote for a doomed bill to slash coal ash protections, it helps to consider their political circumstances.
In the anti-Obama fervor of 2015, it wasn't hard to marshal Republicans against the spectre of regulatory overreach, particularly against the energy industry. While Duke Energy donated to every member of North Carolina's congressional delegation, it gave substantially more to Republicans than to Democrats. But perhaps more important than campaign contributions or the political milieu was the impact of gerrymandering.
In 2010, Republicans came to power in North Carolina, and when they redrew the congressional map, they carved up Democratic strongholds to dilute the power of Democratic voters — namely, Black voters — creating districts that wiggled and stretched across large expanses. This practice, known as gerrymandering, produced a map that heavily favored Republicans.
In 2014, the GOP won only 55 percent of the vote statewide, but they came away with 10 out of 13 seats, and not one of these races was particularly close. Every politician Republican was well insulated against swings in public opinion. A 2014 poll from the Sierra Club found that 70 percent of North Carolina voters would be more likely to support a politician who " favors strong regulations and enforcement… to prevent future spills," and yet every Republican fought such rules.
Because of the way the electoral map was drawn, 12 of the 14 coal ash pond sites in North Carolina were in districts represented by Republicans, meaning that almost no one living near a coal ash pond was represented by someone who favored stronger regulations. And most coal ash pond sites are in areas that are disproportionately low-income, according to data from Earthjustice.
"Any environmental issue will receive less attention in a district where voting power has been diluted and divided," said Jason Rhode, national coordinator for the Princeton Gerrymandering Project at Princeton University. "Without that voice, environmental injustice can run rampant."
In 2016, a federal court determined that North Carolina's congressional map had diminished the power of Black voters and ordered the legislature to redraw the map. The Republican majority produced a map that, on its face, looked more fair. But it still carved up Democratic strongholds, which typically meant Black communities, with the effect of diluting the Black vote. In the most egregious case, they drew a line through the middle of North Carolina A&T State University, the largest historically Black university in the country. The final map produced just as many Republican seats, and it left only one coal ash site in a district represented by a Democrat.
"The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. We're getting further and further away from that," said Rev. Gregory Hairston, senior pastor at Rising Star Baptist Church and a coal ash advocate.
By diluting the Black vote, he said, the Republican-controlled legislature undermined the ability of Black voters to influence policy on issues like coal ash, which disproportionately harm Black residents.
"We found that many of the issues that we faced — strokes, cancer, asthma and different neurological diseases — had developed around these centers," Hairston said. "There is still pollution that is being put into our rivers, our basins, our water supplies."
Gerrymandering also produces more extremes, as lawmakers in safe districts are more likely to fear a primary challenge than a general election loss. This can stymie environmental legislation, said former North Carolina state Representative Chuck McGrady, a moderate, pro-environment Republican who led the legislative response to the Dan River spill.
"The problem is that, because of gerrymandering, there is just not a lot of discussion and not a lot of ability to find compromise on a range of issues, including environmental protection," he said. "Gerrymandering has allowed both parties to play to their base and makes it more unacceptable for anyone to compromise on whatever the issue is. It really doesn't matter."
In 2019, a North Carolina state court delivered another blow to North Carolina's gerrymandered congressional map. Judges said that map was far too partisan and ordered the Republican-controlled legislature to redraw it once again. They did, and the result was a map that would send eight Republicans and five Democrats to Congress. While it was more representative than the previous map, and some districts were made more competitive, the new map still heavily tilted toward the GOP. Only three coal ash sites were in districts represented by Democrats.
Experts at Princeton said the more reliable way to produce a fair map is to assemble an independent citizen-redistricting commission, a bipartisan collection of citizens whose goal is to produce a fair map.
"If you have a very transparent process where the people making the decisions have the interests of the constituents at heart, that's going to make a good map," said Hannah Wheelen, project manager and data coordinator at the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. "Process and public involvement are what make good maps."
In 2019, McGrady put forward a bill to overhaul North Carolina's redistricting process. The bill calls for an independent commission to draw the map and for the legislature to vote on it. McGrady also introduced a constitutional amendment to enshrine this process. Both measures failed.
"We got so very close. I had really firm commitments in terms of the North Carolina legislature taking this up last year, and then this little pandemic arrived, and it's just not an issue you can resolve through Zoom calls," he said.
Now, any hopes of ending gerrymandering are likely dead, at least for a few more years. Every 10 years, states redraw the congressional map. In the 2020 election, Republicans retained their grip on the state legislature, and in 2021 they are likely to draw the map to favor the GOP. North Carolina's democratic governor, Roy Cooper, has no veto power over the maps.
"I will continue to have an interest in making sure that our representation in the U.S. Congress more closely resembles the purple nature of our state, but I would not be surprised if my friends across the aisle take a different vantage point," said Ben Clark, a Democrat in the North Carolina Senate.
In the last round of redistricting, Clark put forward a map that would have sent seven Republicans and six Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives, meaning it would have been roughly representative. It failed, but it showed what a fairer map might look like.
Clark's map preserved communities, including those affected by coal ash ponds. On his map, the Dan River coal ash pond would fall in a Democratic-leaning district that included Greensboro, which lies just 30 miles south. And the Sandhills region, a flat, sandy area on the southern side of the state would also be collected in one district.
"It just makes sense to do a Sandhills district," he said. "They have similar historical concerns, environmental concerns."
Among those environmental concerns is the Weatherspoon coal ash pond in Lumberton. Until the pond is finally closed, it poses a threat to people who live nearby, as heavy rains could flood the pond and carry coal ash into the nearby Lumber River. Lumberton is comprised mostly of people of color. Around a third of residents live below the poverty line.
"They're working for a living, but they don't have a whole lot," said Jefferson Currie II, Lumber Riverkeeper with the Winyah Rivers Alliance. "A lot of corporations over the years, they chose the path of least resistance. That meant [polluting] people who can't necessarily litigate and fight back."
Currently, this area is in the ninth district, which is represented by a Republican, Dan Bishop, the lead sponsor of bill requiring transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex at birth. In Clark's map, the ninth district would lean Democratic, reflecting the partisan makeup of the Sandhills region. The sixth district, which includes the site of the Dan River spill, would also be represented by a Democrat. In total, six of the state's 14 coal ash pond sites would be represented by Democrats. Clark's map would also be more competitive than the current map, meaning elected officials couldn't just play to their base.
"The best of all worlds is to have a sufficient number of districts that are truly competitive, in which the candidates have to compete on their ideas and values," Clark said. "I don't want a map that automatically elects all Democrats or automatically elects all Republicans."
While North Carolina's GOP-controlled legislature is unlikely to produce a competitive map on its own, there is some slim hope for reforming gerrymandering this year. Congress is currently considering a bill, H.R. 1, that would require states to use independent citizen-redistricting commissions to draw maps. The bill would also ban map drawers from engaging in partisan gerrymandering or breaking up relevant communities – in particular, communities of color, like North Carolina A&T State University.
Clark, however, is pessimistic about the chances of ending gerrymandering in 2021. Currie held a similarly dim view, but he said that people should rally nonetheless.
"We don't push strong enough or hard enough. We need to say, 'We want a nonpartisan commission or we're gonna vote y'all out of office,'" he said. Though, he added, "I'm not expecting them to draw the most geographically and politically representational map. And if they did, I might pass out."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.