Tag: Supreme Court

  • Wait What Students & Caucasian Folk Can’t Vote

    Wait What Students & Caucasian Folk Can’t Vote

    15th Amendment

    The 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1870. It granted African-American men the right to vote. The amendment states:

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

    This amendment was a significant milestone in the civil rights movement, as it aimed to protect the voting rights of African Americans and ensure equal access to the democratic process.

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), a federal law adopted during the height of the civil rights movement thanks to the tireless efforts of Black activists, enforced the 15th Amendment’s guarantee that the right to vote can’t be denied “on account of race” and addressed barriers that prevented Black voters from casting their ballots. The law, which has been amended five times since its adoption, currently provides a wide range of protections to ensure that eligible voters are not denied the right to vote on account of race. In response to the great success of the VRA in expanding and protecting voting rights across the country, those seeking to suppress voters have focused on stripping the law of its most crucial provisions. Unfortunately, in recent years, far-reaching efforts seeking to curtail the VRA have made noticeable progress.

    • Tennessee did not ratify the amendment until 1997. Interesting Facts about the Fifteenth Amendment. It is sometimes referred to as Amendment XV. It was the third of the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) ratified after the Civil War. The first state to ratify the amendment was Nevada.
    • The 15th Amendment, which was ratified in 1870, contained two sections. Section One stated that ”The right of citizens…to vote shall not be denied or abridged…on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Section Two granted the U.S. Congress the power to enforce through legislation.
    • Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-19234. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African-American men the right to vote by declaring that the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

    Section Two of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution granted the U.S. Congress the power to enforce the amendment through legislation. This means that Congress was given the authority to enact laws and regulations that would ensure the protection of African American men’s right to vote. This provision in the amendment aimed to provide a mechanism for the enforcement of voting rights and to prevent any discriminatory practices that could hinder African Americans from exercising their right to vote.

    Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts in order to benefit a particular political party or group. It involves drawing district lines in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over others in elections. This can be done by either concentrating the opposition’s supporters into a few districts (packing) or by spreading them out across multiple districts (cracking).

    Gerrymandering has been a contentious issue in many democratic systems, as it can undermine the principle of fair representation and distort the will of the voters. Critics argue that it allows political parties to choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives. However, proponents argue that it is a long-standing practice used by both parties for strategic purposes.

    Efforts to address gerrymandering include promoting independent redistricting commissions, implementing mathematical formulas to create more balanced districts, and advocating for transparency and public input in the redistricting process.

    Ultimately, the impact of gerrymandering on elections and democracy is a complex and ongoing debate. Various countries and jurisdictions have different approaches to redistricting and addressing this issue.

    Red is the process of redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts, typically after a census, in order to ensure equal representation and accommodate changes in population. The purpose of redistricting is to ensure that each district has an approximately equal number of residents so that each vote carries the same weight.

    The redistricting process can be carried out by different entities depending on the country or jurisdiction. In some cases, it is the responsibility of a bipartisan or independent redistricting commission, while in others, it is conducted by the state legislature or another governing body.

    The goal of redistricting is to create districts that are compact, contiguous, and respect existing political and geographic boundaries. However, redistricting can become a contentious issue when political parties attempt to manipulate the boundaries for their own advantage, a practice known as gerrymandering.

    Idaho – Students can’t use their student ID but if they have a gun, they can use their license to carry ID

    North Carolina – the new law prevents the governor from exercising his constitutional duty “to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed” as the law deprives the governor of his ability to appoint members to the state board of elections. The governor alleges that the new law violates the Separation of Powers Clause and the Faithful Execution Clause of the North Carolina Constitution and requests that the court block the implementation of the law.

    Additionally – Undeliverable Mail Provision,” which the plaintiffs contend will arbitrarily disenfranchise North Carolina’s same-day voters, those who register to vote the same day that they cast their ballots during the state’s early voting period. The provision at issue requires election officials to send an address verification notice to same-day voters via the mail. If the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) returns a single address verification notice as “undeliverable” prior to the canvassing of ballots, election officials are prohibited from registering the same-day voter and are required to exclude their ballot from the official vote count. Under this provision, same-day voters are not notified if their ballots are canceled or registrations are denied — nor are they given an opportunity to contest a denial — resulting in voters being automatically disenfranchised often through no fault of their own.

    Alabama – Alabama does not currently allow voters with print disabilities to vote electronically.

    New York – The law’s changes to absentee voting procedures violate the state constitution for nine reasons. The plaintiffs argue that the law limits a voter’s ability to change their mind if a voter requests an absentee ballot and then decides to vote in person. The plaintiffs also allege that the new law violates voters’ right to a secret ballot, impairs poll watchers’ ability to challenge ballots and prevents election workers from following state law.

    Below is the old map of Alabama and the new map look at the territory Democrats gained in the new map!

    Every 10 years, states redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts to reflect new population counts from the census.

    After two federal courts blocked Alabama’s new Republican-drawn map — finding that it likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters — the US Supreme Court stepped in and restored the map at least for this cycle. The high court will hear the case this fall, but the Republican-drawn map remains in place until they rule.

  • Sign the #LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Pledge #OpenToAll

    Because you don’t live near a bakery doesn’t mean you have to go without cheesecake.

    – Hedy Lamarr

    Co op Bakery

    On December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the case of a bakery that denied service to a same-sex couple because they are gay. That’s why business leaders nationwide are taking a stand to affirm they are #OpenToAll – and we want you to join us.

    Would you sign____________________________?

    Businesses for LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Pledge:

    Business leaders know that being open to the public means being open to everyone. Inclusion and diversity are critical to a thriving economy and dynamic workforce. Small business leaders across the country affirm the need for comprehensive nondiscrimination that prohibits unequal treatment against LGBTQ people and oppose all efforts to undermine or exempt businesses from the inclusive policies that benefit our businesses and our communities.

    Please fill out the form below and add your name to the list of business owners who oppose discrimination and support being #OpenToAll. Your business name and city will be listed on Freedom for All Americans’ website along with hundreds of other businesses and organizations who support inclusive nondiscrimination policies.

    I received this in my inbox today and I say No, No I will not sign it – Here’s why – there was a story from Santa Cruz in 1992 – a City Council proposed an ordinance that prohibited discrimination against persons on the basis of “personal appearance.”  Which became known as the “Purple Hair Ordinance” or the “Ugly Ordinance.”  Other wise known as – lookism – according the #Wikipedia – Lookism is a concept used to describe a setting where there exists discriminatory treatment toward physically unattractive people; mainly in the workplace but also in social settings.

    First thing came to mind was an article in the Huffington Post – which stated,
    “Approximately 100 women gathered last week to contemplate the idea that their skills, talent and intelligence could be overshadowed by a hairstyle. And more often than not, the concern is based on women of color sporting their natural hair.  If one’s employment can be rejected simply by their hair – how is that the rejection of service by an establishment based on sexual orientation requires US Supreme Court intervention?

    Example by Kath Manoff a restaurant owner stated, “If someone has 14 earrings in their ears and their nose -and who knows where else – and spiky green air and smells like a skunk…I don’t know why I have to hire them.”

    In speaking to the Athenians, Paul stated that God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings” (Acts 17:26). We are all descendants of Adam. While we are divided between different nations and languages, we are all the same — human beings created by the hand of God.

    If that be true then the statement, …”mind of a man could be ascertained by the manner in which he holds his cane.” Would present cause for everyone Black/White/Gay/Straight to have someone stand in the gap and provide “covering” to ensure everyone get an equal opportunity.

    To my distress this has never occurred with folk who look like me.

     

     

     

     

     

    Sources:

    Post, Robert. “Prejudicial appearances: The logic of American antidiscrimination law.” Cal. L. Rev. 88 (2000): 1.

    “The Skinny on Job Discrimination.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 20 June 2007, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/20/skinny-on-job-discrimination.html.

    New King James Version Bible

    https://secure.businessfwd.org/page/s/lgbtq-pledge

     

  • Assault What’s the Difference

    brock Clarence Thomas

wpChatIcon
wpChatIcon