Politics

Blacks Still Underrepresented at All Levels of Politics

Published

11 years ago

March 3, 2015

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies President Spencer Overton says there is a heated debate over how much progress we have made over the past 50 years. (Courtesy Photo)

By George E. Curry
NNPA Editor-in-Chief

WASHINGTON (NNPA) – Although Blacks have made tremendous improvement in holding elected office since passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they remain underrepresented at the federal, state and local levels, according to a report scheduled to be released Tuesday by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

“Based on the most recent data, African Americans are 12.5% of the citizen voting age population, but they make up a smaller share of the U.S. House (10%), state legislatures (8.5%), city councils (5.7%), and the U.S. Senate (2%),” the report said.

The 38-page report titled, “50 Years of The Voting Rights Act: The State of Race in Politics,” was produced for the center by four prominent political scientists: Khalilah Brown-Dean, Zoltan Hajnal, Christina Rivers and Ismail White.

Joint Center President Spencer Overton said in a message introducing the report, that there is a heated debate over: How much progress have we made since 1965? How much more work is there to do?

He said, “These are contested questions, subject to ideology and opinion. A study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, for example, shows that on average whites and African Americans differ on the amount of racial progress we have made, with whites now believing anti-white bias is more prevalent than anti-black bias. We have elected an African American president, but studies have shown that some government officials are less likely to respond to inquiries from citizens with seemingly black or Latino names. The questions are also at the core of many ongoing debates about voting rights in the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, as well as in many states, counties, and municipalities.”

What is not contested is that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 changed the political landscape for African Americans, with the number of Black elected officials leaping from fewer than 1,000 in 1965 to now more than 10,000.

The change was particularly dramatic in the South, where 55 percent of African Americans live.

“Since the 1870s, white elected officials in many parts of the South had used violence, literacy tests, interpretation tests, poll taxes, and other devices to exclude African Americans,” the report recounted. “The Justice Department filed 71 voting rights lawsuits in the Deep South before 1965, but cases were typically complex, time-consuming, and expensive. When a court struck down one type of discriminatory device, local officials simply erected a different device that effectively excluded most African Americans.”

Selma, Ala. and surrounding Dallas County was typical. Deploying rigged tests about the U.S. Constitution and a requirement that voters be in “good character,” as defined by White registrars, a White minority was able to suppress the Black majority.

In 1965, more than half of Dallas County was Black. Of the county’s 15,000 voting-age Blacks, only 156 were registered to vote. By contrast, two-thirds of voting-age Whites were registered in the county. Throughout Alabama, only 19.4 percent of African Americans were registered. In neighboring Mississippi, just 6.4 percent of Blacks were registered.

As part of a massive voter registration campaign in 1965, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and local residents launched a Selma-to-Montgomery March to dramatize the lack of access to the ballot box.

On April 7, in what became known as “Bloody Sunday,” peaceful marchers in Selma were savagely beaten by Alabama State Troopers and local policemen as they attempted to walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge to begin the 54-mile journey to Montgomery, the state capital.

The merciless beating of children, the elderly and adults was beamed in homes throughout the nation and provided the momentum for President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign the Voting Rights Act into law four months later.

“Only in the wake of the Voting Rights Act did black voter registration in the South begin to approach that of whites. Five years after the passage of the Act, the racial gap in voter registration in the former Confederate states had closed to single digits. By the start of the 1970s, the black/white registration gap across the Southern states was little more than 8 percentage points,” the report stated.

“In Louisiana, the gap between black and white voter registration rates decreased by nearly 30 percentage points from 1960 to the end of 1970s, and it continued to decrease over the next three decades. By 2010, black registration rates in the state of Louisiana and many of the other former Confederate states had exceeded white registration rates for the first time since Reconstruction. The Voting Rights Act had delivered a Second Reconstruction.”

In fact, in four of the 12 presidential elections since 1965, Black Southerners turned out at the polls at a higher rate than their White counterparts. Nationally, Black turnout exceeded White turnout in the 2012 presidential election and possibly in 2008, according to the report.

Activists credit much of that progress to the Voting Rights Act requirement that jurisdictions that previously discriminated against Blacks had to pre-clear voting changes in advance with federal authorities.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby took away that tool and there is a measure pending in Congress that would reverse some of the damage. A House bill sponsored by “Bloody Sunday” veteran John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) would update the act.

“The proposed legislation would apply preclearance to jurisdictions with a record of voting rights violations within the previous 15 years, would make it easier for courts to block discriminatory rules before they are used in elections and harm voters, and would require disclosure of voting changes nationwide,” the report stated.

Efforts to expand the Black vote is also under attack in others quarters as well. The Joint Center report cited moves to purge voters, requiring proof of citizenship, requiring voter ID, felony disenfranchisement and restricting voting registration drives.

The report also addressed the elephant in the room – race.

“In urban local elections, race is a more decisive factor than income, education …religion, sexuality, age, gender, and political ideology. The 38-point racial gap exceeds even the 33 point gap between Democratic and Republican voters,” the study said.

According to the report, African Americans “were the least advantaged group in America in terms of policy outcomes.”

Not all of the problems were external. The issue of low Black voter turnout, especially in local elections, is a major challenge that warrants further study, the report said.

It noted, “ …In 2014, when there was great unrest over a police officer’s killing of Michael Brown, African Americans made up 67% of residents of Ferguson, Missouri. In 2012, a solid 100% of Ferguson precincts went for President Obama, but during Ferguson’s municipal off-cycle elections voters selected Ferguson’s Republican mayor and six city council members, all of whom except one were white.”

The report shatters the notion that we’re living in a post-racial society.

“Despite discussions about the declining significance of race, over the past few decades, racial divides along partisan lines have actually grown. African Americans have increasingly favored Democrats, and recently Latinos and Asian Americans have become more loyal to the Democratic Party as well. The shift to the left has been particularly pronounced for Asian Americans,” it said.

“On the other side, whites have moved slowly and unevenly – but inexorably – to the Republican Party. Fifty years ago, the Democratic Party dominated the white vote. Today, nationwide, whites are more apt to favor the Republican Party.”

It concluded, “Division is a normal and healthy part of democracy, but when a core dividing line in a nation becomes so closely aligned with race and ethnicity, larger concerns about inequality, conflict, and discrimination emerge.”

###

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:Black Politicians Blacks in politics voter participation Voting Rights Act

Up Next

Same-Sex Marriage: Why People Really Oppose It

Don't Miss

Supreme Court’s Shelby Ruling Makes Selma a ‘Footnote’

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of August 12 – 18, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of August 12 – 18, 2026

Published

8 minutes ago

August 15, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Commentary

COMMENTARY: Why Local School Tax Measure G1 Will Not Be on the November Ballot

POST NEWS GROUP — Measure G1 is the local tax measure that supports middle school teacher retention and the expansion of arts, music, and world language programs at both OUSD middle schools and charter middle schools. The current measure expires in 2029.

Published

20 minutes ago

August 15, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Jennifer Brouhard, Oakland School Board President

There has been considerable speculation recently about why Measure G1 will not appear on the November ballot and what that means for the Oakland Unified School District’s current budget.

I want to provide some clarity about what happened and, importantly, what did not happen.

Measure G1 is the local tax measure that supports middle school teacher retention and the expansion of arts, music, and world language programs at both OUSD middle schools and charter middle schools. The current measure expires in 2029.

Because these funds are important to our schools and to the continuity of these programs, the district initially intended to place a renewal initiative on the November ballot to provide greater early certainty about funding beyond the expiration of the current measure.

As part of that process, the Board scheduled a special meeting for the required public hearing on the ballot initiative. There has been some suggestion that this meeting was noticed only one day in advance. That is not accurate.

Public hearings of this nature are subject to specific notice requirements, and the meeting must be noticed at least two weeks before the hearing. In practice, the notice may appear even earlier depending on publication schedules. The notice for the Measure G1 public hearing was published in the Tribune on 7/24/2026 and 7/31/2026.

So, why wasn’t the Measure G1 paperwork ultimately filed?

After the Board approved placing the measure on the ballot, the next step required the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools to sign the necessary paperwork before it could be submitted to the Oakland City Clerk.

During that process, Alameda County Superintendent Alysse Castro raised concerns about potential litigation stemming from another court case unrelated to OUSD and about whether proceeding with the measure could expose the district or County to legal challenges. Superintendent Castro’s action is unprecedented and concerning.

It is important to distinguish between the Board’s decision to pursue Measure G1 and the subsequent procedural and legal issues that arose. The Board did approve moving forward with the measure. The measure did not fail because the Board chose not to support it, nor was the public hearing improperly noticed.

The decision not to proceed with the November ballot was made in light of the County’s concerns about potential litigation and the County’s required approval process.

We also need to be clear about what this does, and does not, mean for OUSD’s current budget. The existing Measure G1 funds remain available through the expiration of the current measure in 2029. The immediate issue is the longer-term continuity of funding beyond that date, not the elimination of these resources from the current year’s budget.

Our responsibility as a Board is to protect the educational programs and services our students depend on while ensuring that our decisions comply with the law and protect the district from unnecessary legal and financial risk.

We will continue working to understand the County’s concerns, explore our options, and advocate for the resources our students deserve. Our middle school students, teachers, and school communities deserve stability, and continued investment in arts, music, world languages, and teacher retention—and that work remains a priority for Oakland Unified.

Jennifer Brouhard is a retired OUSD educator and is the current OUSD School Board President representing District 2.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Community

Less Affluent School Districts, Including Sacramento City, Face Threat of State Takeover

POST NEWS GROUP — Speaking on the July 15 show, “Education Today,” hosted by education professor Kitty Kelly Epstein, Taylor Kayatta, a certificated public accountant (CPA) who serves as the first vice president of SCUSD, spoke about the ongoing struggle of their board and community to keep SCUSD from being taken over.

Published

51 minutes ago

August 15, 2026

bpusa-syndication

First Vice President of Sacramento City Unified School District Taylor Kayatta and family. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

A recent show on radio station KPFA 94.1 featured a discussion about the racialized threats to less affluent urban public school districts as state authorities pressure school leaders to take out bailout loans to resolve budget shortfalls. These loans come with draconian terms that eliminate the authority of voter-selected school boards and impose extreme austerity measures, including the closure of many schools in poorer neighborhoods.

A dozen mostly minority school districts have been forced under state control in the past 20 years, including the Oakland Unified School District. At present, Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD), an ethnically and racially diverse district of about 42,000 students, is the target, but the district’s school board and the community are fighting back.

Speaking on the July 15 show, “Education Today,” hosted by education professor Kitty Kelly Epstein, Taylor Kayatta, a certificated public accountant (CPA) who serves as the first vice president of SCUSD, spoke about the ongoing struggle of their board and community to keep SCUSD from being taken over.

“There’s been pressure on my school district for over a decade now; there’s a feeling (from the state) that we’re intrinsically broken, that we cannot manage our finances,” said Kayatta, who has two elementary students in SCUSD.

“It reached a fever pitch a couple of years ago before COVID; I really felt it as a parent in the community that they were coming for us,” he said.

“Within the past year, they’re back at it again,” he said. “The pressure right now to accept a state loan is something I am not sure I could even describe.”

He said that the outside authorities would not even allow the board to hire its own financial adviser to help find solutions; the state takeover is the only option they want.

“We have a county superintendent in Sacramento County (who) has been on the job for decades. It’s been his mission, in my opinion, that something is wrong with Sac City Unified, that we are the problem child; we need outside control, (and) we shouldn’t be running ourselves,” said Kayatta.

In a district where enrollment is slightly declining, and many students have complex educational needs, SCUSD does face financial difficulties, he continued.

“There’s going to be challenges with the budget in the long term, but I think we need to address that in a way that is community-driven, with the community understanding what it means rather than accepting some blanket (imposed) ‘best practice’ that often involves making dramatic, harsh cuts, things like closing schools without plans.

“If you need to make cuts, make them in a way that makes sense rather than just trying to save a dollar this school year,” he said.

For example, closing a school may save a little money in the short run but almost always means loss of student enrollment as families move out of the district, which ends up costing a district more than it saves and can lead to a cycle of decline and demoralization.

Closely allied with the County Superintendent is the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), “which has been at the heels of this district as long as I’ve lived in the district,” he said.

FCMAT is a state-funded nonprofit based in Bakersfield that has been granted sweeping authority under state law to pressure school districts to adopt fiscal austerity.

In theory, something like FCMAT would be a good thing, an agency that would help districts that face some financial difficulties, he said. “But my experience and the experience of people in Sacramento is that they’re an outside agency that has its own motivations.”

“They are not about helping you save your budget and helping you get through temporary (issues). They’re more about taking control over a district that they think shouldn’t be running itself.”

A school board is democratically elected and exists as “the people’s voice,” Kayatta said. Local schools need leadership that understands the problems and issues the community faces, “not an outside appointed group of people from Bakerfield who don’t really understand what Sacramento needs,” he said.

Show host Kitty Kelly Epstein, who actively opposed the state takeover of Oakland schools two decades ago, discussed its impact, which formally lasted until OUSD’s bailout loan was repaid in June 2025.

“When a district is taken over by the state, that means the school board loses all their power, which means that the electors, that’s the residents, lose all their power because they don’t get to elect anybody. There’s somebody put in charge, and they make all the decisions.”

“In the case of Oakland, Oakland’s debt could have been solved internally. That was not allowed by the state senator at the time, Don Perata,” she said.

“The actual amount that the district needed was about $37 million, and they were not allowed to use their own money to cover the debt. The loan that was imposed without the will of the people of Oakland was a $100 million. They fired the superintendent, brought in a state receiver, and spent the $100 million on whatever they wanted because there was no participation by people in Oakland,” she said.

“I know it sounds shocking. It was shocking, and Oakland was not the only district. There were others: Inglewood, Vallejo, Compton, said Kelly Epstein.

“The people who often have the least amount of input anyway, because of inequalities and racism in our system, get the little bit of participation that they have in schools, which is to elect a school board, taken away from them.”