Politics

High court blocks census citizenship question

WAVE NEWSPAPERS — In a ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who was joined by the court’s liberals, the court said the Trump administration did not adequately explain its reason for adding the question. The ruling included a direct rebuke to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who last year decided to add a citizenship question to all forms for the first time since 1950.

Published

5 years ago

July 15, 2019

Wave Wire Services

By Wave Wire Services

LOS ANGELES — Southland elected officials and immigration-rights activists hailed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling June 27 that blocked a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.

“This ruling is a victory for an accurate, comprehensive and complete census count,” Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Los Angeles, said.

“[President Donald] Trump is eager to silence the voices of vulnerable populations in our communities. That’s why he wanted a census citizenship question that will dramatically undercount these populations.

“An accurate and complete 2020 Census is essential to ensuring our communities receive the federal funds we need for countless critical programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, school lunches, highway funding, housing assistance and more,” she said. “While the court’s ruling is a victory for our nation, our House Democratic majority will stay vigilant, and fight any further efforts to sabotage a fair and accurate 2020 Census.”

In a ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who was joined by the court’s liberals, the court said the Trump administration did not adequately explain its reason for adding the question. The ruling included a direct rebuke to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who last year decided to add a citizenship question to all forms for the first time since 1950.

“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the.explanation the secretary gave for his decision,” Roberts said.

The court sent the matter back to a lower court for review.

In January, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in New York blocked the citizenship question and issued a 277-page opinion describing how Ross had failed to follow the advice of census experts or explain his reasons for making a change that could lead to a severe undercount. Judges in San Francisco and Maryland handed down similar rulings.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the administration’s appeal in the case of Department of Commerce vs. New York on a fast-track basis because the government said it needed to begin printing census forms this summer.

On Twitter, Trump blasted the ruling.

“Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed country, cannot ask a basic question of citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important census, in this case for 2020,” he wrote. “I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter.

“Can anyone really believe that as a great country we are not able to ask whether or not someone is a citizen. Only in America!”

Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said that although the Trump administration has the ability to provide in court a more robust reason adding the question, he said he doesn’t think it will convince the court to overturn the ruling.

“This Supreme Court led by its chief justice said … this was, essentially, a contrived rationale, and so it’s been sent back for another rationale,” Feuer said. “But here’s the thing: There is no other rationale. There is nothing else going on here but an attempt to marginalize Latinos throughout the United States to make sure their voices don’t count. That’s what this has been about since the inception of this question.”

Several Los Angeles-area leaders gathered at Grand Park in downtown to hail the ruling.

“Los Angeles County will continue to collaborate with our tribal, city leaders … and especially our school districts and many others to ensure everybody is counted,” County Supervisor Hilda Solis said.

Solis was joined by members of CHIRLA, the NALEO Educational Fund and the Advancement Project California in praising the decision.

“In light of [the] Supreme Court ruling, we all will stay determined and committed to a robust (census) outreach,” Solis said. “This ruling, as you know, will impact the lives of our most vulnerable.”

Solis said undocumented residents without full citizenship have been fearful of answering the question because it would require them to disclose their immigration status. The court’s decision comes just a few days after Trump pulled back the reins on another immigration sweep in major cities.

Without an accurate census, it may be difficult to receive federal funding for programs that can serve the entirety of the need-based population, Solis said.

An undercount in the state could also lead to a loss of representation in Congress.

Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner called the court’s ruling “the right thing for public education.”

“The census is used to determine the amount of funding Los Angeles Unified receives from federal programs,” he said. “Los Angeles Unified received $328 million in Title I funding and nearly $40 million for other federal education and health programs for the 2017-18 school year. If the question is eventually included, it could lead to a loss of as much as $20 million every year in Title I funding, which would pay for about 200 additional teachers in schools serving students with the highest needs.

“The citizenship question is not some abstract, legal issue. It has real consequences in our schools,” he said.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was effusive.

“This is a hopeful day for our democracy. The census is the largest civic exercise in our country — an opportunity to show that everyone belongs here and everybody counts,” he said in a statement. “Instead, the administration tried to change who we are and write millions of people out of America’s story. Fortunately, the Supreme Court stopped this cynical ploy in its tracks, removing a major roadblock to participation in next year’s tally.”

Garcetti said he will work “to ensure that hard-to-count populations — immigrant households, communities of color, low-income residents, and our most vulnerable neighbors — and all Angelenos are counted in the 2020 Census.”

This article originally appeared in the Wave Newspapers.

Wave Wire Services

Posts by Wave Wire Services

Up Next

City to spend millions on homeless outreach, cleanup

Don't Miss

Wesson seeks to ban private prisons within city

Wave Wire Services

Click to comment

Bay Area

Libby Schaaf, Associates Stiff Penalties for ‘Serious’ Campaign Violations in 2018, 2020 City Elections

According to the proposed settlement agreements, which are on the agenda for the Monday, Sept. 16 Public Ethics Commission (PEC), Schaaf and many of those with whom she was working, have cooperated with the investigation and have accepted the commission’s findings and penalties. “Respondents knowingly and voluntarily waive all procedural rights under the Oakland City Charter, Oakland Municipal Code, the Public Ethics Commission Complaint Procedures, and all other sources of (applicable) procedural rights,” the settlement agreement said.

Published

3 days ago

September 13, 2024

Oakland Post

Libby Schaaf served as Oakland’s mayor from 2012 to 2020. Courtesy Photo.

Ex-Mayor, Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Are Not Disputing Findings of Violations

By Ken Epstein

Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, currently a candidate for state treasurer, faces thousands of dollars in penalties from the City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission for a “pattern” of serious campaign violations in 2018 and 2020 city elections

“Respondents knowingly and voluntarily waive all procedural rights under the Oakland City Charter, Oakland Municipal Code, the Public Ethics Commission Complaint Procedures, and all other sources of (applicable) procedural rights,” the settlement agreement said.

“If respondents fail to comply with the terms of this stipulation, then the commission may reopen this matter and prosecute respondents to the full extent permitted by law,” according to the agreement.

Schaff and co-respondents were involved in three related cases investigated by the PEC:

In the first case, Schaaf in 2018, without publicly revealing her involvement as required by law, working with the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and others, created, lead, and raised funds for a campaign committee called “Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership, Opposing Desley Brooks for Oakland City Council.”

The “respondents,” who were responsible for the violations in this case were: the campaign committee called Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership; Mayor Schaaf; the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; OAKPAC; which is the chamber’s political action committee; Barbara Leslie and Robert Zachary Wasserman, both leaders of the Oakland chamber; and Doug Linney, a campaign consultant who was brought on by Schaaf to organize and lead the campaign to defeat Desley Brooks in her 2018 campaign for reelection.

Linney reported in his interview with the PEC that Schaaf had approached him and said, “Let’s do an Independent Expenditure (IE) campaign against Desley and let me see if I can get some other folks involved to make it happen.”

Linney developed a plan, which hired staff to organize field canvassing and phone banking. He said Schaaf told him the budget should be more than $200,000 because “I think raising $200K shouldn’t be hard and could shoot for more.”

None of the original group, which met weekly, included anyone who lived in District 6, the section of the city that Brooks represented. They waited to start the committee until they could find a District 6 resident willing to be the face of their campaign.

During her tenure, Brooks was instrumental in establishing the city’s Department of Race and Equity.

Among the violations reported by the PEC:

Respondents reported contributions as being received from the chamber’s political action committee, OAKPAC, “rather than the true source of the contributions,” in order to hide the identities of contributors.
Failure to disclose “controlling candidate,” Libby Schaaf, on a mass mailer.
Failing to disclose the controlling candidate, Libby Schaaf, on official campaign filings.
Receiving contributions in amounts over the legal limit. For example, the State Building and Construction Trade Council of California PAC donated $10,000, which is $8,400 over the limit; and Libby Schaaf donated $999, which is $199 over the limit.

Total contributions were $108,435, of which $82,035 was over the limit.

“In this case, Mayor Schaaf and her associates’ action were negligent. All of them were fully aware that Mayor Schaaf and significant participation in the IE campaign against Brooks, including its creation, strategy, and budgeting decisions, and selection of personnel.”

Further, the PEC said, “The respondents’ violations in this case are serious. The strict rules applying to candidate-controlled committees go directly to the very purpose of campaign finance law.”

In her interview with the PEC, Schaaf, who is an attorney, had received incorrect legal advice from Linney, her campaign consultant, that her activities were legally permissible, because she was not the “final decision-maker.”

Total recommended penalties for all those involved in this case were $148,523.

The PEC also found violations and is recommending penalties in two other cases.

The second case involves the Oakland Fund for Measure AA in 2018, which established a parcel tax to fund early childhood initiatives in Oakland. Looking into this case, PEC investigators found that Schaaf used her position as mayor to benefit the campaign, though without revealing her involvement.

A contractor who made a large contribution was Julian Orton of Orton Development, which was in negotiations with the city to redevelop the Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center. Orton donated $100,000

Schaaf, for failing to disclose that the campaign committee was “candidate controlled,” may face a $4,500 penalty. For violating the rule against contractor contributions, the campaign committee and Schaaf face a possible $5,000 penalty.

Orton has agreed to pay a $5,000 penalty.

The third case involved a campaign in 2020, the Committee for an Affordable East Bay, which raised thousands of dollars to support Derrick Johnson’s campaign for Councilmember-at-Large position and to attack the incumbent, Councilmember-at-Large Rebecca Kaplan.

Investigators found that Schaaf was extensively and secretly involved in the work of this committee.

She received a $100,000 donation from Lyft, which had a contract with the city at the time and was therefore legally prohibited. Lyft recently agreed to pay a $50,000 fine.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Why the N-Word Should Be Eliminated from Schools: A Call to Educators, Parents and Students

The N-word’s use in schools, intentionally or otherwise, preserves a cycle of racial abuse, degradation, and discrimination which are violations to the dignity of African American students. Its usage perpetuates a legacy of hate and is a dignity violation that makes it a pressing issue for educators to address. Not addressing use of the N word in school contradicts the principles of equity and inclusion that educational institutions strive to uphold.

Published

3 days ago

September 13, 2024

Oakland Post

Zetha Nobles. Courtesy photo.

By Zetha A. Nobles,

The presence and rampant use of the N-word in educational settings poses significant challenges to the social-emotional learning (SEL) and psychological well-being of students and teachers.

The historical and contemporary usage of the N-word carries deep-seated racial connotations and trauma, making it imperative to address its impact in the school environment.

Here’s why the N-word should be eradicated from schools and its detrimental effects on SEL and psychological health.

Historical Context and Significance

The use of the N-word is considered a severe violation of dignity due to its deeply hurtful and dehumanizing nature. The N-word is historically rooted in a long and sordid history of racism, oppression and dehumanization.

It was and is used to dehumanize, degrade, demean and denigrate African American people. Its historical presence is marked by extreme violence and pernicious systemic oppression.

Despite the evolving societal appropriation and the exploitation of the word in hip hop music and other media forms, its controversial use has morphed or mutated into a word now used to signify friendship or endearment.

In schools its use is complex, representing camaraderie, being cool and defiant while consciously and unconsciously dehumanizing African American students and staff.

The N-word has a long history of being used as a tool of oppression and degradation against Black people. It was employed during periods of slavery, segregation, and ongoing racial discrimination to strip individuals of their humanity and reinforce systemic racism.

Its use is a painful reminder of this history and the ongoing struggle against racism. Its impact:

Dehumanization: When the N-word is used, it reduces Black individuals to a derogatory stereotype, stripping away their identity and worth as human beings. It perpetuates the idea that certain groups are inferior and unworthy of respect and dignity.
Impact on Self-Worth: Hearing or being called the N-word can have profound psychological and emotional impacts, leading to feelings of shame, anger, and diminished self-worth. It communicates to individuals that they are lesser or undeserving solely because of their race.
Interpersonal Harm: The use of the N-word in interpersonal interactions conveys disrespect, hostility, and a lack of regard for the feelings and dignity of others. It undermines efforts to build inclusive and respectful relationships.
Symbol of Structural Injustice: The N-word symbolizes larger societal injustices and inequalities. Its continued use reflects ongoing racial prejudice and discrimination, perpetuating harmful attitudes and behaviors.

Given these reasons, using the N-word is not just a matter of inappropriate language; it represents a significant violation of human dignity and reinforces harmful racial stereotypes and hierarchies. It is crucial to reject and actively challenge the use of this word to promote equality, respect, and dignity for all individuals.

In schools, the word retains its harmful and damaging impact and remains a powerful symbol of racial animosity. The N-word’s use in schools, intentionally or otherwise, preserves a cycle of racial abuse, degradation, and discrimination which are violations to the dignity of African American students. Its usage perpetuates a legacy of hate and is a dignity violation that makes it a pressing issue for educators to address. Not addressing use of the N word in school contradicts the principles of equity and inclusion that educational institutions strive to uphold.

Impact on Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

Social-emotional learning is crucial for students’ development as it encompasses the skills needed to manage emotions, establish positive relationships, and make responsible decisions. The use of the N-word in schools disrupts this process in several key and critical ways:

Emotional Trauma: The N-word is a trigger for emotional pain, particularly for African American students and teachers. It can evoke feelings of anger, sadness, shame and humiliation, which hinder the ability to engage fully in the learning process.
Hostile Learning Environment: A safe and supportive learning environment is essential for effective SEL. The use of the N-word creates a hostile and unsafe atmosphere, leading to increased anxiety, disrespect, and stress among students and teachers.
Relationship Building: One of the goals of SEL is to foster positive relationships. The use of derogatory language such as the N-word fosters division and mistrust among students and staff.

Psychological Impact on Students and Teachers

The psychological effects of the N-word on students and teachers are profound and far-reaching. For students, especially those of African American descent, the word can lead to feelings of inferiority and exclusion. This not only affects their academic performance but also their self-esteem and mental health. Studies have shown that exposure to racial slurs can increase levels of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues.

For teachers, addressing the use of the N-word in the classroom is a significant challenge. It places an emotional burden on them, particularly for teachers of color who may feel personally targeted. The stress of managing such situations can lead to burnout and affect their ability to provide a supportive learning environment.

Strategies for Eliminating the N-Word from Schools

To effectively eliminate the N-word from schools, a comprehensive approach is necessary. Here are some strategies:

Clear Policies and Consequences: Schools must implement and enforce policies that explicitly prohibit the use of the N-word and other derogatory language. Clear consequences for violations should be established and communicated to all members of the school community.
Cultural Competency Training: Providing cultural competency and anti-racism training for teachers, staff, and students can foster a more inclusive and respectful environment. This training should include the historical context of the N-word and its impact on individuals and communities as well as alternative language.
Support Systems: Schools should offer culturally congruent support systems, such as counseling and peer support groups, for students and teachers affected by the use of the N-word. These resources can help individuals process their experiences, mitigate psychological harm and co-create a culture of dignity.
Community Engagement: Engaging the broader school community, including parents and local organizations, in dialogue about the impact of the N-word can reinforce the school’s commitment to creating a respectful and inclusive environment.

In addition to the moral and ethical arguments against the use of the N-word, there are also legal and policy considerations that support its prohibition in schools. Many school districts have anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies that explicitly prohibit the use of derogatory language, including racial slurs. The use of the N-word in schools can lead to disciplinary actions and legal consequences for both students and staff who violate these policies.

Furthermore, federal laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Schools that fail to address the use of the N-word and other forms of racial harassment may be in violation of these laws, potentially resulting in investigations and penalties from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Addressing the N-word in educational settings is not just about prohibiting a word; it is about dismantling a symbol of hate and fostering an environment where all students and teachers can thrive.