
As Trump fights diversity, this Black lawmaker is making history in Marin County
Colbert is one of just a small number of Black people who live in wealthy, woodsy and very white Marin County — and the first Black supervisor elected since the county's founding more than 175 years ago.
He didn't lean into race, or history, as he campaigned in the fall. He didn't have to. 'As a large Black man,' he said, his physicality and the barrier-breaking nature of his candidacy were self-evident.
Rather, Colbert won after knocking, by his count, on 20,000 doors, wearing out several pairs of size 15 shoes and putting parochial concerns, such as wildfire prevention, disaster preparedness and flood control, at the center of his campaign. He continues, during these early months in office, to focus on a garden variety of municipal issues: housing, traffic, making local government more accessible and responsive.
That's not to say, however, that Colbert doesn't have deeply felt thoughts on the precedent his election set, or the significance of the lived experience he brings to office — different from most in this privileged slice of the San Francisco Bay Area — at a time President Trump is turning his back on civil rights and his administration treats diversity, equity and inclusion as though they were four-letter words.
'I think of the challenges, the indignities that my grandparents suffered on a daily basis' living under Jim Crow, Colbert said over lunch recently in his hometown of San Anselmo. He carefully chose his words, at one point resting an index finger on his temple to signal a pause as he gathered his thoughts.
Colbert recalled visits to Savannah, Ga., where he attended Baptist church services with his mother's parents.
'I remember looking at the faces,' Colbert said, 'and to me they were the faces of African Americans waiting for death, because they were aware and knew of the opportunities that had been denied to them simply because of the color of their skin. But what gave them hope was the belief their kids and grandkids would have a better life. I am a product of that hope, in so many ways.'
Colbert, 57, grew up in Bethel, Conn., about 60 miles northeast of New York City. Residents tried to prevent his parents — an accountant and a stay-at-home mom — from moving into the overwhelmingly white community. Neighbors circulated a petition urging the owners to not sell their home to the Black couple. They did so anyway.
Colbert went on to earn degrees in political science and acting, public policy and law. He traveled the world with his wife, a Syrian American, practiced law on Wall Street, ran a chocolate company and a small tech firm. He lived for 3½ years in Turkey, where he taught international law and political science at a private university.
In 2007, when the couple returned to the U.S., they set their sights on the Bay Area, drawn by the weather, the natural beauty and the entrepreneurial spirit that drew countless opportunity seekers before them. (Colbert started wearing Hawaiian shirts on the Silicon Valley conference circuit, after being mistaken one too many times for a security guard.)
In 2013, Colbert, his wife and their daughter settled in San Anselmo, a charmy tree-lined community about 15 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The relatively short commute to San Francisco, where he manages a medical concierge service, the quality schools and the vast open space were big attractions — though Colbert knew he and his family would stand out, just as he had in Bethel.
San Anselmo, with its rugged hillsides and red-brick downtown, has about 13,000 residents. The Black population is less than 2%. But Colbert's extensive travels and life overseas convinced him that people 'on a certain level [are] the same' everywhere — 'warm, welcoming, kind, generous, helpful.'
He had an abiding interest in policy and public service, so in 2013 Colbert joined the city's Economic Development Council. Four years later, he was elected to the Town Council. He served seven years, one in the rotating position of mayor, before running for the nonpartisan Board of Supervisors.
Inevitably, he encountered racism along the way. There were threatening phone calls and emails. He got the occasional side-eye as he canvassed door-to-door in all-white neighborhoods. For the most part, however, 'people were incredibly pleasant' and campaigning 'was no more challenging ... than it would be [for] any candidate.'
On a recent sunny afternoon, Colbert was greeted heartily — 'Hey, Brian!' 'Hey, supervisor!' — as he strode past Town Hall to Imagination Park, a gift the city's most famous resident, filmmaker George Lucas, bequeathed along with life-sized statues of Yoda and Indiana Jones.
These are fraught times. The reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd has given way to a backlash and a president who disdains efforts at equality, complains of anti-white prejudice and purges powerful Black men and women in the name of a mythical colorblind society.
Given a chance to speak directly to Trump, what would Colbert — a Democrat — say?
'Mr. President, thank you for your service,' he began. 'Being in public offices is hard and difficult.'
He paused. Several beats passed. A waiter cleared away dishes.
'I would encourage you to change your tone, certainly publicly, and broaden your perspective and embrace those who might have a different perspective than you,' Colbert went on. 'Many people have come to this country and they've added value. They've made this country for the better.
'Remember those who don't necessarily have easy access to power. Remember those who are struggling. Focus on those who are most vulnerable and are highly dependent on the government to help them through a short amount of time. I mean, the American experiment is incredible. Keep that in mind. A little empathy. Simple acts of kindness. Place yourself into someone else's shoes.
'Thank you, Mr. President.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
In race to replace Fernandes Anderson, District 7 candidates debate housing affordability, reparations during forum
Said Ahmed, a nonprofit executive, said if elected he would push to make the lottery systems that distribute affordable units in private developments more transparent. Miniard Culpepper, a lawyer Advertisement Community activist WaWa Bell supported the idea of creating a more localized area median income that would better reflect the demographics of District 7. Area median income is the standard used for determining income eligibility for affordable housing projects. Such a change would require the state Legislature's approval. Advertisement Mavrick Afonso, who works for the state's executive office of housing and livable communities, also supported the idea of a localized area median income for the district, noting that areas like 'Locally in Roxbury, that median income is a lot lower,' Afonso said, 'we're not making housing for Waltham in Roxbury.' The candidates are running in the only open seat on this year's ballot, and would represent a district that encompasses parts of Roxbury, Dorchester, Fenway and part of the South End. The previous District 7 councilor, Fernandes Anderson, The District 7 race is crowded, with a total of 11 candidates on the Sept. 9 preliminary ballot. Only the top two vote getters in that election will move on to November's general election. The organizers of the event only invited the first four candidates who responded to them so that each candidate would get around 30 minutes to answer questions. The other candidates will be interviewed at future events. When asked by an audience member about how he would make sure that Black people from Roxbury could afford to stay in the neighborhood, Bell said reparations were the solution. Community organizations like Advertisement 'I think I can go a step further and establish the infrastructure,' Bell said, 'so that if reparations does happen … we have a dedicated office that will be able to deliver those resources properly.' On reparations, Culpepper said that Black students at Madison Park vocational high school should be able to attend nearby Northeastern University tuition free if they are admitted. 'The little white kids are paying cash right from the money that was made from the slaves on our back,' Culpepper said. Culpepper said that the University developing the land in the area has limited access to students of the long-underinvested high school to facilities like Carter Playground. The high school was set to get a new building, but 'Look at the disparity,' Culpepper said, 'it's amazing how we've given up the city to Northeastern University.' Afonso, who previously worked for the city's parks and recreation department, said a public discussion about past injustices like redlining was needed before deciding on how reparations may be implemented. 'The first step for me is to really do the work to try to understand the damages that happened at the time, a model that was set forth in South Africa with the Truth and Reconciliation trial,' Afonso said, " I can't tell you I have a solution for all of that right now, because we don't know how deep it's gone and how much it's infected and hurt families over generations." Advertisement Ahmed did not directly voice his opinion on reparations, but said he supported efforts to keep Roxbury residents in the neighborhood. Ahmed, who came to Roxbury at the age of 12, as a refugee from Somalia, went on to become a member of the US track and field national team and later, work in the Boston Public School system. He works as a supervisor of attendance for the school system. Ahmed said he became passionate about advocating for Black and brown families when he saw that those families were disproportionately involved in truancy hearings. He said he began working with students, particularly those from low-income and immigrant families, to address attendance issues before the issue escalated to a court hearing. 'No one wins in court,' Ahmed said, 'The judge might not make the decision that's good for our community.' The candidates were also asked about how they would maintain transparency while in office given that Fernandes Anderson resigned after she plead guilty to violating state ethics laws by hiring immediate family members as paid staff and receiving a $7,000 kickback from a staff member's city funded bonus. All four candidates said they would host regular town halls, Ahmed said he would set up a district office in Roxbury for easier communication and Bell said he would continue the Advertisement 'I know single mothers that make more prudent decisions than some of these [city] departments in their own homes,' Afonso said, 'I'm sure they can handle some of our budget issues.' There will be another forum with the remaining District 7 candidates this Thursday at 6 p.m. at the same location, One Westinghouse Plaza, in Hyde Park, also hosted by Speak Boston. Thursday's forum will also be live-streamed Angela Mathew can be reached at

USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Byron Black executed for triple murder despite concerns of disabilities, heart device
The execution came after Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee declined requests, including from some Republicans, to intervene because of the inmate's intellectual disabilities and heart device. Tennessee has executed a man for the 1988 murder of his girlfriend and her two young daughters despite arguments he suffered from intellectual disabilities and concerns his heart device would shock him back to life during the lethal injection. The state executed Byron Black on Tuesday, Aug. 5, after Gov. Bill Lee declined requests from attorneys, advocacy groups and even some Republicans to intervene. He was pronounced dead at 10:43 a.m. CT. "This is hurting so bad," Black said during the execution, according to news media witnesses who saw him die. On March 28, 1988, Angela Clay and her eldest daughter, 9-year-old Latoya, were found shot dead in bed. Clay's other daughter, 6-year-old Lakeisha, was found dead on the floor in another bedroom with multiple gunshot wounds. Black became the 28th inmate executed in the U.S. this year, a 10-year high, with at least nine more executions scheduled. He's the second inmate to be put to death in Tennessee this year after a five-year break in executions in the state. Black's case stands out for two reasons. What his legal team said was an "undisputed intellectual disability" had many calling for a reprieve, including some Republicans. And his attorneys raised serious questions about whether Black's implanted heart device would cause "a prolonged and torturous execution" in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told USA TODAY in a statement that expert testimony "refutes the suggestion that Black would suffer severe pain if executed" and that the state was seeking "to hold Black accountable for his horrific crimes." Here's what you need to know about the execution, the crime and the issues surrounding the case. What was Byron Black convicted of? Black was convicted of fatally shooting his girlfriend, Angela Clay, and her two daughters: 9-year-old Latoya and 6-year-old Lakeisha. They were murdered on March 27, 1988. At the time, Black had been on work release from prison for shooting Clay's estranged husband and her daughters' father, Bennie Clay, in 1986. Prosecutors told jurors at trial that Black killed Angela Clay because he was jealous of her ongoing relationship with her ex. Investigators believe that Angela Clay and Latoya were shot as they slept, while Lakeisha appeared to have tried to escape after being wounded in the chest and pelvis. Bennie Clay previously told The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network, he believes Black killed the girls to spite him. "My kids, they were babies," he told the newspaper. "They were smart, they were gonna be something. They never got the chance." More recently, he told The Tennessean he planned to attend the execution, though he said he has forgiven Black. 'God has a plan for everything,' he told the newspaper. 'He had a plan when he took my girls. He needed them more than I did, I guess.' Judge ordered Byron Black's heart device removed before execution On July 22, a judge ordered that a heart device implanted in Black needed to be removed at a hospital the morning of his execution, a development that appeared to complicate matters as a Nashville hospital declined to participate. But the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the judge's order, and the U.S. Supreme Court backed that up, clearing the way for Black to be executed despite the heart device. His attorneys argued that the device, designed to revive the heart, could lead to "a prolonged and torturous execution." "It's horrifying to think about this frail old man being shocked over and over as the device attempts to restore his heart's rhythm even as the State works to kill him," Henry said in a statement. The state argued that Black's heart device would not cause him pain. Robin, Maher, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, told USA TODAY that an inmate being executed with a defibrillator implant was "a completely unprecedented issue." But, she added, "one I fear we will see again as states move toward executing aging prisoners on death row." A reporter for The Tennessean was among the witnesses to the execution and USA TODAY will update this story with her observations. Tennessee governor declined to intervene With their arguments over Black's heart device at the end of the legal road, his attorneys re-focused their attention on his intellectual disabilities during his final days and hours, calling on Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to stop the execution and prevent "a grotesque spectacle." Citing Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and exposure to toxic lead, Black's attorneys said mental impairments meant that he always had to live with and rely on family. More recently on death row, his attorneys said that other inmates had to "do his everyday tasks for him, including cleaning his cell, doing his laundry, and microwaving his food." "If ever a case called for the Governor to grant clemency or, at the very least, a reprieve, it is this one," Henry said in a statement. The director of Tennessee Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty said that she supports accountability for people who commit heinous crimes, but "the law is clear that we do not execute people with intellectual disability." "Governor Lee can insist on accountability while ensuring that the law is also followed. A situation such as this is exactly why governors have clemency power," Jasmine Woodson said in a statement. "Mr. Black has spent over three decades in prison for this crime and will never be released. As a conservative, I believe that he should remain behind bars, but he should not be executed." Lee's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment from USA TODAY. In his statement to USA TODAY, Attorney General Skrmetti pushed back at findings that Black was intellectually disabled and said that "over the decades, courts have uniformly denied Black's eleven distinct attempts to overturn his murder convictions and death sentence." Angela Clay's family long sought justice Earlier this year, Angela Clay's sister, Linette Bell, told The Tennessean she and her family were frustrated with years of delays, court hearings, and uncertainty: "He needs to pay for what he did." Angela Clay's mother, Marie Bell, told The Tennessean she had been waiting far too long. "I'm 88 years old and I just want to see it before I leave this Earth," she said. Outside the prison ahead of the execution on Tuesday, Angela Clay's niece, Nicoule Davis, told The Tennessean "it's time for a celebration." "It's time for a celebration," Davis said. "We've been waiting for years and years." Family members, some of whom witnessed the execution, were expected to address reporters afterward, and this story will be updated with their comments. What was Byron Black's last meal? Black's last meal was pizza with mushrooms and sausage, donuts, and butter pecan ice cream. Byron Black's execution is second in the state this year Black is the second inmate to be executed in Tennessee this year following a five-year break in the death penalty in the state. The break followed an independent review that found the Tennessee Department of Corrections was not consistently testing execution drugs for potency and purity. Nationwide, nine more executions are scheduled for this year, with more expected to be carried out as governors sign more death warrants. The next execution is Kayle Barrington Bates in Florida on Aug. 19 for the 1982 stabbing death of a 24-year-old woman named Janet White, who was kidnapped from her office and taken to the woods before Bates beat her, tried to rape her and ultimately killed her. Contributing: Kelly Puente, The Tennessean Amanda Lee Myers is a senior crime reporter for USA TODAY. Follow her on X at @amandaleeusat.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court just revealed its plan to make gerrymandering even worse
One of the biggest mysteries that has emerged from the Trump-era Supreme Court is the 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan. In Milligan, two of the Republican justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — voted with the Court's Democratic minority to strike down Alabama's racially gerrymandered congressional maps, ordering the state to redraw those maps to include an additional district with a Black majority. As Roberts emphasized in his opinion for the Court in Milligan, a lower court that also struck down these maps 'faithfully applied our precedents.' But the Roberts Court frequently overrules or ignores precedents that interpret the Voting Rights Act — the federal law at issue in Milligan — to do more than block the most egregious forms of Jim Crow-like voter suppression. And the Court's Republican majority is normally hostile to lawsuits challenging gerrymanders of any kind. Most notably, in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Republican justices held that federal courts may not hear suits challenging partisan gerrymanders. Among other things, Rucho enables tactics like Texas Republicans' current plans to redraw that state's congressional maps to maximize GOP power in Congress. So why did two Republican justices break with their previous skepticism of gerrymandering suits in the Milligan case? A new order that the Supreme Court handed down Friday evening appears to answer that question. The new order, in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais, suggests that the Court's decision in Milligan was merely a minor detour, and that Roberts and Kavanaugh's votes in Milligan were largely driven by unwise legal decisions by Alabama's lawyers. The legal issues in the Callais case are virtually identical to the ones presented in Milligan, but the Court's new order indicates it is likely to use Callais to strike down the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against gerrymandering altogether. The Callais order, in other words, doesn't simply suggest that Milligan was a one-off decision that is unlikely to be repeated. It also suggests that the Court's Republican majority will resume its laissez-faire approach to gerrymandering, just as the redistricting wars appear to be heating up. A brief history of the Supreme Court's approach to gerrymandering Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of lawsuits alleging that a legislative map is illegally gerrymandered. Partisan gerrymandering suits claim that a map was drawn to maximize one major political party's power at the expense of the other. Racial gerrymandering suits, meanwhile, allege that a state's legislative maps improperly dilute the voting power of voters of a particular race. Prior to Rucho, the Court imposed minimal — but not entirely nonexistent — limits on partisan gerrymandering. It has historically been more aggressive in policing racial gerrymanders. The Supreme Court held in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) that federal courts may hear claims alleging that a state's maps are so egregiously partisan that they amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The idea is that maps that intentionally inflate Democratic voters' power, while minimizing Republican voters' power (or vice-versa) violate the Constitution's guarantee that all voters should have an equal say in elections. Notably, however, no five justices agreed to a single legal standard that would allow courts to determine which maps are illegal partisan gerrymanders in Davis. Nor did a majority of the Court set such a standard in later lawsuits challenging partisan gerrymanders. In Rucho, the Republican justices essentially announced that the Court would give up its quest to find such a standard. A few years later, in Alexander v. NAACP (2024), those justices went even further, declaring that 'as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, a legislature may pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.' Though Davis's limits on partisan gerrymandering were always fuzzy, it is likely that this ambiguity deterred at least some states from enacting extreme gerrymanders that might have caused the courts to intervene. At the very least, Rucho changed how states litigate gerrymandering suits. Before Rucho, states accused of gerrymandering would often try to offer another explanation for why their maps benefited one party or the other. Now, they will openly state in their briefs that they drew maps for partisan reasons — confident that federal judges will do nothing, despite these confessions. Historically, however, the Court has imposed more concrete limits on racial gerrymanders. In Milligan, for example, the Court struck down Alabama congressional maps that would have given Black voters a majority in just one of the state's seven districts (or 14 percent of the districts), despite the fact that Black people make up about 27 percent of the state's population. The Court ordered the state to draw new maps with two Black-majority districts. The linchpin of Milligan and similar cases is the Court's decision in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), which laid out the rules governing when an alleged racial gerrymander violates the Voting Rights Act (which broadly prohibits race discrimination in elections). The framework laid out in Gingles is notoriously complicated, but it turns on whether voters in a particular state vote in racially cohesive blocs. Thus, for example, in a state where the white majority supports Republicans nearly all of the time, while the Black minority supports Democrats nearly all of the time, Gingles sometimes requires courts to redraw the state's maps to ensure that the Black minority is adequately represented. This is because, in such a state, the white majority can wield its near-unanimous support for Republicans to cut Black voters (and Democrats) out of power altogether. In a different state, where both Black and white voters sometimes vote for either party, Gingles tells courts to stay out of redistricting. Black voters, after all, are United States citizens who have as much of a right to choose their leaders as anyone else. So, if they choose to be represented by a white Republican in a free and fair election, that's their choice and the courts should honor it. Because Gingles only kicks in when an electorate's racial demographics closely match its partisan voting patterns, it places some practical limits on both partisan and racial gerrymandering. In Milligan, for example, Alabama was not able to draw maps that maximized Republican voting power because doing so required the state to dilute Black voting power. So, even though Rucho prevents lawsuits that challenge partisan gerrymandering directly, Gingles sometimes allows suits which target it indirectly by alleging that a partisan gerrymander is also an impermissible racial gerrymander. But now the Court is signaling that it is likely to overrule Gingles and abolish suits alleging that racial gerrymanders violate the Voting Rights Act altogether. So what's the deal with the Court's new order in Callais? The Callais case is virtually identical to Milligan — indeed, the cases are so similar that Louisiana said in a brief to the justices that Callais 'presents the same question' as the Alabama redistricting case. Before the Callais case reached the justices, a lower court determined that Louisiana's congressional maps violate Gingles, and ordered the state to draw an additional Black-majority district. Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Callais last March, all six of the Republican justices appeared to disagree with this lower court's decision — although the lower court's decision merely applied the same legal rules that the Supreme Court applied two years earlier in Milligan. Then, at the end of June, the Court issued a brief order announcing that it would hold an unusual second oral argument in Callais, and that it would seek additional briefing from the parties in this case. On Friday, the Court issued a new order laying out what these parties should address in those briefs. Those briefs should examine whether the lower court order requiring Louisiana to draw an additional Black-majority district 'violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.' The justices, in other words, want briefing on whether Gingles — and the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering more broadly — are unconstitutional. This suggestion that the Voting Rights Act may be unconstitutional — or, at least, that it violates the Republican justices' vision of the Constitution — should not surprise anyone who has followed the Court's voting rights cases. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices neutralized a different provision of the Voting Rights Act, which required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' new election laws with federal officials before they take effect. The Court's Republican majority labeled this provision 'strong medicine' that could be justified to combat the kind of widespread racial voting discrimination that existed during Jim Crow. But they argued that the United States was not racist enough in 2013 to justify letting preclearance remain in place. 'There is no denying,' Roberts wrote for the Court in Shelby County, 'that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.' Although Kavanaugh joined nearly all of the majority opinion in Milligan, he also wrote a separate opinion indicating that he wanted to extend Shelby County to gerrymandering cases in a future ruling. 'Even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under [the Voting Rights Act] for some period of time,' Kavanaugh wrote, 'the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.' Gingles also suggests that Voting Rights Act suits challenging racial gerrymanders should eventually cease to exist. If the electorate ceases to be racially polarized — something that appears to be slowly happening — then Gingles plaintiffs will no longer be able to win cases, and the federal judiciary's role in redistricting will diminish. But Kavanaugh seems to be impatient to end these suits while many states remain racially polarized. Read in the context of Kavanaugh's Milligan opinion, in other words, the new Callais order suggests that a majority of the justices have decided the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering have reached their expiration date, and they are looking for arguments to justify striking them down. It now looks like Milligan was Gingles's last gasp. The Republican justices remain hostile both to the Voting Rights Act and toward gerrymandering suits more broadly. And they appear very likely to use Callais to remove one of the few remaining safeguards against gerrymanders.