Louisiana vs. the ‘non-African Americans'
'The argument put forth by the plaintiffs seeking the requirement of race blindness, even in the course of remedying racial vote dilution, is not new,' Jenkins said Wednesday, previewing the March 24 argument to members of the press. 'It dates back to the civil rights movement, when opponents of voting rights protections for minority groups used the same argument to oppose addressing racial discrimination. The irony and hypocrisy is hard to miss.'
The National Democratic Redistricting Committee was among the groups that
Advertisement
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued a ruling rejecting a similarly racially rigged map in Alabama. So rather than fight, Louisiana lawmakers decided to go back to the map-drawing board and try to comply with the justices' ruling.
Lawmakers drafted and the governor approved a new map that included
But then the state was sued by the 'non-African American' group, which said that the
new
map was forbidden because state officials drafted it primarily on the basis of race. Yes: They argued that the state violated the law by complying with a ruling that said you can't racially discriminate against Black people.
Advertisement
Now Louisiana officials are crying uncle, saying they will be damned with Black voter dilution lawsuits if they throw out the new map and damned with racial discrimination lawsuits from non-Afrian American voters if they don't. They asked the Supreme Court to sort it all out instead.
Here's the bad news for democracy lovers: The Supreme Court has, for more than a decade, become increasingly critical of the racial components of the Voting Rights Act itself. In 2013,
So the non-African Americans must be feeling pretty bullish. They'll make their case to the justices later this month. I'll let you know how it goes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
3 things that should scare us about Trump's fake video of Obama
President Trump shakes hands with then-President Obama in the Oval Office in 2016. Video of this encounter may have been used recently to create an AI-generated fake video of Obama being arrested. On Sunday, our thoughtful and reserved president reposted on his Truth Social site a video generated by artificial intelligence that falsely showed former President Obama being arrested and imprisoned. There are those among you who think this is high humor; those among you who who find it as tiresome as it is offensive; and those among you blissfully unaware of the mental morass that is Truth Social. Whatever camp you fall into, the video crosses all demographics by being expected — just another crazy Trump stunt in a repetitive cycle of division and diversion so frequent it makes Groundhog Day seem fresh. Epstein who? Advertisement But there are three reasons why this particular video — not made by the president but amplified to thousands — is worth noting, and maybe even worth fearing. First, it is flat-out racist. In it, Obama is ripped out of a chair in the Oval Office and forced onto his knees, almost bowing, to a laughing Trump. That imagery isn't hard to interpret: America's most esteemed Black man — who recently warned we are on the brink of losing democracy — forced into submission before our leader. The video comes as Trump claims that Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, has uncovered a 'treasonous conspiracy in 2016' in which top Obama officials colluded with Russia to disrupt the election. Democrats say the claim is erroneous at best. Advertisement If you are inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, right before this scene of Obama forced to kneel, a meme of Pepe the Frog — an iconic image of the far-right and white supremacy — flashes on the screen. Not subtle. But also, not the first time racism has come straight from the White House. On Monday, the Rev. Amos Brown, pastor of San Francisco's Third Baptist Church and a student of Martin Luther King Jr., reminded me that not too long ago, then-President Woodrow Wilson screened the pro-KKK film 'The Birth of a Nation' at the executive mansion. It was the first film screening ever held there, and its anti-Black viewpoint sparked controversy and protests. That was due in no small part to a truth that Hollywood knows well — fiction has great power to sway minds. Brown sees direct similarities in how Wilson amplified fictional anti-Blackness then, and how Trump is doing so now, both for political gain. Advertisement 'Mr. Trump should realize that Obama hasn't done anything to him. But just the idea, the thought of a Black person being human, is a threat to him and his supporters,' Brown told me. Brown said he's praying for the president to 'stop this bigotry' and see the error of his ways. I'll pray the great gods give the reverend good luck on that. But, on the earthly plane, Brown said that 'the more things change, the more they remain the same.' Trump courted the Black vote and has his supporters among people of all colors and ethnicities, but he's also played on racist tropes for political success, from stoking fear around the Central Park Five, now known as the Exonerated Five, decades ago to stoking fear around Black immigrants eating cats and dogs in Ohio during the recent election. It's an old playbook, because it works. Reposting the image of Obama on his knees is scary because it's a harsh reminder that racism is no longer an undercurrent in our society, if it ever was. It's a motivator and a power to be openly wielded — just the way Wilson did back in 1915. But the differences in media from back in the day to now are what should raise our second fear around this video. A fictional film is one thing. An AI-generated video that for many people seems to depict reality is a whole new level of, well, reality. Advertisement Voices Chabria: What this formerly undocumented congressman understands about patriotism that Trump doesn't Garcia, who represents Long Beach, was recently was chosen by his Democratic peers for the minority party's top job on the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The fear of deepfakes in politics is not new. It's a global problem, and in fairness, this isn't the first time (by far) Trump or other politicians have used deepfakes. Trump last year reposted an image of Taylor Swift endorsing him (which never happened). Also last year, during the election and the height of the Elon Musk-Trump bromance, the billionaire posted a fake photo of political challenger Kamala Harris dressed in what looked like a communist military uniform. Trump himself has not been immune. In 2023, Eliot Higgins, the founder of the investigative outlet Bellingcat, said he was toying with an AI tool and created images of Trump being arrested, never thinking it would go viral (especially since one image gave Trump three legs). Of course it did, and millions of people looked at these fake pictures, at least some assuming they were real. The list of deepfake political examples is long and ominous. Which brings us to the third reason Trump's latest use of one is unsettling. He clearly sees the effectiveness of manipulating race and reality to increase his own power and further his own agenda. Advertisement Obama on his knees strikes a chord all too close to the image of Latino Sen. Alex Padilla being taken to the floor by federal authorities a few weeks ago during a news conference. It bears chilling resemblance to the thousands of images flooding us daily of immigrants being taken down and detained by immigration officers in often violent fashion. Videos like this one of Obama are the normalizing, the mockery, the celebration of the erosion of civil rights and violence we are currently seeing being aimed at Black, brown and vulnerable Americans. There is nothing innocent or unplanned about these kinds of videos. They are a political weapon being used for a purpose. Because when repetition dulls our shock of them, how long before we are no longer shocked by real images of real arrests?
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Supreme Court May Play a Role in Jeffrey Epstein Saga
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court may play a key role in the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein saga, as associate Ghislaine Maxwell has appealed her conviction to the nation's highest court. Maxwell was convicted on multiple charges, including sex trafficking of a minor and transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in 2021. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Maxwell filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in April. "Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein," David Oscar Markus, attorney for Maxwell, said in the filing. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP Why It Matters The Epstein case recently made headlines after the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI concluded there is no "client list" of prominent individuals linked to Epstein and said no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 69 percent of respondents thought the federal government was hiding details about Epstein's clients. Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, was found dead at New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide. What To Know Maxwell's attorney argued she was shielded by a 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the U.S. government covering alleged co-conspirators. "I think her lawyers have made a credible argument that she should be entitled not to be prosecuted given that the agreement between Epstein and the government supposedly immunized co-conspirators from criminal prosecution." Michael Gerhardt, the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina, told Newsweek. "It makes no sense to treat her as if she were not a co-conspiration. Her role in facilitating Epstein's misconduct makes her a co-conspirator." The DOJ argued Maxwell was not a party to this agreement in a brief filed July 14. "There is no evidence that the parties to the NPA intended for the coconspirators clause to benefit petitioner," Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti and attorney Ethan A. Sachs wrote in the filing. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche formally requested federal courts to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and Maxwell on Friday, one day after Trump said on Truth Social that he asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to "produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval." "Grand jury proceedings are typically confidential and not subject to public inspection. But given the public interest in this case, the federal court might agree to the government's request especially if there are no privacy interests to protect," Wayne Unger, an assistant professor of law at Quinnipiac University, said in comments sent to Newsweek. What People Are Saying Michael Gerhardt, the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina, in comments to Newsweek: "It is hard to say whether the Court will take the appeal. The Court usually takes appeals if there is a split among the circuits and/or if the case presents a compelling issue for the Court to decide. Obviously, Maxwell's issue is important to her, but it may not be important to most of the justices." David Oscar Markus, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, in a petition for a writ of certiorari: "This inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places should be addressed by this Court." Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti and attorney Ethan A. Sachs, in a brief filed July 14: "At all events, the case-specific interpretation of a particular NPA is not a matter that warrants this Court's review." What Happens Next The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear Maxwell's appeal. Federal judges have also yet to rule on the release of grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
3 hours ago
Defendants argue to state's high court that a Pennsylvania DA has been misusing the death penalty
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Two men accused of homicide and facing a potential death sentence if convicted asked Pennsylvania's highest court Tuesday to restrict a county prosecutor's pursuit of the death penalty, accusing him of misusing it to pressure defendants into guilty pleas or get them to turn state's evidence. The two defendants filed a petition before the state Supreme Court that suggests a range of actions to limit Washington County District Attorney Jason Walsh's discretion in asking for capital punishment. 'The arbitrary seeking of the death penalty has become a crisis in Washington County, where a wildly disproportionate number" of the state's prosecutorial death penalty notices of aggravating factors are filed, wrote lawyers for Jordan Clarke and Joshua George. They say Walsh, a Republican appointed in 2021 and elected to keep the job nearly two years ago, has sought the death penalty in 11 of the county's 18 homicide cases during his term in office. Walsh on Tuesday disputed the numbers, saying the county has had more than 18 homicide cases over that period. He said several of the cases during his tenure have involved the deaths of children, where one of the aggravating factors required for the death penalty, the young age of the victim, is simple to demonstrate in court. 'If it fits under the law, prosecutors can seek the death penalty,' Walsh said in a phone interview. 'That's just the law.' The petition asks the justices to adopt 'some or all' of the changes they want. They are asking for Walsh to be required to have an out-of-county judge, the attorney general's office or a court-appointed special master review decisions to seek the death penalty; to stop the death penalty from being pursued in the cases of the two petitioners; and to get an outside judge to review all death penalty cases filed since the year Walsh took office. Washington County is a suburban and rural area of more than 200,000 people with a history of coal mining and gas drilling in the state's southwesternmost corner, about 28 miles (45 kilometers) southwest of Pittsburgh. 'No county has a bottomless well of money to fund defense teams representing indigents facing capital punishment,' lawyers with the Philadelphia-based Atlantic Center for Capital Representation argued in asking the justices to take the unusual step of accepting a case without an underlying appeal. 'The excessive, abusive, and coercive use of the death penalty by District Attorney Walsh has surely strained Washington County's ability to fund constitutionally adequate defenses.' As an example, the filing describes how the prosecutor's office upgraded a woman's charge of conspiracy to commit homicide to add criminal homicide after being told by defense lawyers that conspiracy was not sufficient to face a death penalty. She spent nearly four years in jail before the case was dismissed. Walsh said there is evidence supporting the case and he plans to appeal the dismissal. In Clarke's case, involving a 2-month-old boy's death, the petition alleges Walsh 'intervened to improperly influence the manner of death determination, filed homicide charges and a notice of aggravators before the manner of death was determined, and is pursuing a death sentence based on facially inappropriate aggravating circumstances.' Walsh said state and federal courts have long upheld the legality of the death penalty. In Pennsylvania, only three people have been executed since the 1970s, and all had given up on their appeals. Appeals and natural deaths have shrunk Pennsylvania's death row from well over 200 two decades ago to 94 inmates currently. 'This is nothing but a liberal Hail Mary from a liberal think tank,' Walsh said of the newly filed court petition. 'Those allegations are nonsensical and without merit.'
