Commentary, What's Race Got To Do With It?

It’s Black Women’s Equal Pay Day: Here’s why that’s important

Image: www.womendadvancenc.org

By Antionette Kerr

Why are we still telling Black Women to work twice as hard?

It’s time for equal pay

The women in my family set high standards for what “hard work” felt and looked like. In many ways these lessons gave me strength and inspiration. I have a tremendous amount of respect for their wisdom and I credit them for my fierce work ethic. But lately, I’ve started to challenge the old adage that as a Black Woman I have to “work twice as hard” to be considered successful.

Demanding equal pay is especially important for communities of color who have been told that they had to work “twice as hard,” and be “twice as good” to be successful. This belief is so widely accepted that even former first Lady Michelle Obama advances it in speeches across America.

I echo the thoughtful sentiments of Guardian writer, Britni Danielle. “There’s one mantra many black parents drill into their children’s heads throughout their life: be twice as good. It goes that as black folks in America, we’ve got to work twice as hard to get half as far as our white counterparts,” she wrote. “Some semblance of this speech has been handed down for generations, and given our history in the US – forced into chattel slavery, oppressed under Jim Crow, and racially stigmatized to this day – it’s proven itself to be true.”

This is especially ringing true for women of color. According to equalpaytoday.org , “Each year, Equal Pay Day for All is held in April, but when we look at the wage gap for women of color, the gap is far greater. When compared to all men, women earn $.80 (cents) on the $1. When compared to White, non-Hispanic men, Black/African American women earn only $.63 (cents) on the $1. This means the typical Black woman must work until August 2018 to be paid what the typical White man was paid at the end of December 2017.”

The “work twice as hard” speech has become a rite of passage in many communities of color. Read more

News

Senators taking aim at insurance companies behind bail bond industry

If you’ve been following Policy Watch’s coverage of the for-profit cash bail industry and the movement to reform it, you’ll want to check out this week’s story on bail industry backers in the insurance industry from The Marshall Project.

From the piece:

Two senators want to shine some light on the business. On Friday, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, sent a letter to 22 insurance companies requesting details of their finances and their relationships with the bail bond agents they underwrite.

The piece also goes into the way in which the movement to eliminate cash bail is impacting what has, for decades, been a growing industry.

After years of uninterrupted growth, bail bond premiums fell more than 3 percent in 2017 compared to the year before. The report forecast more decline as more laws change and lawsuits prevail.

“Ultimately, in states where reform measures significantly diminish — or eliminate entirely — the need for defendants to post cash bail, the business of bail bond agents and bail bond insurance specialists as currently constituted will likely cease to exist,” the report said.

Read the full piece here.

 

News

How to watch tomorrow’s sold out Crucial Conversation on the constitutional amendments

Tomorrow’s NC Policy Watch Crucial Conversation, North Carolina’s constitutional amendments blitz: What should be done?” featuring former legislative counsel Gerry Cohen, Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr. and “Tuesdays with Tillis” activist Karen Ziegler is a sell-out. Due to space constraints we’ve had to cut off registrations.

Happily, there is still a way to watch the event — both later and as it happens.

To do so, head to the NC Policy Watch Facebook page a few minutes after 12:00 noon tomorrow, Wednesday August 8.

Here is a description of the event:

In the final harried days of the 2018 legislative session, North Carolina lawmakers took the unprecedented step of voting to place six constitutional amendments on the November ballot. The amendments deal with a wide-ranging array of subjects: the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife; the rights of crime victims; changes to the state board of elections and the transfer of appointment powers from the governor to the legislature; selection for judicial vacancies; a cap on the state income tax and requiring a photo ID to vote.

In the weeks that have followed, a growing chorus of critics has emerged to decry the amendments as individually flawed and, collectively, a massive and deceptive power grab by legislative leaders. Unlike virtually all previous amendments in recent decades, the critics note, five of the six amendments lack basic implementing language that would even allow voters to understand what they are voting on.

So where do things stand? What would the amendments really do and not do? What will happen next if any of them were to pass?

Join us as we tackle these question and others with an extremely knowledgeable panel of experts, including:

  • State Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr. of Durham
  • Former North Carolina General Assembly Special Counsel, Gerry Cohen
  • Karen Ziegler, leader of the Tuesdays with Tillis protests

Hope to see you — at least virtually — tomorrow!

Commentary, Education, News

Editorial: Bill Cobey stands up for state board and public schools

State Board of Education Chair Bill Cobey

In case you missed it this this morning, Capitol Broadcasting Company published an editorial over at WRAL that takes aim at state legislative leaders following the news that State Board of Education Chairman Bill Cobey is stepping down from the board next month.

Cobey, a longtime North Carolina Republican who once chaired the statewide GOP and served in Congress, has often been at odds with the Republican-controlled legislature in recent years.

The editorial notes the reaction from Republican lawmakers, or rather lack of reaction, to Cobey’s departure is telling.

From the editorial:

Last week Chairman Bill Cobey, announced his resignation from the State Board of Education six months before the end of his term. “I want to move on so that others can lead,” he said.

We hope he’d serve his entire term, but we are not surprised that he is leaving.

Who could blame Cobey, at 79, for taking a break from the daily attacks on our public education system by Senate Leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore. They have been unrelenting in their efforts to dismantle the State Board of Education. Cobey fought the good fight on behalf of the board and is still fighting.

There are few North Carolinians who can claim Cobey’s conservative Republican pedigree. In 1982 (when Speaker Moore was 12 years old) he was Jesse Helms’ Congressional Club choice to unseat a four-term Democrat in the Fourth Congressional District. He fell short that year, but won the seat two years later.

Cobey was Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources under Gov. Jim Martin. He served as chairman of the state Republican Party. He was on the board of a private school and vice chairman of the Jesse Helms Center in 2013 when Gov. Pat McCrory named him to the State Board and he was elected its chairman.

It is certainly curious that, upon his resignation, Cobey received public words of appreciation for his service from Gov. Roy Cooper and former Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson while Republicans, including Berger, Moore and former Gov. McCrory who appointed him, were uncharacteristically muted.

It is the fact that Cobey isn’t a pushover; that he stands up for his principles and also works with Democrats to find common ground to strengthen public education; that he stands up for the constitutional role of the State Board of Education in the face of legislative efforts to weaken it. That infuriates Berger and Moore.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Mark Johnson has been acquiescent to the legislative leadership and with newly-enacted powers from the legislature, worked to subvert the state board’s authority.

The current leaders of the General Assembly see every exchange as an opportunity for a confrontation, every issue is reason for ideological combat. Anyone who might have the moxie to suggest an alternative solution or competing idea is the enemy. Cobey has been under attack for several years. He fought hard.

Make no mistake about it, Bill Cobey believes in the strength of his ideas and positions. But he also has the confidence to let others challenge them and discuss them.

Most significantly, he has the patience to listen and work with those with different perspectives to seek common solutions. That’s not being a push over or liberal. That’s leadership.

It’s about putting the interests of the state, public schools and children first.

Cobey has the right priorities. They are sorely lacking among many members of the General Assembly.

We extend our admiration for, and thanks to, Bill Cobey and his service to North Carolina.

Courts & the Law, Defending Democracy, News

Judge puts NCGA’s retroactive change of judicial filing rules on hold for the moment

Rebecca Edwards and Chris Anglin

The State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement cannot certify or print any election ballots until after a Wake County judge hears full arguments over the General Assembly’s decision to change judicial election rules after candidate filing.

Chris Anglin and Rebecca Edwards both filed separate lawsuits over Senate Bill 3, which retroactively requires judicial candidates to be affiliated with the party listed on their voter registration for at least 90 days before filing for a race.

Anglin, a state Supreme Court candidate, changed his Democratic affiliation to Republican on June 7 and Edwards, a Wake County District Court candidate, changed her Republican affiliation to Democratic on May 30. They both challenged SB3 only as it applied to their candidacy and said it violated several of their rights, including their First Amendment association rights and their equal protection rights.

Judge Rebecca Holt presided over Monday’s hearing over temporary restraining orders.

“It is not lost on me that this is a matter that was filed this morning after legislative action on Saturday, and that on Monday afternoon, after something has been filed, I am being asked to in effect make a decision that will affect the merits of this case,” she told the courtroom before delivering her decision. “Either I require the plaintiffs’ party designation to be listed on the ballot as some injunctive relief, or I don’t require that, in which case in either event, based on the timeline, I am deciding the case.”

Holt took what appeared on its face to be a more measured approach, though a top GOP lawmaker later called her decision “disappointing” and indicated an appeal was imminent.

She enjoined the State Board from printing the ballots — which they would have done Wednesday — in order to have a full preliminary injunction hearing next Monday. She stayed the part of SB3 that would have required Anglin and Edwards to make a decision about moving forward in their respective races without party affiliation or withdraw altogether.

Holt said her decision gives both sides — lawmakers and the candidates — an opportunity to fully brief the court on the issues. Any documents they plan to file must be submitted by 5 p.m. Friday.

An attorney for Edwards, Narendra Ghosh, said after the hearing they were “pleased with the outcome” and looked forward to Monday’s hearing. Ghosh is a board member of the North Carolina Justice Center, the parent organization to NC Policy Watch.

Anglin indicated in a news release he too approved of Holt’s decision, though he added he wasn’t surprised by it.

“What the Legislature has done is a violation of my Constitutional rights, and frankly un-American,” he wrote. “Even children understand changing the rules in the middle of an election is wrong.”

Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett) tweeted his disapproval after the hearing.

“Appears to be a disappointing ruling,” he wrote on Twitter. “Timeline interferes with the State Board ballot deadline. Current decision would also give voters misleading information as to candidates’ long-held partisan affiliation. But was certified for immediate appellate review…”

An attorney with the North Carolina Department of Justice told Holt that the State Board needed 30 days to print and certify ballots, and that absentee forms were scheduled to go out Sept. 7 — which means Wednesday is the 30-day deadline.

Anglin’s attorney, John Burns, who is also a Wake County Commissioner, said, however, during the hearing that the deadline was not hard and fast.

Burns argued that the legislature could not “reach back in time” and change election rules without violating his client’s rights. He also argued that the bill was aimed specifically at Anglin, not Edwards.

“Had my client filed as a Democrat, I doubt we’d be here today,” he said. “It was aimed specifically to remove my client’s ability to run as a Republican for Justice [Barbara] Jackson’s seat, and as this law applies to him, it’s unconstitutional because he had a vested right under the existing statutes to run as a Republican. He followed all the rules he needed to follow.”

Martin Warf, the attorney representing lawmakers, contested the “vested right” argument several times throughout the hearing. He said the law wasn’t totally retrospective in that the ballots were not yet set.

“This law does not remove, in itself, any candidate from the ballot,” he said. “It does extend the time for a candidate if they decide they would like to withdraw on their own, but if they choose not to withdraw, they are appearing on the ballot, they are a candidate for office. The only difference is that there is potential for their party label not to be listed on the ballot.”

He added that candidates did not have a right to control information on the ballot and cited several court cases as precedent.

“That is entirely the province of the General Assembly in North Carolina or a legislature in the various states,” Warf said.

Ken Soo, another attorney for Edwards, argued that SB3 absolutely was retroactive because there was no way for his client to correct her current non-compliant party affiliation status “short of going back in time” and no way for her to appeal except to the courts.

He said everyone else in the District Court race Edwards was a candidate for would have some party label beside their name on the ballot, but she would have nothing.

“This denies her speech and association rights and does so without due process, and it all but ends her prospect for election,” Soo said.

He quoted from an affidavit they provided the court from Gary Bartlett, who was the Executive Director of the state Board of Elections for 20 years.

“In Mr. Bartlett’s opinion … it is very unlikely Ms. Edwards could prevail in an election, despite her merits, if she is listed as nothing compared to these other people who have these cues for voters,” Soo said. “And Mr. Bartlett also noted that this is, in his experience, unprecedented in at least the recent history of North Carolina to change the filing requirement or access to the ballot after the fact, and apply it not to people in the future, but to people in the past who can’t do anything about it — changing the rules in the middle of the game.”

Holt scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing in the cases for 10 a.m. Monday at the Wake County Courthouse.