Civil Rights

Gabby, Ryan, and Home Opportunity for All

Alan Jenkins — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:41:15 -0400

Even Olympians are, alas, not immune from America’s homeownership crisis. The Associated Press reported this week that the parents of U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte are facing foreclosure in Florida, while the mother of gold medal gymnast Gabby Douglas filed for bankruptcy in Virginia last year, she said, “to protect my home.”

I don’t know the circumstances of these families’ financial challenges. But the fact that families who had the discipline, commitment, and drive to raise Olympic gold medalists did not have the systems or information needed to remain successful homeowners reaffirms that the promise of American opportunity is at grave risk.

Roughly four million American families lost their homes to foreclosure between the beginning of 2007 and early 2012. Some 11 million are struggling with “underwater” mortgages, meaning that they owe more than their home is worth. That’s just under a quarter of all U.S. homes with a mortgage. For most, a perfect storm of financial industry misconduct, inadequate consumer protections, falling home prices, and record unemployment are at the core of the problem.

The Lochte and Douglas families are fortunate. Their kids are now stars who will soon be paid millions in endorsement proceeds—Gabby’s already on the cover of a cornflake box.

But for most Americans, the solutions require broader action. An alliance of consumer protection, fair lending, and housing experts have developed a Compact for Home Opportunity, with over two dozen practical, tested solutions for preventing needless foreclosures, restoring neighborhoods, and rebuilding the American dream. The Compact is powered by Home for Good, a national campaign driven by people concerned about the enduring foreclosure and housing crisis.

The Compact’s solutions range from increased access to housing counseling, to reducing loan principal to fair market value, to increased fair housing and lending protections. Some states, notably California, have adopted important elements of the Compact. But a more robust, national approach is needed.

Home for Good is pushing housing issues back into the presidential contest, and onto the national agenda, demanding that candidates and policymakers take a stand on the causes and solutions to the crisis. With foreclosures and bankruptcy intruding even into the Olympic games, their call is increasingly hard to ignore.

Progress and Peril on Home Opportunity

Alan Jenkins — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:54:31 -0400

Dramatic developments this month have underscored our nation’s progress, as well as our continuing peril, when it comes to Home Opportunity—the deeply held American ideal that everyone should have access to an affordable home under fair conditions. These developments, both positive and negative, should inform the national choices ahead, including in the presidential race.

On July 11th, California lawmakers enacted the groundbreaking California Homeowner Bill of Rights, halting unfair bank practices that have forced thousands of Californians into foreclosure. Among other protections, it restricts “dual-track” foreclosures, in which lenders preemptively foreclose on homeowners who are in active negotiations to save their homes. Importantly, the law also empowers consumers to hold lenders accountable in court.

Just a day later, the U.S. Justice Department announced a landmark settlement of lending discrimination charges against Wells Fargo. The settlement provides $125 million in compensation for borrowers who the Justice Department says Wells Fargo or its brokers steered into risky and expensive subprime mortgages, or charged higher fees and rates than white borrowers, solely because of their race. The discrimination “resulted in more than 34,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers paying an increased rate for loans simply due to the color of their skin,” according to Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

The Wells Fargo agreement builds on an earlier Justice Department settlement—the largest ever—against Countrywide Financial Corporation for racial discrimination that included a widespread pattern of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in mortgage lending.
And on July 20, the Justice Department asked a judge to compel New York’s Westchester County to provide information on local zoning practices that might be racially discriminatory. This was a long-overdue step, since Westchester has consistently flouted the terms of a historic fair housing settlement it agreed to three years ago after decades of fostering neighborhood segregation.

These are important developments that, together, help to address the harm that years of lender misconduct and lax rules and enforcement have done to millions of American homeowners and our larger economy. They are making a difference, with the number of Americans facing foreclosure activity declining 11 percent in the first half of 2012, compared with the same period last year.

But much more is needed. Over one million homes and properties still saw foreclosure filings in the first half of this year. That’s hundreds of thousands of senior citizens losing their economic security, children and families disrupted, neighborhoods blighted with vacant properties, lifetimes of economic security destroyed.

And the financial institutions that wrecked our economy have continued their misconduct in different forms. This week, for example, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay $100 million to settle a lawsuit filed by its customers accusing the firm of improperly increasing minimum payments on borrowers whom they knew could not afford to pay more, generating ill gotten income from the resulting late fees. This, after JPMorgan gambled and lost its clients’ money to the tune of at least $5.8 billion.

And after the British bank Barclays settled with U.S. and British regulators for $453 million, admitting to manipulating the London interbank offered rate, or Libor (a benchmark that underpins hundreds of trillions of dollars in contracts), over a dozen additional banks are now being investigated for similarly rigging exchange rates on international markets.

It’s time for Home Opportunity—American homeownership, fair lending, fair housing—to return to the national debate. That has begun, with the rise of Home for Good, a national campaign driven by people and organizations throughout the nation concerned about the enduring foreclosure and housing crisis. That effort is equipped with clear, practical solutions, in the form of a Compact for Home Opportunity developed by housing, lending, and consumer protection experts around the country.

With the presidential contest now in full swing, it’s time for the candidates to take a stand on this crucial economic and moral issue. President Obama has taken important steps, yet he’s avoided some of the most bold and effective remedies that are available to him. Governor Romney has been mostly silent on what his Administration would do to restore Home Opportunity. It’s time we demanded clarity and commitment from each of them.

Needy States Use Housing Aid Cash to Plug Budgets

Alan Jenkins — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:27:51 -0400

Just a few months after completing an historic settlement with the Big Banks for foreclosure abuses, states are already raiding the settlement money to close budget gaps.

Trayvon Martin's Tragic Killing, Through the Media Looking Glass

Alan Jenkins — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:30:22 -0400

The mainstream media have played a mostly positive role in covering the tragic and senseless killing of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed, 17-year-old African-American boy shot to death by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla. After a slow start, reporters have uncovered new facts and asked tough questions, including about Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee's refusal to arrest Trayvon's killer.

Honoring Justice

Alan Jenkins — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:51:36 -0500

On March 1st, I had the honor of speaking at the memorial service for civil rights hero and respected jurist Judge Robert L. Carter. These were my reflections:

I had the privilege of serving as Judge Carter’s Law Clerk in 1989. But years before that, I was sure that I wanted to know this man, and to be known by him.

During college, I worked as an intern at the American Civil Liberties Union, and I was assigned to assist Dr. Kenneth Clark in fashioning a school desegregation remedy for, of all places, Topeka Kansas—which had yet to fully desegregate. Dr. Clark had me read Richard Kluger’s book, Simple Justice, chronicling the road to Brown v. Board of Education.

On page 271, I met a man who Kluger described as “a limber, quiet, and strongly self-disciplined black lawyer named Robert Lee Carter, who came to the [NAACP] Legal Defense Fund after a stormy career in the Air Force.” I was intrigued.

“Carter’s insistence that black officers were entitlted to every privilege that white officers enjoyed,” Kluger wrote, “got him branded a troublemaker and almost tossed out of the service altogether, until Bill Hastie intervened with Washington’s higher-ups.” I had to know more.

I read in Simple Justice, and in other places, that, working with Dr. Clark, Judge Carter had crafted the complex mixture of law, history, and social science that won the day in the Brown case.

I read that the Judge had argued 22 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and won 21 of those cases.
And I read that when a threatening white sheriff, backed by an armed mob, had mockingly called the Judge by his first name, young Bob Carter replied with a line worthy of Sidney Poitier or Clint Eastwood: “Only my best friends call me by my first name, and I don’t think I know you that well.”

The Sheriff, by the way, was the notorious Cecil Price of Philadelphia, Mississippi, who was later convicted on charges stemming from the murders of 3 civil rights workers there. When Sheriff Price told the Judge “that’s how we do it down here,” the Judge Responded by calling the Sheriff “Cecil.”
This was someone I had to meet.

And then there was the swimming pool story. Though many of you have heard it before, I think it bears infinite repeating.

As a teenager, the Judge’s family moved to East Orange, New Jersey, not far from where my family and I live now. East Orange High was not officially segregated, but black students were intentionally isolated and made to feel unwelcome.

The school had an excellent swimming team, and learning to swim was part of the white student’s phys ed requirement. But black students were allowed to use the pool only at the close of school, on alternate Fridays—after which it was drained, cleaned, and refilled, as the Judge says in his own book, “to protect the white children from contamination the blacks might have left in the pool.”
In 1933, at age 16, young Bob Carter read in the newspaper of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling that all public school facilities available to white children in the state had to be equally available to black children.

So the next time the white boys headed off to the pool, Bob Carter joined them.

His stunned teacher threatened him with expulsion. It will not surprise any of you to learn that this did not work. The teacher pleaded with him. Those of us who served as the Judge’s law clerks, or appeared in his courtroom, are aware that this was a particularly ineffective approach.

So young Bob got into the pool. But none of the white kids would get in with him. And none of the other black kids would get in with him. And Bob did not know how to swim, because, of course, he’d been excluded from the swimming lessons the white kids had had.

So week after week until graduation, this 16 year old would get into the pool, by himself, and cling to the side of the pool for dear life until the end of the period.

I later came to work for the Judge, to learn from him, to love and respect him—to bring him breakfast every other morning for a year (something they don’t tell you when you apply for a clerkship)—and to see his fearsome intellect and presence in the Courtroom.

But when I think of him now, I will always think of that 16 year old. Clinging to the side of the pool. Clinging to Justice and Equality, and Basic Human Dignity for all of us—as he did throughout his long life.

Thank you Judge Carter. And Godspeed.

Fair Housing at the Supreme Court

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:41:13 -0500

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case with huge implications for equal opportunity in America.

Protecting The Right To Vote

Keith Ellison — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:40:58 -0400

Last month, Dorothy Cooper, a 96-year-old African-American woman from Chattanooga, Tennessee, went to the ballot box to vote. Dorothy was born before women had the right to vote and when Jim Crow laws kept most African-Americans disenfranchised. Despite this, Dorothy has not missed a single election since 1960. Like many seniors, Dorothy has a Social Security card, a local photo ID issued by the Chattanooga Police Department—and a voter registration card.

Dorothy also has a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, and birth certificate. But a new Tennessee law requires all voters to have a valid state-issued voter ID in order to vote in the 2012 election. Because Dorothy took her husband’s name at marriage, the state will not accept her birth certificate (or any of her other forms of identification). And because Dorothy doesn’t have her marriage certificate, having been married decades ago, the state of Tennessee prohibits her from obtaining the ID needed to vote.

Dorothy is not alone. In Indiana, 12 nuns were denied the right to vote in the last presidential election because they didn't have "updated" identification. The facts that some of them had old passports, they were in their 80s and 90s and didn't drive--or that they're nuns--seemed not to be a good basis for affirming their identities.

These are not isolated incidents. They are part of the largest effort to disenfranchise voters since the Jim Crow era, almost exclusively targeting youth and minority voters.. A recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice estimates that the Republican effort could make it harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.

This year, thirty-four state legislatures introduced bills requiring photo identification in order to vote. This rash of legislation classifies several previously accepted IDs as unacceptable, and will affect roughly 21 million Americans if they are passed. For the first time in our nation’s history, we would shrink the voting franchise instead of expanding it.

These are solutions in search of a problem. Statistics show an infinitesimal number of proven voting fraud cases occurring in the United States. And these few cases have been successfully prosecuted like any other criminal offense.

Groups promoting these laws, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), argue there's rampant voter fraud. Oddly enough this "fraud" seems to be occurring only within historically Democratic voting blocs like minorities and students. Yet ALEC and others have no problem squashing these groups' voting rights--or the rights of elderly voters. Routinely issued student IDs won't be accepted in some states--including my home state of Minnesota. The elderly, non-drivers, and millions of others will have to get identification. This sounds like a simple process, but imagine an 80 year old grandmother who has never driven and uses a wheelchair going through the process of getting non-drivers ID. If her social security card is accepted identification for her benefits, why isn't it good enough to identify her for voting?

For these reasons, I am introducing two bills today to curb voter suppression. The Same Day Registration Act would require states to provide for same day voter registration for a federal election. The Voter Access Protection Act would make sure election officials cannot require photo identification in order to cast a vote or register to vote.

Eligible voters deserve access to the polls. By passing these bills, we can ensure our nation lives up to its ideals and protect the most fundamental right in our democracy.

Rep. Keith Ellison is a Minnesota congressman and a co-chairman of the House Progressive Caucus.

Americans for Constitutional Citizenship

Alan Jenkins — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:41:12 -0500

Congratulations! You’re expecting a baby. There are a million things to do, from getting the nursery in order to buying a car seat and finding a pediatrician. Also, start documenting your family tree. Dig up your passport, and your parents’ passports, and maybe their parents’ too. Otherwise, your baby might not be a full American with full rights and responsibilities. Seriously, if a group of politicians and political operatives have their way.

Last week, The Opportunity Agenda joined with a diverse group of civil and human rights organizations to form Americans for Constitutional Citizenship, a coalition dedicated to protecting the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that all of us who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens. The coalition became necessary when a group of state lawmakers unveiled a scheme to eliminate that guarantee, in the name of addressing immigration. Just a day later, Representative Peter King filed a bill in Congress to do the same thing through federal legislation.

The politicians’ proposals are contrary to our values and interests as Americans. And at a time when our nation needs calm and deliberative solutions, they are politicized distractions designed to turn up the heat on an already overheated debate.

Tampering with the American Citizenship Clause would harm us all. A birth certificate would no longer be proof that you are a citizen, since the proposals would necessitate proof that one or both of your parents were also citizens. That, in turn, would require a new and burdensome federal, state, and local bureaucracy to track ancestry. Americans born after the law’s enactment could have their citizenship constantly called into question, as well as that of their children, and their children’s children.

That’s wrong for Americans, and for America. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its American Citizenship Clause are core to what made us one nation out of the violent division of the Civil War. They are central to our liberty and equality as countrymen today, and part of what binds us to this nation, whatever our ancestry.

As a constitutional matter, the proposals could not survive, even if they were enacted. States have no power to define national citizenship in our federalist system. Nor does Congress have the power to legislate away the definition of citizenship that’s embodied in our Constitution.

There’s no question that that definition includes all kids born on U.S. soil, and for good reason. The Framers of the Amendment understood that there would always be groups in our society so vilified that their American-born children’s citizenship would be threatened. When the Amendment was adopted in 1868, those groups included former slaves and their descendants, as well as Chinese immigrants, who were barred from ever becoming citizens by the Chinese Exclusion Act. In crafting the Amendment, the Framers resolved that perpetuating two classes of Americans based on blood and parentage is not in our nation’s interest.

So the proposals are unconstitutional. But they have the potential to do significant damage before they are struck down. They would wreak havoc at hospitals, clerk’s offices, and departments of health. They would feed an ugly politics of Americans challenging the American-ness of American children. They would divide us at a time when we need unity.

That’s wrong for our kids, for ourselves, and for our country.

Holding Arpaio Accountable

Alan Jenkins — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:34:43 -0400

Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is known for housing inmates in tent cities in the desert and making them wear pink clothes as humiliation, but also for allegations of racial profiling and abusive treatment of Latinos, inside and outside of his jailhouse.

On September 2, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office, challenging Arpaio’s refusal to demonstrate that his office is complying with federal civil rights laws. Specifically, the suit alleges that the Sheriff’s Office has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity by institutions, like the Sheriff’s Office, that receive federal funds, and requires them to document their compliance.

The litigation is unprecedented in modern times, and recalls the bad old days of the segregated South, when the Justice Department had to sue such bullies and obstructionists as Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, who literally blocked the schoolhouse door to African American students seeking to integrate Little Rock's Central High School. (In a poignant coincidence, Jefferson Thomas, one of the Little Rock Nine, passed away the same week in an Ohio care facility).

At present the Arpaio situation is far less dramatic than the Little Rock case, in which President Eisenhower federalized Arkansas National Guard troops to enforce the Constitution and protect nine brave African American students from a violent mob. But, ultimately, the showdown in Maricopa County is about the same basic principles: Equal Justice and Accountability.

Maricopa County chose to receive federal funds to help support its programs and services. And like every other county, city, or state that receives those funds, it agreed to ensure equal justice and equal opportunity in its programs and activities, and to keep and provide records that it is doing so. The Sheriff’s Office must now abide by the law, and by the agreement it made, to show that it is accountable for those funds and to the Constitution of the United States.

Today’s dispute is about information and documentation. But those mundane mechanisms are part of an early warning system developed precisely to avoid the traumatic conflicts of the 1950s and ‘60s. If, among other allegations, Arpaio is violating the human rights of Maricopa’s Latino residents and others, then he and his office must be brought to justice. If he is not, then the documents sought by the Justice Department will help to vindicate him. Either way, he and his office must be accountable—for the use of public funds, to the Constitution and laws of our land, and to the American values of equal justice for all.

Beware the Geneticaly Modified Giants

Philip Palij — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:20:22 -0400

Please bear in mind while reading this that Monsanto is a huge US globalized corporate, pumping GM crops into the US and world food chain.

Thats right, into your stomach.

The GM/Agricultural Chemical debate is international as this article shows, and for very good reason:

"...Roundup killed off Argentina’s other crops and, according to some, caused mutations in livestock. In humans, long-term contact with the chemical has also been found to causes health problems, including nausea, diarrhoea, vomiting and skin damage. .."