Author: mopress

  • Texas Schedule for SOS HAVA Tour Posted

    At the downloads section under “HAVA Texas”, The Texas Civil Rights Review has posted a schedule of the Secretary of State’s tour of counties that began Feb. 23 and continues until at least Apr. 27.

    While SOS Roger Williams called it a “Listening Tour,” our research indicates it was more a funding tour in which the SOS passed out poster-sized checks representing money available to the various counties for HAVA (Help American Vote Act) expenses. HAVA requires at least one electronic voting machine at every polling place next year, and counties end up paying the costs.

    Williams began the tour shortly after being appointed to the position. He came to the position with a background as car dealer and powerhouse fund raiser. The appearances were lessons in political salesmanship. When I introduced myself to Williams at the Austin appearance, he said simply, “We’re going to make it work.” The man has a message and he’s sticking to it.

  • A Time to Ask Not

    Progressive Politics and
    the Mainstream Regular Joe

    A Texas Civil Rights Weekend Editorial

    By Greg Moses

    You hear the phrase now and then in political chit chat. We need to appeal to “the mainstream regular Joe.” But what’s in a phrase like this? From a civil rights perspective we’d like to insist that the mainstream regular Joe does not exist.

    In chit chat one does not want to to be tiresome, so we keep things casual. In response to someone who mentions the mainstream average Joe we ask: Who would that be?

    Well, you know, says our friend T.J. Bubba Bobbs, somebody more or less like ME! Well then okay, we can wink, just askin. And without much political correctness to drag around, we can mosey that conversation along.

    Back home in the study, we can ponder a little more at length. Who uses this phrase most often and who the heck are they talkin about?

    Isn’t the phrase used most often by Republican-chasing white men who wish Democrats could bag more white men the way Republicans do? And if they’ll just come clean about this, we can take the code for what it signifies and be done with it. A winning coalition will have some of these folks on board.

    But if this is true, then the mainstream regular Joe does exist, right? Yes, but he does not exist AS the mainstream regular Joe, because “mainstream regular” indicates something much more pervasive than he can ever be.

    The presence of any actual population answering to the identity of mainstream regular Joe negates the alleged universal value of the ideal type, especially when viewed from a civil rights perspective. Or to put it another way, he cannot be the final answer promised by the terms “mainstream regular.”

    And the civil rights limitation of the mainstream average Joe is easily tested. Just ask the next person who brings it up whether he thinks the mainstream average Joe gives a darn about civil rights. Well no, the plain answer is that the mainstream average Joe doesn’t think that civil rights have much to do with him.

    Is the mainstream average Joe gay? Does he go to Synagogue or to Mosque? Does he belong to the NAACP? Does he eat Sushi? Is he pregnant and in need of pre-natal medical care?

    In fact if there is such a thing as a mainstream regular Joe, he exists as a quite specific type that is statistically limited. And while Republicans have crafted a winning model around his middle, Democrats will never win by catering their center toward his existing identity AS the mainstream regular Joe.

    The problem with chasing down the mainstream regular Joe as mainstream regular is that it caters to his mis-impression that the world ought to revolve around him. He sees himself as the universal rather than the particular, he demands conformity from others rather than reflection and change from within himself.

    By putting forth the mainstream regular Joe as the predominant demographic challenge facing Democrats, the image wipes away the complex demographic playing field upon which progressive politics must be played.

    Is the mainstream regular Joe capable of seeing himself as a living participant in a political coalition? NOT so long as he thinks of himself as the mainstream average Joe. For this reason, progressive Democrats should stop egging his image on.

    Habits develop lives of their own, and this habit will repeat itself for some time to come. So we recommend the inquisitive reply. Who is this mainstream average Joe? Is he ready to work alongside anybody else? What perceptions does the mainstream average Joe have about people who are not so-called “mainstream average” and what is he willing to do with other folks in his quest for an empowering coalition?

    For progressive politics to flourish, we must stop chasing the image of the mainstream regular Joe. Instead we must question that image. And the most important question would paraphrase JFK’s inaugural speech of 1961: ask not what your coalition can win for you, but what you can win for your coalition. Until mainstream regular Joe is ready to answer this question, he can play no part in progressive politics.

  • MALDEF Reports Progess in Anti-Vigilante Cases

    Reprinted from the MALDEFian.

    APRIL 9, 2008 – It did not take the Federal Bureau of Investigation Hate Crimes Statistics Report to tell us what we already know: attacks against Latinos and immigrants have been increasing at an alarming rate. Fringe border vigilantes along with extreme nativist activists have made violent acts and threats towards Latino and immigrant communities a frightening reality.

    MALDEF court victories in two such cases are illustrative of what we are doing about it. Representing two sets of plaintiffs attacked by the same culprit, MALDEF successfully blocked border vigilante Roger Barnett, who attacked two groups of Latinos near his ranch in southern Arizona, from using the courts to shield himself from liability for his violent actions.

    The Morales family and Emma English, a family friend, filed suit after Barnett confronted them on state leased land in October 2004, while they were on a family hunting trip. Armed with a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, Barnett held the family at gunpoint, cursed and screamed racial slurs at them and threatened to kill them all.

    The jury heard the testimony of three young girls, all under the age of twelve and U.S. citizens, who vividly described the event and the trauma they suffered at the hands of Barnett. The civil jury ultimately awarded the family $100,000 in damages.

    Although Barnett and his attorney appealed the decision, the appellate court recently rejected his appeal and upheld the trial court’s ruling, forcing Barnett to file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

    Shortly before Barnett violently attacked the Morales family, he again assaulted a group of unarmed Latinos near a highway in March 2004.

    Accompanied by his brother and his wife, Barnett forcibly rounded up the terrified group, including a young girl, and threatened them at gunpoint. During the assault, he kicked one of the women who was laying on the ground.

    Barnett requested that the judge dismiss the case and MALDEF urged the federal court in Arizona to continue with a trial. Earlier this month, the court ruled in favor of MALDEF, finding enough evidence to proceed with a jury trial.

    “Border vigilantes like Barnett should be tried and forced to compensate families for violations of their basic rights,” said MALDEF Staff Attorney David Urias, the lead counsel in both cases. “Barnett cannot avoid responsibility for his outrageous and offensive actions.”

    Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.

  • Here to Stay, Not Going Away

    AQUÍ ESTAMOS Y NO NOS VAMOS

    “History is on our side.”—
    César E. Chávez (Plan de Delano, 1965)

    “This land is your land, and this land is my land too,
    from California to the New York islands.”—
    Lila Downs (Border: La Línea, 2001)

    By Roberto R. Calderón, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor, Department of History
    University of North Texas
    © 2006

    There is a very poignant scene in the Edward James Olmos film, Walkout, which debuted recently on March 18, compliments of HBO. In the scene, the bright and courageous Paula Crisostomo tells Robert, the young Mexican American cop who spied on the organization of the Los Angeles Blowouts in the weeks prior to March 1968, and I’m paraphrasing here, “The schools may not have changed, but we did.”
    In other words, thousands of young Chicanas and Chicanos had been irrevocably changed by their political involvement in the organization of the walkouts, which then, as today, sparked hundreds of other walkouts throughout what Raza commonly came to call in those days, Aztlán—the American Southwest.

    They had taken on a political consciousness that would last a lifetime. Aztlán was also the land from whence one of our ancestor peoples, the Mexica, had set forth in their odyssey to find the vaunted symbol of the Mexican flag, the eagle holding a serpent in its beak and claws amid a cactus in the middle of a lake (the Valley of Anáhuac). Indeed, the particular symbol on the Mexican flag is an ancient myth embedded deep within our psyche. It is part of our peoplehood, our herencia.

    This is why we are Mexican and American—Mexican Americans. Of course, the same may be said of all other Latino groups from Central and South America. Better still, it may be said of any U.S. immigrant peoples from anywhere else on the globe. This does not throw our allegiance to being integral members of U.S. society into question, except in the anxious minds of the most corrupted right-wing xenophobes.

    Influenced by the concept of Aztlán, the message of hope and commitment to the cause for social justice for all social classes of our heterogeneous community became clear then to the Chicana/o youth activists of the late 1960s, and early- to mid-1970s, “We were home, and this had always been our home.” We didn’t have to snap our heels three times like Dorothy had to in the Wizard of Oz to go home again. Thus, today we say as our activist elders once did, “Aquí estamos y no nos vamos.”

    Add to that a phrase that dates from the same period: “Somos un pueblo sin fronteras.” As did the ancients, the Mexican peoples of today, descended from wandering warriors and settlers, as well as farmers, traders, artists, craftspeople, judges, dancers, students, teachers, scholars, and many others, have come full circle, and have returned from whence we came. The Maya had a circular concept to express this reality, inlakech­—yo soy tu otro tú (I am your other you). Currently, José Angel Gutiérrez recently stated, we are experiencing the start of the first substantive Chicano/Latino social movement of the twenty-first century.

    In the post-March 1968 period, the walkouts spread from Los Angeles and moved farther afield, happening wherever the Mexican migration streams and settlement patterns of yesterday had taken our peoples to work in the U.S., to the Northwest, the Midwest, and all places in between. The youth of that era who are today’s middle-aged parents and grandparents remember these heady days.

    They called themselves figuratively “children of the sun,” after a popular movimiento song popularized by Daniel Váldez, Luis Váldez’s brother who founded El Teatro Campesino. The soul-stirring song was rooted in Mexican indigenous mythology and one facet of Chicano reality derived from working in the nation’s agricultural fields.

    Texas alone had somewhere between 70 and 80 different walkouts that we know about, but barely. Today we do not have a documentary, a book, or more published about this important civil rights chapter in our community’s history here in Tejas. There are scattered accounts published about one or two of these walkouts, but the larger story remains to be told. Most of these walkouts happened in South Texas. To paraphrase Sal Castro at the opening of Walkout: “I want us to make history. Hell, I want us to write our own history.”

    Which brings us full circle to Sunday’s March for Liberty and Justice in Dallas, Texas. The marcha will arguably be the single largest civil rights march ever seen on the streets of Dallas, and by extension the entirety of North Texas. If you and your loved ones, neighbors, friends, co-workers, everyone, decide to make a difference, take a stand, speak truth to power, walk with history, you too will contribute to the making of this historic event. Your community needs you and history is calling your name, answer its call.

    Truth be told, our youth have already made history for us in North Texas and across the nation. Last week’s walkouts when more than 10,000 North Texas y0uth walked out was without precedent. They with their hearts in their hands, and the voice of liberty and justice on their lips, called to all of us to stand up and answer their call. Their innate sense of this nationally historic moment with momentous consequences riding on the line for our own and other immigrant communities nationally, a movement led by Mexican and Latino immigrants and their children and grandchildren, all of it, was elucidated with actions and words that money just can’t buy—priceless.

    The call for unity is ours to answer. The call to action is ours to manifest. Do it, organize, organize yourselves and your neighborhoods, organize your churches, your union halls, your places of labor, wherever it is that people commune in their daily lives, their daily realities, organize.

    Let’s send the loudest and strongest, never-to-be-forgotten, message to the U.S. Congress, the American people, and the world that is watching: We want liberty and justice for immigrant communities in the United States. We want fair and equitable comprehensive immigration legislation with a sure and well-defined meaningful path toward first-class citizenship. We oppose massive deportations and incarceration. The U.S. Mexican (and Latino) communities have been there too many times before in our nation’s history. We refuse to be isolated and used for our labor but not for our humanity, for the massive profits we contribute to the U.S. economy but not for our political democratic incorporation into U.S. society. We loudly repudiate second- and third-class citizenship which H.R. 4437 and the partisan political right would have us assume as we live and work here at home, in the United States of America. A version of this essay was published (in Spanish translation) on Saturday, April 8, 2006, in the largest-circulating Spanish-language daily newspaper in North Texas, Al Día. (Reprinted with permission of author.)

  • Eight Democratic Chairmen Challenge Border Waivers

    Case Concerns Constitutional Challenge of Waiver Authority to Bypass Laws for Border Fence Construction

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    April 7, 2008 – Today, Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security led a group of 14 Members of Congress, including eight Committee Chairmen, in submitting a notice of intent to file an Amicus Curiae brief in the Defenders of Wildlife case (No. 07-1180). The brief, which will be filed by the end of the month, pertains to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s use of questionable waiver authority to skirt numerous federal laws in order to construct fencing along the southwest border.

    The Amici will urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case. The petitioners, the Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club, allege that the Department of Homeland Security’s use of the waiver is unconstitutional.

    Today’s notice of intent is being submitted by:

    • Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS);
    • Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI);
    • Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI);
    • Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN);
    • Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA);
    • Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY);
    • Veterans Affairs Chairman Bob Filner (D-CA);
    • Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX);
    • Congressman Solomon Ortiz (D-TX);
    • Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA);
    • Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-CA);
    • Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-CA);
    • Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ); and
    • Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY).

    Speaking to today’s filing, Chairman Thompson noted that “this waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security is a direct challenge to Congress’s Constitutional role. The American people entrust Congress to ensure that the laws of this land are faithfully executed not excused by the Executive Branch.” Congressman Thompson added that “while the protection of our nation is a paramount concern to all of us, DHS must act prudently and respect the laws that Congress has written. The far-reaching effects that this waiver will have on the institution of Congress, as well as the border, demands that we act swiftly.”

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) added that “our responsibility to be stewards of the earth cannot be thrown aside for the sake of an ill-conceived border fence. The Administration exempts itself from a duty to protect the environment, sacred burial sites, and centuries-old farms, but conveniently spares wealthy landowners from the bulldozers.”

    “This blanket waiver of laws like the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act is a clear and disturbing abuse of the Secretary’s discretion,” added Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. “Congress’ efforts to seek justification for this waiver from DHS have been stonewalled, which leads me to believe none exists.”

    “The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to issue waivers to expedite the construction of a wasteful fence along the Southwest border is disappointing at best. As a former Border Patrol Sector Chief and current Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, I know the importance of securing our borders and fully support providing our agents with strong tools to carry out their jobs. I do not, however, support DHS’s continued disregard for border communities. This recent attempt to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations to pursue an already ill-advised idea should not move forward,” added Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes.

    The Members are represented by Alan E. Untereiner, Max Huffman, and Alan D. Strasser of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP in Washington, DC.