Left Women’s Rights Advocate

RBG… A Critical Look at Our Leaders Staying in Office Too Long

2020 has struck again. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at the age of 87. Her appointment to the court was historic and she fought long and hard as a liberal justice. While America mourns her death, I can’t help but worry about whom President Trump might pick to replace her.

It’s actually quite a paradox that America can’t fully grieve her death because we are more concerned about her replacement. And while we must be equally concerned about her replacement we should take a critical look at what led us to this juncture. A critical look at our leaders staying in office until their death is worth a discussion.

This year alone we have seen Representatives Elijah Cummings and John Lewis die in office. Both were ill before their deaths, just as Ginsburg. So why didn’t they expedite their retirements upon learning of their illnesses? There’s an argument that once you reach a certain age the brain slows down when you retire. There’s something about a routine work life that helps senior citizens age well and stay mobile as their mental faculties continue in full force. But what happens when our leaders get sick and refuse to step down with a proper succession plan?

I want to first examine former Washington DC, “Mayor for Life” Marion Barry, who died in office while serving as the city’s Ward 8 Councilmember. When he died in 2014 there was no plan on whom would succeed him in office. One day he was the council member and the next day the seat was vacant with no heir apparent. The political fallout resulted in nearly 20 people running for office.

We can look at the deaths of Cummings and see a similar pattern. He died, his wife ran along with several other people but ultimately Kwame Nfume wins, who was the previous US Representative for Maryland’s 7th District. Cummings didn’t have an heir apparent.

With Lewis, his death was a bit different. While it wasn’t anticipated, a replacement was quickly named, Georgia State Senator Nikema Williams. She will still have to run after completing the remaining of his term, but the point here is that he died in office.

In Ginsburg’s case, she could have retired while President Barack Obama was still in office. She would have been 82 at the time of her retirement during his last days as president. One can assume she hoped Secretary Hillary Clinton would win and wanted to leave the opportunity for Clinton to appoint the next Justice, but that’s not how the story ended. Clinton lost.

Now we have Donald Trump and we are in a position where we are wondering whom he might select as he’s already given the public a preview of his likely picks. But we arrive back at our original question. Why didn’t Ginsburg retire when she had all her mental faculties? Why not put America and a democratic president in the best position to appoint another liberal justice? Was it because the appointment would have gone to a Black leader? Was maintaining White Supremacy working in her hope that the next president would be Clinton? We don’t know, but what we do know is that her dying wish was to serve out her term and let the next president choose her replacement. Maybe she thought she would make it to 2021 to see if a new Democratic leader would be elected. And even that isn’t a given.

While her service to this country’s justice system is laudable, the way our leaders prepare to leave is important. And Ginsburg did not do her liberal colleagues on the bench any justice by staying in longer than her health would allow. America must learn this lesson. President Trump and Senate Majority Leader are already planning to push a nominee through for confirmation before the election which is in less than 50 days.

We can mourn Ginsburg’s death but we must learn a critical lesson. Banking on a Democrat leader to help save our country may never happen. And even when Democrats win we don’t know what he or she will exactly do.

Pass the button while there is still time. Time to recruit a new leader, time to mentor a new leader, time to truly show a successor the road map to be successful. We can admire legacy more when it is properly preserved.

Washington, DC US Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton is aging in her seat and should consider early retirement so she doesn’t go down in history like these other great leaders… leaving a powerful office untended due to political prowess to hold on.

Similar Read: GOP Hypocrisy Laid Bare

Amy’s Gotta Problem

There is an ire of intentionality behind white violence against black people. But white violence against black men has been at the forefront lately. As I write this post, America has just been introduced to another death of a black man at the hands of a white police officer. There’s something about the history of black oppression in this country that today’s news just lays on the thickest layer of grief a black person in America can feel. Although George Floyd’s life needs to be shared, this story, unfortunately, isn’t about him.

It’s about Amy Copper and her attempt to threaten and likely kill a black innocent man. It’s deep. While Christian Cooper (not related) was in Central Park’s Ramble bird watching he noticed an unleashed dog. That is illegal in the Ramble and they have clear instructions on their website. He asked the dog’s owner, Amy Cooper, if she could please leash her dog. Among other things, unleashed dogs can harm other animals and humans. Instead of simply complying with a stated law, Amy decides to challenge Christian who then begins to record their interaction with his cell phone.

It’s important to note that this was his single greatest weapon during this interaction. What ensued thereafter is beyond reproach. Amy begins to approach him and he asks her to back up and she points at him and threatens to call the police. What gave Amy the right to threaten police on an unarmed and non-threatening man? She clearly didn’t like that he asked her to leash her dog and used his race as a weapon to call the police. It was truly disgusting to witness via Christian’s video footage, but it was real.

The threat of white violence utilizing police is disgusting. Amy emphasized that Christian was African-American in her call to the police. She said he was threatening her and her dog, whom by this time she was visibly chocking because she refused to leash it. Christian continued to record and posed no threat to her. Amy continued to Amy until finally leashing her dog and Christian thanked her and walked away. The ending shows that the police did arrive, but did not find Amy or Christian there because there was no real threat. There was only a disgruntled dog walker and a frustrated bird watcher who had an ugly interaction.

But we can’t leave this topic without thinking of the many times a 911 call has been used as key proof in a case against someone. Amy, without hesitation, called and told the police an African-American man was threatening her life. As we think about how easily a false accusation could have caused this Black man to lose his liberty or his life it is truly infuriating. What’s infuriating was Amy’s disregard for his life. In a follow-up interview, she told CNN “I’m not racist. I do not mean to harm that man in any way.”

Amy calling the police was intended harm. Highlighting his race on the call was intended harm. Faking an emergency to call the police was intended harm. Having your dog unleashed in an area that is illegal was intended harm.

Christian was simply asking Amy to comply with a stated law. Amy attempted harm and now expects her apology to suffice. This is trauma. This is black trauma. This is black male trauma. The Amy’s of the world must be stopped. And the Christian’s of the world must continue to record and share.

Similar Read: Are We Surprised?

Should Biden’s VP be a Black Woman?

In an unenthusiastic race for president the light and fire for the Democratic side will come from the vice-presidential pick. Former Vice President, Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee after a long primary that hasn’t officially ended. After the last round of primary races in March, Biden announced that he would pick a woman as his running mate. To no surprise women and many liberals were ecstatic at his announcement.

That was over a month ago.

Now as we approach June many are wondering whom Biden will pick. Several women have already made their intentions clear about their desire to run alongside Biden. California US Senator Kamala Harris, Massachusetts US Senator Elizabeth Warren and Minnesota US Senator Amy Klobaucar have all expressed interest after failed primary bids for president. There’s also Stacy Abrams, who ran a tight and unsuccessful bid to become the Democratic Governor of Georgia in 2018.

While a woman as a vice presidential running mate would be historic, having a Black woman would be monumental. But does Biden owe it to the Black community to pick a black woman as his running mate? South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn doesn’t think so. Considering the Biden campaign’s win in South Carolina was a major turning point during the primary, especially because of Clyburn’s endorsement, it’s reasonable to think Biden might listen to his advice. But that advice hurts Black women and their chances to become VP, and deprives the Black community of actualizing a national Black candidate outside of former President Barack Obama.

Joe Biden should pick a woman of color and that woman of color should be a Black woman.

Black voters in America have been the driving force behind the Democratic party for decades. And Black women are the most consistent voting bloc of the Democratic party. But Biden shouldn’t pick a Black vice-presidential candidate because he owes it to loyal Black voters, but because it would signal that he values the Black vote beyond election day. It would signal he values Black voices in the policy realm and more importantly it sets up his pick to run for president in the future.

What Does It Mean To Have Two Old White Men Running For The Democratic Primary In 2020?

The 2016 election was historic. Hillary Clinton became the first woman ever to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. While her run for president was historic, unfortunately, she did not win against Donald Trump.

However, after her run, unprecedented drives of women – more than ever before – began stepping up to run for office across the country and at every level. So, it was no surprise that the 2020 election for president would see a historic level of women running. Major Democratic ticket contenders included NY Senator Kristin Gillibrand, MN Senator Amy Klobuchar, CA Senator Kamala Harris, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, author Marianne Williamson, and MA Senator Elizabeth Warren. Of these six women, Gabbard remains in the race, but her campaign is not viable. Warren was the last serious candidate to drop out, falling hard after Super Tuesday where she had a poor showing.

So what does this mean for a primary that has seen upwards of fifteen-plus candidates enter and leave the race?

Some Americans are saying this country is ready for a woman president; however, their actions are not matching their words. Arguably, Warren was the Democratic Party’s best chance for a woman candidate, but she did not win a single state during the four early primary contests (IA, NH, NV & SC) and she fell flat during the 14-state Super Tuesday contest. She didn’t even win her home state which is a bad indication of support.

Even more than her loosing and ultimately dropping out, we now face a primary that is likely to showcase a contested convention with two old White men. Our moderate candidate being former Vice President Joe Biden and our liberal candidate being Bernie Sanders.

As a self-proclaimed woman advocate, it’s extremely hard to look at a contest that seemed so promising with a diverse field of candidates running from age, gender, race and sexual orientation to dwindle right back down to what we’ve been used to in this country – old white men.

While Gabbard remains in the race, clearly unviable, Warren dropping out sends a strong signal that what this country preaches it clearly doesn’t practice. We already have a president who has proven himself to show clear bigotry and sexism towards women. What we should be running toward are more women who can represent the more than majority voting population of this country – women.

While I believe we will have a woman president within the next decade, I can’t help but wonder what message we are continuously sending by advancing old White men.

Why Deval?

A new candidate has entered the Democratic primary for president. His name is Deval Patrick. A Chicago native, Patrick is notably a close friend of former President Barack Obama. While the Democratic Party primary is open to any candidate, there are already over 15 candidates still in the race. Thus, the question becomes why Deval and why now? One can only imagine that he has entered the race because the other candidates are dismal or he has entered because he believes he has the best chance at securing the Democratic nomination next year. We should also consider that Duval chose to enter the race rather than endorse one of the current candidates.

His entry into the Democratic primary for president leads some to believe that he doesn’t think any of the other candidates can secure the nomination. But why would he think this if there are viable candidates in the race, which includes two US senators, a former vice president, a former cabinet official from the last president, a congresswoman and other business people?

We must also examine if the Democratic Party put Patrick up to run for president. Is the Democratic Party so insecure that they would be willing to pull a Hail Mary, or find an “elite” candidate for whom big donors would be pleased? Patrick literally filed to run in the New Hampshire primary on Thursday (11/14) and will foreseeably continue throughout the rest of this campaign cycle. While he is a former governor of the state of Massachusetts and a seasoned statesman, his entry this late in the Democratic primary for President of the United States should raise some eyebrows. But alas, Patrick is not alone.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also said that he is considering entering the primary. Again one has to question, why? And one has to question, why so late? Many of the candidates who are actively running for president entered the race early this year. They have campaign offices and they’ve hired campaign staffs. These are not things that Patrick or other new entrants cannot do, but momentum is towards those who have been in the race longer. Or is it? Could it be the reason Patrick has entered and Bloomberg is considering entering the race is the current field of candidates is dismal? Patrick’s entry and Bloomberg’s question about entering says more about the Democratic Party then it does them. It also shows that the primary next year will be a tough race and the base consolidation that will have to be done after the candidate is decided will be even tougher. The Democratic Party can only hope that with all the candidates that are in the race the party will be able to unify behind the candidate who wins the primary.

Similar Read: Bloomberg’s Move to Clear the Field

American Children in Mississippi?

Mississippi immigration raid… FACTS

1. On August 7th, 2019, U.S. immigration authorities raided 7 different processing plants in Mississippi and detained 680 undocumented immigrants.

2. This was the largest single-state immigration enforcement action in U.S. history.

—–

August 7, 2019, was the first day of school for many students in America. It was also a day some students will never forget. On this day, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided 7 food processing plants in six different cities in the state of Mississippi. US Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, Mike Hurst, has been quoted saying that the raids are “believed to be the largest single-state immigration enforcement operation in our nation’s history.” It has been reported that 680 undocumented immigrants were taken into custody while working.

Towns that were raided included Morton, Bay Springs, Walnut Grove, Carthage, Canton, and Pelahatchie. Many of these small towns rely on the labor of an immigrant workforce and the raids would greatly affect production if those taken into custody remained in detainment.

It is still unknown if the employers willingly hired alleged undocumented immigrants or if any knew at all. There will be a legal question of blame that will begin in the aftermath. However, what has been front and center are the children of these workers who woke up on a Wednesday morning and said goodbye after their parents dropped them off to school and waited in vain for their return. This is the American ICE system of 2019. The federal agency was created post the 9/11 attacks during the George W. Bush administration. With its passage in 2002, it is now one of the most powerful federal law enforcement agencies.

And today, ICE is out of control.

680 people taken into custody in a single day is unfathomable and the American justice system continues to push the envelope in what is deemed acceptable and outrageous. Americans are constantly being told that illegal immigrants are ‘raiding’ our country and are described as dangerous and criminal. While many citizens and immigrants in this country can be categorized as dangerous, it is unfair and disgusting that our country is seizing people without their due process of law. We are turning into an authoritarian county and labeling people based upon the rhetoric of President Trump. It is disgusting and undemocratic.

Children of parents who are taken into custody are left without proper guardians or care and this is the story we don’t focus on. Many of these children were either brought here or born here and had no decision about their assimilation into American culture. And regardless of their circumstances, where is the humanity in our federal government’s actions? Where is the humanity in policy? Of course, this country has a problem with illegal immigration, but what country doesn’t? We should work to figure out a proper way to address immigration and not use our powers to disrupt and interrupt the lives of immigrants who are actively contributing to the fabric of our nation because of pressure by the president.

Similar Read: “Newspeak”

Before Watching the Debate Tonight…

Before you watch the debates tonight and tomorrow night remember these few things:

a. Flint still doesn’t have water

b. Donald Trump has been accused by a new woman of sexual assault

c. Who will speak up about the border crisis

d. Warren and Sanders have proposed student loan debt elimination

e. Biden is still making political gaffes but is it sticking…

f. Pete has a crisis happening in South Bend with white cops killing black men

g. There are multiple women and women of color running for President

h. There are plenty of white men running for president

i. Climate change is real and listen for who speaks up about it

j. The economy is not better under the Trump administration and listen who references that

k. There is a war happening in Sudan- who will speak up about it

l. Healthcare is still not accessible by every American in every state

m. The election is still over a year out

Listen intently and give every candidate a real chance to win you over.

This article was originally published on 26 June 2019.

Kamala or Bust?

California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D) is running for President of the United States. So are three other women. She is joining a field of candidates who will be nothing short of amazing. Women and men of color are declaring their candidacies and that in itself is historic. What’s also historic is 2020 will have more women candidates run than ever before. There are so many positives to celebrate, but Democrats are too busy tearing down their own candidates before any debates even start.

Specifically, there’s lots of debate around Kamala. She’s a historically black college or university (HBCU) graduate, born to immigrant parents, pledged a Panhellenic sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Inc. and most notably the former top cop of California, having served as the State’s Attorney General.

We can now dismiss with the pleasantries because the not-Kamala-choir is ready to sing. Since she made her presidential announcement, which was literally 2 days ago on the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday, several articles have come out about her. Some are in support, but many are critical of her record as San Francisco Attorney General and her state role as Attorney General. Even more, there has been a ton of social media traffic about her race. And even more than the social media traffic is the HBCU stans and notably Howard University graduates and students who are vehemently defending her existence.

As a graduate of an HBCU, I understand the pride that comes with seeing one of our own run for any elected office, let alone running for president. And as a graduate of Howard University I also understand how my fellow alumnae might walk around with our heads held high and our egos on 10000. However, one thing the HBCU and Howard experience has taught me is to trust but verify. Measure twice and cut once.

As an ardent supporter of women running for office I am elated to see a woman of color run for president after the historic run of Shirley Chisholm. After Hillary Clinton’s historic run in 2016, I think there is an urgent need to have a woman president. Heck we need more women in elected office everywhere. And we definitely need more women of color. But again, it is important that we give Kamala the same critical assessment that we are giving all other candidates, Democrat, Independent and Republican. The blind loyalty and undying support of her candidacy can be exciting if you are going to support her without any consideration of another candidate. But to do so because she went to your school or pledged your sorority is questionable.

Over the last few weeks, several articles have come out about her time as a prosecutor. Some of her actions have been questioned in pieces like The New York Times opinion piece and the article written in The Intercept about her survival as a candidate in the age of the Black Lives Matter movement. These articles point out her stances on controversial cases that some would deem “on the wrong side” of convictions or her silence on stances she might have taken on issues related to criminal justice. But there are also pieces written that highlight many of her reforms and why she is favorited to get an endorsement by former President Barack Obama. Notwithstanding her professional experience, which she will have to explain, it would be prudent for all to carefully consider why you support her candidacy over collegiate and social group affiliations. Afterall, attending a ‘proclaimed’ elite university and joining a sorority has yet to prove anyone is ready to become the next president.

This article was originally published on 1 January 2019.

Legal Attack on Women’s Right to Choose (How Did We Get Here?)

There is a calculated attack happening across this country. It’s an attack on women and their bodies. In the past month, we have seen state legislative bodies in Missouri, Ohio, and Georgia pass restrictive abortion laws. Last week we saw the Alabama Senate pass a ban and the Governor, Kay Ivey, signed it into law. Georgia’s Governor, Brian Kemp, also signed a controversial abortion bill, the heartbeat bill, into law. But the bill signed by Ivy in Alabama is currently the most restrictive in the country. The bill signed by Ivy bans abortions — with the exception of when the life of the mother is in jeopardy — in all circumstances. Stop and read that sentence again. If a woman is raped or a victim of incest, according to the Alabama law, she must carry it to full term.

This is extreme to say the least. This bill along with the others passed in Georgia, Ohio, and Missouri all seem to be aimed at one thing, getting their legal challenges heard at the Supreme Court. If legal challenges get to that level then Pandora’s box is open for the Roe v. Wade debate. Ohio passed a fetal heartbeat bill, which would ban a woman from having an abortion once a heartbeat is detected. Some state legislative bodies are even calling it a 6-week ban, a time when some women may not even know they are pregnant. Georgia’s Governor Kemp signed something similar. In Tennessee, the legislative house passed a 6-week heartbeat bill, but it was defeated in the state Senate and sent to summer study, but is likely to be reintroduced next legislative season.

It would be convenient to rant about the way men are legislating over women’s bodies and giving them no chance to discuss or fight back against that legislation. Instead, I want to challenge you to relive a brief rundown of events that have gotten us to 2019 and the heartbeat bills. The breakdown is below:

2008-2009: America elects the first Black president, Barack Obama.
Early 2010: SCOTUS rules in ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)’ that political spending is a form of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment. The controversial 5-4 decision effectively opened the door for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen political candidates. Hate that your politicians are bought and sold by corporations? Blame this.
Late 2010: Ahead of the midterms, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell vows to make President Obama a “one-term president” and Republicans declare a nationwide takeover of state legislatures. This begins the slow but steady Republican calculation to take over.
2010 Midterms: Thanks to the Citizens United case, Republicans flood the airwaves with political advertising to influence down-ballot elections. Republicans pick up 675 state legislative seats; swept several governorships, including Tennessee; and Republican control increased from 14 states to 26 state legislatures. They also take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, winning 58 seats.
2011: Now that Republicans effectively have the states on lock, states begin to enact strict voter ID laws, including Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and TN.
2012: President Obama is re-elected. All is well with the world because we now have the Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare) and our president is still Black.
2013: The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the ‘Shelby County v. Holder’ case. As in, Shelby County, Alabama versus Attorney General Eric Holder. As in, the (same) Voting Rights Act championed by Civil Rights activists like Dr. Martin Luther King and Congressman John Lewis. The ruling basically said, nope racism doesn’t exist anymore so Southern states no longer need permission (i.e. “preclearance”) from the federal government to change their voting laws. The decision allowed 846 jurisdictions to close, move or change the availability of local polling places (mostly in predominantly African American counties) without federal oversight. There were also cuts to early voting and purges of voter rolls. Virtually all restrictions on voting after the ruling were by Republicans.
2014: Things begin to take a turn for the worst. Republicans continue their congressional takeover during the 2014 midterms. Republicans gained control of U.S. Senate and picked up more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Early 2016: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies. His death begins the conversation about who will replace him and President Obama is granted option to choose. Obama chooses Merrick Garland, but both the Republican senators and Democratic senators have to vote on his nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocks the nomination, claiming it’s too close to a presidential election so the next president should pick.
Late 2016: Donald Trump is elected president. Now Republicans are in control of the legislative branch and executive branch. Time to take over the judicial branch.
2017: Trump has his eye on the SCOTUS pick left vacant by Obama.
By nominating conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. (Remember, elections have consequences, and in 2014, just 36.4% of eligible voters nationwide turned out in 2014 – the lowest since World War II—and Republicans gained control of the Senate, who confirms all federal judges.)
Fast forward to 2018 and by now, 34 states have some form of voter ID laws. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his retirement. Trump nominates Brett Kavanagh as his replacement. Senate confirms Kavanaugh in October, shortly before the midterms, solidifying the bench as a reliably conservative 5-4 majority.

It’s now 2019 and Republicans control the state legislature in 31 states. That is over half the country. Congress is divided – Democrats took back the House in 2018, but Republicans still control the Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court.

What we are seeing play out today is a deliberate playbook, run by American Legislative Executive Council, also known as ALEC. This is the conservative right-wing organization that essentially creates all the bills and runs them through state legislative, congressional and Senate bodies across this country. They can’t do it unless our elected officials agree to push their proposed legislation. It’s interesting to note that ALEC will pay for members of Congress to attend some of their meetings where they discuss policy and legislation. Elected officials then go back to their respective seats and run their (ALEC) bills. Ultimately, the bills introduced by legislative branches across the country are so egregious and blatantly unconstitutional in an attempt to move the battle to friendly territory – the courts. And we see this happening with the abortion bills across the South. And in case you want even more examples let’s take another look at some recent history and see how there is calculation about the process of moving controversial legislation to the court system.

As soon as Trump became president he introduced the Muslim travel ban. A few judges across the country struck it down because they believed it was unconstitutional. It is now an active open court battle, but the dangerous part is Trump has already had two successful appointees to the Supreme Court and has been placing members on the Circuit Courts as well. This is important to note because states can fight these laws and challenge them, but if they end up in a court where a judge has been appointed by Trump or has a conservative view of the law then these abortion laws could be upheld along with other extreme laws coming out of Republican-led legislatures.

Trump has called for the separation of migrant families at the border. Again, this is something that judges are challenging and it’s heading to legal proceedings within the judicial system. The Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, and her team are challenging public education with school vouchers. Legal proceedings will take place. Again, this will be headed to the courts. Voter registration is also under attack in states like Tennessee pushing the envelope and criminalizing the civic act. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing and guess where this will end up, in court. And let’s not forget about the 2020 census. The President is trying hard to remove some provisions on how Americans are counted, which will affect funding for states. There are lots of unknowns about the upcoming census, but one thing that will likely take place – a court battle.

When we talk about the calculated attack on women and their bodies, we have to look at how long this has been in play. The attack on abortion laws are systematically set up to eventually end up in the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. We should be upset about abortion bans. Louisiana has a case before the Supreme Court and we should all pay close attention to its outcome. It’s a law that would force doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where an abortion is performed, a structure that those opposed to the law insist violates the “undue burden” notion. In 2016 the state of Texas had a similar bill struck down in court.

We will begin to see court cases pop up about abortion bans because as soon as they are signed, they will immediately be appealed. It will be up to state judges, first, to decide their fate and with the stacking of conservative judges across the country we can only hope women’s right to choose is just as important to them as forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby that the government doesn’t want to financially support once it gets here.

The Race for the South

2018 saw a new wave of Democratic candidates coming out of southern states. Alabama ushered in a surprise wave of excitement at the end of 2017 with the special election of U.S. Senator Doug Jones. However, that Alabama excitement did not spread into southern states for the 2018 midterms. States like Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi and Florida all had big races at the U.S. Senate or gubernatorial levels. The top tickets Democrats in those states lost.

Some lost by small margins while others were a gap large enough to consider it a landslide.

Candidates like Stacy Abrams of Georgia and Beto O’Rouke of Texas tapped into new voters through the excitement surrounding their campaigns, but ultimately failed to secure the victory. In Abrams case, voter suppression played a major role. As the first African American female to secure the Democratic nomination for governor – ever – she fought against the state’s Republican Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, who refused to resign even as he administered over the electoral process while running competing against Abrams in the race.

O’Rouke narrowly lost – 48.3% to 50.9% – to Republican incumbent Ted Cruz who saw his lead tightening closer to election day. Having served as the congressman for Texas’ 16th district, O’Rouke ran a campaign that didn’t rely on the traditional polling to advise him. He pledged not to accept PAC contributions and raised nearly $2 million in the first three months through small donations.

Florida also held a gubernatorial election where Democratic nominee Andrew Gillum fought hard against the Republican nominee Ron DeSantis, falling by less than a percentage point. Gillum was the first Black nominee for governor in the state of Florida in a racially tinged campaign. And down in Tennessee and Mississippi, U.S. Senate races were top ticket competitive races, but both Democratic nominees lost to their respective Republican candidates.

So, what happened? Voters were energized by the Democratic slate, but failed short to secure the top ticket seats. Conversely, these competitive races did usher in a new wave of Democratic talent for down ticket races. In Texas, Republican judges lost control of the Third Court of Appeals and the Fifth Court of Appeals. In Tennessee, a wave of twenty African-American women were elected to local and state seats in Shelby County. Alabama had 55 women run for state-level offices. Gun violence advocate, Lucy McBath, won her congressional seat in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.

While the larger races did not turn out how Democratic voters in the respective states might have hoped, they did help bring change in other down-ballot races and energize new voters. 2019 is here and now campaign teams are gearing up for 2020. Looking to the past, candidates can only hope for a better future.

The LCR

All posts by : Left Women's Rights Advocate