Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Wednesday, October 16, 2024

Archdiocese of Los Angeles Agrees to Pay $880 Million to Settle Sex Abuse Claims

Archdiocese of Los Angeles Agrees to Pay $880 Million to Settle Sex Abuse Claims

“The settlement is the highest single payout by an archdiocese, experts said, and brings Los Angeles’s cumulative payout in sex abuse lawsuits to more than $1.5 billion.

Archbishop José H. Gomez last year. “I am sorry for every one of these incidents, from the bottom of my heart,” he said in a statement on Wednesday.Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times — Getty Images

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest archdiocese, has agreed to pay $880 million to 1,353 people who say they were sexually abused as children. The settlement, which experts said was the highest single payout by an archdiocese, brings Los Angeles’s cumulative payout in sex abuse lawsuits to more than $1.5 billion.

The settlement was announced on Wednesday in a joint statement by lawyers for the plaintiffs and the archdiocese. 

“I am sorry for every one of these incidents, from the bottom of my heart,” Archbishop José H. Gomez said in a statement. “My hope is that this settlement will provide some measure of healing for what these men and women have suffered.”

The agreement represents the near conclusion to decades of litigation against the archdiocese, with only a few suits remaining. In 2007, it reached a $660 million settlement in abuse lawsuits brought by 508 people who accused Catholic clergy and members of religious orders of abuse. Over the years, the archdiocese has sold off real estate, liquidated investments and taken out loans to cover the staggering costs of litigation.

Archbishop Gomez said in a statement that the new settlement would be paid through “reserves, investments and loans, along with other archdiocesan assets and payments that will be made by religious orders and others named in the litigation.” He said that donations designated for parishes, schools and specific mission campaigns would not be used for the settlement.

“It’s never going to be full justice when the harm is a child’s life,” said Michael Reck, a lawyer with Jeff Anderson & Associates who helped represent some of the plaintiffs. “But it’s a measure of justice and a measure of accountability that gives these survivors some sense of closure at least.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Ruth Graham is a national reporter, based in Dallas, covering religion, faith and values for The Times. More about Ruth Graham

The Danger Is Greater Than in 2020. Be Prepared.

The Danger Is Greater Than in 2020. Be Prepared.

“A citizen’s guide to defending the 2024 election

"I Voted" stickers, some with an American flag and some with an outline of Michigan
Nic Antaya / Bloomberg / Getty

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring our 2024 election coverage.

“In normal times, Americans don’t think much about democracy. Our Constitution, with its guarantees of free press, speech, and assembly, was written more than two centuries ago. Our electoral system has never failed, not during two world wars, not even during the Civil War. Citizenship requires very little of us, only that we show up to vote occasionally. Many of us are so complacent that we don’t bother. We treat democracy like clean water, something that just comes out of the tap, something we exert no effort to procure.

“But these are not normal times.”

wrote those words in October 2020, at a time when some people feared voting, because they feared contagion. The feeling that “these are not normal times” also came from rumors about what Donald Trump’s campaign might do if he lost that year’s presidential election. Already, stories that Trump would challenge the validity of the results were in circulation. And so it came to pass.

This time, we are living in a much different world. The predictions of what might happen on November 5 and in the days that follow are not based on rumors. On the contrary, we can be absolutely certain that an attempt will be made to steal the 2024 election if Kamala Harris wins. Trump himself has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election. He has waffled on and evaded questions about whether he will accept the outcome in 2024. He has hired lawyers to prepare to challenge the results.

Read: The moment of truth

Trump also has a lot more help this time around from his own party. Strange things are happening in state legislatures: a West Virginia proposal to “not recognize an illegitimate presidential election” (which could be read as meaning not recognize the results if a Democrat wins); a last-minute push, ultimately unsuccessful, to change the way Nebraska allocates its electoral votes. Equally weird things are happening in state election boards. Georgia’s has passed a rule requiring that all ballots be hand-counted, as well as machine-counted, which, if not overturned, will introduce errors—machines are more accurate—and make the process take much longer. A number of county election boards have in recent elections tried refusing to certify votes, not least because many are now populated with actual election deniers, who believe that frustrating the will of the people is their proper role. Multiple people and groups are also seeking mass purges of the electoral rolls.

Anyone who is closely following these shenanigans—or the proliferation of MAGA lawsuits deliberately designed to make people question the legitimacy of the vote even before it is held—already knows that the challenges will multiply if the presidential vote is as close as polls suggest it could be. The counting process will be drawn out, and we may not know the winner for many days. If the results come down to one or two states, they could experience protests or even riots, threats to election officials, and other attempts to change the results.

This prospect can feel overwhelming: Many people are not just upset about the possibility of a lost or stolen election, but oppressed by a sensation of helplessness. This feeling—I can’t do anything; my actions don’t matter—is precisely the feeling that autocratic movements seek to instill in citizens, as Peter Pomerantsev and I explain in our recent podcast, Autocracy in America. But you can always do something. If you need advice about what that might be, here is an updated citizen’s guide to defending democracy.

Help Out on Voting Day—In Person

First and foremost: Register to vote, and make sure everyone you know has done so too, especially students who have recently changed residence. The website Vote.gov has a list of the rules in all 50 states, in multiple languages, if you or anyone you know has doubts. Deadlines have passed in some states, but not all of them.

After that, vote—in person if you can. Because the MAGA lawyers are preparing to question mail-in and absentee ballots in particular, go to a polling station if at all possible. Vote early if you can, too: Here is a list of early-voting rules for each state.

Secondly, be prepared for intimidation or complications. As my colleague Stephanie McCrummen has written, radicalized evangelical groups are organizing around the election. One group is planning a series of “Kingdom to the Capitol” rallies in swing-state capitals, as well as in Washington, D.C.; participants may well show up near voting booths on Election Day. If you or anyone you know has trouble voting, for any reason, call 866-OUR-VOTE, a hotline set up by Election Protection, a nonpartisan national coalition led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

If you have time to do more, then join the effort. The coalition is looking for lawyers, law students, and paralegals to help out if multiple, simultaneous challenges to the election occur at the county level. Even people without legal training are needed to serve as poll monitors, and of course to staff the hotline. In the group’s words, it needs people to help voters with “confusing voting rules, outdated infrastructure, rampant misinformation, and needless obstacles to the ballot box.”

If you live in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, you can also volunteer to help All Voting Is Local, an organization that has been on the ground in those states since before 2020 and knows the rules, the officials, the potential threats. It, too, is recruiting legal professionals, as well as poll monitors. If you don’t live in one of those states, you can still make a financial contribution.

Wherever you live, consider working at a polling station. All Voting Is Local can advise you if you live in one of its eight states, but you can also call your local board of elections. More information is available at PowerThePolls.org, which will send you to the right place. The site explains that “our democracy depends on ordinary people who make sure every election runs smoothly and everyone's vote is counted—people like you.”

Wherever you live, it’s also possible to work for one of the many get-out-the-vote campaigns. Consider driving people to the voting booth. Find your local group by calling the offices of local politicians, members of Congress, state legislators, and city councillors. The League of Women Voters and the NAACP are just two of many organizations that will be active in the days before the election, and on the day itself. Call them to ask which local groups they recommend. Or, if you are specifically interested in transporting Democrats, you can volunteer for Rideshare2Vote.

Read: Donald Trump’s fascist romp 

If you know someone who needs a ride, then let them know that the ride-hailing company Lyft is once again working with a number of organizations, including the NAACP, the National Council of Negro Women, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the National Council on Aging, Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote, and the Hispanic Federation. Contact any of them for advice about your location. Also try local religious congregations, many of whom organize rides to the polls.

Smaller gestures are needed too. If you see a long voting line, or if you find yourself standing in one, report it to Pizza to the Polls and the group will send over some free pizza to cheer everyone up.

Join Something Now

Many people have long been preparing for a challenge to the election and a battle in both the courts and the media. You can help them by subscribing to the newsletters of some of the organizations sponsoring this work, donating money, and sharing their information with others. Don’t wait until the day after the vote to find groups you trust: If a crisis happens, you will not want to be scouring the internet for information.

Among the organizations to watch is the nonpartisan Protect Democracy, which has already launched successful lawsuits to secure voting rights in several states. Another is the States United Democracy Center, which collaborates with police as well as election workers to make sure that elections are safe. Three out of four election officials say that threats to them have increased; in some states, the danger will be just as bad the day after the election as it was the day before, or maybe even worse.

The Brennan Center for Justice, based at NYU, researches and promotes concrete policy proposals to improve democracy, and puts on public events to discuss them. Its lawyers and experts are preparing not only for attempts to steal the election, but also, in the case of a Trump victory, for subsequent assaults on the Constitution or the rule of law.

For voters who lean Democratic, Democracy Docket also offers a wealth of advice, suggestions, and information. The group’s lawyers have been defending elections for many years. For Republicans, Republicans for the Rule of Law is a much smaller group, but one that can help keep people informed.

Talk With People

In case of a real disaster—an inconclusive election or an outbreak of violence—you will need to find a way to talk about it, including a way to speak with friends or relatives who are angry and have different views. In 2020, I published some suggestions from More in Common, a research group that specializes in the analysis of political polarization, for how to talk with people who disagree with you about politics, as well as those who are cynical and apathetic. I am repeating here the group’s three dos and three don’ts:

•Do talk about local issues: Americans are bitterly polarized over national issues, but have much higher levels of trust in their state and local officials.

•Do talk about what your state and local leaders are doing to ensure a safe election.

•Do emphasize our shared values—the large majority of Americans still feel that democracy is preferable to all other forms of government—and our historical ability to deliver safe and fair elections, even in times of warfare and social strife.

•Don’t, by contrast, dismiss people’s concerns about election irregularities out of hand. Trump and his allies have repeatedly raised the specter of widespread voter fraud in favor of Democrats. Despite a lack of evidence for this notion, many people may sincerely believe that this kind of electoral cheating is real.

•Don’t rely on statistics to make your case, because people aren’t convinced by them; talk, instead, about what actions are being taken to protect the integrity of the vote.

•Finally, don’t inadvertently undermine democracy further: Emphasize the strength of the American people, our ability to stand up to those who assault democracy. Offer people a course of action, not despair.

Read: The last man in America to change his mind about Trump

As a Last Resort, Protest

As in 2020, protest remains a final option. A lot of institutions, including some of those listed above, are preparing to step in if the political system fails. But if they all fail as well, remember that it’s better to protest in a group, and in a coordinated, nonviolent manner. Many of the organizations I have listed will be issuing regular statements right after the election; follow their advice to find out what they are doing. Remember that the point of a protest is to gain supporters—to win others over to your cause—and not to make a bad situation worse. Large, peaceful gatherings will move and convince people more than small, angry ones. Violence makes you enemies, not friends.

Finally, don’t give up: There is always another day. Many of your fellow citizens also want to protect not just the electoral system but the Constitution itself. Start looking for them now, volunteer to help them, and make sure that they, and we, remain a democracy where power changes hands peacefully.“

Trump vows to ‘end all sanctuary cities’; Harris says ex-president calling himself ‘father of IVF’ is bizarre – US elections live

Trump vows to ‘end all sanctuary cities’; Harris says ex-president calling himself ‘father of IVF’ is bizarre – US elections live

"Trump says he will use executive privilege to enact plan; vice-president says Trump to blame for abortion laws that put IVF treatment at risk in US states

Joe Biden talks to Barack Obama as Bill Clinton also attends. All three will speak at Ethel Kennedy’s funeral.
Joe Biden talks to Barack Obama as Bill Clinton also attends. All three will speak at Ethel Kennedy’s funeral.Photograph: Ben Curtis/AP

Harris calls Trump comments on IVF 'quite bizarre'

Reacting to Donald Trump’s quip earlier today that he was “the father of IVF” and supported keeping the fertility treatment accessible, Kamala Harris said the remark was quite bizarre and flew in the face of the former president’s record on the issue.

“I found it to be quite bizarre”, the vice-president said just before boarding a flight in Detroit bound for Trenton, New Jersey. “He should take responsibility for the fact that one in three women in America lives in a Trump abortion ban state. What he should take responsibility for is that couples who are praying and hoping and working toward growing a family have … been so disappointed and harmed by the fact that IVF treatments have now been put at risk.”

She added:

Let’s not be distracted by his choice of words. The reality is, his actions have been very harmful to women and families in America on this issue.

Harris also demurred when asked if she agreed with Barack Obama’s comments towards Black men encouraging them to vote for her:

Let me first say that I’m very proud to have the support of former president Barack Obama, and I think that the important point that I will make over and over again is I don’t assume to have the vote of any demographic locked down.

Special counsel argues Trump is responsible for January 6 - report

Jack Smith, the special prosecutor leading the team that charged Donald Trump over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, alleged in a new filing that the former president bears responsibility for the violent January 6 attack on the Capitol, NBC News reports.

The statement comes as Smith tries to get his case back on track, after the supreme court earlier this year ruled Trump has immunity for official acts while in office.

Here’s more on the argument from Smith’s team:

In a filing responding to Trump’s attempt to dismiss the case, Smith’s team said it “is incorrect” for Trump’s team to assert that the superseding indictment returned against Trump in August does not show that Trump bears responsibility for the events of Jan. 6.

Trump, Smith’s team said, “willfully caused others” to obstruct the certification of President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory by repeating his false claims of election fraud and giving “false hope” to his supporters who believed that former Vice President Mike Pence might overturn the election, and by “pressuring” Pence and legislators to accept fraudulent certificates as part of the fake electors scheme.

“Those allegations link the defendant’s actions on January 6 directly to his efforts to corruptly obstruct the certification proceeding,” Smith’s team wrote.

“Contrary to the defendant’s claim... that he bears no factual or legal responsibility for the ‘events on January 6,’ the superseding indictment plainly alleges that the defendant willfully caused his supporters to obstruct and attempt to obstruct the proceeding by summoning them to Washington, D.C., and then directing them to march to the Capitol to pressure the Vice President and legislators to reject the legitimate certificates and instead rely on the fraudulent electoral certificates,” Smith’s team wrote.

Trump’s lawyers previously argued the indictment “stretches generally applicable statutes beyond their breaking point based on false claims that President Trump is somehow responsible for events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021” and sought to “assign blame for events President Trump did not control and took action to protect against.”

Trump vows to ‘end all sanctuary cities’; Harris says ex-president calling himself ‘father of IVF’ is bizarre – US elections live

Trump Escalates Threats to Political Opponents He Deems the ‘Enemy’ - The New York Times

Trump Escalates Threats to Political Opponents He Deems the ‘Enemy’

(I wish America had equal justice under the law. a man with 34 felony convictions would be in jail.)

"Never before has a presidential nominee openly suggested turning the military on Americans simply because they oppose his candidacy. With voting underway, Donald Trump has turned to dark vows of retribution.

Donald Trump stands holding a microphone in his right hand, with white stars on a blue backdrop behind him.
Former President Donald J. Trump on Monday during a campaign event billed as a town hall outside Philadelphia. During his closing remarks, Mr. Trump called his opponents “evil.”Michelle Gustafson for The New York Times

With three weeks left before Election Day, former President Donald J. Trump is pushing to the forefront of his campaign a menacing political threat: that he would use the power of the presidency to crush those who disagree with him.

In a Fox News interview on Sunday, Mr. Trump framed Democrats as a pernicious “enemy from within” that would cause chaos on Election Day that he speculated the National Guard might need to handle.

A day later, he closed his remarks to a crowd at what was billed as a town hall in Pennsylvania with a stark message about his political opponents.

“They are so bad and frankly, they’re evil,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re evil. What they’ve done, they’ve weaponized, they’ve weaponized our elections. They’ve done things that nobody thought was even possible.”

And on Tuesday, he once again refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power when pressed by an interviewer at an economic forum in Chicago.

With early voting underway in key battlegrounds, the race for the White House is moving toward Election Day in an extraordinary and sobering fashion. Mr. Trump has long flirted with, if not openly endorsed, anti-democratic tendencies with his continued refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, embrace of conspiracy theories of large-scale voter fraud and accusations that the justice system is being weaponized against him. He has praised leaders including President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary for being authoritarian strongmen.

But never before has a presidential nominee — let alone a former president — openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy. As he escalates his threats of political retribution, Mr. Trump is offering voters the choice of a very different, and far less democratic, form of American government.

“There is not a case in American history where a presidential candidate has run for office on a promise that they would exact retribution against anyone they perceive as not supporting them in the campaign,” said Ian Bassin, a former associate White House counsel under Barack Obama who leads the advocacy group Protect Democracy. “It’s so fundamentally, outrageously beyond the pale of how this country has worked that it’s hard to articulate how insane it is.”

During Vice President Kamala Harris’s rally in Erie, Pa., on Monday, she played a video clip of Mr. Trump vowing to go after people who oppose him.Kenny Holston/The New York Times

As they move into what will be their closing arguments to voters, Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris are devoting most of their attention to wrangling over the issues that remain voters’ top priorities — the economy, abortion rights, housing costs and American engagement in the wars roiling Ukraine and the Middle East. The race remains tight, with views about Mr. Trump deeply cemented for most voters.

But the Harris campaign sees fresh political opportunities in Mr. Trump’s latest attacks on democratic principles, particularly among moderate Republicans and independents who disapprove of the former president’s character and polarizing style.

As Mr. Trump spoke Monday night, Ms. Harris stood in a stadium at the opposite end of Pennsylvania where she took the unusual step of playing an extended video montage of Mr. Trump vowing to go after those who oppose him. It included his recent comments about the possibility of military action against the “enemy within.”

“He’s talking about, he considers anyone who doesn’t support him or will not bend to his will an enemy of our country,” she told several thousand supporters at a rally in Erie, Pa. “He is saying that he would use the military to go after them.”

Ms. Harris’s full-throated attacks on Mr. Trump are a notable break from her previous efforts to minimize him as a vestige of the past. Her aides believe voters are still not familiar with Mr. Trump’s statements, nor do they fully understand the stakes for American democracy.

The campaign plans to integrate the video of Mr. Trump’s remarks — which it quickly turned into a television ad — into future rallies. Ms. Harris told aides after Monday night’s event that using the video footage to make her case against Mr. Trump reminded her of presenting evidence at trial.

Some who have publicly opposed Mr. Trump’s return to power are preparing for him to keep his promises. Gen. Mark A. Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Mr. Trump’s administration, told the journalist Bob Woodward that he feared being recalled to uniform to be court-martialed “for disloyalty” should Mr. Trump win re-election. After criticizing Mr. Trump in a pointed retirement speech, General Milley told Mr. Woodward that he installed bulletproof glass and blastproof curtains at his home.

Olivia Troye, who was Vice President Mike Pence’s homeland security adviser before becoming a prominent surrogate for the Harris campaign, said in an interview that her fears about a second Trump administration included prosecutions and a possible threat to her family’s physical security.

She worries that her husband could lose his job, and that Mr. Trump could pardon Jan. 6 rioters and they could target her. She even paused plans to adopt a child because she fears the environment for her family has become too dangerous.

“I have certainly considered what my options are in terms of citizenship in other places,” she said. “We are preparing for the worst-case scenario.”

Such threats of vengeance from Mr. Trump are hardly new: He has been talking about punishing his political adversaries since his 2016 run, when he repeatedly insisted that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, should go to jail and he encouraged crowds to chant “lock her up” at his rallies. Since his defeat in 2020, he has refused to accept that result, continuing to peddle false claims about election fraud.

And he has woven vows of retribution throughout his third campaign, promising to avenge what he sees as his wronged supporters.

“In 2016, I declared, ‘I am your voice,’” Mr. Trump told a crowd of conservative activists in March 2023. “Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

He toned down his rhetoric for a brief period before winning the Iowa caucuses in a landslide. But he quickly revived threats for revenge prosecutions and other retaliatory measures after being convicted of 34 felony counts by a New York jury in late May, saying, “Sometimes revenge can be justified.” In June, he took another tack: “My retribution will be success.”

Mr. Trump’s advisers would prefer that he focused on the economy and immigration, believing these issues will give him the edge with undecided voters who may be otherwise turned off by his menacing message.

But even in ostensibly policy-focused speeches or in town halls where he is meant to directly respond to voter concerns around pocketbook issues or public safety, Mr. Trump tends to return to the same grievances that have animated his political campaign this year.

At rallies, he has tried to volley Democrats’ attacks back at them, accusing President Biden of being a threat to democracy when he was still the nominee, and then suggesting Ms. Harris had orchestrated a “coup” when she replaced Mr. Biden on the ticket. At his town hall on Monday, Mr. Trump — whose vehement election denialism spurred some of his supporters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power — argued that Mr. Biden’s exit from the race amounted to the “overthrow of an American president.”

Trump treated the Jan. 6 riot as largely a harmless protest, downplaying the size of the mob of his supporters and their violent intent.

“You had a peaceful transfer of power,” Mr. Trump said, citing Inauguration Day, when he “left the morning that I was supposed to leave,” as proof of “a very peaceful transfer.”

During an interview with John Micklethwait, Bloomberg’s editor in chief, in Chicago on Tuesday, Mr. Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.Jim Vondruska for The New York Times

Notably, many of the business and civic leaders seated in the ballroom in Chicago applauded. And there are signs that voters and even some prominent elected officials simply do not believe that Mr. Trump will make good on his most alarming threats.

When Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Republican of Virginia, was asked about Mr. Trump’s “enemy within” remarks during an interview with the CNN host Jake Tapper on Monday, he argued that the former president was referring to undocumented immigrants.

After being asked about Mr. Trump’s suggestion of turning the military against Americans, Mr. Youngkin replied that he didn’t believe that was what the president was saying. The network, he said, was “misinterpreting and misrepresenting his thoughts.”

"I’m literally reading his quotes to you,” Mr. Tapper replied.

Lisa Lerer is a national political reporter for The Times, based in New York. She has covered American politics for nearly two decades. More about Lisa Lerer

Michael Gold is a political correspondent for The Times covering the campaigns of Donald J. Trump and other candidates in the 2024 presidential elections. More about Michael Gold"

Trump Escalates Threats to Political Opponents He Deems the ‘Enemy’ - The New York Times

Africans Visited the Americas Long Before Columbus | African History

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Lufthansa fined record $4 million for discriminating against Jewish passengers

Lufthansa fined record $4 million for discriminating against Jewish passengers

“The fine is the largest ever issued by the Department of Transportation against an airline.

Germany’s flagship airline has been fined $4 million by the U.S. Department of Transportation over allegations it discriminated against a group of Jewish passengers.

The regulator said Tuesday that Lufthansa had prohibited 128 people wearing traditional Orthodox Jewish clothing from boarding for a connecting flight in Germany as they made their way from New York City to Budapest, Hungary, in May 2022.

“Based on the alleged misconduct of some passengers,” DOT said, Lufthansa staff “treated them all as if they were a single group and denied them boarding,” despite many of the passengers not knowing each other nor traveling together.

Some individuals in the group allegedly violated the airline’s mask policy. Video of the incident at the time showed Lufthansa staff telling passengers that “everyone has to pay” for the mistakes of a few, then defining “everyone” as “Jewish coming from JFK.” At the time, German media reported that staff denied boarding to people they determined were Jewish because they were wearing a yarmulke (a Jewish skull cap) or had sidelocks (known as payot in Hebrew).

The penalty is the largest ever issued by the DOT against an airline for a civil rights violation.

“No one should face discrimination when they travel, and today’s action sends a clear message to the airline industry that we are prepared to investigate and take action whenever passengers’ civil rights are violated,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement.

Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the Biden administration’s special envoy against antisemitism, told NBC News in 2022 that the details of how the airline had treated the passengers were “unbelievable.”

“[When] I first heard it, I said, ‘Oh, this must be wrong. Someone must be misreporting this.’ And then of course, it turned out to be precisely right — and worse than we even thought,” she said.

In a statement Tuesday, the airline said it had fully cooperated with the DOT as it conducted its investigation and that it had partnered with the American Jewish Committee in the wake of the incident. 

“Through our ongoing collaboration, we have curated a first-of-its kind training program in the airline industry for our managers and employees to address antisemitism and discrimination,” it said. “Lufthansa is dedicated to being an ambassador of goodwill, tolerance, diversity, and acceptance.”

At the time, the carrier apologized for the incident, saying it had “zero tolerance for racism, antisemitism and discrimination of any type.”

Lipstadt said in 2022: “If any airline had done it, it would have been outrageous. But the terrible, awful irony of it coming from the German national airline was outrageous.”

Supreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules | AP News

Supreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules

(Please do not forget this decision, it was one of the worst, if not the worst, since Plessy v Furgeson 163 U.S. 537, John Roberts has always been a racist.)

Image

ATLANTA (AP) — Within hours of a U.S. Supreme Court decision dismantling a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Texas lawmakers announced plans to implement a strict voter ID law that had been blocked by a federal court. Lawmakers in Alabama said they would press forward with a similar law that had been on hold.

The ruling continues to reverberate across the country a decade later, as Republican-led states pass voting restrictions that, in several cases, would have been subject to federal review had the conservative-leaning court left the provision intact. At the same time, the justices have continued to take other cases challenging elements of the landmark 1965 law that was born from the sometimes violent struggle for the right of Black Americans to cast ballots.

The justices are expected to rule in the coming weeks in a new case out of Alabama that could make it much more difficult for minority groups to sue over gerrymandered political maps that dilute their representation.

“At that point, you have to ask yourself what’s left of the Voting Rights Act?” said Franita Tolson, a constitutional and election law expert and co-dean of the University of Southern California School of Law.

RELATED COVERAGE

Core parts of the law have been reauthorized with bipartisan support five times since it was signed by then-President Lyndon Johnson, the most recent in 2006. But congressional efforts to address the enforcement gap created by the June 2013 Supreme Court decision on what was known as preclearance — federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect — have languished amid increasingly partisan battles over the ballot box. 

The recent wave of voting changes have been pushed by Republican lawmakers who point to concerns over elections that have been fueled by former President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. 

At least 104 restrictive voting laws have passed in 33 mostly GOP-controlled states since the 2020 election, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks voting legislation in the states.

Alabama, where two of the major challenges to the Voting Rights Act began, considered legislation this year that would have made it a crime to help a non-family member fill out or return an absentee ballot. Supporters argued the change was needed to boost security, though ultimately the bill failed to pass as the state’s legislature adjourned Tuesday without taking a final vote on it.

Critics said the proposal would have made it difficult for voters who are older, low-income, ill or who do not feel comfortable with the already cumbersome absentee ballot process, which includes a requirement to submit a copy of a photo ID.

Betty Shinn, a 72-year-old Black woman from Mobile testified against the bill, saying it was a vehicle for suppressing votes: “It’s no different from asking me how many jellybeans are in that jar or asking me to recite the Constitution from memory.”

It was such Jim Crow-era rules that the Voting Rights Act was designed to stop, relying on a formula to identify states, counties and towns with a history of imposing voting restrictions and with low voter registration or participation rates. They then were required to submit any proposed voting changes in advance, either to the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal court in Washington, D.C.

The law included ways for jurisdictions to exit the preclearance requirement after demonstrating specific improvements, and dozens had over the years. At the time of the 2013 decision, nine states and a few dozen counties and towns in six other states were on the list for federal review. That included a small number of counties in California and New York.

In the decade since the Supreme Court decision, which came in a case filed by Shelby County, Alabama, lawmakers in the nine states formerly covered by the preclearance requirement have passed at least 77 voting-related laws, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab for The Associated Press.

Most improved voter access and likely would have sailed through federal review. But at least 14 laws – in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – added new voting restrictions, the Voting Rights Lab found. These include nine, high-profile bills passed in the aftermath of the 2020 election that would have almost certainly drawn significant scrutiny from the Justice Department.

In Georgia, Senate Bill 202 added ID requirements to mail voting, codified the use of ballot drop boxes in a way that reduced the number allowed in metro Atlanta — and restricted outside groups from providing water and food to voters standing in line. Republicans have said the changes were needed to boost security. Groups in the state have recalibrated their efforts to help voters.

Arizona passed two measures last year requiring voters who use state and federal voter registration forms to prove their citizenship and purging voters based on whether county election officials believe they might not be citizens or might not be qualified to vote.

Those could disproportionately affect Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities with cultural family names, said Alexa-Rio Osaki, political director of the Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition.

“If Shelby v. Holder didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have to worry about feeling as if we’re excluded yet again,” she said. “So, we’re talking about targeting our own communities within the state just based on what our name is and whether that looks American or not.”

In North Carolina, voting rights groups are bracing for the return of the state’s strict voter ID law, which the new GOP majority on the state Supreme Court has revived. They say the law will disproportionately affect younger voters. Several North Carolina counties, home to a handful of historically Black colleges and universities, were previously subject to federal review.

The Voting Rights Lab analysis identified three restrictive bills passed in North Carolina and two in Florida since the Shelby decision that would have been subject to federal review because they affected local governments covered by the preclearance requirement.

For groups such as Vote.org, which focuses on voter registration and education in the states, the evolving legal landscape has meant moving quickly to update website information, retrain volunteers and overhaul education material to include the latest voting rules and polling place information.

The group has filed legal challenges in Florida, Georgia and Texas over new rules for registration forms that prohibit digital signatures.

“People don’t realize or are fully aware of the rollback that has happened since the Shelby decision,” Vote.org CEO Andrea Hailey said. “It means programs like ours have to work double time, at increased expense to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote.”

Without the preclearance process, the Justice Department and outside groups must rely on the courts to address potentially discriminatory legislation after it’s already taken effect. While remedies are built into the legal system to address harm that has been done, elections are unique, said Justin Levitt, who recently served as the White House senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights.

“If a discriminatory election happens, you can’t undo that,” said Levitt, who was a top Justice Department official during the final years of the Obama administration. “The only way to get legal relief is to make the next election better. But in the meantime, the people who were elected in a discriminatory election are in office and making laws.”

In Texas, Republicans have enacted one of the nation’s strictest voter ID laws, limited the use of drop boxes and redrawn political district maps to fortify their dominant majority amid rapid demographic shifts.

Legal challenges to Texas’ new voting laws have persisted, but to little effect. When a federal court in 2019 ruled that Texas can continue to change district maps without supervision, it did so despite voicing “grave concerns” in the state where nearly 9 of every 10 new residents are Hispanic.

Two years later, Democratic lawmakers staged a 93-day walkout in protest of additional voting restrictions that included changes to mail ballot rules. The changes were rushed into place before the 2022 midterm elections and resulted in nearly 23,000 ballots being rejected.

“We’ve seen a drastic change in election policy,” said Texas Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat. “I think all of this stuff, if we had preclearance, would be protected. We should be working together to make sure access to the ballot box is the most important thing, and we don’t do that in this state.”

In addition to Texas, the Justice Department has filed legal challenges to new voting rules enacted in Georgia and Arizona since the 2020 election.

Supporters of such laws say the courts, even after the Shelby decision, remain an effective check to address any problematic measures.

“Shelby County did not alter the fact that state election rules that discriminate against protected groups like racial minorities are illegal,” said Derek Lyons, president and CEO of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, a group co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove. “And in the few instances when courts have identified violations, they have quickly remedied them.”

In its 2013 decision, the majority on the Supreme Court found the formula was outdated for determining which jurisdictions should be covered by the preclearance requirement and pointed to increased minority participation in voting.

It’s difficult to draw conclusions based on voter turnout data, especially since few states track it by race. Of the nine states where federal review had been required before the court ruling, all but one saw their statewide voter turnout decline for the 2022 midterm elections compared with the previous midterms four years earlier — but that also mirrored the trend nationally, according to an analysis of election and population data maintained by the AP.

Some of the states passing new restrictions also do have election policies that are voter-friendly, such as offering early voting and mail voting without needing an excuse.

“The Shelby opinion stands for the basic idea that if the federal government is going to take the drastic step of usurping the constitutionally endorsed power of states to govern their own elections, it must do so based on real and current data,” said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project. “By any objective measure, elections are free, fair, and accessible.”

Voting rights groups say that does not mean voting is easy, and they have been responding to the restrictions with fresh strategies. In Georgia, for instance, Common Cause set up mobile printing stations across the state so voters could comply with new voter registration rules that require an ink signature on a printed form.

“It’s only through the work of all these communities and groups on the ground that voters have access,” said Sylvia Albert, the group’s national director of voting and elections. “But doing this post-Shelby, courts are not recognizing the true damage those laws have had.”

The Supreme Court weakened another section of the Voting Rights Act two years ago with a ruling in a case from Arizona. It sided with the state in a challenge to new regulations that restricted who can return early ballots for another person and prohibited ballots cast in the wrong precinct from being counted. The conservative majority court could further erode voting rights that are intended to protect racial minorities in an Alabama case in which the plaintiffs argue the state diluted the power of Black voters.

Under Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, just one of seven districts has a majority Black population in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. A broad ruling in the case would not only uphold that map, but also make it much harder to sustain claims of racial discrimination in redistricting across the country.

“If those kind of things happen, they’ve effectively closed the door on the Voting Rights Act,” said Evan Milligan, executive director of Alabama Forward and the lead plaintiff in the case.

Alexander reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama; Acacia Coronado in Austin, Texas; and Aaron Kessler and Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

The Associated Press coverage of race and voting receives support from the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content."

Supreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules | AP News