Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How Arkansas elects top judges challenged by civil rights group

A prominent civil rights group, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, has gone to federal court to get Arkansas to change the way seats on its top courts are filled.

The statewide election of all the judges on the state Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals violates the Voting Rights Act by denying "black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process," the group argued in a lawsuit filed Monday.


The state's population is 16 percent black but, because of the statewide election process, the suit maintains, no African-American candidate has ever been elected to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The suit asks a federal judge to strike down the current election procedure and replace it with a new one. It suggests using a cumulative system, in which voters can choose several candidates on the ballot and those with the most votes fill the vacancies.

"Judges matter," said Natasha Merle of the NAACP. "Black voters in Arkansas have been consistently denied fairness and the opportunity to elect judges of their choice."

The named plaintiffs are three African-American voters and a pair non-profits, Christian Ministerial Alliance and Arkansas Community Institute.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less