Mediaboss Marketing

What are Democrats willing to do to save our democracy, and how far are they willing to go? Thats the question they must answer now, while theres still time to protect our flawed and fragile democracy from an extremist, countermajoritarian Republican Party hellbent on subverting the political process to implement rule by and for a white Christian minority.

For the past few months, it appeared that Democrats would respond to this daily threatwith the former president talking about how his office was stolen from him and his former national security adviser calling for a coup while the partys lawmakers fight tooth and nail against any examination of the Jan. 6 insurrectionwith nothing more than some strongly worded rhetoric and finger-wagging.

But then Texas Democrats kicked the hornets nest and walked out of the Texas House of Representatives to temporarily block a vote on a dangerous Republican voter suppression bill. Then over 100 prominent scholars of democracy signed a Statement of Concern urging Congress to do whatever is necessaryincluding suspending the filibusterto pass national voting and election administration standards. And finally President Biden appointed Vice President Harris to lead an effort to combat Republicans voter-suppression efforts and declared June a month of action during his address commemorating the centenary of the Tulsa race massacre. Its a start.

The month of action should have started in January, right after his inauguration, but now democracy itself is up against the clock as we race towards the 2022 midterms. You might think thats an alarmist statement, but listen to Larry Sabato, director of the UVA Center for Politics and one of the signatories of the statement who told me, It's not just the threat of a Jan. 6-style coup attempt again. It is the possibility of a silent coup in 2024, where state legislatures controlled by the GOP ditch the electoral votes for the popular-vote winner (because of made-up "fraud") and appoint Republican electors in their stead in swing states.

Thats not inevitable. If Biden is serious about fighting like heck against the GOPs full-frontal assault on democracy, here are five things his party must do to save it.

1.Kill the Filibuster: Ive written about killing the filibuster before, but it bears repeating that this Jim Crow relic used by Republicans to hijack the will of the minority, obstruct progress, and turn the Senate into a legislative graveyard must meet a swift, ignoble end. Just like he did with President Obama, Senator Mitch McConnell has committed himself 100 percent to obstructing President Bidens entire agenda. Zero Republicans voted for Bidens relief bill during a deadly pandemic, and McConnell called in a personal favor with Republican senators to kill the proposed bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection where five people died and others were trying to lynch Vice President Mike Pence for his refusal to throw out the constitution and declare that Donald Trump had won the race hed plainly lost.

If theyre willing to make Pence a human sacrifice, theyll do it to anyone not named Trump. When people show you who they are for the 4,080th time, believe them.

Biden just needs 50 votes in the Senate to kill the filibuster, but unfortunately we cant have nice things thanks to Senators Joe Manchin, who is perpetually deeply disappointed in the GOP and prepared to do nothing yet still believes in a magical unicorn known as bipartisanship, and Kristen Sinema, whose sole talents so far appears to be her remarkable lack of accountability and tone-deaf responses to progressive causes, such as giving a thumbs-down vote and curtsy to a minimum wage increase while wearing a Lululemon bag. One way to move these two useless vessels of archaic moderation is to legally bribe them with lavish attention and pork that will help their states. Or Biden can play bad cop and join the progressive chorus in openly shaming them, which is what he flirted with at his recent speech where he called them out, not by name, as two members of his party whom he said vote more with the GOP than Democrats.

Its time that fellow Democrats start openly asking Manchin and Sinema why they are supporting an instrument of Jim Crow to suppress the Black and brown voters who helped Biden win the election.

2. Flex Your Power. Did you know that Democrats currently control the White House, House of Representatives and hold the tiebreaker in the 50-50 Senate? I always lament that Democrats bring a policy paper to a knife fight and the GOP brings a bazooka. You dont have to guess wholl win in the end. Although Biden and his team are predicting his popular policies and civil tone might be enough to barely win in 2022 and 2024, why play it safe and mild against an aggressively extremist party threatening our democracy and the rights of millions? The Texas Democrats showed the party how its done as they temporarily blocked an oppressive voter suppression bill that could endanger the sanctity of the 2022 election. They said they were sending a very, very clear message to President Biden: We need a national response to federal voting rights.

Norm Eisen, a senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings and an expert on law, ethics, and anti-corruption, praised the Texas Democrats and said their actions should be an absolute role model for Democrats moving forward. Was it wrong to do one thing they had in their power? No. It was right. You have to fight with every tool you have, he told me, wearing his activist hat.

Another tool Democrats have is a congressional majority in the House which brings with it oversight powers. The Republicans are the arsonists at the crime scene and congressional Democrats have the ability and the authority to use the levers of oversight however they see fit, Kurt Bardella, advisor to the DCCC and former staffer to Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, told me. He said Democrats need only look at what Republicans did during the Obama years with their majority to issue over 100 subpoenas, countless depositions, and wasteful and prolonged hearings on Benghazi and Clintons emails solely to attack her presidential run, per Rep. Kevin McCarthys own admission in 2015. He says these hearings were successful in damaging Obama, changing the narrative in favor of the GOP and harming Clinton during the 2016 election.

With Trump and his acolytes, theres actual evidence of criminal behavior that demands legitimate oversight and investigation. Speaker Pelosi must jettison any hope for a bipartisan inquiry into the Jan. 6 insurrection and have Democrats initiate it on their own, issuing subpoenas and calling witnesses to hold their Republican colleagues who incited and supported the mob to account. Democrats should use all the levers of oversight they have at their disposal and bring transparency and accountability to Trumps malfeasance, criminality and abuse of power, dragging along any accomplices along the way. It has to happen soon, because we are running out of time, says Bardella. History will repeat itself and it will probably be much worse and violent.

3. Blitzkrieg the Media. Democrats need to be in the media every day delivering a simple message about how the GOP is an extremist party actively attacking our democracy, including supporting the lethal Jan. 6 insurrection. They need to remind voters that Republicans refused to vote for a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrectionand that zero Republicans voted for the relief bill. This has to be done continuously because people have fickle, short-term memories and Republicans are great at manufacturing outrage, headlines, attention and winning votes by raving about Mr. Potato Head, critical race theory, cancel culture and woke corporations.

Sabato told me: It is vital for voters to understand just how critical the situation is. Our democratic institutions are in disarray or decay. Bidens recent remarks in Tulsa and his comments over Memorial Day where he said democracy itself is in peril were a start but that rhetoric has to be ramped up and hammered home, again and again.

Unfortunately, we have two sides to the media: a right-wing echo chamber centered around Fox News and then both sides news operations that feel compelled to be neutral umpires as they elevate and enable bad faith actors who promote lies and conspiracy theories, gaslight the nation, and undermine democracy in front of our eyes. Journalists have to make a decision about whether they will allow themselves and their platforms to be used to accelerate this attack on our democracy or will they be biased in favor of preserving and protecting it. They need to actively press every Republican elected official each time they appear as to why they or their colleagues support regressive voter suppression laws, endorse the Big Lie, and pal around with extremist militias. Every Republican official has to be asked if they believe Joe Biden is the president and if he won the election, and anyone who refuses to answer should be taken off the air until they will. These politicians need these media outlets to win voters, because believe it or not, not every Republican can get by on just OANN, Newsmax and Steve Bannons podcast.

4. Support Black women and their grassroots leadership: Stacey Abrams and Georgia. Case closed. In case that isnt enough, listen to Steve Schale, a strategist who helped Obama win Florida twice, and told the AP that Black women can assemble Democrats ideal alliance for statewide elections: older Black voters, younger voters across racial and ethnic lines, urban white liberals and enough white moderates, especially women, in metro areas. Last year, I wrote a piece telling Democrats to stop chasing Amy, that mythical Rust Belt moderate white voter, and start investing in Black women and elevating them as Democratic candidates. This is whats happening right now at local and statewide offices and theres a chance these women can help give Democrats much-needed victories in competitive elections. Black women, according to Schale, can rebuild [Obamas coalition] better than anyone.

5. Build a grand coalition. Speaking of coalitions, Eisen agreed with my list, but he told me he had to put on his scholar hat and add one more suggestion: building a grand coalition with Republicans, such as Rep. Liz Cheney. I reminded him that she was recently cancelled by her own party for standing up to Trump and moderate Republicans are now an endangered species. He responded by citing his recent Brookings report, Democracy Playbook, which he said reveals that backsliding democracies like the U.S. can only hold up if they form a grand coalition around the idea of democracy itself and with those willing to commit to that ideawhich in our case means joining forces with Republicans like Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger.

I dont share Eisens optimism about creating this grand coalition because I believe the GOPs base will further radicalize and is best represented by the Three Stooges of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and white nationalist Paul Gosar. But if aligning with Cheney is what it takes to save our democracy then so be it, so long as that grand coalition doesnt compromise on a progressive platform that continues to fight and advocate for policies that will bring about real equity and progress.

Biden and Democrats have what could be their last chance to save democracy and promote progressive values at the same time but they have to stop playing nice and finally throw down and use the powers that the people trusted them with while they still have them, to get it done by any legal means necessary.

See the original post:
Five Things Dems Must Do Now to Save Democracy From the GOP - The Daily Beast

Veteran democrat Emily Lau brought their current dilemma into public view recently when she cautioned all her pro-democracy colleagues to think twice about contesting the next Legislative Council election. It was to have been held in September last year but was postponed, ostensibly due to the coronavirus pandemic, and has now been rescheduled for this coming December.

Lau suggested that all aspiring pro-democracy hopefuls whatever their party affiliation should sit this one out due to the many traps that were being laid for them under Hong Kongs new national security regime.

The context of her warning is Hong Kongs National Security Law promulgated by Beijing last summer, on June 30, and the revamp of the citys election system, also mandated by Beijing and announced on March 30 this year.

The pandemic provided a convenient excuse, allowing time for a sweeping overhaul of Hong Kongs local lawmaking body that will reduce pro-democracy representation to a bare minimum. Probably such candidates, who in past Legislative Council elections habitually received a majority of the popular vote, will be able to win no more than about a dozen seats, although the council itself will be enlarged from 70 to 90 representatives. Democrats had already chosen their September 2020 campaign slogan for a 35 + 1 majority.

A relatively concise guide to the culture of entrapment inherent in this new regime, but not evident at first glance, has now been provided by yet another piece of legislation. It has just been issued locally, this one the work of Hong Kongs own legislature, and is in the nature of a follow-up effort to try and nail down any remaining loose ends so that no errant elements can slip in unnoticed.

The aim is to ensure that Beijings new election designs can achieve their intended purpose. That means rewarding only safe candidates , or true patriots in Beijing terminology, while the unfamiliar rules are being imposed on a voting public that is not celebrating at the prospect.

This new law is known as the Public Offices (Candidacy and Taking Up Offices) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance, 2021, or Ordinance No. 13 of 2021. It was passed by the Legislative Council on May 12, with only one opposing vote. This was cast by contrarian Cheng Chung-tai, the one pro-democracy legislator remaining in the council. For reasons of his own, Cheng refused to follow all the others when they resigned in protest last November over the mounting impositions.

The current provisional council is sitting for an extra year with only pro-establishment councillors in attendance, plus Cheng and one non-partisan who tries to hold himself above politics. The election calendar for this year includes formation of the all-important Election Committee in September, with the delayed Legislative Council election in December. The Chief Executive selection process will be concluded on schedule, in March 2022.

The new law is all about oath-taking. On the face of it, the idea seems harmless enough and even redundant. It also seems a minor matter after the draconian security law and electoral system juggernaut. Together those two initiatives have already spelt the end of Hong Kongs decades-old democracy movement that began to take shape in the 1980s, soon after the plan for the return to mainland rule was announced. But this additional law is actually the most devastating of all because it follows up with such a comprehensive after-bite.

As a routine exercise, all leading public officeholders and aspiring election candidates have been required to sign various forms. These affirm allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, and pledge to uphold Hong Kongs Basic Law as promulgated by Beijing in 1990. The Basic Law was designed to serve as Hong Kongs constitution for at least 50 years after the 1997 transfer from British to Chinese rule.

Until 2016, the name signing was treated as routine and created little controversy. This began to change with the growth of the new localist trend that gained strength after the 2014 Occupy Movement failed to win any political concessions from Beijing on the issue of genuine universal suffrage elections. A few aspiring fringe candidates did refuse to sign a new confirmation form reiterating the basic loyalty pledge. This was added in preparation for the September 2016 Legislative Council election.

But the refusal was not necessarily grounds for disqualification. And one champion of the new more insistent demand for genuine local autonomy, Edward Leung Tin-kei, was not allowed to contest even though he had signed the new confirmation form. His vetting officer reasoned that his pledge was not sincere, and he also had charges pending for his role in the early 2016 Mong Kok riot, for which he is now serving a six-year jail term.

Several successful 2016 candidates then decided to improvise their oaths of office during the swearing-in ceremony. Thereafter the die was cast for oath-taking and Hong Kongs new law, just passed on May 12, derives from the saga that followed.

Although several more newly elected legislators had also improvised their oaths during the October 2016 ceremony, six were selectively and retroactively singled out to serve as examples. All eventually lost their seats after an appeals process that went on for years.

Additionally, in November 2016, Beijing issued a formal Interpretation of Hong Kongs Basic Law Article 104, on the subject of oath-taking. At that time, pro-democracy legislators contemplating the text of Beijings Interpretation remarked that actually, they all could be held in violation of its strictures. In fact, they all are now subject to the same constraints under the new oath-taking law.

Especially ominous in 2016 was the proviso that the oath of office was a legal pledge made by the public officers, and is legally binding. The oath taker must sincerely believe in and strictly abide by the relevant oath prescribed by law. An oath taker who makes a false oath, or, who, after taking the oath, engages in conduct in breach of the oath, shall bear legal responsibility in accordance with law.

All of those responsibilities are now being activated by Hong Kongs May 12 law. it follows from Article 6 of the new National Security Law that says all citizens must safeguard Chinas sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity. Article 6 also specifies that those who contest elections and assume public office must confirm in writing or take an oath pledging to uphold the Basic Law and Hong Kongs status within the Peoples Republic.

The new ordinance gets off to a clear start with a statement by Chief Executive Carrie Lam introducing the contents. Since they address virtually every aspect of Hong Kongs democracy movement that has been giving her headaches for the past five years and more, she must have taken no little satisfaction in being able to write an end to them all.

According to her introduction, the new law comprises amendments to multiple existing ordinances in order: to EXPLAIN the meaning of the reference to upholding Hong Kongs Basic Law and bearing allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC); and to REQUIRE that District Councillors must henceforth take the oath of allegiance, which was not previously required.

The new amendments also EXPLAIN the consequences of declining or failing to take the oath; ADD new grounds for disqualifying candidates for Legislative Council and District Council elections, as well as for disqualifying them from being elected and holding office; REMOVE the time limit during which disqualification proceedings can be brought by the Secretary for Justice; PROVIDE for the suspension of such persons; ADD new grounds for disqualifying candidates from being nominated for the position of Chief Executive, and so on.

Some Key Explanations: Part Two

In anticipation of this law, officials have been promising that it would contain a list of dos and donts so that everyone would know the rules of the new national security game, if for no other reason than to be able to avoid violating them. Part Two of the new ordinance contains this list, phrased in terms of upholding Hong Kongs Basic Law and bearing allegiance to the HKSAR of the PRC.

Official observers in Beijing and Hong Kong have obviously been keeping careful notes on all the creative political ideas that have taken hold here in recent years. Part 2 of the new law targets them all in language both tautological and specific. It is aimed at the perpetrators and their supporters, for all to understand and as a warning to all.

References to upholding the Basic Law and bearing allegiance to China mean upholding the constitutional order of the HKSAR established by the Chinese constitution and by Hong Kongs Basic Law. The references also mean upholding national sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, and the national security of the Peoples Republic.

The references mean: that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the PRC, that the central authorities in Beijing exercise governance over Hong Kong, that the political structure of Hong Kong must be safeguarded, and the one-country, two-systems principle upheld.

Uphold means to intend to genuinely and truthfully observe, support, maintain, and embrace and to do so both in words and deeds.

A person does not uphold or bear allegiance by carrying out activities, or intending to do so, that endanger national security including the activities specified in Article 23 of Hong Kongs Basic Law. This is the article that Hong Kong has successfully resisted since 2003.

Article 23 says Hong Kong must enact laws prohibiting acts of treason, secession, sedition, subversion, theft of state secrets and foreign interference. Since Hong Kong has failed to fulfill its responsibilities in this respect, the central government stepped in and got the job done by promulgating the National Security Law as an interim solution. Hong Kongs obligation to pass its own version of the Article 23 legislation still stands.

A person also does not uphold or bear allegiance by advocating or supporting Hong Kong independence, or Hong Kong state-building, or by participating in organisations that so advocate.

Also beyond the pale of proper behaviour is the promotion of self-determination and referendums, and advocating that Hong Kong be transferred to another country (which some did); and soliciting interference by foreign governments or organisations in Hong Kong affairs (which many have done, repeatedly).

Additionally, targeted for special mention are all the many activities associated with pro-democracy legislators, candidates, and campaigners including especially those related to last years informal straw poll or self-administered primary election.

All the participants in that exercise including the candidates and organisers are now accused of subverting state power under the new National Security Law. Over 50 participants were arrested in January. Ultimately a few were granted bail, but most are remanded in jail awaiting trial dates that have yet to be announced.

The crimes of these suspects are now specified, which they had not been before, signifying the retroactive nature of their punishment, at least in terms of publicly available information about the meaning of the new rules. The National Security Law, which the primary election participants are accused of violating by committing the crime of subversion, was promulgated on June 30, 2020. Their primary election was months in the planning but went ahead as scheduled during the weekend of July 11-12.

According to its Article 39, the NSL itself is not retroactive and is supposed to apply only to acts committed after its entry into force, for the purpose of conviction and punishment.

Further on the new rules specified in the new oath-taking law: not upholding and not bearing allegiance refer to acts that have a tendency to undermine the political structure of Hong Kongs executive-led government. Such acts include attempting to compel the Chief Executive to change a policy, threatening the government or rendering it incapable of performing its duties or forcing the Chief Executive to step down.

Yet all of these possibilities are listed in Hong Kongs Basic Law, which was the authority cited for the July primary election and democrats drive to win a 35+1 majority afterwards, in the September 2020 Legislative Council election. So how could the primary election participants know they were committing the crime of not upholding Hong Kongs Basic Law and subverting state power?

But if these standards as specified in the new loyalty-oath law are to be used in judging who is and is not fit for the purpose of contesting the coming series of elections, then the game is well and truly over for Hong Kongs current generation of pro-democracy campaigners. This is because there are few among them who can claim to be innocent of such behaviour. In fact, the law seems to have been written with the express purpose of disqualifying them all.

Hence it follows that the official intent is also to disenfranchise the majority of the voting public that has routinely favoured pro-democracy candidates. These voters were responsible for giving democrats their landslide victory in the November 2019 District Councils election when democrats won majorities on all but one of the councils.

The popular mandate carried over to the informal primary election in July 2020 that democrats organised to winnow their field of candidates in preparation for the September 2020 Legislative Council poll. Over 600,000 people came out to endorse democrats strongest and most outspoken candidates the very same who are now sitting in jail awaiting trial on suspicion of subverting state power for having taken part in that exercise.

Nevertheless, all this is really just in the nature of an introduction to the new rules. The concluding proviso of Part 2 notes cryptically that this section does not limit the meaning of a reference to upholding the Basic Law and bearing allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China.

Some Key Administrative Details: Parts Three, Four, and Five

Part Three of the new law mandates that judicial officers, members of the Chief Executives advisory Executive Council, Legislative Council, and District Councils must all take the loyalty oath as soon as possible after the start of their terms all to be administered by the Chief Executive or a person authorised by the Chief Executive.

Instructions on declining to take the oath are clearly laid down, reflecting the 2016 controversy when newly elected Legislative Councilors improvised the wording in various creative and insulting ways. A person is regarded as declining or neglecting to take the oath if he/she deliberately changes the wording of the formal oath or behaves in ways deemed not sincere or solemn while reciting the oath. An oath so distorted may not be retaken.

Part Five specifies that the power of the Legislative Council to conduct business is not affected by vacancies in its membership or suspension of a legislators functions and duties or a defect in his/her election as a legislator. Thus, the entire democratic caucus may be absent as it currently is, but the business of lawmaking goes on.

A person who is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate for office, or from being elected, or holding office, cannot contest another election for a period of five years afterward.

A disqualified person may appeal, but his/her functions and duties are suspended until the court decision becomes final, and the person must not enjoy any corresponding entitlements during the period of suspension.

If it is approved that a person is disqualified from acting as a member on a certain date, the person ceased to be entitled to any corresponding entitlement beginning on that date. This follows from the 2016 controversies that continued after the government tried to reclaim funds already issued and spent by legislators-elect before the term began, to hire staff and set up their offices.

Still, this new law for all its attention to detail only forbids acts, retroactively, that have already been committed. Unfortunate it is for everyone associated with the July 2020 primary election exercise to be punished, after the fact, for actions they had no way of knowing were subsequently to be declared state security offences.

But it is perfectly possible to imagine some future agitation that declares its allegiance to the central government in Beijing and veneration for Hong Kongs Basic Law while still continuing to demand a genuine universal suffrage election, which is actually where they all began in 1997.

How might future Beijing leaders respond? Would they be able to adapt their definition of patriot to the revolving demand? Or will they still insist on declaring the law is whatever they say it is and on forcing everyone to accept the vindictive discipline of one-party dictatorship?

SIGN UP to our mailing list

HKFP Dim Sum is a weekly email summary of our best content sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. We will not share your details with third parties.

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Follow this link:
Hong Kongs new loyalty oath is the final nail in democracys coffin - Hong Kong Free Press

By Ioanna Achilleos Zavitsanaki

The population has once again elected its parliamentary representatives. Democracy has spoken. But does democracy and the role of the citizen end here? The answer is of course, no. Electoral democracy can and should coexist with participatory democracy, to reinforce commitment to the realisation of democratic principles.

The need for citizen participation beyond elections alone has become more evident and more pressing in Cyprus in recent years and this is reflected in the results of Sundays parliamentary elections, for example through the following statistics:

The principle of citizen participation stems from the conviction that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. Having said that, something that should be stressed from the outset is that for citizen participation to be of any value, it must not be viewed by either citizens or government as an obstacle for government action but rather as an integral part of its success.

So how can citizens continue to influence politics beyond elections alone? By taking an active part in democratic civic life to ensure that their interests, needs, values and opinions are being heard and responded to by government and its representatives. Citizen participation can take many forms including communities organising around issues that are important to them, influencing decision-making by initiating, proposing or commenting on plans, policies and legislation, petitions, public presentations, exhibitions and discussions, demonstrations, etc.

But it is not enough for government to accept the right of citizens to be involved; it needs to ensure that they are actually empowered to do so. By acknowledging this and facilitating citizens to be active and valuable participants in the political process, leaders can help to boost public confidence, something that seems to be lacking in Cyprus today. Fostering a spirit of cooperation and trust between the governing body and the public can help leaders to gain public support for decisions, come out of deadlocks, avoid costly conflicts and delays and build up goodwill.

Certainly, this is not something that can be achieved overnight but achievable it is. There is a plethora of tools that can be used to achieve citizen participation and empowerment such as the establishment of citizen assemblies and moderated discussion platforms, the simplification of bureaucratic procedures for non-profit organisations and the inclusion by local authorities of their citizens in discussions about public issues involving local infrastructure, public space, budget allocation and prioritisation of issues.

When citizens feel that they are being heard, respected, valued and included, the function of democratic institutions in society is strengthened, both in actual and perceived terms. Only then can public confidence be boosted and the economy be able to thrive.

Ioanna Achilleos Zavitsanaki is an entrepreneur and member of the organising committee of New Wave The Other Cyprus

The rest is here:
Democracy has spoken. But does democracy and the role of the citizen end at the ballot box? - Cyprus Mail

An elected Chicago Public Schools board is supposed to be about democracy, but what happened in Springfield had nothing to do with democracy, Mayor Lori Lightfoot said Wednesday.

One day after the Illinois Senate overwhelmingly voted to phase in what the mayor has long viewed as an unwieldy 21-member elected school board, Lightfoot said that vote her latest in a string of legislative defeats was only temporary.

Were gonna keep our fight where it should be: making sure that our children are heard. That their educational futures are secured. That parents have a seat at the table. Why that sense of urgency around those core values is something that some folks in Springfield dont get, I dont know. But there has to be accountability for ignoring the people, she said.

This is supposed to be about democracy, but what happened in Springfield had nothing to do with democracy. But democracy mark my word will prevail.

Lightfoot called the switch from an appointed to an elected school board the most consequential change in governance in decades, if not ever for the Chicago Public Schools.

As such, It cant be about the politics. Its got to be about the people, meaning the students and their parents, she said.

But the mayor argued the Senate version would virtually exclude parents from competing in school board seats because there are no controls around how much money gets spent on those races.

Pointing to a $1 million school board race in Los Angeles, Lightfoot said: We dont need that here in Chicago.

It is critically important that there is a negotiated resolution that puts our children and our parents first. I do not believe what came out of the Senate does any of those things. Im gonna keep fighting ... to get a negotiated resolution that reflects the realities and necessities of CPS. But weve got a lot of work to do.

A 21-member elected board could affect Lightfoots ability to find a replacement for retiring Chicago Public Schools CEO Janice Jackson, she said.

It could have a negative impact if a CEO doesnt believe that he or she is actually gonna have the ability to make a meaningful difference in the quality of education in the lives of our children, Lightfoot said.

Weve made that argument over and over again. Thats something that clearly fell on way too many deaf ears.

Yet another concern is the built-in moratorium on school closings, consolidations or phase-outs until the new board members take office in early 2025.

Its a mistake that we would foreclose parents ability to come together with a plan and offer up consolidation or some other reshaping of schools, Lightfoot said.

For example, theres a group of parents in North Lawndale that have been trying for years to consolidate three schools [to] get one school that is a STEM program. The language that is in that bill right now would cut that off at the pass and not allow it to happen. Thats a mistake. We made that argument. But it fell on deaf ears in the Senate.

Lightfoot campaigned as a staunch proponent of an elected school board, only to repeatedly block what she calls an unwieldy bill that would triple the size of the board to 21 members: 20 members elected from local districts, headed by a president elected by citywide vote, beginning in 2023.

Earlier this year, she fueled speculation about whether she will ever deliver on that pivotal campaign promise by telling the New York Times CPS would never have opened without mayoral control.

The Senate bill would create a 21-member board in January 2025, initially split between 11 mayoral appointees including the board president and 10 elected members.

The first elected members would run in the November 2024 general election for four-year terms. Though the mayor would continue picking the board president, City Council confirmation would become necessary. The mayor currently appoints a seven-member board, including the president, without an approval process.

The seats of the board president and the 10 appointees would become elected ones in January 2027 through a November 2026 election. Those members would also serve four-year terms.

The city would be divided into 10 districts for the 2024 school board elections and 20 districts for the 2026 ballot. That map would need to be drawn by February 2022.

All elected board members would run in a particular district other than the board president, who would run at large.

After one teachers strike and the threat of another before schools were finally reopened after the pandemic, the mayors office has been particularly interested in preventing Chicago Teachers Union leaders from running for school board seats. Lightfoot conspicuously did not mention that objection.

The Senate voted 36 to 15 to advance the bill, which must head back to the House where it needs a three-fifths majority to take effect within the next year. Assuming all 118 House members vote on the measure, it would require 71 votes to pass.

Continue reading here:
Elected CPS board supposed to be about democracy, but thats not what happened in Springfield, Mayor Ligh - Chicago Sun-Times

The threat to our democracy is still here and its real.

Just hear the words of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who spoke over Memorial Day Weekend, as we honored our military heroes who gave their lives to defend our country that a Myanmar-style coup should happen here.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Photo was taken during a summer 2020 protest, by Fred Moon for Unsplash.

A former high-ranking former government official (despite pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation, and being pardoned by Donald Trump at the end of his presidency) appears to have called for the overthrow of the government.

Flynn was answering a question at a Dallas event titled For God and Country Patriot Roundup from a man who identified himself as a Marine, who asked why what happened in Myanmar cant happen here?

Flynn responded No reason. I mean it should happen here. No reason. Thats right.

The Myanmar military staged a deadly coup in February that overthrew the democratically-elected government and has since used violent means to suppress protest and democratic institutions.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Flynn also reiterated the false claim that Trump won the 2020 election at the session, which included many QAnon followers and those who believe and repeat The Big Lie.

While the Democratic response will be forceful and outraged, it wont change what was said by Flynn, which will undoubtedly inspire the Big Lie proponents and their minions, perhaps to more violence just as we saw at the Capitol almost five months ago on Jan. 6.

Insurrectionists at the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, dressed in combat gear. Photo by Colin Lloyd for Unsplash.

One of the other members of the Trump brigade, scorned lawyer Sidney Powell, who has represented Flynn in the past, as well as Trump in his imaginary quest to prove he didnt lose the election, also spoke at the Dallas event. Her message; that the ex-president should simply be reinstated. She added that A new inauguration day is set. Really?

Let that sink in for a moment.

Sure, Powell was ridiculed for her court argument that she could not be held accountable for any fraudulent claims because no one in their right mind would believe her (not joking), but true to character, she defended Flynns comments that some call seditious as being grossly distorted by the media.

No the threat to our democracy is still here, a clear and present danger.

Read the original post:
Our Voice: The Threat to our Democracy - by Daniel Smith - The Ark Valley Voice