Early voting in the presidential election is showing something stunning: African Americans are voting in huge numbers far beyond their Census population percentage, a new report from the Wall Street Journal shows.

Take Georgia, for instance. So far, about 36 percent of the early voting electorate is African American - yet African Americans make up only 29 percent of the state population and typically only 25 percent of the actual voting electorate. Analysts expect this 35-36 percent representation to continue through Election Night.

These are staggering figures. Turnout of C+7 (Census population percentage plus 7) is almost unheard of. But it’s being repeated in state after state. African Americans represent 13 percent of the Florida population, but 21 percent of early voters (C+8). In North Carolina, African Americans represent 21 percent of the population but 33 percent of early voters (C+12!).

For anyone interested in voting rights and equity in America, this is truly an historic moment.

This is the second in an ongoing series of posts seeking to illuminate the heated discussion around ACORN. Please check back at EquityBlog for more in the coming days.

Is ACORN really “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history”?

At best, that statement is disingenuous — at worst, it betrays a deplorable ignorance of American’s sordid history of voting rights.

ACORN is accused of submitting faulty or phony registration forms. When these predictable mistakes happen, they are and should be caught and remedied. But there is no remedy for the thousands that have been murdered and brutalized while fighting for the basic American right to vote in “free and fair” elections.

At the founding of the United States, the right to vote was essentially limited to “free white men with property”. Throughout our history, a litany of devious and violent tactics were used to prevent African Americans from voting.

Examples include:

• Viscous attacks by the Klu Klux Klan - not just cross burnings meant to coerce and intimidate Blacks seeking civil rights like voting, but whole neighborhoods torched, and the most horrific acts of murder - lynching (public hanging) and being tarred and feathered (a euphemism for burned alive)

• A whole range of insidious devices intended to make voting difficult if not impossible - such as grandfather clauses (voting only by those whose fathers or grandfathers had voted prior to 1869 - almost exclusively whites); poll taxes (fees charged in order to vote); literacy requirements (complex reading tests administered only to Blacks); other eligibility requirements, (such as owning property)

• Overt laws such as “Black Codes” and “Jim Crow” laws that specifically prohibited African Americans from voting, or limited voting in primary elections to whites; enforced segregation and gerrymandering that kept African Americans locked into certain geographic areas, and then drew voting districts that would dilute their voting power

African Americans were not the only group subjected to violent forms of voter suppression, or forcibly denied the right to vote. Women waged a consistent campaign for suffrage, culminating in the passage of the 19^th Amendment in 192o

The road to the ballot box was equally hard for Native Americans. They could only become citizens by relinquishing tribal affiliations; even for those who did so, the same barriers were used to block their votes - eligibility requirements, fees and violence.

The same thing happened to Mexican Americans born in what became Arizona, California, Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada.  In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was supposed to extend voting rights (and U.S. citizenship) to those residents. Instead, literacy tests, and other eligibility requirements, as well as violence were used to intimidate and dissuade potential voters.

For Asian American immigrants, there were sporadic opportunities to participate in democracy by voting, but from 1790, they were generally categorized as “aliens ineligible for citizenship” - and citizenship is a prerequisite for voting rights. Voting was an unquestionable right for those born in America - except for the 77,000 Japanese American locked in internment camps during WWII.

It took over one hundred years - from the early 1820s until passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 — for the United States government to outlaw the tactics that had been used to keep generations of African Americans and other people of color, as well as women, from voting. And it took the efforts of community organizers and groups like ACORN to bring the promise of the Voting Rights Act to life by bringing new voters into the process.

We cannot afford to deny voting rights to segments of our society because of race, gender or income. Doing that would be a real threat to the fabric of American democracy.

Photo by Flickr user MyJon, used under a Creative Commons License.

In recent days, the name “ACORN” has become a sinister watchword in many conservative circles, serving as a stand-in for voter fraud and underhanded election tactics. One leading politician even said ACORN “may be destroying the fabric of democracy.”

Well, let me tell you about the ACORN I know, the ACORN I’ve seen in action during my more than three years working with people struggling to recover in New Orleans.

ACORN is the group that brought together thousands of African American residents to have an amplified, powerful voice in the revival of their own city.

ACORN is the group that fought to make sure Louisianans displaced from their home state would still have the chance to vote in their elections and help guide post-Katrina recovery.

ACORN is the group that holds politicians at all levels accountable to a poor, largely African American constituency that was systematically ignored and even targeted for housing demolition.

ACORN is the group that has been one of the most effective organizations in holding banks accountable for the predatory loans that are now bringing our entire economy down.

ACORN is not a caricature.

ACORN is not a curse word.

ACORN, at heart, is a group of neighbors fighting to spread the American Dream to all people.   That role seems pretty vital to the fabric of democracy.

PolicyLink Senior Director Kalima Rose is a long-time community advocate and policy expert who has been working with legislators and on-the-ground leaders in Louisiana since just after Hurricane Katrina.

The presidential candidates will meet tonight for their third and final debate in the midst of an increasingly grim economic crisis. As we watch the daily news of economic twists and dramatic policy announcements, we must keep our eyes on the bigger picture - how we could emerge from these tough economic times in a more equitable and opportunity-rich America.

No doubt much of the discussion tonight at Hofstra University will focus on the myriad bailout proposals floating around DC these days. While this crisis escalated dramatically on Wall Street, the long-term solutions must extend to every neighborhood — so every child can attend a high-performing school, every small-business owner can get 21^st-century broadband access, and every American can find an affordable home, earn a decent wage and live in a healthy community.

To truly renew America’s promise, we must have an administration committed to economic policies that lift up all people. So, as you watch the debate tonight, listen to how the candidates answer questions like these:

1. What are the candidates’ plans for investing in our core infrastructure - our bridges, our transit, our schools, our broadband, even our water and sewer systems? These investments will lay the groundwork for our nation’s future global economic competitiveness.  In the shorter-term, they hold the promise of bringing new good-paying jobs, expanding economic opportunity, and injecting much-needed stimulus into communities choked by unemployment.  This could be the cornerstone for a broader longer-term national jobs strategy.
2. How does each candidate plan to make sure all families have access to safe, decent and affordable housing? The “housing crisis” in America is not just rooted in bad mortgages that have left families with more debt than their homes are worth.  It’s also about the long-term viability of neighborhoods. How will the candidates facilitate the purchase of foreclosed properties by states and localities to invigorate growth and preserve affordable housing options?  Fixing the underlying problems is key to stopping this crisis and revitalizing neighborhoods in cities, suburbs and rural communities.
3. How will each candidate make sure all Americans live in healthy communities? Neighborhoods with parks, open space and easy access to healthy food - and free from violence and environmental hazards - are a crucial building block for health and economic and social equity.
4. Once elected, how does each candidate plan to make sure that Americans are invested and engaged in the democratic process? How will they ensure all Americans’ voices- regardless of race or economic status - are heard?

These issues -infrastructure and economic competitiveness; jobs, housing, health and democracy - should be at the heart of any serious discussion on the future of this nation. I’ll be tuning in tonight to find out.

(Note: This post was authored in part to coincide with Blog Action Day Oct. 15, when “almost 10,000 blogs, vlogs and podcasts with millions of readers will post on the topic of poverty.” Check it out.)

We started noticing the trend last week. Traffic on our website was spiking dramatically, with nearly half of all our hits landing on one specific page, entitled: “What is the Community Reinvestment Act?”Could it be that in these increasingly dire economic times, Americans are looking for examples of successful, pragmatic solutions to encourage responsible homeownership and promote equality and justice? Sadly, not quite.

It turns out our CRA page was linked in a scathing video blaming the CRA for the housing crisis - the basic argument being that the CRA forced banks to loan to all people and, therefore, precipitated the sub-prime crisis and irresponsible people getting loans they couldn’t afford.

The Drudge Report happily hyped this video and injected it into the conservative blogosphere. From there, the CRA meme caught like wildfire. Soon, we were seeing it in top conservative blogs and even on the op-ed pages of major newspapers. It is now an article of faith among many conservatives that the housing crisis is rooted in the CRA - and, in turn, the millions of people of color who were able to obtain mortgages through it.

This argument is not only morally repugnant, but simply factually off-base.

The CRA was passed in 1977 to counter proven and pervasive racial discrimination by banks and savings & loans. It addressed the unfair and widespread practices of denying credit-worthy customers of color, particularly African Americans and Latinos, access to standard loans and mortgages. The CRA was a remarkable success, sending home ownership rates among people of color to unparalleled heights and helping usher in a black and Latino middle class that is essential to America’s economic future.

However, during the past decade as the nation’s housing market flew closer and closer to the sun, enforcement of the CRA has actually decreased. Contrary to what CRA critics espouse, the CRA did not force these loans of lenders. The CRA became law in 1977, and the sub-prime loans that got us into this current crisis started being issued en masse in 2003. As financial institutions’ desire for accelerated profits and revenue streams grew, necessary regulation did not follow.

The strength of the CRA was significantly weakened in 1999 when financial legislation allowed investment and securities firms to enter the mortgage world.  Prior to these changes, the home mortgage industry was fairly simple-banks offered loans, those loans were purchased, held and backed by the General Service Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The CRA applied to the regulated institutions issuing loans.

After the 1999 legislation broke down the firewalls between players, however, the network of firms financing homes included more than 20 types of entities that could purchase, repackage, and securitize loans.  Brokers became free agents to recruit these loans for players that made money on high-fee, high-interest transactions. This massive web of financial entities offering, bundling, and trading of mortgages was not covered by the CRA. The vast majority of the sub-prime loans causing today’s massive foreclosures were issued by institutions not covered by the CRA.

Watchdog group Media Matters notes that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of high-cost loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.  Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said in a March speech that ‘studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.’”

Rather than having the government enforcing a banking regime that is fair and just to all people — as the CRA intended — lawmakers abdicated their responsibilities by not regulating the new players, and let the market run roughshod over millions of low-income Americans simply yearning for the American dream of home ownership. The CRA required meeting community credit needs across banks’ markets-not predatory lending across a vast opaque network of lending, trading, and securitization institutions. Uneven and nonexistent regulation became the tragic accelerant.

Trying to blame the CRA and hard-working, low-income Americans for an economic crisis that began in smoky Wall Street backrooms is not only factually but morally wrong. The CRA is an indispensable tool in our continuing push toward an America that offers equal, just and fair opportunity for all people.

 A recap of this week’s equity

“Sweat Equity Put to Use Within Sight of Wall St. ” - The New York Times

Red Hook, an ancient finger of city waterfront that is lined with the husks of faded industry and old piers, sits two clear miles across New York Harbor from Wall Street. It is another galaxy.

There, on nearly three acres of asphalt that have been covered with 18 inches of topsoil, the Red Hook Community Farm operates in an economy that rises from the actual, not the imaginary: lettuce, spinach, chard, kale, collard greens, arugula, dandelion, radicchio, Chinese cabbage, tomatoes, peppers, beets, radishes, squash, cucumber, zucchini, and beans and herbs — oregano, sage, thyme, mint, six different basils.

“Villaraigosa addresses perceived tensions between blacks and Latinos,” - Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Monday said Latinos and African Americans must “face up to” existing racial strains over jobs, language differences and violent crime by addressing the underlying causes of those tensions, primarily poverty and the lack of opportunity.

At the same time Villaraigosa dismissed those who believe that such tensions define the relationship between blacks and Latinos “as if it’s endemic to our DNA to have conflict.”

“Poverty still plagues U.S. cities: survey,” - Reuters

Most U.S. mayors and city officials say poverty is a growing problem, with many families unable to get by, according to a survey released on Monday.

Some 90 percent of city officials in the National League of Cities survey of mayors and leaders of towns of 30,000 people or more say that during the last decade poverty rates have either increased or stayed the same in their towns.

A recap of this week’s equity news

“Low-Income Borrowers Blamed in Bailout Crisis,” - Washington Independent

Did poor and minority borrowers cause the housing crisis?

That seemed to be the consensus from the fight over the failed $700 billion bailout bill. As Congress and the Treasury Dept. debated how to fix the mortgage mess, the battle over what caused it took hold.

A prime suspect soon emerged: The government forced banks, lenders and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make loans in poor neighborhoods to meet affordable housing goals and regulations. The loans went bad, setting off the market meltdown.

“Police official says city should limit low-income housing,” - Wisconsin State Journal

A top Madison Police Department official says the city should reduce or freeze building low-income housing because the tenants are overwhelming police services.

In addition, Jay Lengfeld, captain of the West District, wrote an e-mail to Madison Alderman Thuy Pham-Remmele, 20th District, on Monday in which he suggested the city should license landlords to “weed out the bad ones” and give landlords more leeway to reject applicants with a history of bad behavior.

“How Can We Reduce the Rising Number of American Families Living in Poverty?,” - Brookings Report

The Census Bureau recently released the official numbers on income and poverty last year (2007) in the United States. Let me underscore a few of the key facts that these data illustrate.

First, poverty did not fall to any appreciable extent during the economic expansion of the 2000s. This is quite unusual. Figure 1 shows the poverty rate and the unemployment rate. In past decades, these two indicators have moved together. When unemployment fell in the 1980s expansion, so did poverty. Unemployment and poverty both fell rapidly in the strong expansion of the 1990s. But when unemployment fell after 2003, poverty remained essentially flat.

A recap of this week’s equity news

 ”Road Home fix falls short,” - Times-Picayune

As soon as Louisiana homeowners could take stock of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, thousands of them had to turn their attention back to the Road Home program and their ongoing efforts to collect grants to repair damage caused three years ago by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

More than 3,100 Road Home applicants still have active appeals to fret over — and some worry that highly touted reforms to the process carried little impact.

 ”Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” - TIME Magazine

Another housing crisis may be looming even as the mortgage meltdown continues and as Americans who once dreamed of home ownership see their properties foreclosed. The Housing Act of 1937, imposed in the wake of the Great Depression, and amended a number of times in the 1970s, is reaching a crossroads — and close to five million Americans who depend on subsidized public housing may soon have to figure out where and how they are going to live.

That’s because under the provisions of Section 8 of the historic law a significant change will be under way in the next few years. As a result, building owners who participate in the program — receiving subsidies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development in exchange for taking in lower-income renters — will be able to opt out of those contracts. And many are thinking of doing just that. America’s two largest cities, New York and Los Angeles, will be severely affected as will many smaller communities.

“Author tracks one man’s quest to fix Harlem,” - USA TODAY

In 1999, Geoffrey Canada, president of a respected non-profit for families in New York City’s Harlem neighborhood, embarked on an “outsized and audacious” endeavor. Programs that helped dozens or even hundreds of kids, he’d concluded, weren’t enough. So he traced out a 24-block “children’s zone” and blanketed it with social services: a health clinic, parenting classes, an intensive charter school, after-school tutoring and more. The idea, says author Paul Tough, was to create “a safety net woven so tightly” that kids couldn’t slip through.

Tough, an editor for the New York Times Magazine, spent five years following Canada’s efforts as the zone grew to 97 blocks. USA TODAY spoke with Tough about his new book, Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America (Houghton Mifflin, $26).
 

Over the last several years climate change has become increasingly part of mainstream conversations. Yet equity continues to be strikingly absent from the popular discourse on the subject. Instead, climate change has been framed as a global environmental problem whose impacts affect all of us the same.

The critical questions are these: who is contributing to the problem, who is most affected by the problem, and who will pay to solve the problems climate change causes?

As we debate how to address climate change, we must reframe our thinking. Climate change is about equity. It will have profound impacts on the environment, public health, and the physical form of our communities, as well as many other aspects of our social, economic, and environmental well-being.

To contribute to a deeper understanding of the issues surrounding climate change within the social equity movement, PolicyLink commissioned, Understanding Climate Change: An Equitable Framework. We hope that this paper will inspire leaders to learn not only about climate change but to also bring their knowledge, experience, and alliances to the climate change debates and to help develop equitable solutions.

Share your innovative solutions that promote equity and that move us toward a climate-friendly society.

A recap of this week’s equity news

 ”Food Banks Finding Aid in Bounty of Backyard,” - New York Times

Natasha Boissier did not expect an epiphany while pushing her baby’s stroller exhaustedly around the neighborhood. But eyeing her neighbors’ yards, Ms. Boissier began noticing the abundance of fruit trees — and how much of their succulent bounty wound up on the ground.

“There was all this fruit going to waste,” she said of the apples, pears and plums in her midst. “It seemed like such a natural way to deal with hunger.”

“Community organizers have deep roots in democracy,” - Los Angeles Times

The elementary school moms didn’t ask a lot of questions about this man Bill. They were too eager to tell him — to tell anybodyanybody — about the loose and snarling pit bulls, the gun-toting gangsters, and the dogcatchers and police who always seemed to come too late.

The principal, Helena Lazo, had introduced him simply: “Bill nos va a ayudar.” Bill is going to help us.

“Rebuilt N.O. homes at risk without required elevation,” - USA TODAY

Thousands of homes in New Orleans are at risk from floods because local officials let their owners skirt rebuilding requirements aimed at preventing massive losses and billions in costs to taxpayers.

In New Orleans, city records show at least 2,300 homeowners — many in areas obliterated by Hurricane Katrina and imperiled again this month as Hurricane Gustav strained at the city’s levees — escaped requirements that they elevate their homes.