Kamala Harris Begins Shaping Her Legacy

Back in February when it became apparent that Republican-led state legislatures particularly in southern and southwestern states that Biden won were determined to enact new voting laws to disenfranchise people of color and others who lean Democratic, Vice President Harris asked President Biden if she could take the lead in protecting voting rights for all.

Biden concurred and in speech late last week in a speech he declared the Republic-led effort around the country an “assault on our democracy” and that Vice President Harris would be leading the fight to protect voting rights, adding “It’s going to take a hell of a lot of work.”

Today, Harris is off to Mexico and Guatemala to obtain a more in-depth look at the underlying causes driving thousands of immigrants to take the highly dangerous and uncertain trek across Central America in the hopes of crossing the borders into the United States. Such trips led to the death of five children in ICE custody in early March.

Calling Harris a “history-making politician with big ambitions,” New York Times political reporter Lisa Lerner questioned in her column this week whether tackling two such huge polarizing issues, voting rights and immigration, didn’t pose a risk for both Harris and future Democratic hopes on retaining the White House after Biden.

Lerner writes, “both immigration and voting rights are politically fraught problems with no easy solutions… Of course, ‘real big problems’ also carry a far greater risk of political missteps and policy failures, particularly for a politician who is more polarizing than the president she serves, polls show.”

What frustrates me about Lerner’s column is how quickly she draws on “the phantom menace,” an old journalistic tactic reporters use to speculate that more nefarious forces are at work without providing any evidence for such claims.

“But some suggest (italics mine) that Ms. Harris’s portfolio may have more to do with office politics than those of the presidential variety. While Mr. Biden feels comfortable with Ms. Harris, Democrats familiar with the workings of the White House say, some on his team remain skeptical of her loyalty (italics mine) after the divisive primary race. Her agenda, they argue, may simply be the White House version of cleaning up after the office party: What better way to prove her fidelity than by taking on some of the most thankless tasks?” Lerner writes.

While nobody can truly speak to the relationship between the President and Vice President than perhaps Biden and Harris themselves, we know that when Biden was Obama’s VP, the two men formed a close friendship and Obama gave Biden a significant amount of laditute and responsibility than most Presidents. And early depictions of the Biden and Harris both on the campaign trail and after the election seemed to indicate Biden wished to forge a similar relationship with Harris.

We know that Harris asked to take on the difficult voting rights situation given her ongoing concerns about voting rights restrictions since she was California’s attorney general. And even Lerner herself states that according to members of Harris’ own staff that many of the Vice President’s supporters urged her to tackle immigration. Those facts, compounded by the knowledge that Harris spoke often on the campaign trail and in interviews about how both of her immigrant parents inspired and supported her, should certainly be far more credible than what “some” unknown and unidentified sources speculate.

Women in powerful positions face plenty of credibility gaps both from men and other women and questions about a person’s credibility and capabilities get raised even more when the leader is a woman of color. And while journalists should ask tough questions of and about our politicians, to speculate that Biden and his staff may have concerns about Harris’ loyalty and commitment to the president’s agenda only unnecessarily heightens questions about Harris’ leadership and persuasion skills.

— Posted by Sandi Sonnenfeld, DDWC Executive Committee Member

Opinions posted on the Women of Influence blog belong solely to the author of the post and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the DDWC.

170 Years Ago Today Sojourner Truth Delivers ‘Aint I a Woman’ Speech

Sojourner Truth, born into slavery in 1797 as Isabella Baumfree in Swartekill (now Rifton), Ulster County on the western shores of the Hudson River, was a noted abolitionist and suffragist. She was a slave until 1827, the year New York finally outlawed slavery (though she had to leave some of her children behind when she left slave owner John Dumont’s homestead because the new law ordered that black children couldn’t be free until they first served as bound servants until their mid-twenties).

In 1828, Truth sued Dumont for the return for the return of her young son, who had been illegally sold to an out-of-state slaveholder, and won. It was the first legal case in America in which an Black American woman successfully sued a white man.

Though she moved to New York City immediately following the case, according to the Sojourner Truth Memorial in the Town of Esopus, her years in Ulster County resonated throughout her life. Truth’s early experiences as a slave in the area informed her speeches, infusing them with painful emotion and moral authority; she was, in effect, a living witness to slavery’s evils and hence a powerful agent in raising the conscience of her mostly white audiences.

After a spiritual awakening, Isabella took the name of Sojourner Truth in 1843 and became a Methodist, relocating to Northampton, Massachusetts. She joined the Northampton Association of Education and Industry in 1844, an abolitionist organization that also supported women’s rights and encouraged religious tolerance. There Sojourner met Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and David Ruggles.

Though she could neither read nor write, in 1849, Truth began traveling the lecture circuit, giving speeches on woman suffrage as well as abolition.  In 1850 William Lloyd Garrison privately published her book, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave., which she had dictated to her friend Olive Gilbert. Her most notable speech, Ain’t I a Woman?, was given in Ohio on May 24, 1851 at the Women’s Rights Convention.  

Ain’t I a Woman?

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what’s all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman?

I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what’s this they call it? [member of audience whispers, “intellect”] That’s it, honey. What’s that got to do with women’s rights or negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ’cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.   

In 1858, someone interrupted her in the middle of speech, insisting that she was a man partially because she was nearly six feet tall and possessed a deep, powerful voice and also because many men at the time refused to believe that women could be good orators. In response, Truth opened her blouse and revealed her breasts.

Sojourner Truth not only was a woman; she was a true woman of influence.

Rescind the Jail Bond

In 2016, Dutchess County had an unprecedented opportunity to change what a county jail is and how a criminal justice system addresses its inmates. The county legislature chose the most expensive and least effective way to seize that opportunity.

On March 21 2016, the Dutchess County Legislature voted to approve a $192 million bond to build a new sheriff’s office and upgrade the county jail to 569 beds: the most expensive jail related project in New York State in recent history. The plan, named the Justice and Transition Center, was unveiled on February 4 2016 and was rushed to a vote after five town hall meetings.

To those concerned that the plan did not include funding for the services and programs needed to reduce incarceration, county officials asserted that we would receive grants for these services as the county would be acclaimed as a “model for the nation” in criminal justice reform. Instead we are the poster child of fiscal irresponsibility and social injustice.

In 2015, Dutchess had a significantly higher rate of incarceration than the state average. 70% of the inmates in January 2016 were unable to make bail and were awaiting sentencing – significantly worse than the state average. Over 70% of the inmates had mental health or drug abuse issues that would be more humanely served in a therapeutic setting.

Despite one of the largest outpourings of citizen speakers protesting the jail bond at the March county legislature meeting– going on close to midnight – the bond was approved. All but one Democratic legislator voted against it; their opposition has proven prescient.

Unfortunately we have already spent about $34 million of the bond on a new upscale sheriff’s office with a state-of-the-art fitness facility, one of the most expensive sheriff office renovations in the state. What county-wide problem did we solve by building a mega-sized sheriff’s office?

Fortunately, approximately $155 million allocated to the jail has not yet been spent. We need to immediately redirect these remaining funds to a more just use.

Since the vote to approve the bond, our environment is far different than it was in 2016. The New York State Bail Reform law significantly decreased the number of inmates awaiting sentencing. In May 2020 the average inmate population was 146, far lower than the projected 569 in the bond. And this number can be further reduced in two ways: by diverting those with mental health or addiction issues and by decreasing the time from arrest to arraignment.

The County Comptroller audited various criminal justice programs and found that many alternatives to incarceration were more cost effective than housing non-violent offenders in jail. Individual offenders with substance abuse addiction or mental illness are better served in the community with appropriate restrictions, without any increase in recidivism.

Dutchess County has a larger percentage of inmates awaiting arraignment, trial, or sentencing. In 2016, 70% of inmates in the Dutchess County jail were unsentenced; in May 2020 the percentage was approximately the same. Dutchess County has made no improvement in this potential violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The average percentage for other county jails in New York is 55%. If Dutchess only met the state average our current jail population would be less than 120.

The jail plan has been downsized by the county from its original design of 569 beds to 328 beds and the time line for completion of the new jail has been delayed four years from April 2020 to April 2024. According to a May 2020 comptroller report, the estimated cost is approximately the same at $147 million and the timeline for construction is estimated to start in December 2020. Even this revised plan is totally unrealistic. County officials cannot lay the blame for this ill-conceived plan on the State Commission of Corrections (SCOC) as they attempted to do in 2016.

As the looming financial crisis of COVID-19 hangs over us, it is irresponsible to saddle taxpayers with this unnecessary burden for years to come. In addition to being financially irresponsible, it would be incredibly tone deaf and offensive to continue with this project in light of the serious need for racial justice and criminal justice reform. We can no longer turn a blind eye to the fact that our justice system disproportionately and severely impacts black and brown people. While Blacks represented approximately 11% of the Dutchess County population in 2016, they were 39% of the jail population. Hundreds of thousands of people across the country, from a wide array of demographics, are in the streets saying ENOUGH!

The DDWC has a long history of working on jail reform. Since our founding in 2005, we have proposed many changes to criminal justice system in Dutchess County. We organized the protests at the town hall meetings and at the March 21 meeting of the county legislature. Our opposition to the 2016 plan has been vindicated. We call on the county legislature to immediately rescind the bond authorization until the county develops a plan that more equitably supports the needs of all the county residents. The plan should be developed in concert with the relevant community agencies and organizations that are working on alternatives to incarceration. We are willing to be part of that process.

We have the chance to do better and we must take this opportunity to act.

DDWC Stands Against Racial Injustice and for Positive Change

Racism Is a Pandemic Too!

George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Dimas Diaz. Stephanie Quiroz. Jimmy Atchinson. These are just five of the 1,038 Americans who have been killed by police over the past 12 months. All five were unarmed and all were people of color. Indeed, according to data from the Washington Post, African-Americans are more than twice as likely and Hispanics are 1.5 times more likely to be killed by the police than white Americans. How do we overcome systemic racism? How do we stay hopeful in the wake of so much tragedy?

We look for signs of change that we’ve never seen before such as the police reforms just announced in Albany, including rolling back Rule 50a that kept private the record of complaints filed and disciplinary actions taken against police officers. We look at the diversity of the hundreds of thousands of people peacefully protesting in the streets, and the now overwhelming majority of Americans who favor stronger gun control laws, and the success of books like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to be an Antiracist, Robin Diangelo’s White Fragility and Stacey Abrams’ Our Time is Now.

Most of all, we act in our communities, supporting better funded schools, youth sports and arts programs, better health, social and transportation solutions for the working poor, disabled or elderly, taking the time to welcome and talk to our neighbors regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. We act by encouraging and voting for progressive Democratic lawmakers, particularly women and people of color, who will better represent all of the members of our community and fight for equal economic opportunities, civil rights and environmental justice.

This is in keeping with the mission of the Dutchess Democratic Women’s Caucus to encourage, support and vote for Democratic women, including women of color. If you want to make a difference, vote for candidates who believe in what you do, who stand up for the oppressed and the underrepresented. If you want to make a difference, contact us about how you can get involved, including how you can run for office.

The time for change has never been more important. The time for change is now. Because Black Lives Matter.