 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) is facing the impending threat of obsolescence after both the Louisiana (2026) v. Callais and Shelby County v. Holder (2013) rulings left two of the most important provisions of the act as dead as disco.
The 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution sought to prohibit the denial of voters on the basis of their color and race. Ratified in 1870, the Amendment was not effective against loopholes like the literacy tests and “grandfather clauses” that prevented minorities from voting across America. About a century after the 15th Amendment was passed, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted by President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) to close the loopholes of the 15th Amendment. LBJ implemented the VRA due to various racist standards in America that would prevent minorities from safely voting. The VRA is largely responsible for the voter registration gap between White and Black voters to shrink from 30% in the 1960s to 8% a decade later. A key aspect of the VRA is Section 2, which prohibits states from using any procedures that deny voting rights based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Violations can be established from discriminatory intent or effect. Historically, Section 2 defends against the redistricting of electoral boundaries that weaken the voting power and political influence of minorities. Another significant aspect of the VRA are Sections 4 and 5. The 4th Section was formed to establish a statistical formula that identifies jurisdictions that were likely to use loopholes to circumvent the 15th Amendment's intended purpose. Section 5 requires that the jurisdictions flagged in Section 4 need preclearance before changing voting standards from either the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The untimely corrosion of the VRA can be traced back to 2013 where Sections 4 and 5 were both altered by the results of Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Alabama's Shelby County pleaded that Section 4 was unconstitutional and caught enough traction to reach the Supreme Court. The high court decided that the formula in Section 4 was outdated, leaving Section 5 inoperable until Congress applies a new formula, which has yet to be done. Louisiana v. Callais (2026) outlined a new way for racially discriminatory maps to be drawn. This ruling gives local governments the authority to gerrymander on the basis of partisan gain, severely weakening Section 2 of the VRA. To improve the current conditions of the VRA, Congress must construct a modernized preclearance formula, one engineered to withstand judicial challenges. Furthermore, the most optimal way to ensure the voices of America’s minorities are heard is through unyielding pressure on our representatives. By matching our observation of injustice with our ballots, we can hold elected officials directly accountable, making it unmistakably clear who is actively working to revive the VRA, and who is content to let it die. Written By: London Green https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/brennan-center-reacts-devastating-louisiana-v-callais-ruling https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12284
0 Comments
 America was built on blood. On slavery. On hate. White America got rich off Black labor—and that wealth? It didn’t stop. It just got passed down. Today, that same blood money still flows—through prisons, exploitation, and systems that trap Black families in generational poverty. Modern slavery looks different, but it’s still slavery.
Every dollar in this country is blood money. Every single one. Yet those who control it shame the rest of us for touching it. Poor or middle class? They’ll call your money “dirty” if it comes from certain places, from people they don’t approve of—because keeping you poor is how they stay in power. People obsess over where money comes from without realizing: no matter where you work or who pays you, it’s all blood money. The rent you pay? Blood money. Your car payments? Blood money. That lottery ticket you bought, even the Mega Millions winnings? All blood money, because the origin of the cash is part of a system built on blood. So here’s the question you should really ask: should we reject money because it came from a racist, a thief, a hustler, or someone society doesn’t like? No. The real question is: what will you do with the blood money you have, and who will benefit? No matter the source, it’s all blood money. The choice—and the power—is yours. Written By: RoShawn C. Evans Stolen Wealth: How Black Distributors Funded the Nation's Capital https://therealnews.com/stolen-wealth-black-depositors-funded-nations-capital 18 Companies that Benefit from Slavery https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1E7igUYoyG/ AIPAC https://www.aipac.org  In 1619, at Point Comfort, the first recorded enslaved Africans were brought to this land. That was not just a moment in history — it was the beginning of a system. A system built on stolen labor, stolen bodies, and stolen futures.
For over 240 years, Black people were legally property. The Constitution counted us as three-fifths of a person. In 1857, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford declared that we had no rights a white man was bound to respect. And even when slavery was “abolished” in 1865, it came with a loophole, “except as punishment for crime.” That loophole became convict leasing. Chain gangs. Mass incarceration. Reconstruction gave us a glimpse of democracy, and white supremacy answered with terror. The Ku Klux Klan rose. Federal troops withdrew. Jim Crow was born. In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson legalized segregation. Separate but equal, knowing it was never equal. They lynched us. They burned our towns, like in the Tulsa Race Massacre. They redlined our neighborhoods through the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation. They denied us wealth, safety, education, and dignity. And yet, we built anyway. In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education said segregation in schools was unconstitutional. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act said our vote mattered. But progress has always been met with backlash. The War on Drugs. Mandatory minimums. The 1994 Crime Bill. Policies that filled prisons with Black bodies at historic rates. In 2012, Trayvon Martin was killed. In 2014, Michael Brown was left in the street. In 2020, George Floyd took his last breath under the knee of the state. And the world finally saw what we have always known. Even now, voter suppression returns in new forms. Black history is attacked. DEI is dismantled. The racial wealth gap remains wide. The maternal mortality crisis disproportionately kills Black women. From 1619 to 2026, the system has changed its language, but it has never stopped adapting. But here’s what they cannot erase: They cannot erase that we survived slavery. They cannot erase that we built wealth when they burned it. They cannot erase that we organized when they criminalized us. They cannot erase that we vote, we lead, we create, we resist. Oppression is part of the timeline. But so is resilience. So is brilliance. So is power. They can try to rewrite history. They can try to ban the books. They can try to silence the truth. But they cannot erase what we know. And they cannot erase who we are. From 1619 to today, we are still here. And we are still fighting. Written By: RoShawn C. Evans Slavery by another name: the re-enslavement of Black people in America from the Civil War to World War II / Douglas A. Blackmon Slavery-another-name-re-enslavement-black-people-america-civil-war-world-war-ii-douglas-blackmon:siris_sil_895128 The Traumatic Impact of Structural Racism on African Americans PMC8352535  Most politicians are bought and paid for by the highest bidders—those with the money to pour into campaigns through donations and political influence. As a result, those funders often dictate priorities, policies, and outcomes. Meanwhile, the people without excess wealth—the ones overlooked, ignored, or dismissed—are the very people who keep the system running.
The individuals with the greatest needs, who work the hardest for the smallest paychecks, and who lack the financial ability to bankroll a political campaign, are the same individuals who collectively contribute the most in taxes. These are the people struggling to survive, yet their tax dollars fund elected officials’ salaries and the budgets used for city, state, and federal programs. Still, they receive the least representation. This imbalance is not accidental. Those who cannot fund campaigns are systematically excluded from meaningful political influence, even though their money makes up the bulk of public funding. Their issues are treated as irrelevant, their struggles invisible, and their voices disposable. As a result, comprehensive legislation—especially laws that protect communities of color from racism, bias, and systemic harm—becomes nearly impossible to pass when those communities have little to no representation at the decision-making table. Instead of investing tax dollars into addressing root causes—such as healthcare, housing, education, food security, and economic stability—elected officials often choose to spend money expanding systems that generate trauma and profit their allies. Policing, incarceration, and surveillance are funded at the expense of community-based solutions, creating cycles of harm and recidivism rather than safety and opportunity. This raises a fundamental question: why wouldn’t elected officials prioritize the people who unwillingly invest the most into government through taxes? Why wouldn’t they want truly safe, healthy communities for everyone? When communities of color win, society wins—and so should elected officials. Yet the opposite continues to happen. Those who make the least money, yet contribute the most proportionally in taxes, are underrepresented in government. Barriers like filing fees, campaign costs, and donor-driven politics effectively weed out people from poverty who are best positioned to represent their own communities. The very people most affected by policy decisions are blocked from shaping them. So how did we get to a place where public money is used to incarcerate rather than heal? Where poverty is criminalized instead of addressed? Where the majority fund the system but are denied power within it? Until representation reflects those who pay the price—financially and socially—the system will continue to fail the people it claims to serve. Taxation Without Representation Taxation-without-representation.html Past Felony Conviction, Participation, and Political Reintegration in the United States past-felony-conviction-participation-and-political-reintegration-united-states  Amended Local Rule 9 (2019) was intended to permanently reform Harris County’s misdemeanor bail system. However, Texas Southern District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal issued a court order in November of last year that allowed Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton to file a motion to vacate the O’Donnell Consent Decree, which oversees Harris County’s compliance with Rule 9. In an upcoming August 27th, 2026 court hearing, Judge Rosenthal will determine the future of misdemeanor bail in Harris County. The AG argues that the Decree is too lenient on crime and in violation of the subsequent Texas Senate Bill (SB) 9. This bill deems defendants charged with certain misdemeanor offenses to be ineligible for personal recognizance (PR) bonds, effectively placing new limits on which types of misdemeanor cases are eligible for pretrial release. Paxton has labeled the Decree as radical and too lenient on crime; his main argument is that certain bail reform procedures within Rule 9 are in contradiction with SB 9; therefore, the Decree should be eradicated completely.
Evidence from the court-appointed monitors of the Decree proves that Local Rule 9 is increasing community stability, as opposed to claims used by the AG to suggest otherwise. After regulating for risk and case type, the share of cases with any re-arrest declined by 5%, and the average number of re-arrests per case fell 12%. Additionally, overall costs declined by more than one-third for statistically similar cases, from an adjusted mean of $3,633 before the O’Donnell Decree to $2,442 after Rule 9. Even more impressive is that the net savings of $1,191 per case are occurring after $544 is being spent to adhere to Rule 9’s mandatory attorney costs and fair pretrial court proceedings. In order to preserve the success of the Decree, Judge Rosenthal may have to amend Rule 9 to ensure it complies with the specific misdemeanor offenses targeted by SB 9. This would ensure Rule 9’s alignment with state laws—nullifying an attempt to vacate the Decree on the basis of state and federal law contradictions. Since SB 9 only targets a small segment of the misdemeanors covered by Rule 9, it would be misguided to disregard the great progress it has made within Harris County by allowing the AG to vacate it in its entirety. Ultimately, this August it is up to the Texas Southern District Court to decide whether to amend the Decree. However, it is up to us, the people, to use our votes to elect representatives who prioritize evidence-based fairness and justice over unsupported narratives regarding public safety. Written by: London Green Grunau, Sarah. “Judge Opens Door for Texas AG to Argue Why Harris County’s Misdemeanor Bail Reform Should End.” Houston Public Media, University of Houston, 14 Nov. 2025, www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/court/2025/11/13/536003/harris-county-bail-reform-odonnell-consent-decree-ken-paxton Lartey, Jamiles. “As Texas Restricts Cashless Bail, More People Will Be Jailed for Months Based on an Accusation.” The Marshall Project, 28 Feb. 2026, www.themarshallproject.org/2026/02/28/texas-houston-jail-bail-tennessee Towns, L. (2026, March 4). Bail Reform delivers justice, safety, and savings. Public Policy Research Institute. https://ppri.tamu.edu/2026/03/04/odonnell-delivers  Harriet Tubman was born into slavery around 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland. As a small child, she was hired out to other households, forced to clean homes, care for children, and work in harsh conditions. She also worked outdoors in marshes and fields, where she learned to read the land, using stars, rivers, trees, and natural landmarks to navigate. Those survival skills would later become tools of liberation.
In 1849, after the death of her enslaver and fearing she would be sold deeper into the South, Tubman made the courageous decision to escape. She initially fled with her brothers, but when they became afraid and turned back, she was forced to return with them. Refusing to accept bondage, she escaped again, this time alone, traveling nearly 100 miles north to Pennsylvania. After days of danger and uncertainty, she crossed into freedom. But freedom for herself was not enough. Tubman returned to Maryland again and again to rescue others, including family members. When she attempted to bring her husband north, she discovered he had remarried and chosen to remain in the South. Though heartbroken, she did not allow her pain to derail her mission. Instead, she continued leading others to freedom. Over the next decade, Tubman made approximately 13 dangerous trips back to slaveholding states, guiding at least 70 enslaved people to freedom through the Underground Railroad network. Armed with both courage and a pistol for protection, she maintained strict discipline during escape journeys, understanding that turning back could endanger everyone involved. During the Civil War, Tubman expanded her role in the fight for freedom. She served the Union Army as a nurse, scout, spy, and intelligence operative. In 1863, she helped lead the Combahee River Raid in South Carolina, which liberated more than 700 enslaved people, making her the first woman in U.S. history to lead an armed military expedition. Across her lifetime, Harriet Tubman directly freed dozens and indirectly helped free hundreds more. Her bravery, strategy, and unwavering faith made her one of the most powerful freedom fighters in American history. Harriet Tubman was not just escaping slavery—she was dismantling it. Written By: RoShawn C. Evans  Harris County spends 72.8% of its entire budget on what it labels “public safety,” fully aware that this spending does not actually create safety. The City of Houston follows the same pattern, spending roughly 64% of its overall budget on what it also mislabels as public safety.
In reality, this spending is not about safety at all. It is about the criminalization of race, poverty, immigration status, and class through the expansion of jails, law enforcement, criminal courts, and prosecution—while systematically shrinking investments in the things that actually keep people alive, like addressing: food insecurity, healthcare, cancer clusters, housing, mental health services, early childhood development, and economic stability. When Harris County spends 72.8% of its budget on criminalization, it leaves only 27.2% to fund programs people need to survive. When the City of Houston spends 64% of its budget the same way, only 36% remains for life-sustaining services. That is not a values-neutral budgeting choice—it is a deliberate political decision. The people who pay the highest share of their income in taxes are working-class people earning the least. Instead of using those dollars to address vulnerability and hardship, the city and county turn around and capitalize on those hardships, investing heavily in systems that punish people for being poor rather than supporting them so they don’t have to struggle in the first place. There is a well-documented correlation between poverty and crime. Depending on where you come from, crime is often a cry for help—a fight to survive in a system that forces people into survival mode without a lifeline. The truth is simple: if people had what they needed, they wouldn’t have to do what they do to survive. But when survival is criminalized, people are left with impossible choices. Texas state law makes this crisis even worse. Once money is allocated to law enforcement, it cannot be reduced—only increased. The Houston Police Department alone has a budget of over $1.8 billion, and that does not include the 63 other law enforcement agencies operating in the region. Meanwhile, the Houston Health Department’s budget is approximately $50 million. There is no moral, economic, or public-health justification for this imbalance. If law enforcement truly believes in community safety, then honesty is required. That honesty starts with acknowledging the harm and trauma inflicted on communities of color through reactionary policing, racial bias, and discriminatory practices. These approaches do not prevent harm—they reproduce it. If public safety is the real goal, then the law enforcement budget must be frozen in order to fund the programs the most vulnerable need for survival. Or Law Enforcement must be willing to voluntarily give up portions of its budget to fund food security, housing, healthcare, mental health services, and economic support—because those investments are what actually prevent crime. And those programs must not be run by law enforcement. Police cannot be both the cause of harm and the solution to it. We cannot jail, police, or prosecute our way to safety—or to liberation. We can only resource our way there. Urban Poverty and Neighborhood Effects on Crime: Incorporating Spatial and Network PerspectivesPMC4928692 The Relationship Between Poverty and Crime the-relationship-between-poverty-and-crime  In Houston and the surrounding area, data shows Black and Brown (Hispanic/Latino) drivers are stopped by police at higher rates than white drivers, often disproportionate to their share of the population. Here’s what the most recent data and analyses say:
Traffic Stop Rates (Recent Data) Houston Police Department & area agencies (2023 data):
These disparities do not automatically prove unlawful motives, and there are many potential contributing factors (location of patrols, driving patterns, crime rates, local policies, etc.). However, the statistical evidence does show that Black and Hispanic drivers are stopped and searched more often than white drivers relative to their share of the population in Houston. According to the data, non-safety traffic stops function as a predatory enforcement practice. They are routinely used to cycle Black and Brown people in and out of the criminal legal system through citations, fines, warrants, arrests, and jail stays—often for conduct unrelated to public safety. These stops also serve as a primary pipeline for the surveillance, detention, and deportation of Brown immigrant communities. Rather than improving safety, non-safety traffic stops deepen racial disparities, destabilize families, and erode trust between law enforcement and communities of color. The data shows they rarely prevent violent crime, yet they disproportionately expose marginalized communities to punishment and state control. If Houston is serious about becoming safer—and about restoring trust with Black, Brown, immigrant, and poor communities—then non-safety traffic stops must end. Public safety should be rooted in harm prevention, accountability, and community investment, not predatory policing practices that criminalize poverty and identity. Written By: RoShawn C. Evans CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, ALLEGING BRUTAL ATTACK ON DISABLED BLACK MAN DURING TRAFFIC STOPCivil-rights-corps-files-federal-lawsuit-against-houston-police-department-officers-alleging-brutal-attack-on-disabled-black-man-during-traffic-stop Black drivers more likely to be pulled over by HPD for non-moving violations, report shows13802240 Civil rights lawyer hosts press conference at City Hall citing racial profiling in HPD traffic stops civil-rights-lawyer-hosts-press-conference-at-city-hall-citing-racial-profiling-in-hpd-traffic-stops  If we are going to create laws and public policy, those laws must be grounded in justice shaped by shared values and moral clarity—not rooted in racism, bigotry, classism, sexism, or political convenience. Justice cannot be selective. We cannot give passes to some while aggressively punishing others for similar or lesser conduct based on political party, race, gender, or status. What’s right is right. What’s wrong is wrong.
Locally, Harris County Treasurer Dr. Carla Wyatt has been accused of burglary of a vehicle despite publicly available information indicating there was no forced entry, no broken glass, no extra set of keys, no vandalism, and nothing stolen. Yet law enforcement was called, charges were filed, and the situation is now being positioned in a way that could allow Governor Greg Abbott and the Republican Party to attempt to remove her from office and replace her with a partisan appointee. This raises a fundamental question for us all: How does this situation align with the United States’ proclaimed emphasis on due process? How can our legal system claim to value fairness when rushed punishments, political circumstances and regressive agendas are prioritized? Governor Abbott is a vocal supporter of President Donald J. Trump, who was convicted in New York on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records. Despite this historic conviction, Governor Abbott has not pursued or supported efforts to remove the President from office or otherwise challenge his legitimacy. Instead, he continues to embrace Trump politically and strategically. So the question must be asked plainly: If due process is sufficient for the President of the United States, why is it not sufficient for the Harris County Treasurer? Why is one official afforded patience, restraint, and political loyalty while another is immediately subjected to legal maneuvering that could overturn the will of the voters before the courts have even fully done their work? This disparity suggests something deeper than concern for the law. It points to selective enforcement, partisan power plays, and an effort to gain control of Harris County through political means rather than democratic ones. Due process should not depend on party affiliation. Voters’ choices should not be overruled for political agendas. Justice should not shift based on who holds power. And the law should never be weaponized to undermine democracy. If we truly believe in justice, then we must apply it consistently, fairly, and without political bias—no matter who is in office. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK* PART 59 https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Clayton%20Decision.pdf D.A Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Trail Conviction of Donald J. Trump https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-trial-conviction-of-donald-j-trump/ Written By: RoShawn C. Evans  Even though the Latino voting population played a major role in electing the new chief executive officer in the Oval Office—making up 42% of the overall vote—the war on Latinos has not stopped. ICE continues to raid communities in Chicago, New York, Texas, and across the United States.
During the campaign trail, the political promise was to “get rid of the criminals” coming across the border committing crimes. At first glance, many assumed that meant targeting individuals guilty of serious offenses—rape, murder, drug or human trafficking. Yet, it has become clear that the real “crime” being targeted is the crime of being brown or Black while seeking asylum in America. In Houston alone, deportations have skyrocketed by 1,000%, and Texas Republicans are now proposing a secret operation to hunt down Black and Brown immigrants without legal documentation around the clock. Two key tools in this modern-day manhunt are non-safety traffic stops and the Flock camera surveillance system. Flock cameras operate like digital cell towers, constantly pinging your car’s location every time your license plate passes by. This allows law enforcement to track your routine—where you live, work, study, or spend time with family. Once they’ve learned your pattern, they move in—picking people up from work, church, school, or even their homes. The only “crime” many of these individuals have committed is existing in America while undocumented and of color. When people aren’t captured through surveillance, they’re targeted through predatory non-safety traffic stops. Black and Brown drivers are constantly pulled over for no reason other than “driving while colored.” These stops often become citizenship checks. If you have an accent or appear foreign, the next question is: “Where are your papers?” If you don’t have them, you’re taken away—to what can only be described as modern-day concentration camps—awaiting deportation. But we are not powerless. There are at least two ways to push back against these senseless deportations:
Written By: RoShawn C. Evans Wired A new ICE proposal outlines a 24/7 transport operation run by armed contractors—turning Texas into the logistical backbone of an industrialized deportation machine. https://www.wired.com/story/ice-is-building-a-24-7-shadow-transportation-network-across-texas/ How Latinos Voted in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election https://www.as-coa.org/articles/how-latinos-voted-2024-us-presidential-election TCRP Report finds racial disparities among Houstonians pulled over for non-moving traffic violations https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-justice/2023/09/19/462759/report-finds-racial-disparities-among-houstonians-pulled-over-for-non-moving-traffic-violations/ By Enabling Police Surveillance, Elected Officials Fuel Trump’s Agenda https://truthout.org/articles/by-enabling-police-surveillance-elected-officials-fuel-trumps-agenda/ |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed
|
|
About UsPure Justice uses community organizing, and civic and electoral engagement as methods help reform institutions and systems that perpetuate social and criminal injustices, and to improve the lives of low-income and working-class families
|
Get In TouchMailing Address
Pure Justice 5380 W. 34th St. 305, Houston, TX, 77092, United States Community Space Address (No Mail Here) Pure Justice 4530 W. 34th St. Suite J, Houston, TX, 77092 (713) 370-7490 [email protected] |
© Pure Justice. All rights reserved.