Los Angeles Times - 09.08.2019

L ATIMES.COM/OPINION FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 2019A

OP-ED

O

ne of us grewup on
the hard streets of
South-Central Los
Angeles. One of us
moved from small-
town Ohio to pursue a career in
fashion. We are from different
backgrounds, but on two sepa-
rate mornings, we stood to-
gether to bring traffic on the 101
Freeway to a halt.
The first time we stopped
freeway traffic was in Septem-
ber 2017, about a month after
Heather Heyer was killed during
peaceful counter-protests of the
“Unite the Right” rally in Char-
lottesville, Va. At the time, Don-
ald Trump said there were “fine
people” among the torch-bear-
ing white supremacists. We went
back out onto the freeway two
months later to unfurl a 50-foot
banner that read “Trump/Pence
Regime Must Go.”
Our freeway actions were
completely nonviolent and had
been planned carefully to ensure
they were safe and well-ex-
ecuted. What we didn’t know un-
til much later was that some of
our meetings to discuss the
state of the world and our ac-
tions in response to it had been
infiltrated by an undercover spy
sent in by the Los Angeles Police
Department.
The city of Los Angeles
waited almost a year to bring a
total of 57 charges against us and
nine other activists who took
part in nonviolent protests, both

on the freeway and at UCLA. As

part of that case, police reports

and transcripts were released

documenting how, on four occa-

sions in 2017, an LAPD informant

secretly attended and recorded

meetings of our group, Refuse

Facism, at the Echo Park church

where we met.

The informant reported on

discussions in our meetings

about fundraising, ordering

pamphlets, getting a permit,

planning a route for a march,

and “moving ordinary people

into active opposition.” At least

that bit of note-taking was accu-

rate: Moving ordinary people

into active opposition against a

regime we believe has de-

scended into fascism was ex-

actly what we were trying to do.

Nothing short of removing this

whole illegitimate regime from

power will stop this nightmare,

and that will take millions of

people acting together in sus-

tained, nonviolent, determined

protest.

The infiltration of our group

hearkens back to the LAPD’s

past. In his book “Policing Los

Angeles: Race, Resistance, and

the Rise of the LAPD,” Max

Felker-Kantor documented how

during the 1970s and early 1980s,

the department’s Public Disor-

der Intelligence Division spied

on thousands of groups and in-

dividuals. After an ACLU law-

suit revealed the full scope of the

spying, the division was dis-

banded, and its activities cur-

tailed. But the department now

has an anti-terrorism division,

which was involved in the inves-

tigation of our group.

Our group is concerned

about fascist rule. Having our

private meetings infiltrated by

a police spy suggests that

we’re right to worry. The 1st

Amendment right of free speech

is being challenged across the

nation. Since Trump’s election,

35 states and the federal

government have either passed

or introduced anti-protest

legislation.

Earlier this summer, our case

came to trial. When we took the

stand and were asked why we

blocked the freeway instead of

just voting or attending the

women’s march, we explained

that we believed that the cur-

rent threat to humanity and the

planet required more from us

than protesting for a day and go-

ing home.

History has shown us that

fascism can absorb individual

acts of resistance and gets nor-

malized after waves of shock and

outrage die down. The Trump/

Pence regime has taken us

through many such shocks, and

“the new normal” now includes

concentration camps at the bor-

der, where children continue to

die and conditions are brutal.

The response from civil society

to this so far is shameful — which

is exactly what we were trying to

prevent.

Our supporters in the court-

room wore T-shirts that read:

“Would you have convicted the

people who hid Anne Frank?”

With our action on the freeway,

we were asking others to imag-

ine what could have been differ-

ent if people had acted BEFORE

Anne Frank had to hide. Our tri-

al ended with a hung jury after

three days of deliberation, be-

cause the majority of jurors

understood we were not crimi-

nals. But almost immediately,

the city attorney’s office an-

nounced it would retry the case.

Later this month, we will

once again stand trial for our ac-

tion blocking the freeway. The

LAPD and city attorney may dis-

agree, but it should not be a

crime to stand up against fas-

cism. On the contrary, we hope

everyone who cares about jus-

tice will join us.

Miguel Alex Antonioand

Chantelle Hershbergerare

activists with Refuse Fascism

and the Revolution Club.

Why we shut down the 101 Freeway

Getting rid of Donald

Trump will take millions

of people joining

together in protest.

By Miguel Alex Antonio
and Chantelle Hershberger

PROTESTERSfrom Refuse Fascism, shown here on an

overpass, have twice stopped all traffic on the 101 Freeway.

Reed SaxonAssociated Press

I

was born into fostercare. My

mother was in prison when she was

raped and became pregnant with

me. Like many mothers who must

surrender their children to foster

care because of addiction, disability, men-

tal illness or incarceration, she was not al-

lowed to keep me. And like all children en-

tering the child welfare system, I didn’t

have a choice either.

I was more fortunate than most be-

cause I was adopted when I was 3 years

old. My adoptive mother was a single

mother — remarkable and strong and a

loving woman. Thanks to her, I graduated

from high school, an accomplishment

achieved by fewer than a thirdof youths in

foster care. I went on to attend Cal State

LA, her alma mater. (Only 2.5%of children

who grow up in foster care graduate from

a four-year college.)

But just before my college graduation,

my life turned upside-down. My adoptive

mother passed away, and that same year

my biological mother sent me a letter from

prison. It was my first contact with her,

and through the letter I learned that I was

a product of rape. I hoped I might be able

to have a relationship with her, but she

didn’t want to meet me. A face-to-face

meeting, she felt, would only stir up trau-

matic memories.

For the first time in my life, I was com-

pletely alone. I was once again a mother-

less daughter. I had no money and no sup-

port system. For a short time, I was home-

less, until I found a job and my new boss

did something remarkable — she gave me

the money to pay my first month’s rent.

This act of kindness from a near stranger

moved me to tears because the family of

my adoptive mother had pushed me out

on the streets.

I was able to move beyond the adver-

sity I faced, thanks to a combination of my

own determination and the support of my

boss and other mentors. My experiences

inspired me to become a mentor to other

young women and to advocate for mentor-

ship for children in foster care and other

disadvantaged youth.

This country desperately needs more

mentors. A report by the National Men-

toring Partnership found that more than 1

in 3 young people, including an estimated

9 million at-risk youth, “never had an

adult mentor of any kind”while growing

up.”

I know the difference a mentor can

make. An executive director of a nonprofit

greatly helped me in my immediate post-

college years. When a dear friend commit-

ted suicide, he helped me navigate a ca-

reer change from architecture to child wel-

fare and clinical psychology. A retired

dean of education instilled in me the confi-

dence I needed throughout my journey to

earn my doctorate in public policy and

nonprofit leadership.

But I often wonder how different my

younger life might have been if I’d had a

mentor during my childhood as I was sort-

ing through the emotions of adoption and

being a product of the child welfare sys-

tem. Perhaps I would have had someone

to turn to when my mother died. Perhaps I

wouldn’t have felt so alone.

At any given time, 50,000 kids are in fos-

ter care in California — nearly 20% of the

nation’s total foster youth population.

Most have experienced some form of

trauma. Understandably, students who

are exposed to trauma and violence have

higher suspension and expulsion rates

and lower school attendance and grades.

Mentorship can help them deal with some

of the challenges that lead to poor aca-

demic performance and behavior. Re-

search suggests that mentoring for chil-

dren in foster carepositively impacts

mental health, educational functioning

and peer relationships.

As a branch director for a Southern

California nonprofit that provides chil-

dren and families with social services, I

know this: We all need human connection,

but these children need it more than

most. I have seen firsthand the benefit in

connecting more youths in foster care

with adult mentors who can instill hope,

encourage change and provide a safe

place for children of all ages to share their

stories. A good mentor models positive

behavior, teaches life skills and empowers

kids to take on challenges with confi-

dence. A strong relationship with a men-

tor can also give children in foster care a

sense of belonging that they may never

have experienced before.

There is no shortage of opportunities

to mentor foster and adopted children —

whether it’s through a well-known pro-

gram like Foster Care to Success or a re-

gional program like Cal State North-

ridge’s Adoption Promotion & Support

Services. The Department of Child and

Family Servicescan also refer potential

mentors to specific organizations with the

greatest needs. Children in foster care

who are transitioning out of the foster

care system are especially in need of men-

tors, because they may have lost their pre-

vious support networks.

Mentorship isn’t a cure-all. But it can

make a profound difference in the life of a

child who will suddenly feel less alone.

Kay Ramseyis executive branch director

for Bethany Christian Services in

Southern California.

Imagezoo

The foster care mentor shortage

By Kay Ramsey

I was born into the system, and I know the difference one person can make

P

resident Trump andthe Republi-

can National Committee filed suit

this week challenging California’s

new law requiring candidates in

presidential primaries to release five

years of tax returns. The challenges will al-

most certainly prevail.

California’s law, if allowed to stand, would

open a Pandora’s box of state electoral med-

dling for partisan gain.

Defenders claim the measure falls within

the state’s power to select presidential elec-

tors, much like its power, granted by the Con-

stitution, to regulate the “Times, Places and

Manner of holding Elections” for members of

Congress.

But the law runs smack into the Constitu-

tion’s protections for political parties and fed-

eral elections. The 1st Amendment guaran-

tees the freedom to form political parties that

function independently of the government.

Allowing California to restrict who can appear

on primary ballots interferes with the right of

the parties to choose their leaders. The Con-

stitution also prohibits states from effectively

creating new qualifications for federal offices.

In addition to guaranteeing freedom of

speech, press and religion, the 1st Amend-

ment also safeguards “the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances.” The

Supreme Court has read this language to pro-

tect a freedom of association, including the

right to form political parties that compete in

elections, advocate programs and policies,

and run candidates for office, including the

presidency.

Although seemingly nonpartisan, the Cali-

fornia ballot law plainly disrupts Republi-

cans’ associational rights. As a unanimous

Supreme Court observed in 2008, a political

party has the right “to choose a candidate-se-

lection process that will in its view produce

the nominee who best represents its political

platform.” By denying California Republicans

the ability to vote for President Trump in their

own primary, the state is obviously abridging

their right to decide whether Trump “best

represents [the Republican] political plat-

form.”

It seems clear that the California law is tar-

geting Trump for partisan reasons. Demo-

crats have long sought to force the disclosure

of his tax returns, and Democrats in the

House of Representatives are suing the IRS

to compel their release. Democrats in the New

York Legislature are even trying to hand over

Trump’s state income tax returns to the

House (though a federal judge has temporari-

ly blocked them).

California’s new law escalates the battle.

But courts have long blocked overtly partisan

manipulation, even if a law assumes the guise

of neutrality. In 1936, the Supreme Court

struck down a Louisiana tax on newspapers

levied by the administration of then-Gov.

Huey Long. The state’s major newspapers

had been sharply critical of Long. Even if the

tax looked neutral, the court ruled, it had “the

plain purpose of penalizing the publishers

and curtailing the circulation of a selected

group of newspapers”

Newsom’s signing statement argued that

the law would “shed light on conflicts of inter-

est, self-dealing, or influence from domestic

and foreign business interest.” But politics

alone can induce such disclosures. Candi-

dates who disclose their tax returns can score

points against those who don’t. Presidential

job-seekers have routinely released their

taxes. Trump has declined to do so, to his con-

tinuing political detriment. The state should

have no interest in whether California Repub-

licans wish to choose him, despite that liabili-

ty.

In 2017, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar

bill. In his veto statement, he said: “Today we

require tax returns, but what would be next?”

If the Court allowed California’s law to stand,

other states could demand a list of private in-

formation as the price for access to the ballot.

States could require that candidates release

their birth certificates; medical and mental

health records; academic transcripts; crimi-

nal records; divorce and family status; and

gun licenses, not just taxes.

States could demand even more private

information. Have candidates had an abor-

tion? What are their religious beliefs? States

could focus these requirements to knock out

particular candidates. Alabama could target

Joe Biden by requiring disclosure of family

business dealings with China.

To be sure, states have some power to

manage access to the ballot. They generally

decide the location of polling places, paper

versus electronic ballots and the formatting

of ballots. But in 1995, the Supreme Court

made very clear that there are limits to state

power. U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton in-

volved an Arkansas law that limited how

many terms congressional representatives

and senators could serve. The court held that

states cannot add new “qualifications” to the

constitutional minimums for office. Califor-

nia’s law clearly adds another qualification to

running for president.

The court rested its conclusion on the

principle that “to impose additional qualifica-

tions would violate that ‘fundamental princi-

ple of our representative democracy ... that

the people should choose whom they please

to govern them.’” In their quest to overturn

the results of the 2016 election, and engineer

those of 2020, California’s Democrats would

deprive the voters of the right to think and

choose for themselves.

John Yoois a professor at UC Berkeley Law

School, a visiting scholar at the American

Enterprise Institute and a visiting fellow at

the Hoover Institution. Robert Delahunty

is a professor at the University of St. Thomas

School of Law. They both served in the

Justice Department during the

administration of George W. Bush.

Trump can’t

be compelled

to release his

tax returns

By John Yoo and Robert Delahunty