The Washington Post - USA (2020-07-28)

TUESDAY, JULY 28 , 2020. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A23

I

t was not nearly the worst thing he ever did, but Edmund Winston Pettus probably lied, under oath, to Congress. When a subcommittee investigating the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan summoned him to testify in July 1871, Pettus denied knowledge of the orga- nized conspiracy in his home state of Alabama, or that attacks on newly emancipated African Americans there were intended to stop them from voting. “I do not think they have had any such purpose whatever,” Pettus, a former Confederate brigadier general, asserted — a falsehood, given his prominent position in the Democratic Party, then closely linked to the Klan, and his later role, beginning in 1877, as Alabama’s Grand Dragon. In the last 10 years of his life, 1897 to 1907, Pettus, who settled in Selma after the war, represented Ala- bama in the U.S. Senate, thoroughly devoted to white supremacy. The chain of racial oppression, and historical obfuscation thereof, that con- nects Pettus’s long-ago lie to our time is long indeed. On Sunday, a caisson bearing the casket of Rep. John Lewis of Georgia crossed the bridge in Selma named for Pettus, retracing the route Lewis and his fellow African American voting-rights marchers tried to take 55 years previously, only to be met by club-wielding police. The televised thuggery, and the nonviolent attitude of its victims, galva- nized President Lyndon B. Johnson, Congress and the country in favor of the Voting Rights Act. Lewis’s death has prompted renewed calls to take Pettus’s name off the setting for this turning point in the Civil Rights Revolution, and put Lewis’s name on it. This would be a dramatic change, given the powerful symbolic relationship between what the marchers did and the name of the place where they did it. The Edmund Pettus Bridge is hallowed ground of the civil rights struggle. To rename it, either for Lewis himself or as Journey to Freedom Bridge, another proffered alternative, would almost be like renaming Gettysburg. It won’t necessarily be easily accom- plished in any case. Alabama’s legisla- ture, dominated by a supermajority of conservative Republicans, passed a law in 2017 that makes it extremely difficult to remove or alter monuments and street names honoring Confederates. A unified movement by Selma’s residents might overcome that retrograde legisla- tion, but there is ambivalence in the community: concerns about a name change’s impact on tourism, and objec- tions from some African American vet- erans of the march who have said that preserving the name helps preserve memories of the event, as The Post’s Sydney Trent has reported. The bridge itself is a monument of sorts to another crucial factor in the history of race in America: the relationship between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Southern white Dem- ocrats, including members of Ala- bama’s congressional delegation who, on Aug. 17, 1937, secured Roosevelt’s final approval for funds to replace what was a decrepit bridge over the Alabama River dating to 1885. Alabama New Dealer Rep. Sam Hobbs was present at the Edmund Pet- tus Bridge’s dedication on May 24, 1940. The accompanying parade included no black participants, except for a musical group. A float was designed to represent an old Alabama River ferry, with “a cargo which included a cow, bale of cotton, feed and plantation negroes,” as the Selma Times-Journal reported. Naming the bridge for Pettus was announced as a fait accompli by the governor on the same day Roosevelt approved the bridge’s funding. Why, exactly, Alabama’s politicians chose to honor Pettus is not exactly clear, though it surely had something to do with his grandson Edmund Winston Pettus’s powerful position in the state Demo- cratic Party and Selma Chamber of Commerce. Also potentially relevant was the rise of the black Sharecroppers Union in Depression-era rural Alabama. By 1934, the federal government was enabling black farmers around Selma to vote — albeit only on controls over cotton pro- duction under the Agricultural Adjust- ment Act. The local sheriff declared this “dangerous,” according to historian Kar- lyn Forner. In July 1935, whites took union leader Joe Spinner Johnson from his home near Selma and lynched him. If Selma’s whites wanted to reinforce that intimidation, one way to do it would be to emblazon the towering new bridge with the name of a man who, their local newspaper claimed, had fought “negro dominance” with “magnificent strength, physical and moral courage and brilliant intellect.” Selma’s editorialists had previously noted that the new bridge would be “so impressive as to cause Selma to become known in the future as ‘the place where the bridge is.’ ” On that point, they proved prophetic. What’s needed now is a new monument, in the form of a renamed bridge, statu- ary or some other prominent public display, to the magnificent courage of those who strove to undo Pettus’s legacy in Selma, John Lewis foremost among them. [email protected]

CHARLES LANE

Undoing

a legacy

of hatred

D

on’t waste time and energy fretting over President Trump’s self-important threat not to accept a defeat in November. Worry instead that he and the Republican Party will try to steal the election through a multifaceted campaign of voter suppression. When Fox News anchor Chris Wallace asked Trump earlier this month if he would commit to accepting the result of the coming vote, Trump’s answer was typically full of bluster and divorced from reality. “I have to see,” he said. “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no.” Those nonsensical words prompted a wave of needless angst over how the president might behave if voters give him the boot. It’s safe to assume, given what we’ve seen over the past four years, that Trump will react to losing with the emotional maturity of a bratty toddler at bedtime. But it’s also safe to assume that whatever tantrum he throws will be a meaningless sideshow. Trump has many powers as president, but accepting or rejecting the outcome of a national election is not one of them. That responsibility falls to election officials in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. They will certify the winner in their jurisdic- tions; the electoral college will meet and vote accordingly; and the nation will choose a president — preferably a new one. If Joe Biden wins at least 270 electoral votes, he will be sworn in by the chief justice of the Supreme Court next Jan. 20. Trump can — and probably will — spend the intervening time fuming, fulminating, howling at the moon. He can further strain the ties that bind our fragile democracy. But if he loses, and polls predict that’s likely, then he’s outta here. Look for him on Trump TV, I guess. The thing to watch is what Trump and his enablers do before and during the election. If there is to be an attempted heist, that’s when it will take place. Actually, this caper has been under- way for some time. For more than a decade, the GOP’s consistent strategy has been to identify citizens who tend to vote for Democrats and deny them the right or the opportunity to vote. Republican-controlled state legisla- tors have passed voter-identification laws known to have a disparate impact against African Americans and Lati- nos. GOP secretaries of state (such as Brian Kemp, now governor of Georgia) have purged voter rolls in ways that disproportionately disenfranchise mi- norities. Too few polling places are set up in minority neighborhoods, with the result that it takes a substantially greater investment of time and pa- tience for African Americans to vote than for whites. What we need is new federal legisla- tion to outlaw and police such abuses nationwide: an updated Voting Rights Act to supplant the landmark 1965 leg- islation that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority gutted in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder d ecision. But there will be no such law passed and implemented before Nov. 3. The covid-19 pandemic provides a new opening for Republican attempts at voter suppression. In states where they have the power to do so, GOP officials can further limit the number of polling places in heavily Democratic areas by claiming that they are short of poll workers or acting in the interest of public health. In the April 7 primary in Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee, with a population of nearly 600,000, man- aged to staff and run just five in-person voting sites. Yet turnout in that Wisconsin vote was still decently high, given that both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees had already effec- tively been chosen. Roughly 80 percent of those who participated did so by casting absentee ballots. In this covid- warped year, this looks like the new normal. That is why Trump is squawking so loudly, and so untruthfully, about purported “fraud” in mail-in and absentee balloting. And it is why guaran- teeing a fair voting process — one in which in-person voting, in many places, will be the exception rather than the rule — is the paramount task that lies ahead for the Democratic Party at all levels. It should, of course, be a goal for the Republican Party as well. Historically, absentee voting has been as much of a plus for GOP candidates as for Demo- crats. And mail-in voting is a long-ac- cepted practice in some ruby-red states such as Utah. Republican strategists understand this dynamic. Trump, ap- parently, does not. At this point, Democratic voters are not likely to pay much attention to the president’s bleating. But what if Trump’s loyal base takes him serious- ly? What if his legions shun absentee and mail-in voting as inherently fraud- ulent and decline to cast their own? Then the president and his party will have succeeded in massively stealing votes — from themselves. Focus, Democrats. Don’t get dis- tracted. You can do this. Twitter: @Eugene_Robinson

EUGENE ROBINSON

GOP voter

suppression

is the issue

BY FRANCIS SUAREZ AND VIN GUPTA

W

e are at war with a silent and ruthless enemy, and mask mandates are among our best weapons to win the fight. But they have to have teeth to work. Facing a global pandemic with flu season on the near horizon, our nation’s governors and mayors must quickly align common sense with the common good. That means balancing personal liberty with the clear and present public health danger present- ed by the spread of covid-19. We can no longer afford to be confused by false choices and false information. In short, warnings to anyone not wearing a mask need to be backed up with the threat of fines and, for chronic offenders, even arrest. There is no time to waste on half-measures. Florida’s Miami-Dade County has already recorded more than 107,000 covid-19 cases and 1,400 deaths from the disease. So, starting this month in the city of Miami, where one of us (Suarez) is mayor, residents now risk a legal penalty if they venture into public without a face mask. The city has as- signed at least 39 police officers to make sure that residents are following the city’s mandatory mask ordinance. Offenders will be warned but, if they refuse to comply, they will be fined. The first offense will cost $100 and the second another $100. With a third — God forbid — the offender will be arrested. Importantly, this is about education and enforcement: The effort isn’t just about mandating masks in public

settings (and ensuring they are broadly available to anyone, regard- less of income status) but explaining why a mandate is necessary, and then ensuring adequate enforcement. And education comes first. By now, the need for masks shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone in Miami — sig- nage and awareness campaigns have been ongoing to ensure residents are informed and engaged. Critics will likely assail this policy as government overreach at its worst. Moreover, they will repeat a wide- spread urban myth: that mask require- ments simply haven’t worked. The truth, however, is that mask orders require continuous education and universal enforcement to be successful, and it is incomplete and incoherent mask orders that have had mixed or limited outcomes. Only 6 in 10 Americans report wearing a mask all the time in public, with broad geographic variation. In Wash- ington state, a recent survey suggested only 4 in 10 residents comply with recommendations; this lack of cooper- ation is cited as a key factor in a recent outbreak in Yakima, Wash. We know from a compelling body of scientific literature that thick, well-fit- ting cloth masks can dramatically reduce covid-19 transmission. We also know that universality is key: Any ben- efit requires consensus and broad co- operation. That’s one reason Hong Kong was largely spared the worst of the pandemic despite being a puddle jump from Wuhan: Its citizens em- brace mask-wearing at near universal rates. It’s also why the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation esti- mates that nearly 100,000 American

lives could be saved between now and the new year if everyone wore a mask in public settings. But the challenge of compliance re- mains. The simple truth is that humans generally respond to the threat of a fine and modify their behavior accordingly. That’s why busy downtowns use fines to promote adherence to parking rules — you’re far less likely to do what’s convenient (park illegally) if you know you’ll be on the hook for a $50 fine. It’s just human nature. Success hinges on clear and consistent enforcement that everyone under- stands. And doing that work can also take pressure off ordinary people who are simply trying to do the right thing. In recent weeks, individuals have faced injury and even death for valiant attempts to promote adherence to mask rules among their fellow Americans. In Michigan this month, a 77-year-old man was allegedly stabbed by someone three decades younger after an argu- ment over a mask. That followed the disturbing report in May of a security guard who was shot and killed at a Family Dollar store, also in Michigan, after confronting non-masked patrons. The nation should follow Miami’s example. Governors have the ability to institute a mandatory mask policy with enforcement, and mayors have the responsibility to ensure effective imple- mentation. We cannot afford to wait.

Francis Suarez, a Republican, is mayor of Miami and vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Vin Gupta is an assistant professor of health metrics sciences and pulmonary/critical care medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center.

Without enforcement,

mask mandates won’t work

JEENAH MOON/REUTERS A customer and barber wear masks during a haircut at a reopened shop in New York on July 5.

BY NORMAN EISEN

“W

here’s my Roy Cohn?” That was President Trump’s famous lament after then-Attorney Gen- eral Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. But in Sessions’s eventual replacement, William P. Barr, Trump may have done even better — by his standards — than Cohn, the notorious- ly unscrupulous defense lawyer. As Barr prepares to testify before the House Judiciary Committee for the first time as Trump’s attorney general, he has instead come to resemble another dis- graced lawyer of the past: former attorney general John Mitchell, whose misplaced loyalty to President Richard M. Nixon outweighed the duty he owed to the Jus- tice Department and the country. Mitchell lied incessantly about Nixon’s role in Watergate and other misconduct, no matter the consequences — which in Mitchell’s case eventually included disbar- ment and prison. Barr’s long series of distorted, dishonest and false statements in defense of the president may not land him in criminal jeopardy, but they are familiar steps on that same crooked path — steps that the Judiciary Committee should press Barr to explain. They begin with Barr’s misleading dec- larations about the report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in the interreg- num before its release, including minimiz- ing powerful evidence of obstruction of justice. A Republican-appointed federal judge ruled that Barr’s statements were “distorted” and showed a “lack of candor.” I was preparing to serve as an impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Com- mittee at the time. As I write in a new book, my colleagues and I were astonished that Barr would sacrifice his reputation to protect Trump. Yet that episode turned out to be just the start of Barr’s service in defense of the president. When a whistleblower later came for-

ward to report that the president had pressed Ukraine to interfere in our elec- tions, Barr’s Justice Department advanced a fanciful legal theory that the complaint did not have to be provided to Congress despite an express statutory instruction to the contrary. The federal Council of In- spectors General found that was “wrong as a matter of law and policy.” Some of Barr’s most troubling behavior has come in two cases where there is evidence of an obstruction-of-justice conspiracy involving the president: the Jus- tice Department’s move to ask for a lighter sentence than recommended by career prosecutors for Trump’s political adviser Roger Stone and its decision to seek dis- missal of the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, notwith- standing Flynn’s guilty plea. This disturbing record is startling to those who have known Barr. Before sign- ing on with Trump, Barr, who served previously as attorney general under George H.W. Bush, was known as a staunch conservative and a fierce advo- cate for strong presidential power — but also as an institutionalist who would protect the Justice Department’s reputation. Unlike Mitchell, he did not have a long- standing personal or political relationship with the president he served. (Nixon and Mitchell had been law partners, and Nixon tapped Mitchell to be his campaign man- ager in 1968.) Yet Barr’s assiduous work on Trump’s behalf — distorting both facts and law to support the president — has over- tones of Mitchell as attorney general. As Barr appears before the House Judi- ciary Committee, these are important areas of inquiry: On the Mueller report, the committee should compare Barr’s now-notorious summary with what is actually in that document. A judge found that Barr engaged in “a calculated attempt to influ- ence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump.” Barr should be pressed to explain why he failed

to disclose that Mueller lacked “confi- dence... that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice.” On Ukraine, the committee should pin Barr down on what he knew about the decision to keep the whistleblower complaint from Congress. What was Barr’s involvement? Did he discuss the effort to suppress the complaint with the president or other White House officials? The committee should also question Barr on his changing accounts of his role in the assault on peaceful protesters at Lafayette Square, examining his contacts with Justice and White House officials who said Barr ordered the actions. It is also imperative to address Barr’s role in the recent “surge” of federal law enforcement into Portland, Ore., and other cities. On Flynn and Stone, the committee should probe Barr’s involvement and what conversations he had with the president, the White House or the handpicked prosecutors who moved to dismiss the Flynn charges and reduce the Stone sentence. Barr must also be asked how he can defend the later Stone clemency when he himself called the case “a righteous prosecution.” Sadly, that’s not all. Barr should also be confronted about his statement that former Manhattan U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman — who was overseeing several investigations potentially implicating Trump — quit. Berman’s sworn account establishes that was not true. And a whistleblower has testified that investigations at the Antitrust Division have been infected with Trump’s partisan agenda. Barr should answer for all of that — and more. And he should keep in mind how history remembers John Mitchell, dragged down alongside the president he sought to protect.

Norman Eisen served as an impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Committee and is author of “A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump.”

William Barr became Trump’s John Mitchell

The Washington Post - USA (2020-07-28)

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources