Connect with us

News

NAACP won't invite Trump to its national convention, breaking a 116-year tradition

Published

on

NAACP won't invite Trump to its national convention, breaking a 116-year tradition

The NAACP logo is shown during an event at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., in 2015. The civil rights group has announced it won’t invite President Trump to address its convention, breaking a 116-year tradition of inviting sitting presidents.

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

NAACP logo featuring the scales of justice and the founding date of 1909 is shown during an event in Washington, D.C. in 2015

The NAACP logo is shown during an event at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., in 2015. The civil rights group has announced it won’t invite President Trump to address its convention, breaking a 116-year tradition of inviting sitting presidents.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The NAACP announced it will not invite President Trump to its national convention in July. The civil rights organization is breaking from its 116-year tradition of welcoming the sitting U.S. president to the annual event that draws NAACP supporters from around the country.

The group says Trump is the first president it has declined to invite.

Advertisement

NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson made the announcement Monday at a news conference in Charlotte, N.C., where the convention is scheduled to be held. The group also shared a statement from Johnson.

“Donald Trump is attacking our democracy and our civil rights … The president has signed unconstitutional executive orders to oppress voters and undo federal civil rights protections,” Johnson said. “… he continually undermines every pillar of our democracy to make himself more powerful and to personally benefit from the U.S. government.”

The White House responded sharply on Tuesday to the president’s exclusion from the event. Trump declined previous invitations during his first term.

“The NAACP isn’t advancing anything but hate and division, while the President is focused on uniting our country, improving our economy, securing our borders, and establishing peace across the globe,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to NPR. “This is the same vision for America that a record number of Black Americans supported in the resounding reelection of President Trump.”

The NAACP has welcomed both Democratic and Republican presidents to address the convention over the years. Presidents have historically used their remarks to build stronger ties with the Black community.

Advertisement

President Ronald Reagan addressed the NAACP convention in Denver in 1981 and spoke out against racism and discrimination. President George W. Bush spoke at the convention in Washington, D.C., in 2006 amid criticism of his administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. The storm disproportionately affected Black residents in New Orleans and the Gulf region. In his remarks, Bush resolved to work with the Black community to recover from the storm. He had declined previous invitations to the event.

The NAACP has filed a number civil rights lawsuits against the administration since Trump’s return to the White House, including a challenge to efforts to cut federal funding to schools that use diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The organization has also filed suit to block plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.

The Trump administration has enacted a series of substantial changes that the NAACP says conflicts with its mission of achieving equity, political rights, and social inclusion for Black Americans and all people of color. The changes include eliminating DEI programs in higher education and across the federal government; removing some Black historical figures from government websites; and restoring the names of military bases that originally honored white supremacists and owners of enslaved people.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending