Lawsuit seeks to end new law signed by Greg Abbott banning water breaks after Texas heat wave deaths
Tatyana Tandanpolie – July 7, 2023
Greg AbbottBrandon Bell/Getty Images
Officials in Houston, Texas, filed a lawsuit on Monday looking to keep the state from enforcing an oppressive law critics have dubbed the “Death Star” bill.
House Bill 2127 is set to go into effect on Sept. 1 after Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law on June 6, according to MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” blog. The new law restricts local governments by preventing them from passing certain ordinances if they contradict state laws in eight key areas: agriculture, finance, business and commerce, insurance, local government, labor, natural resources, property or occupations.
In the newly filed lawsuit, lawyers representing the city argue that, in broadly pre-empting local laws, the bill violates the state Constitution, and ultimately call the measure “hopelessly vague.” The city, thus, asks the court to make the law “void and unenforceable.”
“Because of HB 2127’s vagueness, Houston will not know with any certainty what laws it may enforce, and its residents and businesses will not know with certainty what laws they must obey,” the suit reads. “This high level of uncertainty and confusion concerning the validity of virtually all local laws in important regulatory areas and those concerning health and safety themselves constitutes a concrete injury.”
Arguing that the bill will incite confusion, the lawsuit cites the so-called Death Star law’s lack of a requirement for local legislation to actually conflict with state laws in order for it to be prevented from taking effect.
“Under HB 2127, if the State regulates anything in an unspecified ‘field,’ local regulation is arguably entirely precluded in the undefined area unless there is express legislative authorization,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also comes after a deadly heat wave wracked the state last month, resulting in a public health crisis, the deaths of 11 people between the ages of 60 and 80 in Webb County since the bill was signed, and a surge in emergency department visits related to the record-breaking, 100-degree temperatures.
In Texas prison facilities without air conditioning, at least nine incarcerated people, including two men in their 30s, died last month from heart attacks or unknown causes. Another harrowing incident saw a teen and his stepfather die after the 14-year-old lost consciousness during a hike in Big Bend National Park and the stepfather crashed his car while racing to find help. Plus, at least four workers have died in the state after collapsing in three-digit heat, the Texas Observer reports: a Dallas post office worker, an East Texas utility lineman and two Houston construction workers.
While the nature of the worker deaths is still under investigation, the Observer notes that hyperthermia is likely the cause. Considering climate scientists told the Tribune that heat waves will become increasingly severe and common due to climate change, the risk to public health will only rise.
Once HB 2127 goes into effect in September, local ordinances mandating water breaks for workers outdoors in cities across the state, which the Observer writes contributed to a “significant decrease in annual heat-related illnesses and heat deaths,” will be overturned and localities will be barred from passing new ones.
A spokesperson for Abbott said that “ensuring the safety of Texans is a top priority as our state experiences high summer heat,” in a statement, noting that overriding local laws won’t keep workers from taking breaks under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) standards.
But some workers fear that the lack of local protections will mean bosses hoping to increase production will eliminate breaks, the Observer said.
The city of Houston’s lawsuit also calls out the possibility of widespread, city deregulation sparked by individuals and businesses pursuing their own interests and justifying the acts under the law.
“Houston will have to defend against a likely barrage of lawsuits brought by trade associations or individuals essentially to deregulate their industries or businesses at the local level,” the suit claims, adding an accusation that Texa’ Republican legislators are creating “a public/private enforcement regime that will penalize and raise the risk of Houston’s exercising its clear and expansive constitutional authority.”
If successful, the suit will protect the water mandates and other measures like the Houston program providing 30,000 uninsured people with healthcare, Mayor Sylvester Turner noted.
“HB 2127 reverses over 100 years of Texas constitutional law without amending the Constitution,” Turner said in a public statement. “Because Texas has long had the means to preempt local laws that conflict with State law, HB 2127 is unnecessary, dismantling the ability to govern at the level closest to the people and therefore punishing all Texas residents. Houston will fight so its residents retain their constitutional rights and have immediate local recourse to government.”
Biden said he decided to send Ukraine controversial cluster bombs because Kyiv is ‘running out of ammunition’
Alia Shoaib – July 8, 2023
Biden said he decided to send Ukraine controversial cluster bombs because Kyiv is ‘running out of ammunition’
Joe Biden has agreed to send Ukraine deadly cluster munitions.
He defended his decision and said Ukraine needed them because they were “running out of ammunition.”
The controversial weapons are banned under an international treaty signed by 123 countries, but not the US.
President Joe Biden defended his decision to send Ukraine controversial and deadly cluster munitions, explaining it was because Kyiv was “running out of ammunition” after 500 days of war.
“It was a very difficult decision on my part. And by the way, I discussed this with our allies, I discussed this with our friends up on the Hill,” Biden told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Friday.
“The Ukrainians are running out of ammunition,” he added.
The US finally agreed to send the weapons as part of a new $800 million security assistance package on Friday, following months of requests from Kyiv.
The cluster munitions will be compatible with US-provided 155mm howitzers, which have been a key piece of artillery for Ukrainian forces, CNN reported.
Cluster bombs are particularly dangerous because they break apart into multiple little bombs when fired, some of which do not always explode upon impact. The unexploded ordinance can put civilians at risk for years to come, like landmines.
Experts say cluster bombs will be useful for Ukraine’s forces against well-dug-in Russian trenches amid a grueling counteroffensive.
However, the lethal weapons are highly controversial and are banned under an international treaty signed by 123 countries – but not the US, Russia, and Ukraine.
A casing of a cluster bomb rocket lays on the snow-covered ground in Zarichne on February 6, 2023, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine.YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP via Getty Images
Biden told Zakaria that the weapons were being sent to Ukraine during a “transition period” until the US is able to produce more 155mm artillery.
“This is a war relating to munitions. And they’re running out of that ammunition, and we’re low on it,” Biden said.
“And so, what I finally did, I took the recommendation of the Defense Department to – not permanently – but to allow for this transition period, while we get more 155 weapons, these shells, for the Ukrainians.”
Ukraine launched its much-anticipated counteroffensive to take back territory occupied by Russia in early June, but gains have so far been slow.
Biden said it took him a while “to be convinced” to send cluster bombs, but he ultimately decided Ukraine “needed them.”
Former chief of general staff for the British Army Lord Dannatt said that Biden’s move risks “fracturing” NATO harmony, considering so many NATO countries have banned them.
Responding to Biden’s decision, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak noted on Saturday that the UK was a signatory of the international treaty banning and discouraging their use but said his government would continue to support Ukraine in other ways.
Ukraine told to investigate its use of banned ‘butterfly’ antipersonnel mines
18 PFM-1 in cluster dispenser. Also known as ‘butterfly’ mines.German Army Combat Training Centre Letzlingen 2019/Wikicommons
Last week, Human Rights Watch told Ukraine to investigate the use of banned land mines by the Ukrainian military after new evidence that they had caused civilian casualties was discovered.
The group called for Ukraine to investigate the use of Russian-made PFM-1 antipersonnel mines around the eastern Ukrainian city of Izium between April and September 2022. It said it had evidence of 11 civilian casualties from the mines, including one fatality.
The miniature PFM-1, also known as “butterfly” or “petal” mines, are fired from rockets and scatter indiscriminately on a wide area.
DeSantis’ veto of electric cars bill cost taxpayers $277 million, critics say
Jeffrey Schweers, Orlando Sentinel – July 7, 2023
Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP/GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/TNS
TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Ron DeSantis was more concerned about Iowa corn farmers than Florida taxpayers when he vetoed a popular bill that could have saved the state $277 million by adding electric vehicles to state and local government fleets, a Democratic critic says.
More EVs would mean less of a demand for ethanol, which is processed from corn grown in states such as Iowa, the expected home to the first presidential caucus next year.
It’s another example of DeSantis putting his own political ambitions to be president over the needs of Floridians, said Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando.
“The Iowa caucus voters who are all about ethanol don’t see electric vehicles as something that is economically in their favor,” Eskamani said. “DeSantis is catering to his Iowa voters, not passing policy for Floridians.”
The electric car bill, SB 284, sponsored by Sen. Jason Brodeur, R-Lake Mary, would have required all state and local governments, colleges and universities to buy vehicles based on their lowest lifetime costs. Current law requires such purchases to be based on fuel efficiency.
It ordered the Department of Management Services to make recommendations by July 1, 2024, to state agencies, colleges, universities and local governments about buying electric vehicles and other vehicles powered by renewable fuels.
“It allows us to look at procuring electric vehicles,” Brodeur said. “It doesn’t mean you have to purchase any.”
The governor’s veto last week was perplexing, supporters said. Both the Florida Natural Gas Association and the Sierra Club supported the measure, along with the Advanced Energy United and Electrification Coalition, a group that supports increasing the use of alternative-fuel vehicles.
“It was a common sense, good governance bill. There is nothing in this bill that any person in America should be against,” said former Sen. Jeff Brandes, a Tampa Bay Republican who tried getting similar legislation through last year.
The law could have saved state and local governments $277 million over 15 years by adding more electric vehicles to their fleets, said Michael Weiss, the Florida state lead at Advanced Energy United, a trade association of clean energy companies.
Advanced Energy United and the Electrification Coalition calculated the bill would have saved governments an average of $18,000 per vehicle by switching to an all-electric vehicle fleet, Weiss said. Using the state’s vehicle data provided by the Department of Management Services, they conducted a total cost analysis of the state’s fleet.
“This veto is a baffling decision that will cost Florida taxpayers millions of dollars,” Weiss said. “The Florida Legislature saw the clear economic and taxpayer benefits of a modern and efficient state fleet, but Gov. DeSantis somehow didn’t get the memo.”
It was only a few years ago that DeSantis touted the benefits of electric cars at a news conference announcing the construction of EV charging stations at rest stops along Florida’s Turnpike.
“It’s amazing how much cheaper it is to just charge a vehicle than to fill up a gas tank,” DeSantis said at the time. “And so as technology evolves, we hope that that’ll be reflected in people’s pocketbooks. So we want to make sure we have the infrastructure in place to make that a reality.”
His staff didn’t respond to a request to explain the veto.
The bill passed both chambers of the Legislature with just a single no vote, by Rep. Yvonne Hinson of Gainesville. But it is not likely anyone would even suggest trying to override the veto because of the governor’s immense grip on Tallahassee.
“That’s not going to happen,” Eskamani said.
Eskamani said DeSantis also has put personal politics first with culture war laws such as sexual orientation in schools, banning gay-themed books and drag shows, and making it harder for unions to collect dues.
She and other Democrats have pointed out problems such as soaring insurance premiums and a spike in housing costs that go unsolved.
“Not a single part of his agenda that passed is helping Floridians,” she said. “His agenda is tailored to the needs of Republican [primary and caucus voters].”
‘Woke’ isn’t going to die in DeSantis’ Florida. It’s just taking its dollars elsewhere | Opinion
The Miami Herald Editorial Board – July 7, 2023
Katie Goodale/USA TODAY NETWORK
Think of a dystopian, polarized country, where Americans are not only divided based on political beliefs but also on where they live and shop, what beer they drink, what doctors they visit, whether they are vaccinated, where they go on vacation and attend professional conferences.
This is what politicians who want to inject extremism (from the right or the left) into governing seem to want to accomplish: to reshape their communities so that only like-minded people feel comfortable co-existing.
Gov. Ron DeSantis has made no secret that his approach to governing is “You’re either with me or get the heck out.” He has signed laws and used state power against: teachers; transgender people; African Americans; women’s bodies; teachers and unions; university professors and academic freedom; universities that want to diversify their student body; immigrants; LGBTQ people and drag queens.
Most recently, DeSantis defended a bizarre and homophobic video his campaign shared on Twitter, calling it “fair game” to attack Donald Trump for past statements in support of LGBTQ rights. Not surprising coming from the governor of the state “where woke goes to die.”
The governor probably doesn’t lose sleep over the few conferences that Florida has lost recently as professional organizations take their dollars and thousands of attendees to states with less extreme policies. That blue parts of the state, Broward and Orange counties, lost the opportunity to host those events fit right into the governor’s strategy. DeSantis’ motto is to “own the libs.”
Two organizations canceled events that were planned in the Orlando area in coming years. AnitaB.org, a group of women and nonbinary tech workers, canceled a 2027 event that normally draws about 16,000 visitors. The group told the Orlando Sentinel it will no longer hold events in the state after this year’s conference at the Orange County Convention Center. The reasons are Florida’s abortion ban, its easing of gun regulations and the state’s efforts “to erase the identities and dignities of people from historically marginalized and excluded groups, including Black, Brown, LGBTQIA+, and Indigenous people.”
Broward County has lost more than half-dozen conferences, thanks to Florida’s political climate, organizers told the county’s tourism agency Visit Lauderdale, as the Sun Sentinel reported Friday. Among them is the 2024 National Family and Community Engagement and Community Schools Conference, which would have needed more than 2,000 hotel rooms. The organization “decided to pull out of Florida due to concerns about what the Governor is doing in the education/schools and that he will likely run in 2024. They do not want to lose attendees due to this,” according to a list of cancellations Visit Lauderdale put together.
The governor’s office told the Sun Sentinel the cancellations are “nothing more than a media-driven stunt.” His administration recently released numbers that show the number of tourists visiting the state is up compared to last year. Florida also welcomed nearly 320,000 new residents from other states between 2021 and 2022, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. DeSantis claims credit for those new residents but Florida benefits from a series of factors, such as the longstanding lack of state income taxes and the rise of remote work during the pandemic
Have DeSantis’ policies caused widespread financial ruin in Florida? No, though the hotels and conference centers that lost business might see it differently.
The bigger question is who DeSantis thinks Florida is for. Nonbinary tech workers are not his intended demographic. Neither are college professors, who have warned that the state’s crackdown on what they can teach regarding race is causing a brain drain. Nor are the undocumented workers who are leaving the state after DeSantis signed into law one of the most draconian immigration laws in the country (it requires, among other things, that immigrants disclose their citizenship status at hospitals).
Are these people leaving in big enough numbers to make a difference? We bet that’s the governor’s goal.
The Florida Blueprint he’s trying to sell to presidential primary voters doesn’t concern itself with having a diverse workforce, attracting the best and brightest or ensuring that Florida’s agriculture has enough people to work its fields. Its myopic focus is fighting the outsider — and there are more and more of those — and rewarding those who fall in line.
1 million Florida buildings will be overrun by sea-level rise by 2100, study shows
Jim Waymer, USA TODAY NETWORK – July 5, 2023
Storms that ride in on seas rising due to global warming will displace millions of Floridians in low-lying areas by century’s end, according to a new analysis by a flood-risk research group.
Well before then, a higher ocean will force many to elevate their homes, similar to stilted homes on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, or else endure deadly surging floodwaters and sky-high insurance costs.
The lure of living beachside has long been Florida’s biggest draw. But with sea levels expected to rise one foot by 2030 and another three feet by the end of the century, many dream homes could become nightmares.
“If nobody acts, if nothing changes, by the end of the century there are approximately 1 million buildings that will be inundated in Florida,” said Adrian Santiago Tate, CEO/cofounder of HighTide Intelligence, a flood-risk data company that spun out of a research group at Stanford University. About 90% of those buildings are single-family homes. “We wanted to make this abstract idea of flooding mean something to people.”
Don’t believe it? Search your address on HighTide Intelligence’s platform Arkly.com and see for yourself. The site’s a work in progress, so not every home is there but if your home is, and at low elevation, it likely will pop up as at “high-risk” of flooding and property damages.
Derrick Lockhart, owner of Airboat Rides at Midway on the St. Johns River just over the Brevard County line, says the flooding that followed Hurricane Ian last fall was the worst he had ever seen in the area.n(Credit: TIM SHORTT/ FLORIDA TODAY, TIM SHORTT/ FLORIDA TODAY)
Floridians already are feeling the pain. After last year’s hurricane season, Florida homeowners watched their premiums double or triple or got letters cancelling their policies. More than a dozen insurance companies either went belly up or just bailed on Florida altogether.
Satellite Beach and other coastal cities for years have been warning residents in the most vulnerable spots to start planning countermeasures now. To bring concrete data to those warnings, Satellite Beach hired HighTide Intelligence to do a $295,000, three-year study to assess flood risk from rising seas. The analysis was paid for in part by a $275,000 grant the city received from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to study ways to make the city more resilient to flooding and sea-level rise. The city chipped in $20,000.
Sparked in part by the Satellite Beach project, HighTide decided to make its statewide dataset of building-level flood risk available to the public in a new user-friendly website, Arkly.com.
Insurers and risk managers use the term “hundred-year storms” when assessing flooding risk. Such storms have about a 1% chance of striking in any given year based on historical data.
But don’t think such storms only roll around every 100 years. With global warming, such storms are striking with increasing frequency.
Statewide, HighTide found that within Florida’s 35 coastal counties, a once-in-a-century storm would:
Flood at least 1.28 million buildings, with potential for $261 billion in losses (2020 dollars).
By 2030, as the sea levels rise, it’s 1.3 million buildings and $270 billion.
By 2050, it’s 1.6 million buildings and $321 billion in losses.
Then by 2100, it’s 2.4 million buildings and whopping $624.5 billion in losses.
“Satellite Beach gets some credit for this,” Santiago Tate, CEO/cofounder of HighTide Intelligence, said of the city’s proactive stance on planning for sea-level rise. “They really wanted us to focus on the element of communicating risk.”
And for thousands in this small city of just 11,200 residents, that risk is mounting. Unless the city prepares, rising seas and powerful storms will put 2,200 households in Satellite Beach — half the city’s total — at risk and could inflict $142 million in flood damages to buildings by 2050, according to HighTide’s study.
During the run-up to Hurricane Ian in October 2022, many teenagers decided to have some fun in the flooding. Rising sea levels are expected to make flooding a more common problem in Florida even in the absence of hurricanes.n(Credit: MALCOLM DENEMARK/FLORIDA TODAY)
Local governments can get insurance discounts for residents from Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by conducting floodplain management activities that qualify for points in what’s called the Community Rating System (CRS). Part of Satellite Beach’s effort is to improve the city’s rating.
Most of the vulnerable homes and infrastructure are on the city’s west side, along the low-lying banks of the Indian River Lagoon.
Lee Corbridge describes how this flooding near his family’s home on Lantern Drive, north of Titusville, in late September, early October 2022 was the worst he has ever seen. Rising sea levels are expected to make flooding a more common problem in Florida even in the absence of hurricanes.
On average, sea levels rose about 6 to 8 inches worldwide over the past century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the rate of rise has more than doubled since 2006.
Sea levels along the southeastern and Gulf Coasts already are rising faster than climate models predicted, the UCF researchers note, causing coastal erosion, high-tide flooding, saltwater contamination of freshwater aquifers and higher storm surges in Florida.
Hurricanes exacerbate the problem. Even a Category 1 storm could inundate more than 40% of Satellite Beach, according to a 2010 study for the city by Florida International University, and as sea level rises, it’s only going to get worse.
Governments usually opt for large-scale infrastructure projects to prevent flooding, such as levees, the Satellite Beach report notes. Those aren’t always best, though, because costs exceed benefits and can take decades for Congress to appropriate funds.
Meanwhile, property owners are left susceptible to storm flooding.
A truck makes its way down Milford Point Drive on Merritt Island after heavy rains pounded Brevard County in September 2022, flooding streets and yards. Rising sea levels are expected to make flooding a more common problem in Florida even in the absence of hurricanes.
HighTide’s study builds on two previous flood studies of Satellite Beach, including the one by Florida International University. At the time, the researchers in that study anticipated the tipping point toward “catastrophic inundation” — a 2-foot sea-level rise — in just 40 years for Satellite Beach. Now that’s less than 30 years away.
“I don’t really know how you get ahead on this,” said Randy Parkinson, the coastal geologist at Florida International University who coauthored the 2010 study.https://flo.uri.sh/story/1950403/embed
Complacency about flood risk jumped out at him during a recent drive down State Road A1A in south Brevard and into Indian River County, where the barrier island thins to just a few hundred feet wide.
“I couldn’t believe the number of new single-family homes still going in,” Parkinson said. “The real wakeup call is sadly when we get a Cat. 4 or Cat. 5 and it’s moving slow.”
Time will tell how many structures Satellite Beach and other Florida coastal cities will have to move to higher ground or elevate.
“It really depends on the timescale,” Santiago Tate said. “There’s only so much you can do to hold back Mother Nature.”
Contact Environment reporter Jim Waymer at jwaymer@floridatoday.com.
Captured Russian soldier said commanders were high on painkillers and gave ‘nonsensical orders’ like sending them out under mortar fire
Sinéad Baker – July 6, 2023
In this photo released by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on July 6, 2023, a Russian 152 mm self-propelled Giatsint-S fires toward Ukrainian positions at an undisclosed location.Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP
A Russian soldier told CNN his commanders were high on painkillers and gave nonsensical orders.
Slava, who was captured by Ukraine, said this included soldiers being sent out under mortar fire.
He told CNN that he got only two weeks of basic training and Russian soldiers “had no morale.”
A captured Russian soldier told CNN that his commanders in Ukraine were high on drugs and gave nonsensical orders that put their men’s lives at risk.
The prisoner, identified as Slava, said his commanders would send soldiers out under mortar fire while high on their stock of painkillers.
Slava also described jumping over craters and body parts amid Ukrainian shelling, before being captured in a foxhole south of Bakhmut. It is not clear when this took place.
CNN interviewed Slava and two other Russian soldiers in the presence of Ukrainian soldiers.
The outlet said the captives did not appear to be speaking under duress, and that it did not use their real names to avoid “possible negative consequences upon their return to Russia” and to follow Red Cross guidelines on reporting about prisoners of war.
Slava and Anton, another soldier, said they had just two weeks of basic training before they were deployed.
Both Slava and Anton, who were recruited out of prison, said that everything they had known about the war came from Russian media. Media in Russia is considered to be tightly controlled by President Vladimir Putin.
Anton also described how he planned to kill himself when Ukrainian soldiers reached him, as he expected to be either tortured or executed.
“I switched the rifle to single shot mode, and I thought I would shoot myself. But I couldn’t,” he told CNN.
The Supreme Court is on a mission to ensure the US assumes the form that the Republican Party wants
Chauncey DeVega – July 5, 2023
Clarence Thomas; John RobertsPhoto illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that ended race-based affirmative action programs at colleges and universities, voided President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, and made it legal for people to cite sincere “religious objections” as a reason for discriminating against the LGBTQ community (and presumably other marginalized individuals and groups as well) in ways that violate civil rights laws.
The Washington Post bizarrely described the Supreme Court’s last term as “restrained.” The reality is very much the opposite: it was a political and judicial bloodletting, a collective act of radical right-wing judicial activism that will have serious negative implications for the American people and the country as a whole for decades to come. These decisions by the “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court are part of a decades-long project to return American society to a time period before the civil rights movement(s) of the 1960s and 1970s and back to the Gilded Age (if not before) when white men and moneyed interests – a true tyranny of the minority —were able to exercise dominion over American society, largely uncontested.
In an attempt to make better sense of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions about race-based affirmative action and its broad implications for American democracy, the law, and society, I recently spoke with Khiara M. Bridges. She is a Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law whose scholarship examines race, class, reproductive rights, and the intersection of the three. Professor Bridges is the author of three books, the most recent of which is Critical Race Theory: A Primer.
This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
How are you feeling given the Supreme Court’s decisions this week, in particular the decision to ban the consideration of race in university and college admissions?
I’m tired – even though none of this is surprising. All of this was perfectly predictable. We knew that decisions such as the one gutting affirmative action were almost inevitable after Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the court. The decisions this week are the realization of a long-term project by the Republican Party to use the federal judiciary to shape the nation into its vision of what the country ought to be.
It has been an exhausting week.
How do we connect the dots between the affirmative action decision and the decision to allow “religious objections” to be used as a justification for discriminating against gays and lesbians — and presumably other groups as well?
“I think that what we are seeing is just how hellbent the Supreme Court is on ensuring that the U.S. assumes the form that the Republican Party wants it to assume.”
Those two decisions represent a backlash against people of color and LGBTQ people. Both groups have realized substantial gains in terms of being conceptualized as equal and valuable members of the body politic. Many people want to reverse those gains. They want to return LGBTQ people and Black and brown people to second-class citizenship. The court is doing the bidding for those folks.
The Republicans, “conservatives” and other members of the larger white right are joyous and celebrating the end of affirmative action. Black and brown folks, white folks and others who believe in multiracial democracy and equality are hurting and lamenting this decision and what it symbolizes and means for our society and the harm it does to real people. How are you reconciling those divergent responses?
I understand these celebrations as consistent with a right-wing effort to erase America’s brutal history of racial subjugation and to deny the consequences that history has on society today. Conservatives are celebrating the myth that America is “post-racial” and the lie that events like chattel slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, “urban renewal,” etc. really have no effect on contemporary society. And most of all, they are celebrating the fact that there is a Supreme Court that is willing to affirm those fictions.
In the most basic sense, what are the competing visions of the law and its role in society that we are seeing play out with the Supreme Court this week, and of course the Age of Trump these last few years?
I think that what we are seeing is just how hellbent the Supreme Court is on ensuring that the U.S. assumes the form that the Republican Party wants it to assume. It is important to keep in mind that the Court creates its own docket; it selects the cases that it wants to hear. And it is no coincidence that the Court is deciding to hear cases that touch on all of these hot button issues: affirmative action, abortion, guns, religious freedom, LGBTQ rights. And of course, it is no coincidence that the Court is deciding these cases in ways that are consistent with the Republican Party’s platform.
It is also important to keep in mind that it is really hard to reconcile these decisions with one another in terms of an overarching theory of law. So, the government can force people to carry pregnancies to term, but the government cannot forbid people from carrying firearms outside of the home. Institutions cannot consider race when making college admissions decisions, but they can consider their customers’ sexual orientation and gender identity when deciding whether to sell products and services to them. Those decisions cannot be reconciled with one another very easily in terms of law. It’s all politics.
In simple terms, how do we explain what “affirmative action” is or isn’t and how it’s been distorted by the right wing and its propaganda machine for the general (white) public?
In order to understand what affirmative action is in the context of university admissions, one has to understand how decisions traditionally have been made about who is admitted to a school. This generally has consisted of evaluating a student’s GPA and performance on standardized tests. Affirmative action moves beyond just grades and standardized testing. It insists that those measures are not the totality of an individual. We actually know empirically that grades and standardized testing only imperfectly predict success in college. For example, a student that has had to raise their younger siblings while they’re in high school probably has the determination and grit to succeed in a four-year university. We might guess that a student who has managed to learn and succeed in an underfunded school lacking in resources will likely learn and succeed at a university or college that has lots of resources.
Race-based affirmative action specifically says that we ought to be conscious of a student’s race when making admissions decisions, because a student’s race might help us understand their grades and standardized test scores. Race contextualizes those numbers. Despite what conservatives say about it, affirmative action is not some type of “handout” like “welfare” for lazy and unqualified Black and brown people.
Of course, the right-wing members of the court did not mention legacy admissions or how the children of big money donors get preferential treatment — what is a de facto type of white privilege and white unearned advantage, an “affirmative action” program for unqualified white people. Likewise, the majority did not object to how at most universities a decision is made to admit more “unqualified” male students as a way of achieving gender parity in a given cohort.
There is a conservative argument about so-called “mismatch,” where students of color are imagined to be admitted through affirmative action into institutions where they supposedly do not have the skills and preparation to succeed. Clarence Thomas mentions this theory repeatedly. But the science is not there to justify mismatch theory. It has been debunked time and time again, which Justice Sotomayor mentions in her dissent. Interestingly, the right-wing justices who claim to be concerned about mismatch in terms of students of color going to competitive colleges and universities do not have the same level of concern about mismatch in terms of legacy admits.
“It is really hard to reconcile these decisions with one another in terms of an overarching theory of law.”
Your dad and granddad having graduated from college does not prove that you have the academic chops, or discipline, or determination to succeed in the school. Similarly, your family having donated millions of dollars to the university does not translate into academic ability and intelligence. Students who lack the highest SAT scores and GPAs, but who are admitted because they are athletes, would fall into that category as well. The court was not concerned about those students either.
For me, this reveals that the justices who signed on to these opinions are not really worried about whether Black and brown students are going to do well in elite institutions; it is just that they do not want Black and brown students to “take the seats” of white and Asian students who they believe actually deserve to be at these elite institutions.
In their decision to end affirmative action at the nation’s colleges and universities, the right-wing justices summoned up Brown v. Board of Education. This is part of a larger project by the “conservative” movement and white right to weaponize, distort, abuse, and misrepresent the victories of the long Black Freedom Struggle and civil rights movement as a way of undermining and ultimately reversing them. Please help me process their twisted readings of Brown v. Board and the Equal Protection Clause.
Brown v. Board looms over these debates about affirmative action. Those who oppose race-based affirmative action and those who support it both say that their position is faithful to Brown v. Board. In 1954, the court decided in Brown that racially separate schools were inherently unequal and that they were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Brown is subject to many interpretations. One interpretation is that Brown mandated colorblindness; it forbade school districts from taking into consideration students’ races when assigning them to schools.
Another equally plausible interpretation of Brown is that the court was concerned with anti-subordination. In this view, segregated Black and white schools were unconstitutional because they functioned to subordinate Black people; they functioned to subjugate Black people vis-à-vis their white counterparts. So, which is the better understanding of Brown? Was Brown about colorblindness, or was it about antisubordination?
In my opinion, Brown was about antisubordination. And I get there because I think that we have to pay attention to the motivations behind the Equal Protection Clause, which was added to the Constitution after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment, which contains the Equal Protection Clause, was proposed and ratified in order to make formerly enslaved Black people equal citizens.
“The conservative majority on the court does not care; they are very comfortable with subjugating non-white people in America.”
The Equal Protection Clause was designed to undo slavery. And the problem of chattel slavery was not that white people weren’t being colorblind. The problem of chattel slavery was that white people thought that Black people were an inferior race of humans and treated them accordingly. The Equal Protection Clause was ratified not to make white people colorblind, but rather to ensure that Black people were no longer treated as subhuman. Race-based affirmative action programs are consistent with what the 14th Amendment requires because it is interested in real racial equality, not just colorblindness.
A Supreme Court justice made the intervention not too long ago that to get past racism one must take account of race.
That guy’s gone, right? It’s really just a numbers game with the Supreme Court today. Before Justice Kennedy retired, conservatives on the court just didn’t have the votes to instantiate this view that the Constitution mandates colorblindness. Now they do. It’s not that those arguments make more sense today than they did 10 years ago. It’s not that there is more evidence to support that right-wing view. It is most certainly not true that we as a country are closer to a multiracial democracy than we were ten years ago. Ultimately, the only thing that has changed is the composition of the court.
As a factual and historical matter, the United States Constitution is not “colorblind.” In reality, it is a document that represented the interests of the white slave-owning class and was one of the bedrock documents of a herrenvolk racial state. Serious historians and other scholars have repeatedly documented how as a group the framers and other white elites saw little if any contradiction between white on Black chattel slavery, white supremacy, and their vision of (white) democracy. Yet, the right-wing justices insist on the Constitution somehow being “colorblind” and then reasoning from that incorrect premise to whatever conclusion they want to reach. Taking them seriously, how is such a view of the Constitution structured?
I think they believe that if you keep saying it, somehow it becomes true. But reality does not work that way. The Constitution is very much aware of race. The document literally contemplates race. The 3/5th clause is an obvious example. The majority opinion in the court’s recent affirmative action decision repeats “colorblind” so many times that an uninformed person may actually think that if you read the Constitution, you would see the words “colorblind” or “colorblindness.” But it doesn’t say that. What it does say is that no person shall be denied “equal protection of the laws.” Conservatives insist that those words mean “colorblindness.”
What the conservative majority will say is that during those lamentable and tragic moments in our nation’s racial history, the court was not interpreting the Constitution to be colorblind. They would say that the problem was that the court was allowing people to think about race. However, in my view, the problem of separate but equal, for example, wasn’t that people were thinking about race. The problem was how people were thinking about race. And they were thinking about race in order to conserve the existing racial hierarchy and to protect white supremacy. The conservative majority pretends that it cannot see the difference between those divergent uses of race. These conservative justices—all of whom got the finest educations from competitive universities—supposedly cannot see the difference between thinking about race in order to subjugate somebody and thinking about race in order to attempt to undo that subordination. Of course, they can see the difference. They know better.
The distinction here is important. Do the right-wing justices, like Clarence Thomas for example, actually believe in the factually wrong version of history and the Constitution (and reality) that they are articulating in the decision to end affirmative action, and more generally in terms of their legal theories? Or are they just ideologues and operatives, zealots, who don’t really care about the substance of the law and the Constitution and are just using it to advance a larger political and societal project?
I don’t know. And I don’t think it matters. What I do know for sure is that they are very comfortable signing on to decisions and handing down interpretations of the Constitution that will hurt people of color. In the end that is all I need to know. They won’t lose any sleep at night thinking about how students of color are going to be even more underrepresented in the nation’s colleges and universities. They don’t care about the real world implications of striking down affirmative action; they don’t care that, quite literally, lives will be lost, as Justice Jackson so compellingly and brilliantly demonstrated in her dissent when she talked about the effect that doctor-patient racial concordance has on reducing Black infant mortality. The conservative majority on the court does not care; they are very comfortable with subjugating non-white people in America.
‘A lot of fear’: Rent hikes across the country mean eviction notices for many Americans
Claire Thornton, USA TODAY – July 5, 2023
A looming rent increase in New York City is poised to force the most vulnerable renters onto the streets at a time when eviction rates nationwide have been steadily rising, and the worst cities are seeing eviction filings increase by more than 60%.
In New York — one of the country’s most expensive housing markets — the panel that sets rent rates for rent stabilized apartments last month approved hikes of 3% for one-year contracts. Last year saw rent upped by a similar amount.
“Even 3% is going to hurt a substantial number of people,” he said.
Why is rent so high in so many cities?
In recent years, cities across the United States have seen dramatic rent hikes. As a result, eviction filing rates are surging, particularly in the South and Southwest, where the rent increases are among the biggest, according to data collected by the Eviction Lab.
The cost of shelter is increasing in part because of record inflation and the rise in evictions over the past 18 months coincides with the expiration of eviction moratoriums and COVID-19-related rental assistance.
Rent hikes happening across the country are most painful for working single moms, retirees and people receiving disability payments from the government, said Robert Desir, a staff attorney with New York’s Legal Aid Society who worked on the city’s rent stabilization law.
“People are going to be stuck with this extra cost that many are going to have a really hard time meeting. They are going to have to sacrifice other basics to pay for the rent,” Desir said. If people can’t cut corners, they will fall behind in rent, risking eviction, he said.
Why are landlords choosing evictions?
In big cities and small town across the country, a rent increase can be a “de-facto” eviction, said Desir.
“They can receive a notice from the owner that says, ‘I’m going to raise the rent by 25, 50, 75 or 100%’ — whatever the landlord thinks that the market can bear,” he said.
Telling a tenant they must pay that much more in rent each month “can be used as a weapon” if an owner wants a certain tenant out, he said. In New York, the recent vote to increase rents in stabilized units is completely lawful, but still, “it’s dire and really makes a difference,” he said.
Since January 2022, landlords in Las Vegas have been initiating 60% more evictions than they did in 2016 through 2018, data shows. So far in 2023, Phoenix has also had around a 40% spike in filings compared to the years before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the Eviction Lab.
The rent hikes of 20% or more are happening because landlords expect to find tenants in the hot housing market who will pay the higher rents, which pushes more people out of their longtime homes that used to be affordable, Gershenson said.
In New York City, landlords have also pointed to inflation as a reason why they’re raising rents, citing increasing operational and maintenance costs.
Where are eviction rates the highest in the US?
Here are some of the cities with the sharpest increases in eviction filings:
In, Houston, the Lone Star State’s largest city, there has been a 50% increase in eviction filings compared to 2016 through 2018 averages.
Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas’ second-largest metro area, has seen above-average eviction rates, with some months reaching around 40% more than 2016-2018 averages.
InColumbus, Ohio, eviction filings have risen 20% higher compared with 2016 to 2018.
Some cities are helping renters avoid eviction
Rates of evictions in New York City shuttered during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, when an eviction moratorium was in place. But rates popped up in January 2022 after the moratorium expired and they’ve been on the rise since then, according to data from the Eviction Lab.
One small piece of good news is that eviction rates in the city have decreased since 2016 through 2018, the next most recent time period for which the Eviction Lab has data, because New York City has some of the strongest tenant unions and protections in the country, Gershenson said.
Philadelphia is another city that’s had “quite a bit of success” reducing evictions, largely due to its eviction diversion program that launched in 2020, Gershenson said. The program has helped 75% of landlords and tenants who participate avoid eviction, the city says.
People gather outside of a New York City Marshall’s office calling for a stop to evictions in New York City.
‘A lot of fear out there’ over eviction threats
An hour outside of Nashville, in Columbia, Tennessee, tenants have been organizing after seeing their rents explode in the past several years, causing more people to become homeless.
Judy Schwartz-Naber, a Walgreen’s worker and organizer with Tennessee for Safe Homes has seen her rent double from $450 to $900 per month in the last seven years. She said there’s “a lot of fear out there” as people are facing more threats of eviction. Schwartz-Naber, 66, said she knows of one woman who was threatened with eviction because her granddaughter who was temporarily living with her was not on the lease.
“I’ve been told in Tennessee they can evict you if they don’t like the look of your face anymore,” she said. “I believe it’s true.”
She said landlords have too much power to kick people out of their homes, and that’s one reason why rents in the town of just over 40,000 have been increasing so quickly.
“They raise the rent and they raise it so high you can’t afford it,” she said.
In nearby Nashville, evictions have spiked since January 2022, sometimes exceeding 2016 to 2018 rates by more than 50%.
“Oh my God, I’m horrified because the human suffering that is connected to that is terrible. My god. It’s horrific there,” said Schwartz-Naber, who herself has experienced eviction. In 2003, the single mom and her daughter were kicked out of their home and the shock forced a cross-country move to Florida.
The ruble traded near 91 per US dollar on Wednesday, extending its 3% fall after the Wagner Group’s short-lived rebellion against Moscow last week.
The latest move means Russia’s currency has blown through a key range of 80-90 per US dollar, which first Russian deputy prime minister Andrey Belousov described as the optimal level for the currency.
The ruble has been one of the worst-performing currencies in 2023 thanks to sanctions and economic headwinds resulting from Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, with investors eyeing the impact of Western trade restrictions and increased military spending on the Kremlin’s coffers. The value of the ruble against the dollar is now 21% lower from levels at the start of the year.
Ruble holders have also shown their desire to switch to other currencies, with retail deposits held in other countries rising to $43.5 billion from early 2022 through May 2023, per an analysis from Bloomberg Economics. 15 regions in Russia saw demand for other currencies increase as much as 70-80% shortly after Wagner’s attempted rebellion, Belousouv previously stated.
The Kremlin, meanwhile, has increased its reliance on other currencies, particularly China’s yuan. The government began selling its $54 billion yuan stash in February to cover falling energy revenues, Russia’s finance ministry said.
Major city announces ban on new homes due to concerning conditions: ‘We’re going to manage this situation’
Laurelle Stelle – July 5, 2023
Due to a lack of water, the state of Arizona has announced that it will not approve any more building permits for single-family homes that rely on wells in Maricopa County, CleanTechnica reported.
Like much of the western U.S., Arizona has been facing a huge drought for many years. A shortage of rainfall has led to residents relying on underground aquifers and the Colorado River for water.
As CleanTechnica explained, the state has been using far too much water. Homes, farms, businesses, and public programs have been drawing on water supplies at an increasing rate, totaling 2.2 billion gallons per day in Maricopa County alone.
Because of this overuse, the Colorado River and groundwater are both drying up. State officials that modeled Arizona’s future water use predict that in the next 100 years, the Phoenix area will need over 1.5 trillion more gallons than it has.
Much of this excess water use has been driven by the growth of towns and cities throughout Arizona, CleanTechnica reported. One of the worst offenders is Phoenix, the state capital, which is located in Maricopa County. The city is surrounded by ever-expanding suburbs that rely on well water.
That’s why Governor Katie Hobbs has put a stop to new building permits.
Unfortunately, the new ban won’t stop the 80,000 building permits for new homes that have already been approved. It also doesn’t cover building projects that rely on river water or source their water from nearby businesses and farms. According to Governor Hobbs, though, the situation is under control.
“We’re going to manage this situation,” Governor Hobbs said at a news conference on June 1, according to The Guardian. “We are not out of water and we will not be running out of water. It is also incredibly important to note that the model relates only to groundwater and does not concern surface water supplies which are a significant source of renewable water for our state. What the model ultimately shows is that our water future is secure.”
