Washington Informer

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson versus Calvin Gurley, both Democrats

Earlier this year, the race for the Council of the District of Columbia chairmanship wasn't on anyone's radar. The city after all had a capable leader in the recently elected Kwame Brown who won the seat in 2011, which was vacated by then-chair Mayor Vincent C. Gray. However, by June 2012, Brown was forced to resign due to some poor personal financial decisions he made. He resigned from the D.C. Council after he was charged with misdemeanor unlawful cash campaign expenditures. This violated D.C. election law that prohibited cash campaign expenditure over $50. Brown awaits sentencing in November.

In the interim, Brown's former colleagues voted for At-Large Council member Phil Mendelson [D] to serve as chairman. Mendelson, 59, who stated his intention of running for the position, isn't in an uncontested race. He's running against Democrat Calvin Gurley, 54, in the general election on Tuesday, Nov. 6.

Mendelson was first elected to the D.C. Council in November 1998. He is the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary and is a member of four additional committees: Jobs and Workforce Development; Libraries, Parks, and Recreation; Public Services and Consumer Affairs.

Mendelson believes government should be an honest, efficient deliverer of services; that the District should help those least able to help themselves to develop the skills to become self-sufficient and end the cycle of poverty; and that government must do this without increasing the tax burdens already shouldered by middle-and-upper income residents.

Mendelson's vision for the chairmanship is improving education, public safety, jobs and the economy and voting rights.

"The District, as the nation's capital, should be a model of service delivery – in public education, public safety, and public health," said Mendelson who's lived in the District since 1970, and has a bachelor's from The American University.

On his re-election web site were endorsements and videotaped testimonials by residents about his candidacy.

He is an "outstanding individual," said Brett Greene, president and chief executive of American Management Corporation, who endorsed Mendelson. "He represents the entire city, he's accessible; and he gives his honest opinion."

However, opponent Gurley said that leadership is the "weakness of Phil Mendelson and the entire [D.C.] Council as a whole." Gurley, a native Washingtonian and Ward 4 resident, is a federal government auditor with accounting experience in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

"The D.C. Council does not have an education committee," Gurley said. "In the midst of a poor school system with an $800 million dollar budget, Phil does nothing regarding his responsibility for the oversight of the District's school system." The Committee on Education, Libraries and Recreation was placed within the council's Committee of the Whole in 2007 in an effort to strengthen oversight by the entire body.

However, Gurley believes education needs its own committee where it will be treated as a priority.

"I am the only candidate who has plans to improve D.C. Public Schools with more teachers, aides, improved science labs, computers in every classroom and school libraries will remain open, and librarians will not be fired," Gurley said, "without raising taxes."

Gurley said he "plans to put more police on the street, bring meaningful commercial development, and have the city deliver all it had previously promised. We can reduce conflicts of interest in the council."

"I have a strong background in detecting fraud, waste and abuse in government agencies and departments," said Gurley, adding he has an understanding of oversight responsibilities as it rests with "upper management, internal control systems and with each council member who chairs a committee."

Ward 5 resident Eric Jones weighed in on the race.

"I don't think Gurley has the name recognition. Phil is seen as the only viable candidate in the race," Jones said. "I think the real discussion is about the At-Large race and the upcoming special [election]."

He referred to the next election in D.C., which will find a replacement for Mendelson's vacated seat.

Phil Mendelson's website is http://philmendelson.com/2012/ and Calvin Gurley's http://www.calvingurley.com

No matter who wins the November 6 election, he will have a mess on his hands. The Budget Control Act of 2011 will cut $109 billion from the federal budget in 2013 unless Congress is able to figure out how to either reduce the deficit or cut another deal. The cuts will range from 7 to 9 percent, and they'll hit everything – Pell Grants, housing, employment services, and defense.

Already, some government contractors are cutting back in anticipation of what is called sequestration and some politicians are saying that our national defense will be "hallowed" by the process. While Mitt Romney talks about getting more ships for the Navy, the fact is that all of us will have to do with less if Congress cannot see its way out of this mess.

The deficit reduction sequester – a result of the failure to enact legislation that reduces the budget deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years – is scheduled to begin in January. It will affect all non-exempt federal programs, with equal savings coming from defense spending and from non-defense spending, according to the House Budget Committee.

Most economists are clear that cutting spending during a recession or its weak recovery makes no sense. Deficit notwithstanding, taking money out of the economy is a prescription for disaster. We have only just climbed out of a recession, but recovery is not assured. We face the possibility of a double dip recession by withdrawing money from the economy.

One of the biggest challenges in avoiding the sequester is the fact that the Congress that will convene to attempt to make a deal in a lame-duck Congress. Some will lose their jobs as of January, but they still have the opportunity to pass laws between November and January. They have nothing to lose by continuing their obduracy, and they have few incentives to compromise, something they haven't done before.

Republicans don't want to raise taxes, especially on the wealthy, which is one way to avoid the sequestration trap. Democrats don't want to cut vital social programs. That simplifies matters just a bit, but the bottom line is we get more money either by increasing taxes or cutting programs. We can't increase taxes on the already beleaguered middle class, and the poor don't have a penny to spare. That leaves the wealthy, but they are the sacred cows of the Republican Party. Cutting social programs hurts those who have already been hurt. Congress has a dilemma.

One of the things we know about sequestration is that it will cost jobs, both in the federal government and in companies that contract with the federal government. Our extremely weak recovery, which leaves us with an official unemployment rate slightly less than 8 percent, cannot sustain more job losses. Our Congress, with a median wealth of $750,000, excluding the value of their homes, cannot fathom the lives of ordinary human beings. These are people who get up in the morning, pour cereal in a bowl, take a fast crack at the newspaper before hopping a subway or bus on the way to work, put in their hours, often more than eight, and then take the subway or bus back home. Many make a pit stop at a day care center or school, and then rush home to put food on the table. With median wealth of about $20,000, including home ownership, their lives are a far cry from those of their elected representatives. The gap, perhaps, explains why the American Jobs Act has not yet been passed after languishing in Congress for nearly a year.

Sequestration has come up only tangentially in the presidential debates. Yet it is one of the most important immediate issues that our nation faces. Across the board cuts hit more heavily at the bottom than at the top, and those who are already suffering will find themselves suffering more. It would have been great to have one of the debates focused specifically on this issue of sequestration. The way this sequestration is implemented is likely to depend on the outcome of the election. Yet both candidates have been mostly silent on this matter.

What happens after November 6? Whether President Obama or Willard Romney wins, hard choices will have to be made.

Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer. She is President Emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.

The Choice: Perspectives on the Presidential Election

WASHINGTON (October 9, 2012) - The Howard University School of Communications (HUSC) issued a press release for a program and reception honoring former journalism professor, the late Samuel F. Yette.  "The Choice: Perspectives on the Presidential Election," a program that explores money, media and voting rights is being hosted by HUSC and the Samuel F. Yette Memorial Scholarship Committee.

The event will take place during Howard's homecoming weekend on Fri., Oct. 19, at 6 p.m. in the Seeley G. Mudd Building, 520 W Street, N.W., Room 3019. A reception will precede the program at 5 p.m. The event is free and open to the public.

Professor Samuel F. Yette. Yette, author of the seminal work, "The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America," was a pioneer at the School of Communications, where he taught from 1972 until 1986. He died in January 2011.

The program will explore ideas expressed in "The Choice" and its resonance to the 2012 Presidential Election in a panel discussion. Featured journalists include William Douglas, congressional correspondent for the McClatchy Newspapers, who will address "Big Money: What Is the Influence of the Super-PACS?" Wilmer Leon, a political scientist and nationally syndicated radio and talk-show host, will address "Voter Suppression." Also, Dorothy Gilliam, former Washington Post columnist and director of the Prime Movers Media Program at George Washington University, will address "Are the Media Doing Their Job?"

Moderators of the event are Denise Rolark Barnes, publisher of the Washington Informer, and Gloria Minott, public affairs director, WPFW Radio. Rolark Barnes and Minott are alumni of the Howard University School of Communications.

"Professor Yette led by example and provided his students with everyday lessons around conviction, intellectual curiosity, high moral standards and the virtue of fearlessness," said Bonita Coleman Stewart, vice president, Americas Partner Business Solutions, Google, Inc.

"Sam Yette understood the past and had the vision to see the future," said E. Ethelbert Miller, director of Howard's African American Resource Center. "He warned us about the present. The world is still a dangerous place to live. Sam Yette taught us how to make the right choice when it came to survival. If we erase or forget his words, then we must master the tightrope of life without the nets of memory."

To RSVP for the program, call (202) 806-5807 or (202) 806-7980, or email Carol Dudley, director of the Office of Career Development, School of Communications, at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and indicate "Homecoming/Yette Event." Free parking is available after 5 p.m. on Bryant Street, N.W.; in the Annex II Lots facing the Medical School; and at the Banneker School Lot on 4th and Bryant Streets, N.W.

As all the hype over debate performances between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney continues, Black voter mobilization and election protection activists remain focused on a 'state of emergency' in preparation for Nov. 6 polling precincts where the real showdown will take place.

"I think this is the worst civil rights battle that I've seen in my lifetime," says Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "And I think it rivals the 1960s and the 50s actually. People have really decided that the only way to win elections is to suppress the Black vote. This is a purposeful, deliberate strategy. And the only thing we can do is to fight back and make sure they don't win."

Over the past two years, Republican administrations have moved to enact new legislation that require voter identification cards, photo identifications, cut backs on voting days and times, erroneous purging of voters from rolls and other rigid registration and identification requirements. Those most affected will be racial minorities, senior citizens, veterans, youth, low-income people and previously convicted felons. Though the supporters claim the new laws are to prevent voter fraud, there is little or no evidence of a voter fraud problem in U. S. politics.

Therefore, election protection activists by the millions will dispatch across the nation or monitor telephone lines before and on Election Day Nov. 6 in order to protect the sanctity of the vote. Having proclaimed the situation a "state of emergency", Black civil rights groups have initiated a a unified voter registration, get-out-to-vote and election protection campaign.

"It's as bad as we allow it to be," says Melanie Campbell, president/CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. "We know what we're up against. Everybody's exposed. No matter what the barriers are. Our history in this country, we've had barriers before."

Campbell continues, "The legal groups – the Lawyers' Committee, the Advancement Project, the ACLU – all of our legal groups have been doing a great job in pushing back from a legal perspective and winning in a lot of cases because it's egregious and it's obvious that these laws that have been passed over the last two years were based on a partisan advantage. We all know that and the public knows it more. Now people need the tools to know what to do about it."

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies recently released a statement reporting that a broad coalition of civil rights, social justice and faith-based and other organizations representing communities of color has "declared a state of emergency on voting rights in the U.S. and said that millions of people could be disenfranchised by restrictive voter laws."

The coalition has called for voters to take steps to ensure that they are aware of any new laws in their states and how to assure that their votes will be counted. Among the steps:

◦Check your registration status

◦Check the documentation needed to register and to vote

◦Check the deadlines for registration and early/absentee voting

◦Check your state voter laws

◦Check your polling location and hours

Among a number of community resources to assist with voter registration, information and problems with voting on Election Day are as follows:

◦NAACP – This is My Vote www.thisismyvote.org/

◦Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - http://www.866ourvote.org/ 1-866-OURVOTE (To report voting problems)

◦National Council of La Raza – Mobilize to Vote www.nclr.org/register www.nclr.org/challenge.

◦National Urban League – Occupy the Vote www.iamempowered.com/occupythevote

◦PICO Network – Let My People Vote www.piconetwork.org/tools-resources/let-my-people-vote-resources

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York Law School,http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_summary_of_voting_law_changes/, at least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states*:

◦Twenty-seven restrictive bills are currently pending in six states.

◦Twenty-five laws and two executive actions have passed since the beginning of 2011 in the following 19 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Main, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin

◦Seventeen states, which account for 218 electoral votes, or nearly 80 percent of the total needed to win the presidency, have passed restrictive voting laws and executive actions that have the potential to impact the 2012 election; Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginal, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

◦At least 34 states introduced legislation that requires voters to show photo identification in order to vote. An additional four states introduced into legislation request that voters show photo identification just to register to vote.

◦Virginia passed a law which eliminates the execution of an affidavit of identity to replace the voter ID requirements when voting at the polls or applying for an absentee ballot.

◦At least 17 states introduced into legislation requirements for proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, in order to register to vote. Proof of citizenship laws passed in Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee.

◦At least 16 states introduced bills eliminating Election Day and same-day voter registration. Florida, Illinois and Texas passed laws restricting voter registration drives, as well as Florida and Wisconsin passed laws making it more difficult for people who move to stay registered and vote. Ohio eliminated their week long same-day voter registration, and Main passed a law eliminating Election Day registration.

◦At least nine states introduced bills that reduce early voting period, four tried to reduce absentee voting opportunities as well. Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia were successful in reducing early voting.

◦Two states, Florida and Iowa, reversed prior executive actions which made it easier for citizens with past felonies to restore their voting rights. South Dakota passed a law imposing further restrictions on citizens with felony convictions by denying voting rights to persons on probation.

◦*Updates may apply based on recent court rulings. Please see http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_summary_of_voting_law_changes/ for updates and more details.

After several days of testimony and strong direction from the State Supreme Court, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson reversed himself and approved an injunction of the state's voter ID law.

It will not be in effect for the November General Election, though it may after January.

Last month Simpson denied the injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO and others that challenged the law as unduly burdensome, particularly for African-Americans, the elderly and young voters.

The law's constitutionality was not an issue, either for Simpson or the Supreme Court. The issue was whether or not Simpson thought anyone eligible would be unable to cast a ballot because of the law, or if he found the state had not complied with law's promise of providing liberal access to a photo ID that voters were required to carry on election day.

Though the Department of State eased requirements for getting a free photo ID, and had even begun issuing its own voter-only ID, Simpson found that having to do that clearly indicated the state had failed to meet the access requirement.

NAACP Philadelphia Branch President Jerry Mondesire, owner of the Philadelphia Sun was among the most vocal of the law's critics calling it a voter repression law.

"Score this one a victory for the people, and a loss for the scheming politicians who wanted to steal this election," he said. "The NAACP is gratified by the decision of Judge Simpson, and though it will become the law, it will not have a debilitating effect on voter turnout in four weeks."

Locally, Khari Mosely, civic engagement director for the Pittsburgh chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, said he is pleased with Simpson's ruling.

"We are pleased the judge made the right decision based on the Supreme Court's direction," he said. "While we feel a law like this should not even be on the books, we are happy it will not be an obstacle in this year's election."

Mosely said a rally with Rev. Al Sharpton scheduled for Oct. 6 at the August Wilson Center for African American Culture will go on as planned even though the Voter ID law has been shelved.

"Naturally the tenor will be more celebratory, but the work isn't done," he said. "We have an Oct. 9 registration deadline and ID Law or not, you still have to be registered to vote."

President Obama's re-election campaign quickly released a statement supporting Simpson's ruling.

"The right to vote and choose our leaders is at the heart of what it means to be an American," it read. "The President and his campaign are committed to making sure that every eligible voter, regardless of party, has the ability to make their voices heard and participate in the electoral process."

Read more: http://http://www.nnpa.org/news/national/judge-halts-voter-id-law/#ixzz28oqVhgr1%EF%BB%BF