Our Time PressThe Local Paper with the Global View

Q:  I=m not a lawyer and I don=t understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore.  Can you explain it to me?
 A:  Sure.  I=m a lawyer.  I read it.  It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
 Q:  But wait a second.  The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?
 A:  Right.
 Q:  So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
 A:  Oh no.  Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.
 Q:  Oh.  So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?
 A.  Nope.  The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) Athat punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter.@  So there are legal votes that should be counted but can=t be.
 Q:  Oh.  Does this have something to do with states= rights?  Don=t conservatives love that?
 A:  Generally yes.  These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can=t steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools.  Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.
 Q:  Is there an exception in this case?
 A:  Yes, the Gore exception.  States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President.  This decision is limited to only this situation.
 Q:  C=mon.  The Supremes didn=t really say that.  You=re exaggerating.
 A:  Nope.  They held AOur consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.@
 Q:  What complexities?
 A:  They don=t say.
 Q:  I=ll bet I know the reason.  I heard Jim Baker say this.  The votes can=t be counted because the Florida Supreme Court Achanged the rules of the election after it was held.@  Right?
 A.  Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme
Court did not change the rules of the election.  But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.
 Q:  Huh?
 A:  The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is Aclear intent of the voter.@  The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.
 Q:  I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature=s
law after the election.
 A:  Right.
 Q:  So what=s the problem?
 A:  They should have.  The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
Court should have Aadopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote@

 Q:  I thought only the Legislature could Aadopt@ new law.
 A:  Right.
 Q:  So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.
 A:  Right.  You=re catching on.
 Q:  If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned
for changing the rules. And if it didn=t, it=s overturned for not changing the rules.  That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted.
 A:  Right.  Next question.

 Q:  Wait, wait.  I thought the problem was Aequal protection,@ that some counties counted votes differently from others.  Isn=t that a problem?
 A:  It sure is.  Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes.  Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes.  So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
 Q:  Aha!  That=s a severe equal-protection problem!!!
 A:  No it=s not.  The Supreme Court wasn=t worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida.  That Acomplexity@ was not a problem.
 Q:  Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
 A:  Nope.  The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
 Q:  Yikes.  So what was the serious equal protection problem?
 A:  The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised.  The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of Aclear intent of the voter@ may have a slightly different opinion about the voter=s intent.
 Q:  Hmmm.  OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter=s intent is clear?
 A:  Nope.
 Q:  Why not?
 A:  No time.
 Q:  No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear?  Why not?
 A:  Because December 12 was yesterday.
 Q:  Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
 A:  No.  January 6 is the deadline.  In 1960, Hawaii=s votes weren=t counted until January 4.
 Q:  So why is December 12 important?
 A:  December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can=t challenge the results.
 Q:  What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?
 A:  Nothing.
 Q:  But I thought C
 A:  The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete
its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress.  The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
 Q:  But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.
 A:  They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.
 Q:  Why?
 A:  Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
 Q:  So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging
chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida.
 A.  Great idea!  The US Supreme Court rejected it.  They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore=s winning would cause Apublic acceptance@ and that would Acast[ a cloud@ over Bush=s Alegitimacy@ that would harm Ademocratic stability.@
 Q:  In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won=t accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore=s victory?
 A:  Yes.
 Q:  Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
 A:  Let=s just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law.  But that doesn=t stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.
 Q:  Aren=t these conservative justices against judicial activism?

 A:  Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
 Q:  Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes?
 A:  The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.
 Q:  Didn=t the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?
 A:  Yes.
 Q:  But, but C
 A:  Not to worry.  The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.
 Q:  So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
 A:  The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.
 Q:  So who is punished for this behavior?
 A:  Gore, of course.
 Q:  Tell me this: Florida=s laws are unconstitutional, right?
 A:  Yes
 Q:  And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?
 A:  Yes.  And 33 of those states have the Aclear intent of the voter@ standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.
 Q:  Then why aren=t the results of 33 states thrown out?
 A:  Um.  Because…um…..the Supreme Court doesn=t say…
 Q:  But if Florida=s certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don=t know who really won the election there, right?
 A:  Right.  Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).
 Q:  So, what do we do, have a re-vote?  Throw out the entire state? Count all ballots under a single uniform standard?
 A:  No.  We just don=t count the votes that favor Gore.
 Q:  That=s completely bizarre!  That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
 A:  Scalia=s two sons are both lawyers working for Bush.  Thomas=s wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.
 Q:  Why didn=t they recuse themselves?
 A:  If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.
 Q:  I can=t believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
 A:  Read the opinions for yourself:
 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
(December 9 stay stopping the recount), and  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf  (December 12 final opinion)
 Q:  So what are the consequences of this?
 A:  The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America=s second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
 Q:  I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
 A:  True, in a democracy.  But America is not a democracy.  In America, in the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
 Q:  Is there any way to stop the Supreme Court from doing this again?
 A:  YES.  No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate.
It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end… and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
 Q:  What do I do now?
 A:  E-mail this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator, reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three times Kennedy=s margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote.

And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people.

C  MarkLevineEsq@aol.com

by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law.

Broader Organization
by Ted Glick
 As the year 2000 comes to a close, and as attention turns toward the official first year of the new millennium, it seems to me that there is one, overriding objective that all pro-justice activists need to prioritize: broadly-based outreach to involve more people in our grassroots-based organizations. As important as other tasks also are, this one has to be right up there at the top.

And it=s not just because George W. Bush has stolen the election that I say this. Under Gore, there=d be the same need.
2000 was a good year for the people=s movement. With the direct actions from D.C. to Philadelphia to Los Angeles and elsewhere, the Nader/LaDuke campaign, the growing anti-sweatshop movement, a burgeoning pro-amnesty movement and many other examples, there is no question but that the Agood guys@ are on the move, tens of thousands of dedicated activists and millions of supporters. But that=s not enough. We need hundreds of thousands actively involved in our emerging, independent, pro-justice movement.

And it=s not just that there=s a need for it. There=s always a necessity to involve more people in our efforts. The fact is that the work we have been doing over the past year has opened up concrete possibilities to dramatically increase our ranks and strengthen our various organizations. This is true whether it be the Greens, other third party groups, student groups, non-violent direct action groups, other community organizations, or grassroots-oriented trade unions.
Why did tens of thousands of people come out to the pro-Nader rallies in the last two months of the Presidential campaign? Because there is a hunger among millions of people for a political force that can take on the economic and political system which is responsible for so much human suffering, oppression and environmental devastation. The Nader campaign, for all its weaknesses, brought to the surface that hunger and the concrete possibilities for movement- and organization-building.
What about all those labor folks and people of color who came out in large numbers for Gore because of their fear of Bush? Are they just going to fade back into the woodwork, accept W. as Atheir@ President, forget about what happened in Florida and with the Supreme Court, go quietly into the night? Not likely, especially if we are out there visibly organizing around issues they care about, including the lack of genuine democracy in this country and the need for fundamental democratic reforms to our electoral system.

The real question is, are we up to it?

It=s hard to generalize; conditions from one locality to another are different, and there is certainly unevenness in organizational development and organizing skills within this still-emerging, still-learning thing we call Aa movement,@ but from where I sit, from what I=m observing and hearing, I think the answer is yes. Or perhaps more accurately, Ayes, if.@

Yes, if we build our organizations in a way which welcomes new people and encourages their verbal and physical participation in decision-making and activity, if we are about building community, personal relationships with one another, as well as doing the practical issue and organizational detail work.
Yes, if we struggle with our weaknesses, deal with them honestly, and not pretend that we=ve got it all together. For example, if there are few people of color involved and we live in an area with a high percentage of people of color, we need to discuss what attitudes and practices may be inhibiting their involvement, at the same time that we reach out to predominantly people of color groups to support them on the issues they have defined as most central.
Yes, if we maintain an openness to new ideas and insights, reject narrowness and sectarianism, while striving for unity and organizational coherence. These are not mutually exclusive; they can be and should be complementary.
Yes, if we are open to learning from the experiences of older organizers if we are young, and if we are open to learning from the fresh insights and perspectives of youth organizers if we are older.

And yes, if our organizations, our meetings, our events, our human interactions are a source of strength, support and positive challenge for those of us in them and those with whom we come into contact. We need to keep building a new culture, Acreating a new way of being,@ as Victoria Gray-Adams described it at the recent Progressive Dialogue II meeting in Washington, D.C.
Let=s be about taking our movement to the next, needed step: bigger, broader, deeper and more powerful. Let=s choose issues to work on that help us do this. And let=s talk to each other about what is and is not working.
It=s a good time to be an organizer with and for the people.
Ted Glick is the National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org) and author of FUTURE HOPE: A Winning Strategy for a Just Society. He can be reached at futurehopeTG@aol.com or P.O. Box 1132, Bloomfield, N.J.  07003.

Eighty-seven percent of the black vote went to Charles Schumer.  Only 13% went to the Floyd Flake supported Al
Damato.  Rev. Calvin Butts supported Pataki who got only 15% of the black vote.  This says that the black electorate
is smart enough not to be fooled by the Flake and the Butts claims to political leadership.  The sad thing is that it says
the black vote is too blindly devoted to the Democratic Party.  When you look at Schumer’s vote ten percent of the black
vote went independent.   Carl McCall got 2.6 million votes, more than Pataki and more than Schumer.  Remember that
Carl McCall has not been seriously challenged in an election. Blacks saved the Democratic Party across the country and
put Charles Schumer in the Senate.  Now here are some things he can do.  He could lead the charge to get a presidential
pardon for Mumia Abdul Jamal.  He could get with Attorney General Spitzer, another beneficiary of the black vote, and
give Alton Maddox his license back.  He’s already done ten years.  Even convicted murderers get out earlier for “time
served.”  Schumer should sponsor a Martin Luther King Plan to rebuild urban communities modeled after the Marshall
Plan for Western Europe.   The Plan would rebuild infrastructure, roads, bridges, parks and housing stock.  It would
create jobs and promote urban health.   The new senator should be dedicated to developing black economies in black
communities.  Then we can own and operate our own businesses in our communities.  Instead of Rite Aid, we should
have a Rite On Health and Beauty Aids.   These major stores coming into the black community are really promoting
white economic development.    Schumer could also look at immigration to make it easier for folks from the Caribbean
to have citizenship.  He could  support a Bill on reparations for black people in America.   These are the kinds of things
blacks should be speaking with  Schumer about.  The danger is that he may choose something like the African Trade Bill,
which is simply a plot to strip Africa of her resources, and call it supporting a black agenda.
   Charles Barron

Ed. Note:  The Unity Party received a total of 11,000 votes with 7-8,000 coming from NYC.   The largest votes came
out of Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, East New York, Brownsville and Harlem, which happens to mirror the major part of
the Our Time Press distribution pattern.   Because we had major articles about the Unity Party and Mary France in our
July-October issues, we don’t think it’s inappropriate to take some credit for the turnout in our area and thank our
readers for their support.

As another calendar year approaches its end and Kwanzaa is days away, it=s the perfect time to assess effectiveness in all areas of our lives and revamp our plans for the coming year.   
On the school front the Fall Open School sessions have just concluded.    Conversations with teachers and parents in various schools brought home the fact that changes can and must be made at the level of the individual school.   The general designation for the conferences is for an afternoon session and an evening session for a  total of approximately five hours.
 This arrangement clearly doesn=t produce the intended result.  Afternoon attendance has traditionally been low B and continues to be.  A number of middle school teachers, each with 75 B 80 students on their rolls reported seeing an average of five or six parents in their afternoon session.  No surprise here.  Working on my Masters, the research showed that the greatest obstacle to parent involvement was scheduling events during the day.  
While more parents attend the conferences during the evening hours, another problem arises, especially at the middle and high school levels.  In these schools teachers have four or more classes of 25 plus students.  Some teachers said that up to 50 percent of their parents signed in but because of the numbers and the time constraint, they didn=t always get to meet with them.  I remember the ritual of going into class rooms filled with waiting parents, signing in and leaving to see if I could see another teacher or if lucky, two before my name was reached on the first list.  That didn=t always work and what was originally intended to be an opportunity to hear about my children=s progress and needs, became a tension filled obstacle course.  So if this system doesn=t work for 50 percent of the parents attending, what can we expect at 60, 70, 80 and above?
 Fortunately, I discovered that some school communities are taking the initiative to make Open School more parent and teacher friendly and in the process having it serve its intended purpose B provide an opportunity for parents to meet, greet and confer with the adults (teachers and administrators) who often spend more waking hours with their children than they do. 
Some schools designate a period of days for parent-teacher conferences and parents make appointments based on their schedules.  Others convene the afternoon and evening session in a combined block of time. An elementary school stretches the conferences over a two-week period and parents have 30-minute blocks of time.   In one middle school, the Homeroom teacher assembles the information from the student=s subject teachers.  Parents then meet with the Homeroom teacher and can request meetings with the subject teacher if desired.  You all know that you can request conferences with the teacher(s) at any time during the school year, of course.   I=m sure that there are more innovations out there on a wide range of topics and I=d like this column to be the vehicle to share them.  There is a correlation between effectiveness and team spirit, between team spirit and parent involvement, between parent involvement and student success.  The more we share what works, the closer we come to reaching our goal B school success for all children. 
It makes sense that promoting team spirit and problem solving is easier to implement within a school than in the entire city.  By students, parents and school staff increasing the effectiveness of their school, the system, city wide is made effective.   The ball is in your court.  We can change anything that we take responsibility for B responsibility does not equal blame.  What things could be improved in your school that would have a positive impact on student success?  Working with your Parent Coordinator to reform the next Open School Week might be a good project to start.
I=d like to extend an invitation to the Parent Coordinators to let us know what you=re up to at your school.  What challenges do you face?  What challenges have you met or are meeting successfully.  The invitation is ever open to parents to let us know what your successes and needs are.  Remember people are resources.  Please email me at faminisha@aol.com or parentsnotebook@yahoo.com.

When the Powell family gathers in a joyous celebration of Kwanzaa this year, a new addition to the family will be present. For this reason the Kwanzaa principles will have a special meaning. Eight month old Christopher will not understand about the candies or ceremony but he will see the loving faces of his family. He will sense that something very special is happening. Chris became a member of the Powell family earlier in the year through adoption.
Kwanzaa is a seven-day cultural festival that celebrates and reinforces, family, community and culture through practices and affirmations. A prominent display symbolizing the seven principles of Kwanzaa is increasingly found in homes right alongside Christmas trees and tinsel. If we subscribe to the importance of the tradition, then we must embrace
the significance of the Black family in its broadest terms and the extended family that forms our community. It is the perfect time to remember the many children in our community who have not been as fortunate as little Chris. Sadly, many babies and children are still waiting for a permanent, loving home with parents like Rita and David Powell.
Chris found his home because of the African-American Infant Adoption program of Spence-Chapin Services, a nonprofit organization. The agency is one of the oldest adoption agencies in the nation. It was a pioneer in the 1940’s when it began to find adoptive parents for minority children. Today it has the most extensive services of this kind in the
region, placing both healthy babies and babies with special medical needs. Because of a commitment to early placement, the babies average eight weeks of age when join their permanent families. Families like the Powell’s express the true spirit of Kwanzaa. Welcoming Chris into the family reflects two values of Kwanzaa, Umoja (unity) and Ujima
(responsibility). The act of adopting is in keeping with the tradition of the holiday, honoring the past, while building a strong future.
Spence-Chapin Services for Families and Children is sponsoring an information meeting about African-American Infant Adoption on Wednesday, January 6 at 6:00 p.m. Couples, single adults and extended family are invited to attend.
The presentation will feature an adoption specialist and an adoptive family. A major part of the meeting will be spent responding to questions from the audience. At the end of the meeting, prospective adoptive parents can arrange for a private interview.
The nonprofit agency emphasizes an individualized approach to the adoption process and direct permanent placement without foster care. Post-adoption workshops and seminars are other services available to both parents and children.
Spence-Chapin is at 6 East 94th Street, Manhattan. Call 212-369-0300 or www.spence-chapin.org. for more information and reservation.