The Supreme Court has heard several cases about gerrymandering. The consensus is, basically, that political gerrymandering is okay (redistricting based on whether the house is Democratic or Republican), but racial gerrymandering is not okay – regardless of whether it’s meant to help or hinder minority voters. “Wait, help minority voters?” I hear you asking. Yup! Historically, some districts have been made all-black specifically because a racially-mixed district would never elect black politicians, and would essentially nullify the votes of any black voters. When the district was divided up for those reasons, a Republican majority has struck it down for being racist. But Hunt v. Cromartie (2000) says, basically, that if all the Democrats just happen to be black, then it’s okay, because it’s on political lines, not racial ones.
Okay, but that’s gerrymandering. What about other tactics to suppress your opponent’s vote that’s not gerrymandering?
The case quoted above is a case from 2016. After Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act that required some states to ask permission before changing their voting laws, North Carolina’s Republican government (including then-Governor Pat McCrory) basically set about undoing as many things that helped black voters as possible. Are there IDs that mostly black people use? They’re no longer valid. Do black people tend to both register and vote early? Eliminate early registration and early voting. Do black people tend to vote more on Sundays because of their church’s help (such as carpooling from the church parking lot)? Get rid of that, too!
And when asked about it, their justification is essentially the same as the one in Cromartie. “It’s not racist, it’s anti-Democrat. We’re just trying to keep Democrats from voting, and they just happen to be black!”
The Fourth Circuit (it never got to the Supreme Court, thank God) says, basically:
Your reasoning is bad and you should feel bad;
There’s no way you can justify this with “trying to stop the Democrats” when everything you got rid of was aimed at hurting the black vote;
Even if you were trying to stop the Democrats, having race as a factor at all lets us infer that you intended to be discriminatory;
Actually, wait, we don’t even have to infer it, because you fucking told us with your actual mouths that you intended to discriminate against black people, you literal dumbfucks.
I’m writing all this out partially because I’m a nerd who likes context, but also partially for this reason:
There is legal precedent that can, under certain circumstances, allow racially-biased voting laws so long as no one says they’re racially-biased. This is a major hurdle to pretty much any legal challenge to discriminatory voting laws.
Despite this, you can still take down those laws – it’s never impossible to overturn a bad law, even if there’s not a lot of evidence, though of course it’s easier if you have evidence that good on your side (THEY SAID IT. OUT LOUD. IN COURT).
A really good way to get rid of bad laws if you aren’t up to suing the government (though please, please, sue the government)? Fucking vote. The original omnibus law wouldn’t have been passed if Republicans weren’t in office.
See, this, I think, is what I love about Kronk. On the shallowest surface level, he fills the “low IQ sidekick” role. But ONLY on the shallowest surface level.
I’d have to watch the movie again to go into any detail, but Kronk is actually the smartest damn person IN this movie. There’s nothing he doesn’t know, he’s got all this specialized knowledge, dude is probably horrifically well read. He’s NOT stupid, he’s just eager to please and doesn’t have a proper “No” threshhold.
In the second gif, he’s like – “No, wait, I’m not who you think I am.”
Then in the fourth, he’s like – “Oh my God, the cook is gone and she’s got all these orders. If somebody doesn’t cook that up people are going to get upset! They’ll take it out on this poor woman who’s been on her feet all day and doesn’t deserve their wrath! And…oh my God…PEOPLE WILL BE HUNGRY!”
Then in the sixth gif he’s like – “NOT ON KRONK’S WATCH!”
He’s doing the right thing and he knows it. No judgement, no condescension, just always a moment to register the task at hand, determine the most logical course of action to completing it, and then it’s GO GO GO.
His only problem is that he never stops to ask himself whether this is actually his problem to solve, or whether people are taking advantage of him, and I love him for it.
Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?” Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?” Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.” The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.” (Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.” Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against you Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.” Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.” Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else
Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.
Important
Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Hi! A Zine I edited/illustrated/contributed to just came out. It’s a spin off frm an online magazine of the same name my friend runs, featuring essays by women about film and visual culture, including topics like Gendering Cyborgs, reclaiming Millennial Pink, ordeal cinema and mental health in horror
Digital copies start at £1 (GBP) with options to donate more, if you’d like! 50% of profits will go to local housing charity Changing Lives, who work w homeless youth, DV survivors and they’ve have been heavily involved in working w survivors of sex trafficking rings – so it goes to a rlly good cause! And a good zine!
I did the first lot of donations from this the other week! Thanks to everyone who bought the zine, we were able to donate about £20!
£11 pays for a week’s worth of meals for service users, so that’s rlly great!!
the other 50% of the profits are basically My Pay for making this, so you also paid for like a week’s worth of meals for me. So thanks for helping to keep the lights on over here 🤗
rip tumblr 