Local

By Antonio Ray Harvey | California Black Media 

The California Democratic Party African American Caucus (CDPAAC) hosted press conferences at four locations across the state to call on Black Californians to support what that group has deemed as the “pro-Black” propositions on this November’s ballot. 

The news conferences were held in metropolitan areas with some of the largest numbers of African American voters in the state — Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego and Sacramento — on Thursday, Oct. 22.?The initiatives the CDPAAC has endorsed are: Prop 15 (split roll tax), Prop 16 (repeal of Prop 209); Prop. 17 (restoring voting rights for ex-prisoners); and Prop 21 (rent control). 

“We will be expressing our support for pro-Black ballot initiatives. We will also be speaking specifically to the benefits the initiatives will have on the Black community,” said Kimberly Ellis who ran for chair of the California Democratic Party in 2019 and is a former recording secretary of the CDPAAC. She was in Oakland speaking with California Black Media by phone.  

The CDPAAC’s Black women leaders who led the effort also used the political event to criticize what they describe as attempts by some “bad actors” within the African American community to undermine initiatives that could improve the lives of African Americans.  

Kendra Lewis, vice chair of the CDPAAC, called out the?California – Hawaii National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), saying that group is one of the detractors whose positions on ballot measures go against African American interests.  

“Sadly, we’ve seen the NAACP California-Hawaii chapter lose its moral compass as evidence of its most recent endorsements, including to pro-Black initiatives like Prop. 15 and Prop. 21,” Lewis said on steps at the north entrance of the State Capitol.  

Lewis accused the California branch of the country’s oldest civil rights organization of accepting payments to take stances on legislation, but she also acknowledged the problem of money influencing politics is much larger than the NAACP.   

“To be clear, this isn’t about any one person or institution as these types of payouts have been happening for far too long,” she added.  

Although the CDPAAC is supporting four “pro-Black” ballot propositions, it is emphasizing two of them: Prop 15 and Prop 21.   

Prop. 15, the “Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative,” would levy higher real-estate taxes on business and industrial buildings than on residential homes. The initiative’s intent is to increase funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by changing the tax assessment of commercial and industrial properties.?The state’s fiscal analyst has estimated that, upon full implementation, Prop 15?would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year. Forty percent of the revenue would be allocated to schools while the other 60 % would fund local government. 

Khiry Moore, an educator, photographer and entrepreneur in Sacramento who owns a couple of rental properties with his wife, says he neither supports Prop 21 nor Prop 15.  

“The problem we have as a culture or race is that we don’t allow objective thought. We don’t focus on how these propositions would benefit or affect us as Black people,” he said. “You must remember. We – the Black Caucus — supported welfare reform and 1990s crime bills.” 

“We get to a point where somebody tells us this issue is important to us and we go hard to defend it without thinking it through. We also don’t hold politicians responsible after elections,” Moore continued.  “They might promise us that this money will be spent on things that are important to us like schools, but how many times in the past have we seen this money raised and re-routed to other spending that has nothing to do with us and we are never there to follow up and hold these politicians feet to the fire? I’m still waiting on the lottery money from the eighties.” 

At the CDPAAC Sacramento event, L. Lacey Barnes, Executive Vice President of the California Federation of Teachers, said she supports Prop 15.  

“For small businesses, I think the (minimum) number is at $3 million. At the most 80 % (of Black businesses won’t meet that threshold),” Barnes said, describing the size of businesses that would be taxed if voters approve Prop 15 next week.  

“If they do, we still believe that’s a benchmark. If we reach that level of success, paying your fair share is not going to break the bank,” she continued.  

But Huffman and the California State Hawaii NAACP insist Prop. 15 would not benefit Black businesses and lower income Americans. In fact, in a statement about the initiative, Huffman said it would hinder the upward mobility of Black working people.  

“The property tax hike on the November ballot will hurt minority communities — causing more gentrification, killing jobs, and increasing the cost of living for working families,” she wrote. 

Along with Huffman, former state Assemblymember Roderick Wright, former state Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, and pastor Amos C. Brown, president of the San Francisco branch of the NAACP, oppose Prop 15. 

Moore agrees with Huffman. As a business owner who rents a commercial space for his photography studio, Moore also said taxing commercial property owners at a higher rate will cause landowners to find a way to make up for their losses.  

“My landlord allows me to pay below market rate because he supports Black businesses,” he said. When taxes become too expensive for commercial property owners, Moore says, “they will just evict us and collect tax write-offs for vacant buildings.” 

Black politicians and supporters of Prop15 are state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), State Superintendent of Education Tony Thurmond and San Francisco Mayor London Breed. 

Almost $125 million has been poured into the fights for and against Prop 15. The Schools and Communities First Political Action Committee (PAC) has raised $63.39 million in favor of the initiative. Seven PACs, including Californians to Stop Higher Property Taxes, have collected $60.72 million in an effort to defeat Prop 15. 

Prop 21, the “Local Rent Control Initiative,” would allow cities to introduce new rent control laws or expand existing ones. Huffman says she and California -Hawaii NAACP are concerned that, if Prop 21 passes, it would pave the way for higher real estate costs, which would increase unaffordability in the state’s housing market, leading to more evictions. This would severely affect the Black community, she says.  

“Prop. 21 encourages landlords to evict tenants and would result in less rental housing supply, higher tenants, and more homelessness,” Huffman says.  

Of more than 2.3 million African Americans living in California, 5.5% of the total population, about 64% are renters, according to TenantsTogether.org. More than 16 million people in California are renters.? 

But many Black landlords like Moore look at Prop 21 from a different angle.  

He says more rent control will make landlords super-selective about who they rent their apartments to, forcing them to reject applicants who are low income or have lower-than-average credit scores.  

The effort to place Prop 21 on the ballot is to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins). Costa-Hawkins is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. 

Prop 21 is opposed by a diverse group of seniors, veterans, labor, homeowners, affordable housing advocates, and businesses. They say the timing of the initiative is especially bad, too, as many homeowners in the state that rent properties are suffering because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The Homeowners and Tenants United PAC has raised $40.20 million to support Prop 21 while Five PACs, including Californians for Responsible Housing, has garnered $73.41 million in opposition to the initiative. 

Gov. Newsom opposes Prop 21.  

“In the past year, California has passed a historic version of statewide rent control – the nation’s strongest rent caps and renter protections in the nation – as well as short-term eviction relief,” said Newsom. “But Proposition 21, like Proposition 10 before it, runs the all-too-real risk of discouraging availability of affordable housing in our state.” 

By Joe W. Bowers Jr. | California Black Media

On November 3, voters will determine the fate of Proposition 16. If approved, it will repeal the ban on affirmative action written into the California Constitution after voters approved Proposition 209 in 1996. 

The Constitution reads, “The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” 

The campaign behind Prop 209 purposely omitted the phrase “ban affirmative action” in the ballot language because voter polls indicated that if it was used, support for the initiative dropped below 50%. 

California is among just nine states outlawing affirmative action policies and programs in public education and government offices. Prop 209 halted all of the state’s affirmative action programs to increase representation of racial, gender and ethnic groups that have historically been discriminated against in access to public education, jobs, and business opportunities. 

President John F. Kennedy by executive order first advocated for affirmative action to level the playing field and combat systemic racism denying opportunity for minorities competing for federal contracts. Whenever the constitutionality of affirmative action policies have been challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that they are constitutional, except race and gender quotas are unconstitutional. 

Prop 16 is on the ballot because a super majority of the Legislature passed Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA)-5. This initiative was introduced by Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego) and co-sponsored by the Legislative Black Caucus. 

Among the supporters of Prop 16 are the Legislative Women’s Caucus, the Legislative Jewish Caucus, the Legislative Asian & Pacific Islander Caucus, Gov. Newsom, Sen. Kamala Harris and many businesses, civil rights and faith-based organizations, and education and labor organizations, including Equal Justice Society, ACLU, Chinese for Affirmative Action and the California Teachers Association. 

According to Weber, “While it was sold as a civil rights law when it passed in 1996, Prop 209 has cost women and minority-owned businesses $1.1 billion each year, perpetuated a wage gap wherein women make 80 cents on every dollar made by men, and allowed discriminatory hiring and contracting practices to continue unhindered. Far from being colorblind, the bill has set up barriers to women and minorities to share in the economic life of California. Proposition 209 has hindered public policy, thwarted opportunity and maintained economic disparity long enough. It’s time to give voters a chance to right this wrong.” 

When legislators put the constitutional amendment on the November ballot, they were conscious of the protests over the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the devastating impact that 

the COVID -19 pandemic has had on people of color and consequently they embraced their responsibility to come to a reckoning with systemic racial inequities prevalent in the most diverse state in America. 

Prop 16 will allow any state agency, city, county, public university system, community college district, or school district to establish policies and programs that can factor in someone’s race, sex and ethnicity in making decision on admissions, spending, and hiring. It will not permit the use of quotas. 

While the public debate about repealing Prop 209 has fixated on the fairness of admissions policies at California colleges and universities and its detrimental impact on minority matriculation on the campuses, concerns about violating Prop 209 has for over two decades impeded policy makers from instituting programs in k-12 public schools specifically tailored to close the Black student academic achievement gap. 

According to Dr. Elisha Arrillaga, Executive Director, The Education Trust West. “Repealing Prop 209 will enable our Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) to address the needs of our most vulnerable students.” 

Weber has twice proposed legislation, AB 2635 and AB 575, which would have directed LCFF funding to Black students who currently are the lowest performing racial ethnic subgroup on standardized assessments. Both times, concerns about violating Proposition 209 were raised and the bills failed. 

In January, when Governor Newsom briefed Californians on his 2020-21 Education Budget, he said, “Where we are not seeing progress is for African Americans. It seems self evident that we should focus and concentrate our efforts in those areas in order to address … the substance of the vexing issue as it relates to academic achievement for our African American students.” 

Newsom also mentioned the need to build a diverse teaching workforce with more teachers that look like their students. “That’s incredibly important as related particularly to African American achievement,” he said. 

But, when the Department of Finance released the “omnibus education trailer bill” detailing Newsom’s education funding proposals there was no specific funding designated to help Black students close the achievement gap or any reference to sourcing more Black teachers. While not cited, avoiding conflict with Prop 209 was likely behind the trailer bill language omissions. 

Passing Prop 16 will unblock the Governor, the Legislature and school districts with large African American student bodies from using LCFF supplemental funds on race conscious programs concentrating on closing the academic achievement gap being experienced by all Black students independent of their economic standing. 

The ballot title for Prop 16 submitted by Attorney General Xavier Becerra says: Allows diversity as a factor in public employment, education and contracting decisions. 

Polling for Prop 16 shows it not being well received by likely voters. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found 37% support. The Education Trust –West poll reports 66% of parents 

of K-12 students supported it and a poll conducted by David Binder Research found 45% support for the initiative. 

Eva Patterson, co-chair of the Opportunity for All – Yes on 16 Campaign, said, “Watching a focus group with Black voters from Los Angeles, they all said no we won’t vote for this as it was read to them. Then we explained that it was in favor of affirmative action and equal opportunity, and they all said, ‘Of course we’ll vote for this.” 

Because the phrase “ban affirmative action” was cleverly not used in Prop 209, the challenge for the Yes on 16 Campaign is to clear up voter confusion about repealing a law that says you can’t discriminate at the same time it denies racial and gender equity. 

If they succeed, school district policies targeting the specific needs of African American students will be legal to be implemented in California. 

SAN BERNARDINO, CA— Are you and your scholar (s) struggling with math? Then Ms. Kalu is here to help you! Please join in on Thursday, October 29 and hear from Math expert herself, Ms. Kalu on how she can help you. 

The call is open to parents and scholars from 2^nd to 12^th grade. The call will be from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Everyone must register to receive the Zoom link. Please register at www.akomaunitycenter.org.

CORONA, CA— Starting Over, Inc., presents, “Food for Life”. They will be giving fresh food donations every 2^nd and 4^th Friday of the month at 2 p.m. They will be located at their headquarters at 1390 W. 6^th Street, Ste. 100 in Corona. Bags will be provided but is asked that you please wear a mask when entering. For more information, please call (951) 898-0862 or (562) 676-3784. You can also email charles@startingoverinc.org and visit www.startingoverinc.net. 

By Quinci LeGardye | California Black Media 

As cities across California take a closer look at unfair practices in the criminal justice system, Proposition 25 offers a statewide policy that could aid their efforts: getting rid of cash bail.

The ballot measure, which is based on SB 10, a bill former Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law two years ago, would replace cash bail with risk assessments for suspects awaiting trial. 

Currently California uses a cash bail system that allows suspects to pay a cash bond to be released from jail with the promise to return to court for trial, at which point the cash bond is repaid. If Prop 25 passes, cash bail would be replaced with a risk assessment system that categorizes suspects as low risk, medium risk, or high risk, with suspects for misdemeanors exempt from needing a risk assessment. 

Under the new system, suspects who are categorized as low risk and likely to appear in court – and are also a low risk to society — would be released from jail before trial, and those deemed high risk would remain in jail. The state Judicial Council would decide what the risk assessment tools would be, with the proposition mandating that “tools shall be demonstrated by scientific research to be accurate and reliable.” 

The California Legislature approved SB 10 during the 2018 session, and former Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law on Aug. 28 that same year. The next day, opponents filed a referendum to overturn the bill, which prevented the law from being scheduled to take effect in 2019. Opponents gathered enough support to move it to a 2020 ballot initiative, which means the decision to overturn or uphold Prop 25 now falls to voters on Election Day next week. 

Supporters of Prop 25 argue that the cash bail system is inherently unfair, where wealthy people can pay their way out of jail and poor people with the same likelihood to appear or not appear for trial have to stay imprisoned. They say that the risk assessment system will make public safety the guiding factor to determine which suspects have to stay in jail before trial. They also argue that they system will allow more poor people to go free before awaiting trial, which would save money for local jails. 

Supporters also argue that the cash bail system is deeply inequitable. They say that people who cannot afford bail are more likely to take a plea deal after months of sitting in jail while possibly losing their jobs and homes. Those who can afford it, can avoid or minimize jail time and be less impacted by the implications of their arrest. 

Supporters include the California Democratic Party, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the California Medical Association — as well as Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-CA-37). 

“For years, California has proudly led the way on fundamental civil rights and criminal justice reform but, as we’ve witnessed firsthand across our country, there’s more we must do to root out racial inequity and structural bias and to embrace proven reforms that work. This November, 

state voters will once again have the opportunity to make California a national leader in the unfinished fight for equity and justice,” said Newsom. 

Opponents of Prop 25 argue that the risk assessment system could be potentially worse than cash bail, with a high possibility that racial profiling could be used in the assessment process. Also, they argue that implementing the system would be too expensive, as the proposition’s fiscal impact statement says it would cost “possibly in the mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually” for the new system. 

Opponents include the Republican Party of California, the ACLU of Southern California, the California Business Roundtable and the California Black Chamber of Commerce. 

Prop 25 is also opposed by the commercial bail bond industry, which would be disrupted if the proposition is passed. The American Bail Coalition organized the political action committee Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme that filed the veto referendum in 2018. Representatives of the bail industry argue that risk assessments are no better than cash bail, that they are potentially more costly and that more people who go free before trial may commit more crimes before trail. 

“This legislation is a reckless attempt at changing the state’s bail system and is fundamentally bad for California. While we all agree that bail reform is necessary, this costly, reckless plan will use racially biased computer algorithms to decide who gets stuck in jail and who goes free. That’s not right,” said Jeff Clayton, spokesperson for Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme.

By Quinci LeGardye | California Black Media

The legal push-and-pull over whether ride-hailing company drivers in California will maintain their status as independent contractors or become W-2 employees continued last week. 

On October 22, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld the injunction issued against Uber and Lyft last August that those companies’ app-based drivers are employees. 

In its ruling, the court said there was an “overwhelming likelihood” that Uber and Lyft are violating AB 5. The law that has driven a wedge between opponents and supporters across the state requires that employers classify workers who meet certain criteria as employees instead of independent contractors. It also states that those hiring firms must provide all worker benefits to employees that California’s labor laws mandate. 

If voters approve the ballot measure, which Uber and Lyft are sponsoring, the gig economy companies will be able to continue classifying their employees as independent contractors. The injunction resulted from a lawsuit that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed in May in conjunction with the city attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The suit argued that Uber and Lyft violated AB 5 by classifying drivers as independent contractors after AB 5 took effect in January.

The injunction resulted from a lawsuit that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed in May in conjunction with the city attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The suit argued that Uber and Lyft violated AB 5 by classifying drivers as independent contractors after AB 5 took effect in January. 

“Uber and Lyft have used their muscle and clout to resist treating their drivers as workers entitled to those paycheck and benefit protections. The courts saw right through their arguments. It’s time for Uber and Lyft to play by the rules,” said Becerra in a statement after the ruling. 

Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies have been fighting against AB 5 since Gov. Newsom signed it into law in August 2019. While the state’s lawsuit has worked its way through the courts, Uber and Lyft, along with other gig economy companies, have pumped nearly $200 million into the Yes on Prop 22 campaign so far. 

Lyft spokesperson Julie Wood said in a statement, “This ruling makes it more urgent than ever for voters to stand with drivers and vote yes on Prop 22.” 

The gig economy companies are also facing another legal battle. On Oct. 22, a group of California gig workers sued Uber for penalties totaling up to $260 million. The workers argue that Uber’s use of aggressive in-app messages urging the workers to support Prop 22 violated their employment rights. They are seeking an injunction to prevent Uber from showing any more Prop 22 messages in the app. 

“Uber’s threats and constant barrage of Prop 22 propaganda on an app the drivers must use to do their work have one purpose: to coerce the drivers to support Uber’s political battle to strip them of workplace protections,” said attorney David Lowe of Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe in a statement announcing the lawsuit. 

There have been numerous reports on social media of the Uber app’s messages, which read “Prop 22 is progress” and “Prop 22 will provide guaranteed earnings and a healthcare stipend.” Drivers then had to click either “Yes on Prop 22” or “OK” to proceed in the app. Uber spokesman Matthew Wing said that specific language is no longer used, and now drivers are occasionally shown a pop up that says “Drivers deserve better” and offers the option to click through to see more facts. 

An Uber spokesperson called the lawsuit “without merit, filed solely for press attention and without regard for the facts.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Kornisha McGill Brown has been elected as the 27th National President of Jack and Jill of America, Incorporated. 

With more than 245 chapters nationwide, representing more than 40,000 family members, Jack and Jill of America is the nation’s oldest African American family organization. Founded in 1938, Jack and Jill boast the specific mission of nurturing future African American leaders. 

Newly elected National President Brown has served as a member of the organization for more than 13 years, fulfilling roles and responsibilities that include 2017-2019 Regional Director of the Southeastern Region, 2015-2017 Southeastern Regional Secretary, Regional Nominating Committee member for 2 terms, and Regional Chair of Rules and Regulations. In 2015, Brown was recognized as “Chapter President of the Year” by the Southeastern Region during her term as President of the Columbus, GA Chapter. 

“As mothers, we unite together in Jack and Jill with the primary purpose of seeing our children and all children succeed in every way,” Brown said. “Together, we are committed to ensuring Jack and Jill remains revered and prepared for the future.  I am committed to keeping our children as a top priority.” 

A native of Thomaston, GA, Brown resides with her family in Columbus, GA. She is married to Dr. Darius K. Brown, Sr., and they are the very proud parents of two children —Jordan Janay Brown and Darius Brown, Jr.

Brown is an educator, servant leader, small business managing partner, and philanthropist. She is a member of The Links, Incorporated-Columbus, GA Chapter, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., and Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Chattahoochee Valley. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Spelman College and a Master of Education Degree in Social Science Education from the University of Georgia.

On Sunday, November 8, please join women’s fashion and accessories retailer, Lady MV, for an exclusive fashion show competition and model mixer. The mixer will take place at 6 p.m./PST across Lady MV’s social platforms (Facebook, Instagram) @ladymv. Krystal Yvonne’s social handle is @krystal_yvonne. The winner will receive a cash prize of $500, as well as other prizes. 

SAN BERNARDINO, CA— Don’t let COVID put a damper on your kids celebrating Halloween! On Friday, October 30 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., First 5 San Bernardino will be hosting a Drive Thru Trunk-or-Treat. The event will be held at Arrowhead United Way located at 646 North D. Street in San Bernardino. 

First 5 San Bernardino will be recognizing Pastor Derek Smith and the congregation of Loveland Church for their generous donation of diapers and wipes to serve hundreds of children and families in San Bernardino County. 

Kinder kits will be available at the event and will include: 1 glue stick, 1 pair of scissors, 1 pencil box, a coloring page, 3 books, 1 pencil, 1 large eraser, 1 pack of crayons, and 1 kid’s clothing item. Lunch/dinner will be provided between 2:20 and 3:30 p.m.

This is a FREE event, but space is limited. 

RIVERSIDE, CA—- As part of its longstanding history, the San Bernardino-Riverside Area Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated will honor two outstanding community leaders with the Dorothy Inghram Social Action Advocate Award on Sunday, November 8, 2020.

The Chapter proudly announces the selection of Dr. Judy D. White as a 2020 honoree in recognition of her inspirational leadership and invaluable contribution to the growth and educational development of Inland Empire students. Dr. White recently announced her retirement after 42 years of service in public education, effective November 1.

Mr. Damon Alexander, an active community leader, public servant, and member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Incorporated is also selected as a 2020 honoree, recognizing his tireless contributions to the increased political awareness and involvement throughout our Inland Empire communities. Mr. Alexander is currently running for the San Bernardino City Council, representing the 7th Ward.

“Due to COVID-19 we cancelled our annual Culmination program in May where we would have publicly recognized Dr. White and Mr. Alexander,” said President, Erica Shorts. “But we are planning a wonderful virtual event on November 8 and we hope their family, friends, supporters and the community will join us as we celebrate two individuals who have done so much to improve the lives of individuals and families living throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties.”

The Dorothy Inghram Social Action Advocate Award honors the legacy of Ms. Dorothy Ella Inghram, a long time resident of the City of San Bernardino who blazed the trail for black educators when in 1942, she became the first black teacher in San Bernardino County and later the first black principal. In 1953, she became the first black school district superintendent in California. Before her death in 2012 at the age of 106, she authored five books. Ms. Inghram was also a charter member of the San Bernardino-Riverside Area Alumnae Chapter, which started in 1959.

The Dorothy Inghram Social Action Advocate Award program will take place via Zoom on Sunday, November 8, 2020, at 2:00PM. To register visit for the event visit www.sbraac-dst.org.