Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Critical race theory and Black voting rights
Did conservative backlash against critical race theory influence Republican-led US states to pass new voting laws restricting Black Americans' access to the ballot box?
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page thinks so, to a certain extent, he tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Anything that looks like Black history or that makes white children feel bad, he says, has been inaccurately labeled as critical race theory and presented as a danger, motivating a lot of voters to get rid of it — for instance through voter suppression.
For Page, it's ironic that some in the party of Abraham Lincoln are now fighting those old Civil War battles again as far as democracy is concerned.
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Black voter suppression in 2022
Trump's 2024 strategy could echo the disputed US election of 1876
For Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page, new voting laws in some Republican-led states could help Donald Trump do in 2024 what he failed to do in 2020.
The changes, he says in a GZERO World interview, will make it easier for state legislatures to decide electoral college votes. That's exactly what Trump's people tried to do in the last presidential election.
It reminds Page of what happened in 1876, when the end of Reconstruction after the Civil War coincided with a disputed presidential election.
The outcome? Jim Crow.
"This is the legacy of, of those days," he says. "A that's part of the big argument now. Are we going to get rid of these last vestiges of discrimination from the Jim Crow era?"
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Black voter suppression in 2022
- The history of Black voting rights in America - GZERO Media ›
- The Supreme Court's role on Black voting rights - GZERO Media ›
- Jon Lieber: What's different about the 2022 midterms is 2024 Trump ... ›
- The future of January 6 - GZERO Media ›
- Japan's assertive foreign and economic policy reflect Abe's legacy - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's 2024 outlook: impact of Jan. 6 hearings ›
- Trump's 2024 outlook: more vulnerable after Jan 6 hearings - GZERO Media ›
- Trump FBI raid: Defund the FBI is the new stop the steal - GZERO Media ›
- Biden vs. MAGA Republicans - GZERO Media ›
The Supreme Court’s role on Black voting rights
When the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page had just finished high school. This legislation changed the lives of Black people in America because Jim Crow laws had virtually prevented Blacks from voting in the South, he said in an interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
But in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the law by taking away pre-clearance for states, which had blocked states — especially the former Confederate ones — from changing their voting laws based on racial discrimination.
At the time of the SCOTUS ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts said pre-clearance wasn't needed anymore. But many disagree.
Now, Page says Republicans tend to benefit from making it harder to vote, while Democrats want to make it easier.
"We're getting right at the heart of what democracy is all about, when we're at loggerheads over who should be allowed to vote and, and who shouldn't."
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Black voter suppression in 2022
Black voter suppression in 2022
Until the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Black people in America who wanted to vote faced impossible poll questions and literacy tests. But the Supreme Court gutted the law in 2013, allowing states to pass new voting legislation that progressives say restrict Black access to the ballot box.
The 2022 midterm elections will be the first major test of these laws — which Democrats in Congress are unlikely to be able to stop. How will this all affect Black turnout in November?
On this episode of GZERO World, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page tells Ian Bremmer that if Trump loyalists win in key states, their legislatures — not voters — may end up deciding the next US presidential race.What may happen in 2024 reminds him of 1876, when Page says the end of Reconstruction after the Civil War, along with a disputed presidential election, ushered in the Jim Crow laws that ended his ancestors' ability to vote in Alabama.
What's driving all this? For Page, part of the problem is the grievance narrative around critical race theory, which has made some Americans confused between being a Democrat and being democratic.
Still, he says you can't deny that Republicans want to make it harder to vote, while Democrats try to make it easier. That's a big problem because "we're at loggerheads over who should be allowed to vote and, and who shouldn't."
Page also compares President Biden's pledge to nominate a Black woman to fill Justice Breyer's seat on the Supreme Court to Ronald Reagan's decision to pick Sandra Day O'Connor. And as a bonus, Ian looks back at the history of Black women judges in America.
- Voting reform bill will likely be blocked, but still a key issue for ... ›
- Voting reform bill stalls in Congress, frustrating Democrats - GZERO ... ›
- The history of Black voting rights in America - GZERO Media ›
- Counter narrative: Black Americans, the 1619 Project, and Nikole ... ›
- Why do Black people feel "erased" from American history? - GZERO ... ›
What you should know about Elise Stefanik’s rise in the GOP
Get insights on the latest news in US politics from Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington:
Who is Elise Stefanik and what does she mean for the Republican Party right now?
Elise Stefanik is a young member from Upstate New York. She had originally started her career as a staffer in the George W. Bush administration, but in recent years, has turned into one of the most outspoken defenders of President Donald Trump, particularly during the impeachment trial last year. She's relevant right now because it looks like she'll be replacing Liz Cheney, the Representative from Wyoming and also the daughter of the former Vice President, who has been outspoken in her criticism of President Trump since the January 6th insurrection, and probably more importantly, outspoken in her criticism of the direction of the Republican Party.
The irony here though, is that while Cheney is going down, she's being replaced by somebody who, when she came into office, was expected to be a pretty standard-bearing Bush Republican. And so this is just really indicative of where the Party is, very hard to stay on in Republican leadership if you aren't going to be a supporter of President Trump. Too many of Cheney's colleagues thought she had become a distraction and wanted her gone. Stefanik is probably a placeholder. She says she doesn't want to serve in the position long-term. She eventually wants to take over the chairmanship of a committee, and she has many years ahead of her in Congress. She is very young.
What's the outlook for the Democrats' election bill?
Well, the Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced a bill to rewrite federal election law. Traditionally, election laws have been set by the state. States are allowed to choose how to do their redistricting. They're allowed to choose how people vote. Do they do mail-in votes? Do they have no-excuse mail-in votes? How many days of early voting are they going to allow? And, the Democrats bill would append that entire regime, and create a federal standard that every state would have to meet for number of days of pre-election day, in-person voting, standards around absentee voting, how to draw districts, taking it away from partisan gerrymandering and moving it towards a commission, in most states. And, there's been a lot of opposition to it. So the Democrats argue that this bill is necessary because Republicans are passing what they think are restrictive voting laws across the country. And Republicans are saying the Democrats are trying to take over and federalize elections to increase the chances that they win future elections and hold onto their current majorities in the House and Senate. And there's truth to both claims. The bill is very unlikely to move anywhere. It has 49 Democratic Senators who support it, who are co-sponsors, and one Democratic holdout, Joe Manchin. But even if Manchin never came around and said he supported the bill, it would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, or the elimination of the legislative filibuster, so it's very unlikely to pass into law. You know this is a really big deal for the Democrats. They've given it the special designation S.1 in the Senate, H.R.1 in the House, which is a symbolic act suggesting this is their highest priority. But also, in a Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, both Majority Leader, Schumer, and Republican Minority Leader, McConnell, showed up to debate the bill in-person, debate amendments, and there've been multiple showdowns on the Floor. This is a really high-stakes piece of legislation. It would fundamentally tip the balance of power in favor of the Democrats were it to pass, which is, among other reasons, why Republicans are so opposed to seeing it get into law.
- Should Democrats abolish the filibuster? - GZERO Media ›
- Congress after the attempt to overthrow democracy: Democratic ... ›
- The Democrats run Washington – so what are they scared of ... ›
- Marjorie Taylor Greene support in House shows Republican Party ... ›
- Affordable Care Act upheld by Supreme Court, and Republicans move on - GZERO Media ›
- Why election reform laws are deadlocked on Capitol Hill - GZERO Media ›
- Why election reform laws are deadlocked on Capitol Hill - GZERO Media ›