Why Ferguson is Republican in a sea of Democrats

Black majority elects white Republican mayor

The tragic death of Michael Brown has focused attention on the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department’s lack of diversity.  Of the fifty-plus personnel there are only 3 black officers on the force.  It is further pointed out that the Police Chief is white as are the members of the Board of Education.  The Ferguson City Council is all white except for a single Hispanic councilman and the Mayor of Ferguson is a white Republican.  How is it that a town of 21,000 is ruled by whites while the population is 67 percent black?  It has to do with voter turnout.  Municipal elections in Ferguson are not held simultaneous with presidential elections, midterm or gubernatorial elections.  Elections to fill city positions are held at odd times other than November when, historically, turnout of registered voters runs under 12 percent.   While this election scheduling may be by design to suppress minority turnout the fact remains that all citizens have equal opportunity to exercise their voting franchise.  The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.  2014 Ferguson, Missouri is not Selma, Alabama or Tupelo, Mississippi of some Jim Crow yesteryear.  People put their lives on the line so that people of all color and creed have access today to the power of the ballot box.

In the last municipal election to fill government positions in Ferguson, Missouri a mere 6 percent of eligible blacks turned out to vote.  White participation wasn’t much better at 17 percent but it was enough to ensure that long-standing policies remain firmly in place.  These are the very policies that have brought about historic racial embitterment and the unrest we witness today.  You don’t like the make-up of your police force?  Change can be brought about at the ballot box.  You feel city government doesn’t understand your community?  You feel they give you no respect?  Change the government .  Run for office.  Vote. 

The black community of Ferguson has a comfortable voting majority.  African-Americans can largely determine how they are to be treated by their city officials.  The mayor of Ferguson, members of its city council, its Board of Education, its Police Chief can all reflect the vision and hopes of this community.  This is the power of democracy.  It is within reach.  Citizens of Ferguson need not march in the streets and plead for understanding and respect.  It is yours for the taking.  You can organize.  You can pick candidates from your community.  You can vote. 

If there is to be a lasting lesson learned from the untimely death of 18 year old Michael Brown it is that protest marching is no substitute for having the political power of being a voting majority.  If you don’t believe it just ask those who have been running the show all these years.  They will tell you.  They prefer being where they are right now rather than where you happen to be today – and any day of the week.

Good Morning Jessicca

Letter to my Daughter
Sunday, 17 August

Blind Justice

Good Morning Jessicca…

The courtroom serves as the final arbiter of our most impassioned legal disputes.  Every attempt is made to dissipate emotion among the parties involved yet the heavily choreographed search for truth and guilt results in a theater of high drama.  One such proceeding involving judge, jury and advocates for the plaintiff and the defense will be tasked with determining whether there is a justified legal basis in the killing of one Michael Brown, resident of Ferguson, Missouri.

The legal system attempts to provide a setting for the impartial hearing of facts in order to arrive at a judgment as to a defendant’s culpability in crime.  Every effort is made to ensure a fair weighing of the facts but this, unfortunately, makes for no guarantee that justice will ultimately be achieved.  The law, as practiced in the United States, theoretically presumes the innocence of any defendant brought before the court and sets a high standard for establishing guilt in order to minimize the chance of convicting an innocent individual.  It is the task of the government prosecutor to establish the defendant’s guilt in the minds of all twelve members of the jury – guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  If there is but one member of the jury entertaining doubt about the defendant’s guilt then there can be no conviction.  This holds true even if this panel member feels in his heart that the defendant is guilty, yet his mind remains uncertain. 

A false conclusion of guilt results in punishing the innocent.  It is an abhorrent fact that this is sometimes the case despite our legal protections to prevent this injustice.  It is also true that these protections occasionally enable heinous criminals to escape punishment and walk freely back into society.  The courts may blindly weigh the scales of justice but this doesn’t always result in the appropriate outcome.  We place the rule of law above all other considerations but these laws are interpreted and administered by mere mortal humans, dedicated to a righteous calling but also universally fallible.  Such is the nature of the progeny of all who eat from the Fruit of Knowledge.  We discover the science that serves up miracles and, by so doing, we reap a stinging humility that comes with the generous bounty.  Our justice system serves this society remarkably well but we mostly take note when it serves to stoke our outrage. 

How is it OJ could return to the golf course scot free?  Where was justice for Trayvon Martin?  Did the Supreme Court really elect George W. Bush? 

There is relevance in the videotape of Michael Brown’s actions in a convenience store ten minutes prior to his death.  It goes to the credibility of the patrol officer’s account of a struggle with the deceased.  Is it plausible the young man would struggle with the policeman for his gun?  Forensics should add to the body of evidence that will either serve to collaborate the officer’s account or refute it or leave the issue contested.  This incident is particularly important in establishing the states of mind of the two individuals but it is not the ultimate determinant of guilt.  The legal key to this case rests on whether Michael Brown had his hands raised in surrender when he was fatally shot.  Witness testimony to this effect will be damning for the defendant if it holds up under cross-examination before the jurors.  If the policeman, sworn to serve and protect the community, shot an unarmed, defenseless man then the question becomes one of determining punishment appropriate for the crime.  What was the officer’s frame of mind at that fatal moment?  Was he coldly executing a young man as some would claim?  Did he fire in a moment of uncontrolled anger?  Was his adrenalin pumping following a life-or-death struggle and he inadvertently discharged his weapon?  What is the likelihood involving each of these possibilities?  These are all questions left for the court to decide.  In the meantime we will all hotly debate this issue – in the context of race, in the context of law and in the context of what we feel in our heart.

Love,

          Dad