By Zachary Leggio and Mayerlyn Rivera
Russia
Russia’s 2024 presidential election will likely result in Vladimir Putin’s fifth term in office, which would extend his rule until at least 2030. Almost all opposition candidates, including Alexei Navalny, have either been imprisoned or killed, and any media that could speak out against Putin’s policies has been blocked. The candidates that will appear on the ballot will be Vladimir Putin as an independent, Nikolai Kharitonov of the Communist Party, Leonid Slutsky of the nationalist Liberal Democrtic Party, and Vladislav Davankov of the New People Party. These candidates are not serious contenders, as they are all allies of Putin and only present the illusion of choice.
The government predicts this election to bring 100 million eligible voters to the polls, although turnout is likely to be closer to 60 percent. The election will also be held in the four Ukrainian regions that Russia annexed in 2022, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which Russia does not maintain full control of. The voting will take place over three days, March 15 through 17, and will also be available online, which election observers have criticized because online voting is less transparent and easier to manipulate. The elections have little chance of being free and fair due to the lack of election security and the lack of clear oppositional candidates, although the late opposition leader Navalny encouraged his supporters to turn out to vote against Putin by supporting other candidates on the ballot.
Iran
Iran’s March 1 parliamentary elections brought very little surprises. Although the parliament is far less powerful than Iran’s supreme leader, who is not popularly elected, these elections are still an opportunity for Iranians to advocate for their beliefs and desires for their country. Voter turnout is one of the most basic indicators of government support in a country. Iran’s reported turnout was 41 percent, with 8 percent of ballots being returned blank. Critics have accused the government of manipulating these numbers and claim that the turnout was even lower than this. This turnout marks a steep decrease from the near-70 percent turnout in 2017. Cities like the capital, Tehran, saw only about 25 percent turnout, which is abysmally low.
Of the ballots that were cast and not blank, well-known conservative members of parliament saw their margins of victory sharply decrease, and some even lost their reelection bids. Three very prominent officials in the Assembly of Experts, which picks the supreme leader, also lost reelection. Overall, these elections convey the discontent the Iranian people have both with their representation and the options presented to them, continuing to cast a shadow on the long-term legitimacy of Iran’s democracy.
Photo: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/02/russia-ukraine-war-putin-economy-navalny-prigozhin/
]]>Gwinnett County is politically fascinating. The county is solidly suburban, with its county seat, Lawrenceville, approximately 28 miles northeast of Atlanta. It is also the second-most populous county in Georgia, with 957,062 residents, according to the 2020 Census. The county is also fast-growing, especially in the metro-Atlanta area, with its population increasing by 19 percent between 2010 and 2020.
Gwinnett is incredibly diverse, tied with Alameda County, California, for the seventh-most diverse county in the U.S. It is also the most diverse county in the state of Georgia, with a diversity index of 75.1 percent. Nevertheless, just two decades ago, Gwinnett was not nearly as diverse as it is today. In 2000, the county was mostly White, at 67 percent of the population. 13 percent of residents were Black, 11 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent Asian. Since then, the county has rapidly diversified, and today, the county is overwhelmingly majority-minority, with a bare White plurality. Thirty-two percent of residents are White, 31 percent Black, 22 percent Hispanic, and 14 percent Asian.
Between 1980 and 2012, the county voted for the Republican presidential candidate every year. In 2000, Republicans had a firm grip on county-level politics, voting for George W. Bush by a nearly 2-1 margin, not sending a single Democrat in any of the districts within its boundaries to the General Assembly, and not electing a single Democrat to county-wide office or the county commission.
However, in 2016, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, carried Gwinnett in an election-night stunner, even as she lost Georgia overall. Clinton was the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the county since native-Georgian Jimmy Carter ran in 1976. The county has moved to solid Democratic turf, voting for Democrats up and down the ballot in 2018 and onward. Today’s political landscape is almost the opposite of 2000, with Democrats controlling all of the county-wide political offices, four of the five seats on the commission, and electing many more Democrats to the General Assembly than Republicans.
Aside from realignment, Gwinnett has also been the center of recent political controversies. In 2018, the U.S. House race for District 7, which at the time included most of the county, was the closest in the nation. After a recount, incumbent Republican Congressman Rob Woodall won by a meager 419 votes. The close election result added to political conflict in the county after thousands of absentee and provisional ballots were not initially counted, two-thirds of which were cast by minority voters.
Gwinnett was also the center of a redistricting fight in 2020. In the decennial process, the Republican-led General Assembly redrew Gwinnett’s county commission districts, ignoring the commission’s proposed map. Instead, the state legislature created a district in the northern part of the county that is more Republican and where more white voters reside. Democrats criticized the state’s map, which was implemented, for packing voters of color into the three other commission districts. Republicans defended that the district represented more rural stretches of the county.
The following article is part of a series of articles analyzing Gwinnett’s political realignment that began in 2016. This article examines federal-level election returns in Gwinnett since 2000. Later installments of this series will address state and local races, partisan change, and the factors driving the county’s realignment.
Twenty-first-century presidential election results in Gwinnett show how much the county has changed politically. Between 2000 and 2020, the Democratic presidential candidates increased their vote percentage by 26 percentage points. The results also present three phases of realignment in Gwinnett: pre-Obama era Republican dominance, increasing competition during the Obama era but still a Republican lean, and post-Obama era Democratic ascendancy.
In the pre-Obama era elections, 2000 and 2004, the Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry each received 34 percent of the vote. Nonetheless, support for the party surged by 11 percentage points from 2004 to 2008, when Barack Obama garnered 45 percent of the vote. Obama again secured 45 percent of the vote in the 2012 election.
In 2016, in a surprise to observers statewide, Clinton flipped the county to the Democratic Party, taking 53 percent of the vote and building on Obama’s vote percentage by eight percentage points. In 2020, President Joe Biden converted Gwinnett into solid Democratic territory by expanding on Clinton’s victory by six percentage points to win a landslide 59 percent of the vote. Strong margins in the county undoubtedly contributed to Biden’s narrow victory in Georgia that year.
Observing raw vote trends in Presidential elections in Gwinnett demonstrates key changes in voting in the county since 2000. Since 2004, the raw vote total for Republican candidates has remained nearly stagnant, averaging 158,500 votes. In his re-election campaign, former President Donald Trump only managed 6,000 more votes than when former President George W. Bush was in the same position in 2004.
Republican stagnation contrasts sharply with the Democratic raw vote total, which increased fourfold between 2000 and 2020. In 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry fell below the 100,000 vote threshold, at 61,000 and 82,000, respectively.
As the two-party vote results demonstrated, Democratic support in Gwinnett surged in 2008. Compared to Kerry, Obama received 47,317 more votes, increasing the raw Democratic vote by a massive 58 percent. In 2012, Obama received only 3,000 more votes than he did in 2008.
The raw Democratic vote substantially increased again in 2016, with Clinton obtaining 34,000 more votes than in Obama’s 2012 performance, for a 26 percent increase. Biden
turned out 77,000 more voters than Clinton, a 46 percent increase from 2016. This occurred as turnout notably increased nationwide in 2020.
Twenty-first-century regular U.S. Senate election results in Gwinnett also reveal the extent to which the county has realigned. Between 2002 and 2022, the Democratic Senate candidates increased their vote percentage by 26 percent. Furthermore, starting in 2010, Democratic candidates have boosted the party’s share of the two-party vote from the previous election.
In 2000, the Democratic candidate, incumbent Senator Zell Miller, received 51 percent of the two-party vote in the county, outperforming Gore by 17 percentage points in a sign of split-ticket voting during that election. However, support for the party plunged in 2002 when incumbent Senator Max Cleland ran for re-election and obtained 35 percent of the two-party vote. Likewise, in 2004, Denise Majette received 33 percent. Compared to 2000, split ticketing declined significantly as Majette only underperformed Kerry by one percentage point. Another Democratic candidate for the Senate did not receive a majority of the two-party vote again until Jon Ossoff ran in the 2020 regular Senate election.
In 2008, Obama’s coattails followed candidate Jim Martin as he, like Majette, underperformed the presidential candidate by only one percentage point to receive 45 percent of the county’s vote. Martin improved upon Majette as Democratic support increased by 12 percentage points, out-doing the increase in Democratic presidential support between 2004 and 2008.
Starting in 2014 with Michelle Nunn, Democratic candidates, on average, increased the percentage of the Democratic vote in Gwinnett from the previous by approximately five percentage points. Nunn increased Michael Thurmond’s, the 2010 candidate, share of the two-party vote by nine percentage points.
While Clinton carried Gwinnett with 53 percent of the two-party vote, her coattails did not wholly show through in a signal of down-ballot lag. Jim Barksdale, a relatively unknown businessman to Georgia voters and first-time candidate, ran against incumbent Senator Johnny Isakson, who was popular among Georgia voters. Barksdale achieved 48 percent of the county’s two-party vote, a five percentage point drop off compared to Clinton and demonstration of the 2016 election as a dealignment election for the county rather than a complete realignment.
Nonetheless, in 2020, Jon Ossoff became the first Democratic candidate since Miller to win the county in a Senate contest, romping his competitor, incumbent David Perdue, with 58 percent of the two-party vote. Ossoff bettered Barksdale’s percentage by a whopping ten percentage points. In 2022, incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock slightly surpassed Ossoff, winning 60 percent of the two-party vote to become the first Democratic candidate running for any position to cross the 60 percent line in Gwinnett in the twenty-first century.
Of all federal races occurring in Gwinnett, Democrats have faced the most difficulty in congressional elections, mainly due to the party not fielding candidates in every district in the county in the years 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party has demonstrated the most improvement in congressional elections of any other type of contest. Between 2000 and 2022, the Democratic party massively increased its two-party vote percentage by 43 percentage points.
Congressional elections in the county validate the Democratic Party’s struggle to be competitive in the county before 2008, with the party bottoming out at 14 percent of the two-party vote in 2000 because it did not run a candidate in the District 11, which included more of the county’s population than the two other districts in the county: the Districts 4 and 6.
In 2002, the party increased its proportion of the two-party vote by 11 percentage points for 25 percent. Continuing its struggles, the party then regressed in 2004 to 15 percent of the vote but enormously improved to 32 percent in 2006.
Furthermore, the Democratic Party’s percentage of the two-party vote in the county’s congressional elections did not cross the 40-percent line until 2008, when Obama’s coattails carried down the ballot, with U.S. House candidates netting 44 percent of the two-party vote. After this election, Democratic candidates in the county averaged 43 percent of the vote between 2010 and 2016, with their best performance in 2014 when they pulled 48 percent of the two-party vote because the Republican Party did not have a standing candidate in the District 4.
In 2016, again exemplifying split-ticket voting with votes for Clinton at the top of the ticket and Republicans down-ballot, Democratic candidates collectively captured 45 percent of the two-party vote in U.S. House races. However, no candidate stood for the party in District 10, including the smallest electorate of Gwinnett residents.
In 2018, the party achieved a majority of the two-party vote in congressional contests in Gwinnett for the first time in the twenty-first century, with 56 percent of the vote and an 11 percentage point increase from 2016. Democrats reached this feat by winning 55 percent of the vote in District 7, which included most of the county’s population. In that race, first-time candidate Carolyn Bourdeaux ran vigorously against Republican incumbent Rob Woodall. After a recount, Bourdeaux came just 419 votes short of flipping the district, which covered a more Republican area in Forsyth County as well.
In 2020, the party attained its apex of the two-party vote in congressional elections in the county with 58 percent of the vote and Biden’s coattails almost entirely flowing down-ballot. That election, Bourdeaux, running for the second time, beat a MAGA conservative, Rich McCormick, outright in District 7. She landed 58 percent of the vote in the Gwinnett portion of the district. The party also received 57 percent of the two-party vote in the 2022 midterms, with the Democratic Representative Lucy McBath winning District 7 after representing the Sixth District, including the north Atlanta suburbs, for four years.
Although Gwinnett was Republican-leaning territory through 2014, the county has solidly realigned to the Democratic Party. After the 2000 U.S. Special Senate election that Zell Miller ran in, the county did not vote for another Democrat until Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency in 2016. However, that cycle was more of a dealignment election for the county it voted for Republicans in down-ballot races. In 2018, the county completely realigned to the Democratic Party, giving Democratic candidates a substantial majority vote to U.S. House candidate Carolyn Bourdeaux. The county became even more Democratic in 2020, with Joe Biden leading the way, and the county again chose Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections.
]]>In South America, green scarves have been a symbol of resistance against the mistreatment of women for decades. The use of the color green stems from its symbolization of growth, nature, and life. Though previously associated with anti-abortion activism, the term “life” was reclaimed by — and ultimately became synonymous with — The Green Wave, a pro-choice movement fighting for decriminalization and legalization of abortion. Beginning in Argentina, the debate inspired by the movement made human rights topics such as feminism and abortion access far more commonplace. The discussion of these issues spread to neighborhoods and restaurants; one might even find men drinking coffee and discussing abortion rights in a local cafe. With the spread of these discussions came the spread of the green bandanas used by the movement throughout schools and cities. Students tied them to their backpacks; women wore them in their hair. Soon, the country began to run out of green fabric altogether. The movement quickly spread throughout South America, resulting in offshoot movements that led to the legalization of abortion in Argentina and the decriminalization of abortion in Mexico and Colombia.
In contrast to the historic results of the South American pro-choice movement, the United States has recently seen a regression in citizens’ legal rights to abortion. In fact, the United States is just one of four countries to further restrict access to abortion in the 21st century. In 2022, Roe v. Wade, a case that heavily limited states’ ability to restrict abortion, was overturned. In their dissenting opinion, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan wrote that the decision means that “young women today will grow up with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers.” The overturning of this landmark case means that states are free to restrict abortions as they see fit. In many states, this means that women will not have access to abortion services at all and could even face criminal charges for seeking such services.
One thing that may account for the variance in success is the central focus or argument of the US movement in comparison to that of the Green Wave. Prior to its overwhelming success, the Green Wave movement, similar to the US pro-choice movement, focused its arguments for legalizing abortion on religion and morality. The Green Wave first began to achieve its political success when it switched its central argument – abortion, the activists began to argue, was an issue of public health and human rights. Focusing the argument on women’s rights and maternal health prevents the conversation around abortion rights from deteriorating into accusations of immorality, a common occurrence in the US debate on abortion. This shift in focus by the US pro-choice movement would also encourage public discussion of human rights issues, a tactic which made a significant difference in South America.
An additional aspect of the Green Wave movement, which has accounted for some of its success, is its grassroots nature. While a significant portion of the US pro-choice movement is grassroots, there remains a strong association with large organizations such as Planned Parenthood. This is something that may be detrimental to the success of US activists as the movement becomes less about its goals and values and more about the organizations involved. If one disagrees with Planned Parenthood, they are never going to get involved, even if they agree with other aspects of the movement. In this way, associating with large organizations is hindering the success of US abortion rights activists.
On the heels of such a substantial setback of human rights, the upcoming actions of the pro-choice movement will define not only abortion rights but women’s rights in the United States for decades to come. The US pro-choice movement must learn from the Green Wave in South America if it too hopes to legalize abortion.
]]>The event was moderated by Dean Matthew Auer of the School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), presented alongside special remarks by UGA President Jere Morehead and former chief of staff and political strategist for Senator Isakson, Heath Garrett.
Every seat in the UGA Chapel was filled on the morning of the symposium, with some guests even opting to stand in the back of the aisles.
According to SPIA’s website, the Isakson Symposium “honors and perpetuates Senator Isakson’s legacy of statesmanship and political civility. Special guests consider how civil debate, mutual respect, and common-interest problem solving advance the public good.”
Isakson was a University of Georgia alumnus who also served in the Georgia Air National Guard from 1966-1972. He was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1976 and served seven terms, including four as a minority leader. Following a failed gubernatorial campaign in 1990, he was elected to the Georgia Senate in 1992 and served one term. He was elected to the United States Senate in 2004 by a wide margin and remained there until his resignation on Dec. 31, 2019. His Senate seat was succeeded by Kelly Loeffler, a fellow Republican appointed by Governor Brian Kemp. Isakson died two years later on Dec. 19, 2021, following a long battle with Parkinson’s disease.
The symposium served as a time for state leaders to remember Isakson’s ability to bridge political divides, a toolset that Auer said SPIA attempts to instill in all of its students.
“Hence the focus on political civility, meeting in the middle, crossing the aisle, building bridges,” Auer said. “That’s what we train our students to do. We’re extremely lucky, because we have a home-grown exemplar in the form of Johnny Isakson.”
Manchin and Blunt’s discussion revolved around the value of crossing the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation.
“It takes a bipartisan approach to get most things done,” said Manchin at one point during the event.
Blunt echoed that, saying, “You don’t have to agree with them on everything, you have to agree with them on one thing.”
Blunt was announced as a speaker only a few short weeks before the event, replacing Senator Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky. McConnell was originally slated to attend, but a scheduling conflict did not allow him to make the trip after all.
Blunt was especially close with Isakson.
“He was really a good friend of mine,” Blunt said. “When I was majority whip in the house, I had a smaller group of about five other deputies who helped plan how we get things done. Johnny was in that group, so we were together multiple times a week, every week, for a decade.”
Manchin’s attendance was high profile, as he announced that he will not be running for re-election on the day before the symposium. A polarizing figure at times, political analysts speculate that Manchin may announce a presidential bid in the coming weeks.
“I’ve become a firm believer in term limits,” Manchin said. “I think we should be thinking about, how do we fix the system? We’re letting it get further apart and we’re breaking it more.”
When asked about his next steps, Manchin did not give a direct response. He alluded to a step away from politics due to concern about rising inflation and geopolitical unrest.
“My main thing is, I’m concerned about my country,” Manchin said. “We have got to get our financial house in order because the finances and debt of the nation will take (the next) generation down. We’d be the first generation to put (the next) generation in peril, because every generation before us has given us better opportunities. I don’t want to be part of that.”
]]>Image by Athens Politics Nerd
The Georgia State Legislature enacted the County Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax in 1985. This allowed for local governments to implement an optional 1% sales tax on all goods that are subject to the state sales tax. Essentially, for every dollar spent on an item subject to the tax, one penny goes toward SPLOST. Revenue generated by this small tax goes toward public works projects and infrastructure improvements that are not funded by property taxes. SPLOST funds are funneled into cultural, recreational, and historical capital outlay projects, as well as fire and police stations and vehicles.
Implementing the SPLOST and projects first begins with the call for a SPLOST referendum by the county election superintendent. Following this, all of the municipalities within the county must meet and discuss the possible projects. Once the list of proposed projects has been compiled by the board of commissioners, the board must adopt a resolution that calls for the implementation of a tax. The resolution must include a list of all projects to be funded, listed with their estimated cost, and the time period that the tax will be implemented. Finally, once this resolution is adopted, the county voters must approve the resolution calling for the tax through a simple majority referendum.
Everything that is subject to the state sales tax is included in the SPLOST. However, this sales tax also applies to food, non-alcoholic beverages, and motor fuels, which are not subject to the state sales tax.
A 1% sales tax is considered a simple and fair solution, benefiting local communities without harming taxpayers. Essentially, SPLOST relieves pressure from local residents and property owners in Athens. Athens-Clarke County also exhibits a high volume of visitors whose purchases are subject to the sales tax, providing further relief for local taxpayers.
Earlier SPLOST projects are now an essential part of Athens-Clarke County. Thanks to SPLOST funding, many Parks and recreational facilities have been renovated to ensure Athens recreational infrastructure is sound. Walker Park, a 113-acre park with walking and biking trails, sports fields, a playground, and picnic shelters, was financed by the SPLOST and completed in 2013. Public infrastructure projects such as The Athens Courthouse parking deck have been financed by SPLOST, along with improvements to the Athens Regional Library and storm drainage systems. SPLOST also finances improvements to roads and bridges, including the construction of Epps Bridge Parkway, which connects Athens to State Route 316. Public safety equipment and administrative facilities are also financed by this tax.
The most recent SPLOST project list, approved in 2020, can be found here. The Classic Center Arena Project, which will create a new 5,000-seat assembly space for the public, is expected to generate $33 million in revenue per year, stimulating the Athens economy and providing new jobs. There are a total of 37 projects, including the Animal Shelter Improvements Project, the East Side Public Library Project, and the Airport Capital Improvements Project, all with varying budgets. The 2020 SPLOSt is also moving in the direction of sustainability, taking financial steps towards using 100% renewable energy.
Association County Commissioners of Georgia. 2016. “Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax: A Guide for County Officials.” ACCG. Accessed October 24, 2023. https://www.accg.org/library/legal/SPLOST%202016.pdf
Athens-Clarke County Unified Government. “SPLOST: Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website.” SPLOST | Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website, 2020. https://www.accgov.com/946/SPLOST.
Athens-Clarke County Unified Government. “Projects 1-15: Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website.” Projects 1-15 | Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://www.accgov.com/2159/Projects-1-15#3.
Dowd, Chris. 2019. “SPLOST 2020 Passes.” Athens Politics Nerd. Accessed October 24, 2023. https://athenspoliticsnerd.com/splost-2020-passes/.
]]>Image from Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Leo Frank and his wife Lucille in the courtroom for his murder trial, Georgia, 1913.
In a notorious episode of Georgia’s legal history, Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager, was convicted of the murder of a young girl named Mary Phagan in Georgia in 1913 through a legal process steeped in anti-semitism and error. Despite doubts about his guilt, he was sentenced to death; in 1915, while on death row, his sentence was commuted by Georgia Governor John M. Slaton to life imprisonment. Frank was murdered by a lynch mob later that year, a crime for which no one was ever prosecuted.
In the modern day, the consensus of investigators and legal scholars alike is that Leo Frank was innocent of murder. In 1986, Frank was pardoned by the State of Georgia. The state cited its lack of action to protect him and grant due process but did not comment on his guilt or innocence.
As such, a decades-long effort to see Frank declared innocent via posthumous exoneration remains ongoing. The effort, pushed largely by community leaders such as Rabbi Steven Lebow and former Governor Roy Barnes, has led to the establishment of a task force to reinvestigate the case and renewed public interest. The one thing it has not led to is an exoneration. Yet.
The lack of precedent for the posthumous exoneration being sought for Frank has long been an impediment to the movement. The recent exoneration of the Groveland Four in Florida, who faced a strikingly similar legal process, could change that. Despite the rarity of posthumous exonerations in America, the recent exoneration of the Groveland Four in Florida paves the way for the long-awaited exoneration of Leo Frank in Georgia. The two cases jointly prove that posthumous exoneration is essential to reconciling past injustices and that it is incumbent upon states to pursue them if justified.
Posthumous exonerations, distinct from pardons in that they completely acquit guilt, are extremely rare in America. In fact, less than 1% of all exonerations are granted after death, and the National Registry of Exonerations records only four individuals who have been exonerated explicitly by name.
According to the University of Michigan School of Law’s report on posthumous and historical exonerations, this can be attributed to the court’s dismissal of proceedings as moot following a defendant’s death. In other words, there’s no established procedure for reconsidering guilt after death. As a result, many historical cases have been surrounded by outrage in light of modern evidence proving innocence without any exonerating action being taken by the state.
The rarity of posthumous exonerations in America highlights the need for a structure by which they can be pursued and past injustices can be remedied after death. The recent exoneration of the Groveland Four in Florida demonstrates a positive step in this direction, emphasizing the importance of addressing glaring injustice in historical cases and providing complete acquittal of guilt even after death.
The Groveland Four case involved four young African American men—Samuel Shepherd, Walter Irvin, Charles Greenlee, and Ernest Thomas—who were wrongfully accused of raping a white woman in Groveland, Florida, in 1949. Their convictions were marred by racial bias, coerced confessions, and lack of due process. If this sounds similar to Georgia’s Frank case, that’s because it is. The cases mirror one another strongly, mainly in their fundamentally flawed legal processes.
The Groveland Four were exonerated in November of 2021. Although there is no formal legal process for pursuing posthumous exonerations, the five key steps leading to the Groveland Four’s exoneration provide structure to the pursuit.
Given the similarities between the cases, activists and lawmakers in the state of Georgia could find a path to posthumously exonerating Leo Frank by following a similar structure. Although the Groveland Four exoneration does not directly establish legal precedent from a different state, it does establish that a framework exists by which posthumous exoneration efforts can be successful. This achievement offers a beacon of hope after decades of effort.
More broadly, the Groveland Four and Leo Frank cases serve as a powerful testament to the fact that resolving past injustice demands an established process for pursuing posthumous exoneration in American court systems. These cases, marred by prejudice, coerced testimonies, a lack of physical evidence, and inadequate legal representation, illustrate the inherent flaws in legal proceedings that failed to uphold the court’s fundamental duty to justice.
The exoneration of the Groveland Four demonstrates that with a structured approach, courts can right historical wrongs and provide complete acquittal of guilt, even after death. As we move forward, states must recognize their responsibility to pursue posthumous exonerations when justified and create clear legal pathways to do so. Only such action can ensure that no one is denied the opportunity to be absolved of crimes they did not commit, even if they can no longer speak for themselves.
]]>Image from UChicago Law School
Around the world, inter-state conflict, climate change, and other geopolitical factors have led to the forced displacement of millions of people, leaving them in a precarious legal situation. People become stateless due to a change of state sovereignty. One of the most significant cases was the separation of the Soviet Union, resulting in people being citizens of a country that no longer exists. Other situations resulting in statelessness include legal discrimination based on ethnicity, as can be seen with the Rohingya people in Myanmar, who have been denied citizenship since 1982. In addition, Palestinians are not recognized by the U.S. Department of State, making citizenship documents ordained by the Palestinian Authority invalid. A lack of recognition or sovereignty from their home countries makes it difficult for stateless refugees to gain legal standing or rights in any nation they enter. This condition is legally known as statelessness. The UN 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as “individuals who are not considered citizens or nationals under the operation of the laws of any country.” It is estimated that around 4.3 million people are stateless around the world, with 218,000 stateless people living in the United States, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The legal limbo of statelessness has become a nightmare for many people within the U.S., where the issue is a significant, yet often unnoticed, challenge. Lacking citizenship and legal documents from their countries of origin has made establishing a new life in the U.S. a challenge, leading to stateless people being denied the ability to work or have access to critical services, such as healthcare and housing. Without legal status, stateless people in the U.S. face deportation with no possibility to gain legal permanent status. Many stateless detainees in ICE detention centers have been noted to face indefinite incarceration, often ending in deportation to countries where they are not citizens. This indefinite detention, combined with the uncertainty of their future, takes a significant toll on the mental and emotional well-being of many stateless people. According to a study conducted by the Center for Migration Studies, many stateless people within the U.S. face declines in their mental health due to the stressors of daily life without legal documents. In many cases, children born to stateless parents in the U.S. inherit the same status, perpetuating a cycle of statelessness for generations.
In the United States, numerous stateless individuals don’t have the opportunity to establish their legal standing because both federal and state governments have not adequately recognized or defined statelessness. This has prompted numerous human rights organizations to advocate for the rights of stateless individuals, emphasizing the need for reform and more inclusive policies in state legislation. One of the most important organizations working for stateless people within the U.S. is United Stateless, which works to lobby for legislative reforms to recognize the legal rights of stateless people. The organization’s mission involves urging the national and state governments to establish a legal status for stateless people, as well as creating a pathway to citizenship for stateless people living without residence status. Moreover, United Stateless urges the establishment of special temporary work permits for stateless workers while their legal status is being resolved.
As of 2021, the Department of Homeland Security made the first move towards recognizing the existence of stateless residents in the U.S., announcing their “commitment to adopt a definition of statelessness for immigration purposes and enhance protections for stateless individuals.” This was the first time a federal agency recognized the legal challenges presented by stateless people, offering the first definition offering legal protection for people with a stateless status. This month, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a policy recommendation manual for stateless noncitizens to file their legal status for a path towards a guaranteed legal status, including accommodations for missing documents and describes the process for defining stateless status for immigration offices.
In a PBS NewsHour documentary, the executive directors of United Stateless shared their experiences living in America as stateless people. The first, an Ethiopian-Eritrean man named Miliyon Ethiopis became stateless when Ethiopian authorities tortured him because of his Eritrean ethnicity and confiscated his passport in his attempt to flee the country. Ethiopis now lives in Maryland, where he is able to obtain a driver’s license due to the state allowing undocumented drivers to obtain one. He tries to retain some form of normalcy but notes, “We always try to maintain, like do normal things, what Americans asking, go to work, pay tax, be a good citizen, no criminal, nothing. And we go back. We pay taxes and everything. But, at the end of the day, you don’t get anything back.”
Likewise, Karina Ambartsoumian-Clough fled Ukraine due to violent discrimination against her Armenian ethnicity and arrived in Canada where she was denied a legal status. When she came to the U.S. in hopes of being granted asylum, she became stateless due to the regional collapse of the Soviet Union. She recounts, “I remember we were also advised to go to the Ukrainian embassy to retrieve travel documents. I remember being told, like, sorry, we don’t recognize you as a citizen.” Ambartsoumian-Clough was able to obtain DACA status and became married to an American citizen, however, she does not have a viable path to citizenship due to her statelessness. “Not being a citizen of any country in the world limits you for your access to your human rights. Without having a country that recognizes me, I don’t have any laws that protect me. There’s no embassy I can go to. I don’t have access to travel documents. I don’t have a passport,” Ambarthosoumian-Clough stated.
These individual stories not only echo the shared struggles of stateless people living in our country but underscore the pressing need for changes in legislation and policies aimed at helping people with stateless status. Despite some progress, the current national legal framework remains insufficient in addressing the unique needs and vulnerabilities of stateless people.
]]>Image from Heritage Daily. Courtesy of John D Smith. Mount Rushmore at Sunset.1
Mountains: scientifically they have the mundane definition of being formed through the collision of tectonic plates. However, it is what is not included within this dry definition that is the true value of these features. From posing a challenge to hikers to creating and shaping the various ecosystems around them, mountains serve roles unlike anything else in nature. Yet when you look into the history of these peaks, it becomes abundantly clear how little our own nation cares for the Native American beliefs instilled within these ranges. The expansionist path that the US has taken led to the near-annihilation of Native religions and cultures, but no example is more apparent than that of Tȟuŋkášila Šákpe (also known as Mount Rushmore). This path of expansionism and colonialism is not unique to the US, and has created long-lasting effects on the cultures oppressed.
The Lakota people of North and South Dakota worshiped Tȟuŋkášila for generations. The name itself means six grandfathers, each representing a sacred direction — north, south, east, west, above, and below. The religious values the Lakota people instilled within Tȟuŋkášila are not unique. In fact, you can see its presence halfway across the world with the South Indian Mountain Arunachala. Much like Tȟuŋkášila, Arunachala is a cultural center, with the name meaning ‘Hill of Wisdom’. By analyzing how these two cultures retaliated against colonialism, we can better understand how we can become more connected to the natural world.
From the battle of Little Big Horn to the Black Hill Gold Rush, the Lakota people have struggled with the imperialistic expansion policies of the US under the ideal of Manifest Destiny. It is this so-called “destiny” that led to Tȟuŋkášila being desecrated by the White American colonists. To add insult to injury, the faces of their oppressors were engraved upon their holy mountain. The very icon of their beliefs was desecrated so that the American people could mark their territories. A similar picture is viewed across the world and nearly two centuries beforehand with Arunachala and the surrounding town of Tiruvannamalai. From the 17th century to the 20th century, the town, and by extension the mountain, was conquered by the Mughals, the French, the British, the Mysores, and then again the British. The location of the Mountain served each conquering force as a central location where they could post their forces. This led to many of the conquering forces, particularly the British, to expel and prevent pilgrims from venturing to the Mountain. The British in particular, with the use of the Anglo-Hindu case law, prevented these pilgrims from even venturing on the premises by cherry-picking mistranslations to weaponize their own beliefs against them. The British would in particular quote mistranslations that made it seem as though the idea of these pilgrims even trying to come to Arunachal was wrong in and of itself. Their own beliefs were weaponized by their colonizers, preventing them from stepping foot near their holy mountain.
These groups, both of whom lost access to their cultural center, never had a choice in the matter. The conquering of these mountains left these people without their ties to the land, making it easier for them to be colonized. The idea of even respecting the smallest of agreements when it comes to compromising on the machine of industry is something foreign to the minds of these imperialistic powers. The case of Worcester v. Georgia, for example, displays how the militaristic conquest of land by the US could not be halted, even when it went against the Constitution. This is not even an event of a distant past. Today with cases like United States v. Lara (2004) and United States v. Wheeler (1978), the idea of where tribal courts end and federal courts start begins to blur. The very sovereignty of the tribal nations is called into question when federal prosecutors are able to charge people with the same crime, when it has already been decided upon in Native courts. With the growing federal overreach into Native lands, the idea of resource exploitation in Native lands becomes more of a modern fear than it was recently in years past.
With major global conflicts devastating the international supply chain, the US has begun to increase its own domestic mining operations, notably a $3.6 billion increase from 2021 to 2022 in nonfuel mineral production. With the major increase in surface mining operations, particularly the mountain-top removal method, US corporations are able to change the landscape drastically to increase profit margins. Less invasive methods, such as open pit mining, are not able to meet current demands for rare earth metals, leading to the massive spike in landscape-changing mining methods. Under former President Trump, through his famous “two for one” policy, key regulations to the mining industry were lifted, opening the door for the detrimental programs that have devastated landscapes across the globe. Even with President Biden rolling back some of the Trump-era legislation, the trend is clear, and Washington’s overall blatant disregard for the cultural significance of the features being destroyed is apparent. However, this disregard by the federal government has been met by pushback from members of the scientific and academic community.
One such academic, Fausto O. Sarmiento, Ph.D., is a professor of Mountain Science in the Geography Department at the University of Georgia. Within Dr. Sarmiento’s classes, one of the key focal points he makes is regarding the conservation of mountainscapes and their impact on surrounding environments. He emphasizes that mountains do not just serve the environment through natural functions, but also benefit the surrounding communities in cultural and religious effects. The cultural effect of mountains allows for communities to develop and is arguably the foundation of modern-day societies.
These mountains, the literal basis of civilization, are being desecrated in irreparable ways so that we can gain resources quicker. With Biden giving out oil contracts despite saying he would not during his campaign, the federal government might even start giving out contracts to start mining on Native land. The lack of care for Native sovereignty has been made clear over the years, and the flip-flopping stances of the federal government has been made even clearer. In an era where people have been trying to right the wrongs of the past, the neglect we have had towards Native landmarks has been made apparent through the nearly 400 million dollars made yearly through tourism of Tȟuŋkášila. This holy mountain has, by no stretch of the imagination, been turned into a mockery that deifies the very oppressors who devastated the Lakota people.
The way in which we have treated these mountains, icons of worship, is fundamentally absurd and it goes against everything this country stands for. We must create a world in which we do not harm other cultures and the natural world for our material gain. We cannot continue to abuse our position in the world to devastate the cultures present before us, instead, we must focus on trying to reconcile with native populations and create a world in which no place of worship is stripped in favor of greed.
1 Smith, John D. Mount Rushmore at Sunset. January 28, 2023. Heritage Daily. https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/01/the-hidden-chamber-at-mount-rushmore/146048.
2 V., Jagadisa Ayyar P. “Chapter VI: Tiruvannamalai.” Essay. In South Indian Shrines, 190–204. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1993.
3 Cohn, Bernard S. “Command of Language.” Essay. In Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge the British in India, 68. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2006.
4 Cohn, Bernard S. “Law and the Colonial State in India.” Essay. In Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge the British in India, 83-90. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2006.
]]>Part of the Diplomatic Dish series
By Joshua Walker
Art by Lily Hearn
Every October 31st, children and adults in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and elsewhere don their favorite costumes and wander the streets in search of the best candy spots. Pumpkin carving is a common activity in the weeks leading up to Halloween, and following the spooky night, November exhibits dishes featuring the orange gourd – anything from pumpkin pasta to pumpkin curry and, of course, pumpkin pie. This year alone, it is estimated Americans will spend over $840 million just on carving pumpkins, which is a 12% increase from 2022. But how did pumpkins and Halloween become such an intrinsic part of Western culture? It turns out the answer is found in ancient Celtic tradition, an Irish trickster, and the Roman Catholic Church.
The Ancient Celts of Western and Northern Europe annually celebrated what they called Samhain, or “summer’s end” in Gaelic, each November 1st. The festival marked the beginning of the harsh winter, often leading to a high death count in the coming months, and the arrival of the spirits of the dead on Earth as the nights became longer. During this time of year, it quickly became tradition to dress in dark, ghostly clothing in an effort to prevent wandering spirits from bothering you. After the rise of the Roman Empire and the rapid diffusion of Catholicism in the early centuries CE, the Church sought to extinguish any traces of what they deemed “pagan holidays.” In the 800s, Pope Gregory III declared November 1st All Saints’ Day — or Alholowmesse (All Hallows, or “saints”) in Middle English — to honor the Church’s saints and martyrs. The evening before was called All Hallows’ Eve, or Halloween. Eventually, the Celtic pagan traditions of Samhain quickly fused into the Catholic event, a fusion that persisted after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century and the subsequent rise of European feudal states.
By the 19th century, the legend of a man named Stingy Jack was commonplace in Irish folklore. According to myth, he had repeatedly tricked the Devil during his lifetime, and both Heaven and Hell refused him entry upon his untimely demise. Forced to roam Earth endlessly after death, the Devil gave Jack a coal ember to light his way. Soon, the Irish and Scots began making their own version of Jack out of carved turnips and beets to light the path of wandering spirits.
Before the earliest European settlers and colonists arrived, Native Americans revered the indigenous pumpkin as a major part of their diet. The flesh was used for soups or dried to make a kind of flour, the seeds were roasted as a snack, and the skin was dried to make mats. The orange gourd became a popular Jack-o’-lantern substitute when Irish and Scottish immigrants came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century, an immigration wave encouraged by the promise of religious freedom and stronger property rights. While the traditional myths of spirits and Stingy Jack have subsided for a more consumer, family-friendly approach to Halloween, the humble pumpkin has become synonymous with North American autumnal culture. So, the next time you’re enjoying a pumpkin spice latte or Thanksgiving pie, you can thank the Celts for their reverence of the dead, the Catholic Church for its terrifying ability to assimilate other religions via conquest, and Stingy Jack for being a devilish trickster.
]]>