||| MIDNIGHT MUTTERINGS BY JACKIE BATES |||
BUT FIRST I want to thank Brian and Neil who responded to my statement a fortnight ago that there had been next to nothing in the news about the financial cost of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection or the damage done to the US Capitol Building by the insurrectionists. Brian and Neil both cited websites (one from NPR and one from the Washington Post) about the cost of the damage. And they were correct. I had missed both reports, which were posted on the web on Feb. 24, two days before I wrote my column. Duly chastised, I went back to see if I had
missed any earlier mentions of estimates of cost of damage, or even mention of the high cost to taxpayers for said damage (as government buildings and properties usually carry no insurance) to the Capitol even without estimates, because 55 days is a long time to wait for such estimates or even mention. So this is all I found:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/financial-cost-capitol-insurrection
“Task & Purpose was founded in 2014 with a mission to inform, engage, entertain,
and stand up for active-duty military members, veterans, and their families.”
Task and Purpose estimated (on February 8, 2021) that the cost of the Jan. 6 insurrection would be approximately a half billion US dollars, $483 million of which was for the National Guard presence in Washington, D.C. through March 15, 2021. The remainder would be for damage repair to the building and property and for costs that would be incurred in the legal pursuit of justice in charging and trying some of the insurrectionists.
Otherwise, I found nothing published, at least on the web before Feb. 8, 2021. Once again, my searching talents may be faulty and my staff is limited. I apologize in advance.
Now: Back to Georgia:
In an earlier column I wrote about Stacey Abrams and her romance writer cohorts raising money for the Senate run-offs in Georgia, which you may recall changed the balance of power in the US Senate, at least for the moment. With 50 Republican and 50 Democratic Senators, our new Vice President, Kamala Harris, has the deciding vote in the event of a tie.
So why does Georgia have a mandated runoff in the first place? Well, that seems to have started back in the Jim Crow era to keep Black people, mainly (or possibly exclusively) men, from winning elected offices. It was upheld by something in a Supreme Court ruling in the early-mid sixties. That part remains a bit fuzzy to me, so please jump in to explain that part to any readers who are still awake, as I am unable.
But here’s the required runoff part: In primary elections in the states (including Georgia) that have the runoff requirement, no one can be elected outright unless he or she wins a majority (that is, more than 50% of the votes). Because there are a number of candidates running in a primary and almost all of them are white, a Black candidate (and there is usually a sole Black candidate who has the resources and backing to even enter the primary race) could easily win a plurality with the support of a ‘block vote’ by Black voters. But not a majority, that is: more than 50% of the primary votes.
Voter suppression tactics that put Black voters at a disadvantage (literacy tests, property owner requirements, and lately special identification proof requirements, not to mention when elections are scheduled (such as during the times low wage workers cannot get away to vote), placement of polling places, changes of placement of polling places without notice, and now efforts to make voting by mail more difficult, etc. etc.
So after the primary election, there is usually a leading white candidate who will be supported by most of the white electorate (and their money) who will win the runoff, and the state is once again safe from having Black candidates win general elections.
That plan was upset in the last runoff in Georgia. Now there are efforts to bring about other changes in election laws that will once again disadvantage Black and progressive voters in seeing their candidates win offices. Stay tuned.
