 Welcome to this, an episode of Justice in the Balance, which is our public affairs series here at ACMI that looks at justice from a number of different prisms, from criminal justice to, in this case today, voting justice. And I am glad, very pleased, in fact, to welcome back to our studios Neil Osborn, who I had a lovely conversation with a couple of years ago as part of a different series, but it's great to see you again, and we appreciate your being here. Neil is here today to speak, you know, as a, generally as a very learned person in this area, but also specifically because he is currently on the executive committee of the Mystic Valley branch of the NAACP here in Massachusetts. Neil, first of all, let me ask, let me, again, thank you for being here, but I know that what I've just described as your current position within the NAACP is not all that you do. So why don't you tell us a little bit more about what you've got going on as a professional? Sure, James, thank you again for having me back on. I guess I appreciate the opportunity to share some of my experiences. I don't know how learned I am, but we'll see. So my role at the NAACP, the Mystic Valley branch, now is on the executive committee. So there's a group of about 10 folks who actually meet more regularly than the general membership to help give guidance to the leadership. So before being on the executive committee, I was the branch president for almost a decade. So now I'm more into a mentoring role, the next generation is coming on. So I relish the older, more learned role in the organization. But also, during the day, my job now is I am the director of diversity inclusion for the city of Medford. And I have the privilege of doing my community work, but I bring along that city role that they are actively involved in making sure people feel welcome in the city of Medford. And we may have a chance to talk a little bit more about that as the interview wears on. But let me ask you first, and this is a bit of an aside, but before we get into the substance of the conversation, something that I have been curious about, and that has to do with the NAACP, and it's literally the name, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Now, what I'm wondering is, have there, you've been at work with the organization for a while, is there a consciousness and awareness and a desire to rebrand that, given that, again, specifically I am struck when I think about it by the term colored people and how it seems to feel like it belongs to another time. James, I actually asked that question when I first arrived or started attending a branch meeting maybe 15, 20 years ago, and the name that I thought may be more appropriate would be the National Association for the Advancement of People of Color. But as you begin to work with local branches and their regional NAACP groups and you get to go to nationals, there is a great connection to the NAACP brand, and I guess it's steeped in history, it's steeped in the individuals who risked life and limb. So change would happen very slowly, and anyone in this nation understands when you say the NAACP, they understand what that means. So maybe in the future there may be a rebranding, but I wouldn't expect it's going to be any time soon. Yeah, I mean basically just that that's what I would have imagined that really it's just there's too much weight within NAACP as it stands, and that would just, it's not yet worth making all the changes you'd have to. Exactly. All right, well thanks for that. I had mentioned at the outset that we are interested in talking about voting justice today, and before we bring that up to the contemporary moment and what that looks like or doesn't, I would love for you to give us a sense of what the historical context is for this, and what I mean by that specifically is of course this nation was born with the stain of slavery as part of it, and people are generally aware of what the course of things have been over time since then. Right. But what I'm very interested in is the lingering effects of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, etc., on how those things can linger long after perhaps the law changes, or even maybe societal attitudes change. Right. So in 2019 we are reflecting on 400 years of enslaved people being brought to this country. It gives us a chance to reflect on how far individuals and cultures have come to be fully integrated and respected for the contributions of black people in this country. Unfortunately, when you have the weight and baggage in a history of dominating individuals to do the heavy hard labor in almost not even respecting individuals as human beings, that has a long lasting and stigmatizing connotation to how we interact with each other. So I know when I'm talking to some of my friends and colleagues, one of their concerns of, well, that happened a long time ago, but actually what happened a long time ago still remains. And I think when you bring up the context of voter rights, it's that history and challenge of white individuals who, for whatever means, took to almost steal someone else's labor through brutality and threat and intimidations, that when it's time to recognize the constitution of this country, this nation was built on this notion of laws and everyone is being treated equal. It still remains because individuals go out of their way to limit the opportunity for people who are not white to gain power. And it's in German. It's in rules that legislators, elected officials change the jurisdictional boundaries of who gets to vote when. It's in the discouraging of people not to register to vote. And it's a whole bunch of different little subtle and some not so subtle things that say, okay, you're here. I guess the law says we have to respect you, but we're going to tinker around the edges so that we can hold on to power and pretend that everyone's equal. And there are some folks that are still around that will shine a light onto those actions that say, what you're doing isn't right. We aren't going to stand for it and finding allies to fight against these challenges. And that has a lot to do with what the, let's say the white majority or the white dominant population can impose and the ways in which we can allow this to happen in terms of, yes, the law has changed on its face. However, the application of it, the enforcement of it, et cetera, has allowed, again, for, as you say, white people in power to be able to curtail or outright deny these voting rights to populations of color. I am also interested, if you might comment, on the fact of, or the question of how much does the effect of long-term discrimination going all the way and exploitation going all the way back to slavery, how much does that affect the consciousness within people of color so that they may not feel like they can exercise rights that they actually do have or are granted? I think that's sort of the most insidious effect of enslaved people being in this country is sometimes there are folks internally who think they have no chance. There is no way to fight back. And they accept that role of being someone else who's going to dominate, someone else who's going to make those decisions, someone else who's going to be holding me back or creating barriers and there's nothing that I can do. And I think sapping that energy of individuals, I think, is the most hardest and challenging thing that we need to recognize that's there. Individuals of color need to say, you know, we need to sort of make sure our young people have an idea and understanding that folks are fighting out there so those barriers will be removed. I wish I could say there are no barriers and young people don't worry about it, but it's important not just for people of color to recognize we're not going to slip into that role of it's inevitable, but we have an opportunity to change. And voting is one of the strongest tools that we could employ to make sure that this nation lives up to the promise of the Constitution. And you have already mentioned Jerry Mandarin. Just in case we have audience members who aren't quite sure what that is, can you just explain what that process or what that tactic is? And then of course what its effect is. That is a, how do I say the right word, a tool used by legislators who are elected to redraw the lines of who will vote for local elected people. So for example your congressmen or congresswoman, there are certain districts. So if you can draw a district where there are very few black people within that voting area, their power to elect someone that represents their interest gets set. So the power goes to the individuals who are drawing the maps and it was a effective tool in limiting the ability for people of color to elect people to represent them. Yeah, in fact the last couple of decades have seen as far as I know a very successful, somewhat stealthy campaign. Republican legislatures in states around the country who are very, again, successfully redrawn maps to ensure going forward a much less of an opportunity for people of color to make their choices count. And also, again, not coincidentally, increasing the opportunity for Republicans to continue to win in these districts. I think that's an important point for us to emphasize. Why would any person or any group want to do that? It is totally about power. There doesn't have to be some big convention of white people getting together or Republicans getting to say, hey, this is the strategy. They understand it works. Their people can get elected and re-elected if you draw maps around spaces that limit the opportunity for folks of color to gain legislative leaders. Well, and if because we've now touched on this, I can't help but ask and feel free to say, hey, this is a conversation for another day or somewhere else. But it does feel, I said specifically this is Republican legislatures. There is that sense that as between Republicans and Democrats as a party, Republicans are both more willing to and much more effective at using these kinds of tools in order to increase and maintain power. Right. Do you see that as if we are going to postulate just for the purposes of this conversation that the Democratic Party may better represent and align with the aspirations and interests of people of color? If we just accept that for here, do you feel like it's important that the Democratic Party either change its approach to these kinds of things or in some way more effectively find a way to counter what Republicans, again, have been able to do right there in the open for at least a couple of decades now? It is such a challenging tool. When it's used in the wrong way, it harms us all. So it's almost Democrats have to recognize you can't fight that same fire with that same fire. It needs better education. It needs sometimes lawsuits. It needs to challenge people's moral judgment. It's like, why would you do this and you know the effects, the outcome is to limit people of color? So it's a dangerous, dangerous process. And we need to educate folks that it's not done to help us all. It's done in a way to limit someone to take what power they had and enhance someone else. You know, mentioning how important it is to educate people reminds me of the fact that it's only, I think, maybe six years ago or so that the United States Supreme Court was looking at a voting rights issue and basically found part of their conclusion was based on the idea that, hey, things have changed. That things are better now. That we don't have to worry about these things as much anymore. If you had a chance to educate me. Yes, the Supreme Court around that. What would you say? So I actually read that case, the Shelby County, Alabama versus Holder, the Attorney General. The Shelby County in Alabama was challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And one of their arguments was, hey, guess what? Since 1965, more people of color are registered. People of color are now getting elected to office. How come now us Shelby County gets to be treated differently than any other place in the country? That doesn't seem right to us. But the problem was Shelby County was held to a strict standard that they couldn't change any voting provision without getting permission. So what they were arguing was, please stop requiring us to go get permission to make sure what we're doing isn't disenfranchising people of color. And they said, that's just too tiresome, too burdensome. Well, the reason why the burden was there, because people in Shelby County, well before 1965, were going out of their way to deprive U.S. citizens of color any opportunity to cast a vote. So this Supreme Court decision, did we have nine justices, learned people, scholars in the law, heard a debate about whether or not Shelby County and other parts would be required to ask for permission? And the unfortunate result again. So they caught rule five to four that they were going to remove this requirement of asking for permission. The moment that decision gets passed, they're right there making those sort of changes that do what they were doing well before 1965, that they aren't claiming or standing up and saying, hey, look, we're being racist and we're trying to, it's like, oh, we're trying to make it more fair. But what happens it's being less fair because the opportunity for non-whites to gain access to the ballot box is being restricted. And it is to their benefit or some group's benefit that voting becomes more difficult. Voting is discouraged in a certain area. And I think that is quite challenging, quite alarming. And for folks who have the time and energy, read that decision, Shelby County versus Holder, and read the dissent of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who lays it on the line about how the five justices willing to roll back protections now is not the right place that we want to be. Yeah, it sounds to me and I bet that we could find many, many other examples that kind of are analogous to Shelby County. But it sounds like the argument that was perhaps being made by the attorneys for Shelby County and accepted ultimately by the Supreme Court is that was true before 1965. Then things changed, right? As soon as you have law, then, okay, everything changes. And then we have some data to show that things have improved. So therefore, we don't need anybody monitoring us anymore. And I think what you said is the actual effect of that has been to remove the monitoring and to see evidence that there is a return to pre-1965 type activity on the county level. Unfortunately, that's true. And people are getting very creative about their process. They're creating new ways. But the end effect, if it means people of color are marginalized, we're designing things unnecessarily that takes rights away. And that's not the America that I think a lot of us want to believe exists and that we're a part of. All right. So I think a viewer who has been following this conversation so far is apt to be and reasonably so rather depressed at this moment because what we're talking about is ostensible progress kind of disguising just the ongoing cycles of frankly oppression as we see them in this sphere. So let me ask you, Neil, are there any places or stories in the country at the moment that are encouraging, that are where you see and the NAACP sees that there is progress, real progress, being made? I guess I would start with the NAACP in and of itself. The fact that that organization is 110 years old, we are active here at the Mystic Value Branch. We're active in the state. We're active around the country. And I can assure you we are not asleep at the wheel. We have some learned, well-educated folks who are fighting legal battles where we can. We are out there making sure people get registered to vote. When we start telling people, guess what? They're trying to purge you from the voter rolls so that you have no voice. We want you to pay attention. Some people are paying attention. Some people are getting to the polls. More people are being registered. So we are happy that their actions are forcing us to be energized. But I guess we're hoping that maybe that we didn't have to force people to get energized. But we are not asleep at the wheel. Well, speaking of, that's a perfect segue. You may know it or you may not. But not asleep at the wheel is perfect for what I want to ask you about, which is clearly the NAACP in this state is not asleep at the wheel because just this last week or two has seen the passage of a hands-free law related to the fact that people could no longer be holding their phones in their hands if they are going to be speaking or using their phones in their cars, etc. I think legislation that has taken a while to wend its way through the statehouse and something that people in general are quite supportive of, for obvious reasons. There are real public safety benefits to the law, obviously. However, the NAACP has pointed out that there's a whole other series of considerations. So why don't you lay that out for us? Sure. So I will share that Emily Klein, a Medford resident, a friend of mine, has long been in that battle for getting this bill passed. Unfortunately, her father was killed by a distracted driver. And for years, she has lobbied people to pay attention that these aren't accidents, they're crashes. And we have had some very deep discussions about the NAACP's concerns because the biggest concern that we have was that it was that bill, if not properly written, would give police officers the chance to pull over people of color for no other reason but then being a person of color. So for a long time, there were legislators of color, and I know the New England Area Conference, which is the group of NAACP branch leaders that provides leadership to the local branches, had not been supportive of that bill as it had been written. And we put a lot of pressure on legislators to change the reporting part of the process. There are still people of the NAACP locally that think the bill did not go far enough that there should be more reporting of who gets stopped. My understanding of the bill that passed and got signed is that any time a ticket is issued, then they're going to save that data. But a lot of progress has been made. We understand the bill. It will actually save lives by forcing people to put down their phones and be less distracted. But we also, each and every one of us have to be mindful that for a long time police officers were pulling people over for no other reason that could be explained, but they look different. And that's not the nation that we want to be. So are you saying, though, that this just gives police officers who would be inclined to do that, to get somebody on a DWB, a driving wild black, that this just gives them another tool or another excuse with which to do that? Or is there something specifically about hands-free that would open a door to more of this? No, we were simply looking at the history of the data that says we know there are, the police force in Massachusetts unfortunately does not represent the population here. So right away we're at a disadvantage. So if white officers want to police slightly different and be more stringent on people of color, they have a badge, they have a gun, they have that... They have the authority. They have the authority. And the NAACP questioned the language to say, do they need another tool? And if you're going to create this tool, we really need to have some safeguards because the history of the data tells us black drivers get more scrutiny than white drivers. So lastly, let me ask you just to again focus on the state and the fact that your own experience over a lot of years now with the NAACP has happened within Massachusetts, right? My sense is that the NAACP is fighting battles all over the country and that there are states in which its relationships with the state apparatus are tough. How is it in Massachusetts? I think most of us would like to believe that this is a state which is a collaborator, a willing collaborator with and who are going to be listening to concerns raised by the NAACP in situations such as we've just been talking about. Is that what you have found to be the case? Yes, but it boils down to relationships. It's the ability to meet someone over a table, you can shake their hands, you can hear where they can explain, where they may disagree with you, and they can hear you when you explain how you can disagree with them. It also means that the elected leaders, that they begin to look more like the community. So having more and more women and Latinos and people of color running for office and getting elected means that the leaders who are listening to us begin to change. So yes, in the sense that I've been a part of discussions or meetings with high-level individuals based on my tenure with the NAACP, but there's still more work that needs to be done. It's always finding ways to create that relationship that says, hey, I'm the local branch president for the NAACP, Madam Mayor, can I come talk to you about this issue? And that takes some time, but we're at it. Okay, so very last question. Given the fact that you have experience and you also, I'm sure, have opinions around the situation as local as working with the branch of the NAACP with local entities, mayors, etc., to the state level and then looking at the federal at what's going on at a federal level, how optimistic or pessimistic are you looking out the next year, two years, five years about the issues that matter most to you and your membership? You know, where do you fall? I guess I came out of the room an optimist, so any challenge is an opportunity to create the reality that you want. So for me, I think a year from now, the national presidential elections, I think will sort of draw people's attention. Unfortunately, the current person in the White House tends to draw these distinct lines, but by doing that, folks who are paying attention are saying, okay, we need to get registered, we need to talk to folks, we need to talk to more people about the issue. I think one of the greatest joys of the job that I have as Director of Diversity and Inclusion for the City of Medved, I get to talk about race with people and try to create situations where I'm not forcing it down their throats or telling them they're wrong or their beliefs are wrong. I'm showing them that our future is in our diversity, embracing that. And sometimes having uncomfortable conversations about race will get us to where we need to go. So I am absolutely optimistic and hopeful that this nation is going to get better, and it gets better locally, it gets better by the state, it gets better regionally. But as long as there are folks like yourself who are willing to educate and make sure people know what's out there, I'm in the fight. I have a young daughter and she is becoming a young activist herself. So I have high hopes. Well, you said it. Our future, as you say, is in our diversity. That is true aspirationally, and that is true literally. So let us hope that we can recognize that and that can kind of inform much of the way that we move forward with legislation, just with the way that we treat each other going forward. So I'm happy to join the optimism, the optimism bandwagon for the moment. I appreciate very much you being here for this conversation. It was a real pleasure. James, again, thank you for having me on. Thank you, sir. For Neil Osborn, who again is part of the Executive Committee of the Mystic Valley branch of the NAACP, just the latest of a number of positions he's held with the organization, and on behalf of our series, Justice in the Balance, I'm James Milan. We appreciate you being here.