Progressive groups are speaking out against the idea of a constitutional convention, warning it could be used to impose conservative policies on things such as civil rights, guns, voting rights and abortion.

Right-wing groups such as the Federalist Society have said they want to require a balanced budget and limit the power to tax, moves critics say would lead to huge cuts in Medicare, Social Security, education, Medicaid, and environmental protection.

Nancy MacLean, professor of history and public policy at Duke University, noted Article Five of the Constitution requires consent from just 34 states to call for a convention.

"The organizers of the convention effort have made clear the votes taken would not be based on population but on one vote per state, so as to grossly underrepresent the majority of Americans," MacLean pointed out.

It would give outsize influence to states with tiny populations such as Wyoming at the expense of huge states such as California. Over the years, many states have called for a constitutional convention on specific topics. Golden State lawmakers just called for one on gun control. Conservative groups argued the requests could be aggregated to reach the 34-state threshold and force a convention.

Russ Feingold, president of the American Constitution Society and a former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, just wrote a book, warning a convention is likely if Republicans win full control of Congress next year.

"They're asserting that you can just mix and match these and that meets the constitutional requirements," Feingold emphasized. "It's not right. And the Supreme Court doesn't appear to have the authority to step in and stop it."

Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of California Common Cause, said the risk of a runaway convention is too great, because there are very few rules in place.

"We would have no idea who's seeking to influence the members of the constitutional Convention," Stein pointed out. "What lobbying would be happening behind the scenes? Would there be public-records requirements? Would there be transparency requirements? We just have no idea."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Civil rights groups are sounding the alarm about potential threats to American democracy posed by Project 2025, a roadmap created by the Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president.

The 900 page document calls for dismantling key protections against discrimination, access to reproductive health care, and more.

Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, said Project 2025 aims to undo gains made 60 years ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

But she said this agenda isn't new.

"And either we're going to stand on the victory of ending slavery, and of understanding the role of a federal government in ensuring that we all have civil rights, or we will not have a democracy," said Wiley. "And this is a blueprint for ending it."

Donald Trump has recently distanced himself from Project 2025, after praising the Heritage Foundation's plans in 2022.

Heritage says the roadmap - which was co-authored by top Trump advisors - does not speak for any single candidate, it just provides recommendations.

Many of those track closely with Trump's priorities, including removing regulations and checks on presidential power.

AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said Project 2025 also calls for expanding child labor and rolling back workplace protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or "OSHA" - designed to prevent accidents, injury and death.

"Tell that to a woman who lost her son in a grain silo, that could have been prevented, because he was cleaning it without the proper equipment," said Shuler. "That is OSHA. These fines and these laws are there for a reason."

Project 2025 would ban both abortion and in vitro fertilization nationally, and restrict access to contraception.

Patrick Gaspard, CEO of the Center for American Progress, said he believes the roadmap's creators want to take the nation back not to 1964 but to 1864.

"When men made decisions for women," said Gaspard, "when people who looked like me did not have the full agency and franchise of this great American republic, when huge corporations worked folks like farm animals."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Today is Black Women's Equal Pay Day and at 11 a.m. PT, advocates hope to get the topic trending with a "social media storm."

The wage gap is stark. Black women working full-time, year-round make 69 cents for every dollar made by non-Hispanic white men. And the number is 66 cents when you include all full-time, part-time and part-year workers.

Deborah Vagins, national campaign director for the nonprofit civil-rights group Equal Rights Advocates and director of its Equal Pay Today coalition, explained the day is intended to spark debate.

"Black women have to work all the way into July of this year to make what white non-Hispanic men would have made in 2023 alone," Vagins pointed out. "It's an acknowledgment of that pay gap."

Advocates are pressing Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would protect all workers against retaliation for discussing their pay. It would also ban the use of prior salary history when setting wages and require the federal government to collect pay data from employers, making it easier to root out disparities.

Vagins noted the fight for equal pay for equal work is more complex than the battle against racial and gender discrimination.

"It's also the lack of pay transparency in the workplace," Vagins emphasized. "It is setting salaries based on your prior salary history rather than on your qualifications for the job. It's jobs failing to have protections against harassment or pregnancy discrimination."

Vagins also cited the segregation of Black women into poverty-level minimum-wage work, particularly tipped jobs in the restaurant industry using a subminimum wage.


get more stories like this via email

In a blow to free speech and the right to assemble, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case involving the rights of protest organizers in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

McKesson v. Doe stemmed from protests over the 2016 police killing of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A protest organizer faced charges after a police officer was injured by the actions of an unknown protester.

Cicley Gay, board chairwoman of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, said an opinion by the Fifth Circuit now stands, allowing an organizer to be held liable for the individual actions of others at a protest based on negligence.

"This case without question infringes upon all of our First Amendment rights," Gay contended. "It's incumbent upon us to reject its premise and its intention, which is, frankly, to scare champions of justice and organizers away from mass protest."

The Fifth Circuit covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and Gay noted the First Amendment still protects the right to assembly. Black Lives Matter protests have attracted diverse groups of people and a Harvard study shows 26 million participated in protests in 2020.

Protesting at college campuses across the country has been on the rise, with students complaining law enforcement involvement has made matters worse. Gay argued it is important for Mississippians to remember Martin Luther King Jr. and understand protest is at the core of every successful social movement in this country.

"We want our young people to be able to continue to raise their voices," Gay emphasized. "Oftentimes, protest is not pretty. It is intended to disrupt. And as long as people are doing it peacefully, they should be entitled to do so."

Gay stressed the Fifth Circuit decision essentially eliminates the right to organize a mass protest because organizers could be held financially liable if even one protester commits an illegal act.