Carl Heastie ignores what his voters want on crime and charter schools

One of the reasons people are cynical about politics is because their elected representatives show more allegiance to their personal interests and lobbyists than their own constituents. 

Too many politicians are like an abusive partner who swears it’ll be different this time if we just give him or her one more chance.

It’s abundantly clear what the citizens in New York state Assemblyman Carl Heastie’s district have advocated for, but Heastie’s window into the desires of the people he represents has been replaced with a mirror.

In a McLaughlin & Associates poll commissioned by The Post within Heastie’s northern Bronx district, out of the 400 likely voters surveyed last week, 62% said they support charters, and 68% indicated an interest in increasing the number of charter schools.

Many of the poll respondents also stated that crime is the top issue in their community, and 64% approve of requiring anyone committing a crime with a gun to be held without bail.

Despite a markedly low 46% positive opinion of New York City public schools and majority support for charter schools in Heastie’s district, there are only four charter schools located in Williamsbridge, Eastchester and Wakefield.

But if Carl Heastie is working against the people he’s suppose to represent, who is he actually working for?

Does he work for the massive New York City teachers’ unions and affiliates who’ve donated a combined $146,000 to Heastie and another $1.3 million to the state Democratic committees? 

What sway has the $80 million in special-interest money had over his decision-making when it comes to the success and safety of the families within his district?


A crowd made up of parents, students, teachers and school administrators gather by City Hall in Manhattan to demand the expansion of charter schools in NYC.
Stephen Yang

Our cynicism is legitimate when our political system encourages and rewards quid pro quo corruption, exudes overt favoritism for middleman lobbying firms and corporate juggernauts and preserves positions of governmental authority for the most immoral characters simply because of their connections to the donor class.

The lack of educational success and general safety for our children will always come at a cost when someone else can outspend our concerns. 

Politicians like Heastie are not willing to risk losing a re-election by going against the demands of his financial donors to do right by you.

Heastie’s primary interest, like most politicians, is to stay in power and succumbing to the interests of common people isn’t nearly as important as succumbing to the interests of organizations that are deemed “special.”

This is especially true in a state like New York where Democrats could get a ham sandwich elected, given their huge registered voter advantage. They need not fear the voter.


Brooklyn Assembly Member Brian Cunningham speaks at the rally
There are only four charter schools located in Williamsbridge, Eastchester and Wakefield.
Stephen Yang

An organization or individual with an abundance of money can dictate the direction of an entire community that they don’t personally live in, and politicians like Heastie play as the enforcers of their political demands.

Even worse, politicians like Heastie will get away with this irreverent attitude towards the public because they know we’re too busy trying to survive in an increasingly tumultuous environment that they had a hand in creating.

Emotional pleas, common sense and polling data won’t be enough to get Heastie to stop blocking charter-school expansion and bail reform. If you want him to his shift positions, you’ll have to treat him like Cuba Gooding Jr. in the movie “Jerry Maguire”: Show him the money.

Adam B. Coleman is the author of Black Victim to Black Victor” and founder of Wrong Speak Publishing. Follow him on Substack: adambcoleman.substack.com.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Supreme Court hears arguments in key case on Alabama redistricting map

​The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday over whether Alabama’s new congressional map disenfranchises black voters — a case that could have repercussions across the country.​

At issue is a map of the state’s seven House districts based on the 2020 Census, which civil rights and other liberal groups contend dilutes the political power of black voters. 

Although blacks make up 27% of the state’s population, they are a majority in just one of the seven districts. 

A chapter of the NAACP, a group of Alabama voters and the multi-faith organization Greater Birmingham Ministries sued, saying the map concentrates black voters into a single district and disperses the remainder throughout the state.

The plaintiffs argue that the map hinders their ability to elect their preferred candidates and violates part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that bars discriminating against voters because of race.

Protesters oppose congressional redistricting because they say it disenfranchises black voters.
Getty Images
Black voters are the majority in only one of seven Alabama districts, despite accounting for 27% of the population.
AP

They want the map redrawn to create a second majority-black district. 

Alabama maintains that elections should remain “race neutral” and that creating another majority-black district would actually violate the Constitution by requiring “race-based sorting.”

A three-judge appeals court panel, which included two appointees of former President Donald Trump, ruled unanimously in January that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and agreed that two majority-black districts should be created for the 2022 elections. 

The Supreme Court in Washington D.C.
AFP via Getty Images

But the Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s ruling in February, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh insisting the order for a new map came down too close to the Nov. 8 midterm elections. 

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court in their dissent. 

Alabama wants the court to overturn the appeals court’s decision and keep the map in place until the 2030 Census necessitates a redrawn map.

With Post wires

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version