SCOTUS Shields USPS in Mail-In Ballot Case. White South Africans Fast-Tracked. Lacks Settlement

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, ruled that the U.S. Postal Service cannot be sued for intentionally choosing not to deliver mail. This ruling stemmed from a case where a Black woman alleged racial prejudice led postal employees to deliberately withhold her mail for years. The federal law protecting the postal service from lawsuits regarding missing or lost mail was extended to cover intentional non-delivery.

The Supreme Court ruled a couple days ago in a case 5 to 4 decision that the post office cannot be sued if they intentionally choose not to deliver your mail. The case is a result of a black woman uh who sued in Texas. Okay. She was a Texas landlord Leine Kadan uh and she said her mail was deliberately withheld for a couple of years. She alleges that racial prejudice influenced the actions of the postal employees. Well, one of the folks of that 5 to 4 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas, no shock, writing for the majority, said the federal law protects the postal service from lawsuits regarding missing, lost, and undelivered mail, but it also applies to intentional mail non-dely.

The host and guest Cliff Albright (Black Voters Matter) argue that this SCOTUS decision provides a 'green light' for postal employees or a postmaster general to intentionally withhold mail-in ballots from specific zip codes, particularly those in predominantly Black, Latino, or Democratic strongholds. Combined with state laws that disallow counting ballots received after election night, this creates a mechanism for widespread voter disenfranchisement, especially in elections decided by narrow margins.

So, what then happens if the post office, if postal employees decide, you know what, we've got these mail-in ballots from certain zip codes, from predominately black zip codes, from predom Latino zip codes, or these are known as Democratic strongholds. And so, you know what? We're just not going to deliver the mail to the voter the voter office, y'all. They're saying that's all possible. Cliff Albbright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, joining us right now. Uh and Cliff, we have been sounding the alarm on what MAGA is trying to do. And someone could say, well, look, this is not MAGA. This is not MAGA decision. But what it says though is that they have given the green light to the post office that there are no repercussions if they purposely do not deliver the mail.

Vice President Kamala Harris's endorsement of Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett in the Texas Senate primary sparks a debate about candidate 'viability.' The host and panelists contend that arguments for James Talarico being 'more electable' than Crockett are often racially and gender-coded, reflecting a historical bias in perceptions of what a U.S. Senator from Texas 'looks like.' Despite Crockett's qualifications and strong polling numbers against potential Republican opponents, some Democrats still favor a white male candidate.

You know what was tripping me out that I'm looking at all of these stories. Uh Simore has a story up. Uh a Democratic US senator say a lot of us are pulling for Teler Rico. He's the viable candidate. Uh there was a video that went around. There was a white woman who was in tears saying, "I really love Jasmine Crockett, her fight and her energy, but but I really think he's electable." And and you had race thrown in this. You had gender thrown in this and and all of this. And and and when I keep hearing that again as a native Texan, as somebody still registered in Texas, registered in Texas, I'm trying to understand why it's, oh, he is a viable candidate and she's not when I've seen multiple polls that show if the corrupt Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton beats Incumbent Senator John Cornin that it's going to be a tight race, whether it's Telerico or Crockett. So, how is he more viable than she is? Uh, I think he's more viable than she is because he's a white man and they think that confers upon him a greater ability to win this state.

The host emphasizes that winning elections, especially in large, diverse states, relies on year-round, micro-level organization and mobilization rather than solely on a candidate's charisma or primary turnout. He cites the example of Beto O'Rourke's well-funded but ultimately unsuccessful campaign in Texas and the eight-year ground game that flipped Georgia. The argument is that a robust, independent infrastructure, particularly for Black communities, is essential to sustain engagement and build power beyond individual election cycles or candidates.

Winning is about numbers. When I look at Texas is 254 counties. The reason Democrats lose is because they focus on Harris, Dallas, Bayer, Travis. Taran County is the last large red county and they get crushed everywhere else in Texas. 65, 35, 70, 30, 80, 20 by Republicans. You have to organize the state. I fundamentally Georgia is a state that is where does it play? Because they organize the state. And this is what I'm talking about. This is where this is where this is why when I talk about why support black votes matter, black voters matter, it's because you have to literally build that infrastructure. You get again, I'm gonna go back to Beto AOR. He built an amazing campaign team. He built an amazing infrastructure. They raised $und00 million and he lost. And he lost.