Civil Rights Icon Dr. Hazel Nell Dukes Passes Away at 92
Hazel Dukes, the long-time president of the New York State chapter of the NAACP and a lifelong civil rights advocate, passed away on March 1, 2025 at the age of 92. For nearly five decades, Dukes led the New York State NAACP, where she tirelessly fought for voting rights, economic development, fair housing, education, and more. Even in her 90s, she remained a staunch voice against police brutality and for adequate healthcare in underserved communities. The NAACP called her a "living embodiment" of the organization, noting that her legacy touched every aspect of the movement.
In honor of her life and legacy, the town of Ramapo recently held a proclamation event, dedicating an honorary day to Dukes. Attended by community members and NAACP leaders, the event celebrated her as “a force to be reckoned with.” Brendel Logan Charles, deputy town supervisor of Ramapo, praised Dukes' sacrifices, saying, “The contributions and sacrifices that Dr. Dukes endured to carry the torch for people of color for so many years are immeasurable.” The Pan-African flag outside of Ramapo Town Hall will remain at half-staff until the end of the week in her honor. New York City Mayor Eric Adams also ordered flags to be lowered at half-staff as a tribute to the civil rights icon.
Throughout her career, Dukes made significant strides in elevating Black women to leadership positions, including her role in seconding Shirley Chisholm’s presidential candidacy in 1972. Dukes was also instrumental in influencing former President Joe Biden’s decision to select a Black woman as his running mate in 2020, a victory she celebrated during an interview with CBS. In 2023, she received the NAACP’s highest honor, the Spingarn Medal, presented to her by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Dukes humbly accepted the award, declaring, "I’m not tired yet," and vowing to continue empowering the next generation of leaders. Her work and advocacy laid the groundwork for the historic candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris, who called Dukes one of the "heroes upon whose broad shoulders we stand" in a post on X following her passing.
Dukes' influence will continue to resonate deeply far beyond her lifetime. Her leadership, vision, and contributions to civil rights remain a beacon for generations to come.
Check out Cathleen Trigg-Jones' tribute to Hazel Dukes here
Democratic Protest and Disruption Mark Trump’s Address to Congress
During President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress on Tuesday night, a series of dramatic disruptions and protests from Democratic lawmakers painted a stark picture of the growing political divide. Hours before the speech, a White House source hinted that Trump’s remarks would focus on highlighting his early achievements and provoking reactions from Democrats. However, it was the reactions of the opposition that stole the spotlight.
Less than five minutes into Trump’s speech, Democratic Representative Al Green interrupted the address, shouting in protest. Green, escorted out of the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms amid jeers from Republicans, later explained to reporters that he was protesting Trump’s proposals to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. On Thursday, the House voted to censure Rep. Green for disrupting Trump’s remarks. Ten Democrats joined the unanimous Republican vote. His outburst was just the beginning of a chaotic scene in the House chamber. Members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, already prepared with their protest attire, stood united in bright pink outfits as a display of resistance against Trump’s policies. Some Democrats held up paddles with phrases like “FALSE,” “MUSK STEALS,” and “SAVE MEDICAID,” while others exited the room during the speech. Despite the protests, Trump continued with his remarks, unphased. He quipped, “I could cure disease, build the greatest economy, or end crime—and Democrats still wouldn’t clap,” underscoring his belief that no matter what he accomplished, Democrats would always oppose him.
As the speech progressed, the Republican response seemed to have the desired effect. Trump, who seemingly crafted his speech to provoke the Democrats, got exactly the reaction he was hoping for: disjointed protests that seemed less impactful than intended. From Representative Green’s outburst to the colorful paddles and empty seats, the Democratic response lacked coherence and failed to make a strong counterpoint to the president’s message. Despite the extreme nature of Trump’s policies and rhetoric, the Democratic opposition appeared fragmented and ineffective, struggling to present a unified front or a compelling alternative.
While the speech garnered strong approval from early polls, with CNN and CBS News reporting positive reactions from viewers, the protests seemed to reinforce Trump’s narrative of Democratic obstructionism. The media circus surrounding the event, filled with symbolic gestures and partisan bickering, may have overshadowed the substantive issues at play, further complicating the Democrats' ability to effectively oppose Trump’s agenda. If this is the kind of dynamic that will define the politics of Trump’s second term, it is clear that the president’s opponents may find themselves struggling to mount a coherent challenge—especially if their protest strategies remain as disjointed and ineffective as those displayed on Tuesday night.
Could married women’s votes be in jeopardy?
Republican lawmakers are pushing forward with a new election bill that would require voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote, but the proposal has sparked concern among state election officials across the political spectrum. The centerpiece of the proposed legislation, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, would mandate that voters present proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, as part of the registration process. However, several state officials warn that the bill could impose significant new burdens on states and their election systems without providing the necessary infrastructure or funding to support its implementation.
Maine Democratic Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, expressed concerns about the lack of a reliable federal database to confirm citizenship status, pointing out that existing federal databases, such as those maintained by the Department of Homeland Security or the Social Security Administration, are not dependable. Bellows emphasized that while most people can agree that only citizens should be voting, the federal government needs to provide the infrastructure necessary to verify citizenship status at the state level.
With President Donald Trump’s urging, House Republicans are eager to push the legislation forward. The bill could bypass committee deliberation and go straight to a vote as early as this week. However, its future in the Senate remains uncertain due to anticipated opposition from Democrats who have voiced concerns over the bill’s potential to suppress voter participation and impose unnecessary costs on state election offices.
One of the primary points of contention is the proposed penalties for election officials who fail to collect proper documentation. Under the bill, election officials could face civil or criminal charges if they register someone without proof of citizenship. Utah Lt. Governor, Deidre Henderson, who oversees elections in her state, voiced concerns about these potential penalties, noting that election workers and officials could be unfairly criminalized for mistakes that occur due to inadequate verification tools.
The bill has also drawn criticism from voting rights groups who are concerned that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship could disenfranchise vulnerable groups. For example, married women who have changed their names may face difficulties registering if their birth certificates list their maiden name. Trans people who have changed their name and/or gender markers are also at risk of facing increased difficulties when registering to vote. Additionally, the requirement for in-person document submission could be a significant barrier for voters in rural areas, who may need to travel long distances to election offices.
Despite the concerns, the push for stricter voter registration laws is gaining momentum, with eight states already requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration and 17 others considering similar legislation. The outcome of the ongoing debate could have significant implications for the future of voting rights in the U.S., especially if the federal government moves ahead with a one-size-fits-all mandate that many states believe is neither practical nor adequately funded.
Comments