Black voters have been among the Democratic Party’s most dependable supporters for generations. But loyalty and trust are not the same thing.

With less than a month to go before the midterm elections, Black voters and political strategists say years of inconsistent engagement and unmet expectations have left some voters questioning whether the party has earned their continued support. The challenge now is bigger than winning votes. It’s convincing distrustful voters that staying politically engaged is worth it.

Communications strategist Ashley Etienne argues that Democrats have spent years taking one of their most reliable voting blocs for granted, creating a widening trust gap that threatens the party’s long-term prospects in Texas and nationally.

“Trust is the currency of persuasion,” she said. “We’re seeing distrust at an all-time high, especially with Black voters … distrust of the media, institutions, the Democratic Party, self-agreement. Campaigns don’t lose because they fail to talk to voters. They lose because they fail to listen.”

Etienne, who served as a senior adviser to Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, said repairing that relationship requires something considerably more difficult than another campaign advertisement. It requires listening.

Black support remains strong, but not absolute

Recent polling suggests Democrats continue to hold a substantial advantage among Black voters heading into November, but that support isn’t universal.

A July 2026 Pew Research Center survey found 68% of Black registered voters said they would support the Democratic candidate for U.S. House in their district, compared with 8% who favored the Republican. Another 25% said they were either unsure or would support another candidate.

That uncertainty follows some erosion in Democratic support among Black voters in the 2024 presidential election. A Pew analysis of validated voters found 83% of Black voters supported Kamala Harris in 2024, compared with 92% who supported Joe Biden in 2020.

Pew found that shift was driven less by individual voters switching from one party to another than by differences in who turned out to vote.

The findings don’t suggest Black voters have abandoned Democrats. They do raise questions about whether longstanding party loyalty is enough to guarantee participation.

“We’ve been making that same argument decade after decade,” Etienne said. “Those are becoming less persuasive arguments.”

Why is trust disappearing?

The distrust isn’t necessarily about one candidate or one election. For some Black voters, frustration comes from feeling heavily courted during election season without seeing enough progress afterward on the issues affecting their daily lives.

Housing costs remain a concern. So do education, economic opportunity, neighborhood investment, and the cost of everyday necessities.

That creates a difficult dynamic for campaigns: Asking voters to participate in a political system that some believe has not delivered enough for them.

It also raises a separate question. What happens when frustration with political parties becomes disengagement from the political process altogether?

What happens when voters stay home?

The answer can become particularly consequential in local elections, where races can be decided by hundreds of votes rather than thousands.

Harris County Democratic Party Chair Traci Gibson has pointed to several 2024 judicial races decided by narrow margins. District judge candidate Elaine Palmer lost by 304 votes, while Jeralynn Manor lost by 647 votes.

Gibson also warned about voters who begin Harris County’s lengthy ballot but don’t finish it.

“If you go into these polls and you vote for the first five people and then you leave, that’s how we get Elaine Palmer losing by about 300 votes,” Gibson said.

The larger issue extends beyond any candidate or political party. Judges are elected. School boards make decisions affecting students and families. City and county officials determine how public dollars are spent. State lawmakers decide which bills become state law.

Those decisions are made regardless of how many eligible voters participate.

For voters distrustful of political parties or government institutions, political participation also doesn’t have to mean unquestioning loyalty to either party.

Voters can research candidates individually, compare their positions, attend or watch candidate forums and examine an incumbent’s record against previous campaign promises. They can also learn what the often-overlooked offices farther down the ballot actually control.

In that sense, distrust can become a reason for greater scrutiny rather than disengagement.

Candidates have work to do, too

Responsibility for rebuilding participation doesn’t fall solely on voters.

At a recent Third Ward town hall hosted by state Rep. Jolanda “Jo” Jones, Harris County Precinct 7 Constable James “Smokie” Phillips and Houston Black American Democrats, voters and political strategists called for more sustained campaign engagement.

“Investment drives outcomes. If you don’t invest in it, it doesn’t work,” Etienne said.

She argued that campaigns spend heavily on polling, consultants and advertising while directing too little money toward Black-led political infrastructure and organizations with established relationships in Black communities.

Shamier Bouie, chair of Houston Black American Democrats, said organizing cannot begin a few months before Election Day.

“It’s all about year-round organizing, and increased investment in Black voter outreach … more funding for Black-led organizations that have relationships, infrastructure, and experience in effectively engaging Black communities,” Bouie said.

The question of investment also surfaced in July when Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico pledged $25 million toward Black voter outreach. Some voters wanted specifics about where and how that money would be spent.

“We still need our kids, we still need our schools equitably funded,” said Augie Cahee, vice president of marketing web delivery at JPMorgan Chase & Co. “So, we want to know what you’re going to do with the money. Don’t stand up and tell me $25 million and you don’t have a plan.”

The exchange illustrated the larger trust problem: Voters aren’t simply asking candidates to talk to them. They want to know what happens after the conversation.

From distrust to accountability

Karla West, a precinct chair for downtown’s Precinct 16, said responsibility ultimately belongs on both sides.

“We fell asleep at the wheel,” West said of voter turnout.

But she also challenged political leaders.

“The Democratic Party did not say what they would do for you,” West said. “We haven’t heard a plan for years. I’m sick of it. We have to have strategies, we have to have plans, we have to have a mechanism in place for people to feel they are heard.”

Defender Reporter Tannistha Sinha contributed to this report.

Based on reporting by Houston Defender.

An estimated 55,000 consumers will benefit from a $694 million class-action settlement against a predatory auto lender reached by attorneys general in 40 states and the District of Columbia.

The settlement announced on Sept. 18 with Credit Acceptance Corporation (CAC), one of the nation’s largest subprime auto lenders, will provide the following financial relief for affected consumers:

• $630 million in debt relief for consumers — $388 million to consumers whose cars have been repossessed; the remaining $246 million for those whose vehicles have not been repossessed and will now keep their autos.
• $60 million in restitution to thousands of additional consumers who were misled and lost their cars within months of taking out their loans.
• $15.5 million in reimbursement to each state office that comprised the multistate working group, and the National Association of Attorneys General.

“CAC preyed on consumers in New York and across the nation with false promises of affordable loans, only to exploit them with outrageous interest rates that ruined their credit and cost them their cars,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the multi-state effort. “While their customers struggled to make payments, CAC made millions. By continuing our case to hold CAC accountable, we secured hundreds of millions of dollars in debt relief and restitution for all those who were taken advantage of by their schemes.”

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, alleged that CAC projected, down to the penny, how much money it could extract from borrowers through loan payments, late fees, repossession and auction, debt collection, and wage garnishment, without considering a consumer’s ability to repay their loan, according to James. CAC then offered to split the projected collections with its affiliated dealers.

Low-income borrowers with either low credit scores or little credit history were routinely pushed into purchasing vehicles that were worth far less than their loans. CAC states on its own website: “Approval decisions are typically available in 30 seconds or less, and nearly 80 percent of deals are approved for funding within 24 hours.”

Further, CAC misstated key terms on loan agreements, including the principal and interest amounts, and did not disclose thousands of dollars in credit charges. Although the average loan carried an annual interest rate of more than 38%, other rates reached over 100%. These predatory debt trap loans soon defaulted within 12 or 18 months.

“Credit Acceptance Corporation set car buyers up to fail by making loans it knew they would never be able to afford, and by allowing dealers to inflate the cost of financing agreements with hidden add-ons. As a result, the company profited, even while customers lost their cars and continued to struggle with debt,” said District of Columbia Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb.

Other state officials had similar reactions to the settlement.

“Credit Acceptance Corporation closed its eyes to deceptive origination practices and made predatory, high-cost auto loans that were likely to result in repossession and leave consumers trapped in a cycle of debt,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Consumers eligible for restitution will be notified by a claims administrator. Consumers with questions about the settlement can call CAC’s customer service number at 800-634-1506.

The settlement also provides additional terms that will free affected consumers from many of the other financial harms inflicted, while other stipulations carry long-term, consumer-friendly reforms.

In the short term, CAC must contact and clearly inform consumers of any products they purchased and offer them a process to cancel those products while keeping their vehicles. It must also notify all affected consumers that their car loan accounts have been closed, no further payments are owed, any lien held has been released, and the certificate of title has been sent. Credit bureaus will also be notified of these actions.

For the next five years, CAC is required to submit written reports that demonstrate how it is complying with all aspects of the consent order. Any failure or shortcomings related to the order will prompt a mandatory remediation plan with details that identify how compliance will be achieved.

Other long-term settlement stipulations that CAC must observe:

• Providing consumers with pre-loan disclosures about the risks of default and the value of the vehicle.
• Limiting a price cap for vehicle prices to no more than 109% of retail book value for certain consumers.
• Implementing procedures that prevent dealers from raising car prices due to creditworthiness or above advertised prices.

Comments in a report released earlier this year by the Center for Responsible Lending showed how consumers with subprime credit scores, most of whom are Black, were left reeling from the effects of predatory car loans.

As Nicole, one participating consumer, noted, “You pay that and nothing, nothing ever changes.”

As CAC faces court-ordered reforms and restitution, Nicole and similar consumers can finally receive well-earned financial fairness.

Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at[email protected].

Based on reporting by Washington Informer.

As the father of a young daughter with autism, I have learned that getting your child to school is not always as simple as putting them on the bus and waiting for them to come home.

When your child has an Individualized Education Program, you pay attention to things other parents may never have to think about.

Who is working with my child today? Does this person understand her needs? What happens if her routine suddenly changes? If something goes wrong and she cannot fully explain it to me, who will be able to tell me what happened?

Those questions do not stop at the schoolhouse door. They follow our children onto the school bus.

That is why one of the simplest pieces of advice I can give another parent of a child with an IEP is this: Get to know your child’s bus driver and attendant.

Learn their names. Introduce yourself. Say good morning. Ask how your child is doing on the ride.

Those few minutes can matter more than we realize.

For some children with disabilities, consistency is incredibly important. The same bus, the same driver, the same seat and the same routine can provide a sense of comfort before the school day even begins.

Then one morning, something changes.

The bus is late. There is a substitute driver. The route changes. The bus does not arrive when expected.

For many families, that is an inconvenience. For some of our children, it can change the entire morning.

As parents, we also know that our children may not always come home and tell us exactly what happened during the ride. That makes the adults who interact with them even more important.

A bus driver may notice that your child suddenly does not want to get on the bus. An attendant may notice that your child seems upset at the same point along the route every day.

They may notice a change in behavior, a problem with another student, or simply that something seems different.

That information can be valuable to a parent.

But relationships work both ways.

Parents can also help transportation staff understand our children. You do not have to share every detail of your child’s disability or educational record. But appropriate information about communication, behavior, safety or transitions can help the adults responsible for transporting your child better understand how to support them.

And when a transportation problem occurs, you are no longer starting the conversation with a complete stranger.

That does not mean parents should be responsible for fixing school transportation. We shouldn’t.

School systems remain responsible for providing required transportation services, including services identified in a student’s IEP. When buses are repeatedly late, accommodations are not being followed or transportation problems interfere with a child’s education, parents should document those concerns and raise them with the appropriate school and transportation officials.

Building a relationship with a driver should complement accountability, not replace it.

That distinction is important.

As a father navigating special education, I have learned that advocacy is not only about what happens during an IEP meeting.

Advocacy happens in the hallway. It happens at pickup. It happens through an email to a teacher. And sometimes it happens at the bus stop at 7 o’clock in the morning.

Our children’s educational experience begins before they enter the classroom and continues after they leave it.

Think about the person behind the wheel.

For some children, their bus driver is the first school employee they see every morning and the last one they see every afternoon.

That person is part of your child’s school experience.

So tomorrow morning, if you haven’t already, introduce yourself.

Learn the driver’s name.

Let them learn your child’s name — and, when appropriate, a little about what helps your child succeed.

It won’t prevent every late bus, substitute driver or transportation problem.

But if there is one thing I continue to learn as both a father and an advocate, it is that relationships matter.

And for children with IEPs, one more adult who knows, understands, and cares about your child can make a difference.

Based on reporting by Washington Informer.

A volunteer-led task force of St. Louis-based lawyers will go after contractors who take advantage of victims of last year’s May tornado.

Mayor Cara Spencer announced the creation of the task force on Thursday as an expansion of the city’s effort to provide legal aid to victims in the tornado zone. The EF3 tornado damaged and destroyed thousands of homes in the north and west parts of the city.

The task force will be composed of area lawyers and Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, a legal aid group that often works with the city on housing and other legal issues.

Together, the litigators will provide free legal expertise and representation to eligible homeowners who believe they were defrauded by a contractor, including by receiving shoddy or partial work.

Spencer said she hopes the task force sends a “clear and unambiguous message” to fraudsters looking to victimize homeowners impacted by the tornado.

“I’ve just heard over and over again some truly heartbreaking stories of folks that have been taken advantage of by contractors, some of which are local,” Spencer said.

In May, a High Ridge contractor was charged with defrauding victims of the tornado by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office.

Homeowners seeking legal aid will go through a two-stage screening process to evaluate their claims. Then, if selected, an attorney will be matched with the homeowners. The intake form can be found here.

Celeste Vossmeyer, an attorney who has worked with Spencer’s administration on several other projects, helped assemble the task force. She said the city’s north and west sides need extra eyes while recovery efforts continue.

“We’re hoping that this is also going to be a deterrent as other money flows into the tornado disaster area and to other scammers that may try to take advantage of these individual homeowners,” she said.

Spencer said the city will also partner with the attorney general’s consumer protection office. The office will forward complaints from homeowners in the tornado zone to the task force.

Spencer said that without the help of the volunteers, Legal Services of Eastern Missouri and the attorney general, the city could not offer this type of help.

Shawn Caruso, a senior attorney at Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, called on other lawyers in the area to consider joining the pro bono team.

“Every lawyer who volunteers expands our ability and our capacity to provide more free legal aid to our residents,” Caruso said.

Published with permission as part of a content partnership between The St. Louis American and St. Louis Public Radio. Click here to view original story.

The post St. Louis officials form pro bono task force to fight fraud against tornado survivors appeared first on St. Louis American.

Based on reporting by St. Louis American.

When I play poker and go all-in, I may be holding pocket aces. Other times, I’m bluffing. Either way, all of my chips go into the pot. In poker, going all-in doesn’t require certainty. It requires commitment. And the same is true when it comes to artificial intelligence.

For Black Americans, this particular bet is crucial. We have too few voices in the rooms where AI is being shaped and too much at stake in what happens next. Black workers, students and entrepreneurs are already being affected by AI. So this isn’t just somebody else’s technology debate. It’s ours, too.

AI could cure cancer. AI could kill us. That is the extraordinary range of possibilities now being debated by some of the very people building the technology.

And some of the risks are becoming less theoretical. OpenAI recently disclosed six instances of unexpected or concerning model behavior during training or evaluation, including models taking unauthorized actions, concealing information and finding ways around constraints. A recent brief from the U.N.’s Independent International Scientific Panel on AI described a separate OpenAI-Hugging Face incident as one of the clearest real-world warnings yet of a possible path toward losing human control over advanced AI agents.

But development is hardly slowing down. In fact, it’s clearly going all-in.

President Donald Trump has framed AI largely as a competition America cannot afford to lose, saying, “Whoever wins AI wins.” He recently announced plans to create an “AI Force” and appoint an AI “czar,” while promising not to “hinder or stifle” the growth of the AI industry. And Anthropic reports that Claude now leads 26% of the company’s AI research and development work and collaborates on more than 90% of it.

Vast sums of money, extraordinary computing power and some of the smartest people on the planet are being committed to making these systems more powerful.

If that is the bet we are making, then responsibility deserves the same commitment.

There are signs that at least some in the industry recognize that. Anthropic recently announced a partnership with Accenture to embed independent evaluators inside its frontier AI development process, with each company expecting to invest at least $1 billion over five years.

That is closer to the balance we need. Development does not necessarily have to stop for responsibility to accelerate.

Responsibility starts with safety: keeping increasingly powerful systems under human control, protecting privacy and cybersecurity, and guarding against misuse.

But responsible AI has to mean more than preventing some future catastrophe.

It means preparing workers whose jobs may change or disappear. It means making sure algorithms don’t reproduce discrimination in hiring, lending, health care and education. It means helping schools decide when students should learn without AI, about AI and with AI.

And it means making sure people who will live with the consequences have a meaningful role in shaping them.

That includes Black folks.

I’m not an AI expert, a tech billionaire or a politician. I’m a Chicago educator who has spent most of my adult life preparing students, almost all of them Black and from low-income communities, for an unpredictable future. That makes this debate especially urgent to me.

And our young people aren’t waiting for adults to figure it out. About six in 10 Black teenagers are already using AI chatbots for schoolwork. Yet federal data show that about 60% of schools serving mostly students of color provide AI training to at least some teachers, compared with 75% of predominantly white schools.

The economic stakes are significant, too. McKinsey estimates that 24% of Black workers are in occupations with greater than 75% automation potential, compared with 20% of White workers. Black people make up about 12% of the U.S. workforce but only 8% of workers in tech jobs and just 3% of technology executives in the C-suite.

So Black people are not watching this transformation from the sidelines. We are using the technology, our children are learning with it, and we are working in occupations that could be significantly changed by it. What we don’t have are nearly enough seats at the tables where the biggest decisions are being made.

That lack of representation was visible recently. At a major Washington gathering calling for action on AI safety, almost none of the people onstage were Black.

Black voices aren’t absent, however. Sen. Cory Booker called for a special session of Congress on AI, saying the technology’s rapidly evolving risks and opportunities require urgent attention. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke has pushed for greater accountability when AI is used to make consequential decisions in employment, housing, credit, education and other areas. And the NAACP is challenging the expansion of AI data centers over concerns including pollution, water and energy use, utility costs and insufficient community input.

Those questions are now playing out here in Chicago, where Mayor Brandon Johnson has proposed a one-year moratorium on new or expanded data centers while the city develops regulations addressing their effects on energy, water, pollution and residents’ quality of life.

Those concerns illustrate why inclusion must be part of what we mean by responsible AI. Responsible AI cannot mean only preventing AI from someday escaping human control. It also has to mean making sure the AI we are deploying today does not deepen inequities we already know too well.

The Gates Foundation’s new Goalkeepers report emphasizes that AI could become a powerful equalizer or deepen existing inequalities. The foundation is putting its money where its mouth is, committing at least $1 billion over two years to expand access to AI and help ensure its benefits reach people who might otherwise be left behind.

Bill Gates writes that the people with the greatest needs often have the least power to determine where innovation and investment go.

That sounds eerily familiar.

Black Americans know from experience that national progress does not guarantee racial equality. The United States has grown richer, stronger and more technologically advanced while Black people have too often been denied an equal opportunity to share in that progress.

We should not repeat that pattern with AI.

Going all-in cannot mean committing everything to making the technology more powerful and then hoping safety, opportunity and equity somehow catch up.

Going all-in means going all-in on responsibility, too.

All-in on technical safety. All-in on privacy. All-in on preparing workers. All-in on helping schools and students navigate the technology wisely. All-in on preventing old biases from becoming automated ones. And all-in on making sure Black students, workers, professionals and entrepreneurs can help shape AI and benefit from it rather than simply absorb its disruptions.

The AI industry is already going all-in on development. Black people should insist that responsibility includes us, too.

We don’t know how our country’s gamble on AI will turn out. But Black people need a seat at the table so we can play our hand.

The post Responsible AI Development Requires a Seat at the Table for Black America appeared first on Chicago Defender.

Based on reporting by Chicago Defender.

Is there a safe place for African Americans in the USA in 2026? What area or city can African Americans go to in order to feel safe and relax? This question came to me as I listened to an African American male talk about where he felt safe in a city. The answer to the previous question should be, “An area where other African Americans reside.” In today’s world, that statement might be a lie.

The African American man was adamant that when he visited another city, or even in his hometown, he felt safer in all-white environments. I listened to him and thought, “Is he right? Do I feel comfortable and safe around white people more so than African Americans?” I ended the conversation with the African American and continued thinking. “Has self-hate corrupted the African American mind to the point where they feel safer around those who have exploited them than themselves?” The question was so simple I had to laugh because the answer went straight to the root of the issues that plague the African American community. Many African Americans feel safer in predominantly white environments.

Many will argue that this is a broad statement and point to the makeup of the majority of cities that have a high number of African Americans. Yes, in a typical US city, it may seem that African Americans seek each other out. This is true, but are they seeking African American communities for safety, or because they cannot afford to live anywhere else? Are African Americans safe in the areas they live in that are majority African American? These are the questions where the answers can get uncomfortable.

There is no need to mention the crime rate in any so-called “African American Ghetto.” We all have heard the numbers and seen the actions that shock the world about African American interactions. The endless violence. The anger and aggression towards each other. The failing schools that are located in many African American communities. Are these factors that lead African Americans to feel safer around the people who created their misery? Is the seeking of safety around whites by African Americans even a sane act? I’ll let you answer these questions yourself.

We all know self-hatred is one of the main ingredients of the misery that shapes many African American communities. Yet, there is another ingredient that is often overlooked that gives the miasma a kick. Ignorance. Ignorance has become a mainstay in the African American community to the point where African Americans see it as the norm. Ignorance of self and lack of common sense have warped the mindset of many African Americans in the USA. Ignorance leads to a mental lack that keeps African Americans from understanding the issues they face. An ignorant person would run to the people who created their misery out of blindness, seeking safety. Doesn’t that sound like many African Americans in 2026?

African Americans should have overcome self-hatred and ignorance, with all the technological advances in modern society. That does not seem to be the case. The African American male mentioned earlier has a degree and uses technology daily for work and pleasure. Is he ignorant, or just being realistic in his assessment of the state of the African American community?
Are African Americans truly safe in all white environments? I won’t answer this because one common factor follows African Americans wherever they go. That common factor is themselves. If an ignorant, self-hating African American moves to White Heaven, they will still be who they are. In such cases, their ignorance and self-hatred may provoke the heavenly whites to attack on various levels. After all, who wants to be around someone who hates their own people, and self?

There will be no safe place for African Americans anywhere on the planet until they feel safe with what is looking back from the mirror. Until that day comes, White Heaven beckons.

Frank James IV © 2026
[email protected]

The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the writer and not of the Milwaukee Times Weekly Newspaper or HT Group, LLC, its staff or management. “Being Frank” is a bi-weekly column exclusive to the Milwaukee Times Weekly Newspaper.

Based on reporting by Milwaukee Times Weekly.