Pamela Price sat down with The Black Wall Street Times to talk about her decorated career. Born in Dayton and growing up in Cincinnati, Price spent her youth in the foster care and juvenile justice systems. Her journey in civil rights began when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. At the age of 13, authorities arrested her during a civil rights demonstration.
Overcoming Adversity
Despite the odds, she was accepted to Yale University on a full scholarship and earned a bachelor’s degree in Political Science.
While in undergrad she joined the 1977 landmark case Alexander v Yale. “I joined the case in the fall of 1977 and became the only plaintiff in the case for the next three years,” Price stated.
This case utilized the newly established Title IX, a federal law addressing sex discrimination in education. Even though the ruling sided with Yale, it helped set the precedent that sexual harassment is a form of sex-based discrimination.
This inspired her to pursue a career as an attorney, “Once I was exposed up close to some wonderful lawyers and I got a chance to see what it meant to make the law relevant for women in particular,” Price said.
After graduating from the Ivy League school she moved to California to obtain a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley. In 1979, her career surged forward as she co-founded the Bay Area Defense Committee for Battered Women.
The advisory board had big names in the world of feminism including Del Martin, a gay rights pioneer, and civil rights activist Angela Davis. Together, the group advocated for victims of domestic violence in Alameda County.
“I often understood that I’m an activist trapped in a lawyer’s body,” she said. “And so I went to law school knowing that it was important to use the law to help people.”
Personal Experience with Domestic Violence
In 1981, Price was prosecuted by Alameda County. Like the women she so often advocated for she found herself in an abusive relationship.
“I was not immune from being in a bad relationship.” The issue came to a head when Price became pregnant by her abusive partner. Price broke things off with her partner, “He kept coming around and he broke into my apartment.”
When authorities arrived they deemed Price as “uncooperative” and decided to give her three-month-old child to her ex-partner. Ultimately, the case went to trial where Price was acquitted and given custody of her child.
Igniting Her Advocacy Career
This only fueled her passion for advocacy. In 1992 she represented plaintiffs in Patricia H. v Berkeley Unified School District, the second Title IX case Price was involved in. A year later the Northern District of California ruled that Title IX also prohibits sexually hostile educational environments.
Price then created the Ida B. Wells holding company. The company was based in downtown Oakland, one of the only woman-owned businesses to reach that milestone.
Morgan v Amtrak
Price continued to gain momentum that culminated in 2002 when she argued in front of the Supreme Court. She represented Abner Morgan, a Black electrician who worked for Amtrak and faced years of racial prejudice at the hands of the company.
After ten years of fighting for justice, the court sided with Morgan. The case established the precedent for the continuing violation doctrine. The doctrine allows employees to file discrimination-based claims that occur over long periods even if it extends outside of the statute of limitations.
Price looks back on the Supreme Court trial with admiration. “It was so much fun for me,” she said. “It was like a fellowship moment, there was so much pride and our experience as Black people was reflected through that.”
Her hard work was acknowledged and she was named California Lawyer Attorney of the Year in 2002. Throughout the next decade, she actively advocated for those frequently silenced.
In 2003 she won another case, this time for a female correction officer. The case resulted in the California Department of Corrections creating a statewide policy to address sexual harassment of female officers by inmates.
Nearly 40 years after joining the legal world Price was elected to the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee in 2016. She successfully won her reelection in 2020. Price was the only Black woman on the committee representing District 18 which constituted a portion of Oakland, San Leandro, and Alameda.
Sights Set Even Higher
In 2018, Price had set her sights on the office of District Attorney. She was the first Black woman to take on the task and challenge the incumbent. Unfortunately, her first run was unsuccessful.
Price didn’t let this set her back. In 2022, she ran for the office once again. This time, there was no incumbent to run against. She tailored her platform around ten key points, including ending the death penalty and ensuring police accountability.
Price’s progressive values brought significant attention and propelled her campaign to the general election. She was even endorsed by actor Danny Glover who said, “Pamela Price will bring about the kind of change we need.” Angela Davis also weighed in on Price’s campaign saying, “I believe Pamela will carry on my tradition of having the moral courage to stand up for what is right.”
Price’s tireless efforts in fighting injustice and advocating for those who don’t have a seat at the table paid off when the people of Alameda County elected her as their next district attorney.
Related Stories
Time as District Attorney
As District Attorney, Pamela Price has stood true to her campaign promises. After taking office Price established a public accountability unit to reopen eight cases of police misconduct.
The DA’s office has since charged two sheriff’s deputies in the death of Vinetta Martin. In 2021, Martin, a Black woman detained at the Santa Rita Jail, was determined to have died by suicide. The officers involved are believed to have falsified observation records.
She has also refused to pursue the death penalty to fall in line with a moratorium put in place by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019. Because of the moratorium Price says, “seeking the death penalty in California is a complete and total waste of time.”
She has shifted her focus to cases where the death penalty has already been imposed. “Prior administrations from this office under any possible circumstance sought the death penalty,” Price stated. “We have many cases where people are on death row from Alameda County, and the challenge for us is how [we] address those cases.”
Controversy
Having been in office for 14 months, Pamela Price has already faced criticism. Former employee Patti Lee of the District Attorney’s Office has come out with allegations that Price wrongfully terminated her.
A press release from the National Asian Pacific Islander Prosecutors Association says that Lee has filed a lawsuit alleging that Price made derogatory comments about people of East Asian descent.
We asked Price about these claims and she said she cannot comment on the subject of wrongful termination because it’s a personnel matter, but she is not aware of a lawsuit.
As for the allegations of derogatory comments made against Asian people, she says that it was a political attack. “For anyone to credibly think that I’m a racist, to me, is quite frankly incredible,” Price said. She also rebuttals against NAPIPA saying that “they were extremely racist in my engagement with them.”
We have reached out to NAPIPA for comment but have not yet received a response.
A petition has been filed, amassing over 120,000 signatures, to recall Price’s election. To get a recall election on the ballot petitioners must collect at least 93,000 signatures from registered voters.
Price says that the call to get the election overturned was orchestrated by a handful of wealthy billionaires.
She claims that petitioners conducted a bait-and-switch operation to fool voters into signing for a recall. “It’s a nasty effort and so unfortunate,” Price stated. “I won this election fair and square across the county by a large margin and the people who want to have a redo don’t deserve that.”
According to Ballotpedia, Pamela Price won her election with 53% of the votes, a difference of about 28,000 votes from over 403,000 voters.
Comments are closed.