Anita Earls

Anita Earls pens Washington Post column

The Washington Post has published a column by Anita Earls, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice’s Executive Director. The column covers how dangerous the rhetoric being used in North Carolina’s election process is and the likely consequences of doing so.

Ms. Earls writes:

“Despite this, McCrory and other Republican Party officials are engaging in an effort to subvert the election results by tainting them with unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud and elections officials’ misconduct. Doing so is not only dangerous, but it also creates the perception that the election results are unreliable when they are not, and it fuels future legislative efforts to disenfranchise voters.”

Further, Earls outline why claiming voter fraud is dangerous when there’s no evidence to support the claim:

“…claiming voter fraud without any supporting evidence is dangerous. Free speech is protected, but one cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater. It’s dangerous. So, too, is making an allegation of election fraud with no solid evidence. It causes irreparable damage to the public’s faith in the democratic process.”

The column lays out how these allegations can be used in future legislative efforts to disenfranchise voters in North Carolina:

“…we have already seen a willingness for state legislators to run roughshod over minority voters. And despite a federal court rejecting North Carolina’s previous voter suppression efforts, we expect to see more attempts to deprive people of their right to vote in the next legislative session. Undoubtedly, fears stoked in this election will be used to push those regressive changes through the legislative process.”

Anita Earls and the voting rights team at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice are dedicated to combatting efforts to undermine our elections process, and are quick to point out the real threats to our democracy:

“It’s time to move past the dangerous rhetoric being used by McCrory and his allies to disparage the election results. Only then can we focus on the real threat to democracy in North Carolina — the continual effort to keep people of color and others from fairly and equally participating in civic life.”

Click here to read Anita’s full column on the Washington Post’s website.

Federal Court Orders NC Legislature to Draw New State Legislative Districts by March 15, Hold Special Elections in November 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 29, 2016

Federal Court Orders NC Legislature to Draw New State Legislative Districts by March 15, Hold Special Elections in November 2017

DURHAM –  In a unanimous ruling today, a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ordered the General Assembly to redraw 28 racially gerrymandered state house and senate districts by March 15, 2017, and to hold a special primary and general election in the fall of 2017.  The terms of all legislators elected in November 2016 and serving in any district modified by the General Assembly are shortened to one year.  If the legislature fails to draw new districts, the court may do so.

“North Carolinians deserve fair representation in the state legislature, and that is impossible to achieve with racially gerrymandered districts. A special election in the affected districts in 2017 is the best way to protect the rights of all North Carolinians,” said Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which, along with the Poyner Spruill and Tin Fulton law firms, represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

According to the order, North Carolina shall hold a primary election in late August or early September and a general election in early November 2017. The specific dates are to be set by the legislature, or by the Court if the legislature fails to act.  Legislators elected in the new districts in 2017 shall take office on January 2, 2018 and serve a one year term.

In the order, the three-judge panel noted, “While special elections have costs, those costs pale in comparison to the injury caused by allowing citizens to continue to be represented by legislators elected pursuant to a racial gerrymander” (page 2-3).

Lead plaintiff Sandra Covington, a retired elementary teacher from Fayetteville, explained that as a result of the racially gerrymandered districts she “was plucked out of my district and placed into another district simply because of my race.”  Covington, along with 30 other individuals from across the state who reside in the racially gerrymandered districts, filed the lawsuit challenging the districts.  

The Court ordered the legislature to redraw state House Districts 5, 7, 12, 21, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 42, 43, 48, 57, 58, 60, 99, 102, and 107; and state Senate Districts 4, 5, 14, 20, 21, 28, 32, 38, and 40.

A copy of the order is available here: http://bit.ly/CovingtonNC

###

(C) CommonDreams.org

Statement on State Board of Elections Order

Southern Coalition Statement on State Board of Elections Order

DURHAM – The North Carolina State Board of Elections issued an order yesterday giving guidance to county election boards to ensure uniform application of voting laws and rules.  In the order, the State Board of Elections directed county boards to dismiss election protests that merely dispute the eligibility of a voter (see item number 6 in the order).  To date, dozens of challenges have been filed across the state contesting voter eligibility, with most being dismissed for a lack of evidence or being cases of mistaken identity.

In addition to the individual challenges, there was a large-scale challenge filed last week by Francis De Luca of Civitas to throw out the ballots of same-day registrants, potentially thousands of them. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) represents a number of voter engagement advocates and affected voters in the state who quickly moved to intervene and defend against that challenge.  Many of the clients represented by SCSJ are the same people who won the ruling this summer in the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold same-day registration in the state.

Yesterday’s order from the State Board of Elections also prohibits county election boards from retrieving and throwing out a ballot cast by an unqualified voter unless the challenge was filed in a timely manner or there is evidence that “voters participated in numbers sufficient to change the outcome of the election” (see item number 7 in the order).

Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, represented SCSJ at the State Board of Elections’ public meeting regarding this matter.  After the order was released, Riggs issued the following statement:

“Most of the election challenges we have seen in North Carolina are baseless and indiscriminate efforts to undermine public confidence in the election. We applaud the State Board of Elections for offering guidance to local election officials to make sure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised. It’s time to move forward with finalizing the state’s election results.  North Carolinians deserve to have closure in this election and know that their vote cannot be discounted by partisan efforts to sabotage an election.”

VotingChanges

Election Information for Southern States

Election Day has arrived!  Here are the times polls are open in states across the South and links to where you can find your polling place:

Ferguson

Statement on Police Violence

Statement from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice on Police Violence

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice is appalled and outraged by the killing of Keith Lamont Scott by a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer. Unfortunately, the killing of Mr. Scott is not an isolated incident. The killing of African-Americans by police has been, and continues to be, all too common. Such killings continuously demonstrate that racism and systemic inequity are deeply rooted in our society. So far in 2016, there have been 217 documented killings of African-Americans by police officers in the United States[1], which is grossly disproportionate to police killings of any other race[2].

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law. It is not a suggestion. It is a right – one that is currently denied to many individuals and communities of color. When black and brown people are killed by police in circumstances where white people are not, it clearly demonstrates discrimination. We must do better. We must find ways to better achieve justice, fairness, and equality. We must hold police officers and departments accountable for acts of violence and discrimination.

We want justice and a society that gives people of color justice. SCSJ continues to stand in solidarity with all communities affected by such killings and remains dedicated to confronting and addressing injustice, inequality, and oppression. We recognize that lasting solutions will come from affected communities themselves, who live with the problems on a daily basis and have the most informed understanding of what works and what does not work.

We pledge to continue gathering and analyzing data that identifies discriminatory police practices and advocating for legal doctrines that protect the rights of people who have been the subject of such practices. We will continue providing legal services to communities that disproportionately encounter and interact with law enforcement. We will continue to support community leaders who strive to confront the systemic problems that have allowed these tragedies to persist. We will continue to demand justice.

 

###

 

[1]http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

[2] – Lowery, Wesley. “Study Finds Police Fatally Shoot Unarmed Black Men at Disproportionate Rates.” The Washington Post 7 Apr. 2016. Accessed 30 Sept. 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/study-finds-police-fatally-shoot-unarmed-black-men-at-disproportionate-rates/2016/04/06/e494563e-fa74-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html

3-calculating-the-efficiency-gap

Southern Coalition for Social Justice Files Data-Driven Partisan Gerrymandering Lawsuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 22, 2016

 

Southern Coalition for Social Justice Files Data-Driven Partisan Gerrymandering Lawsuit 

Challenge adopts standard for measuring partisan advantage in redistricting

 

DURHAM, N.C. – The Southern Coalition for Social Justice and the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint today on behalf of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and numerous individual voters, arguing that North Carolina’s 2016 congressional redistricting plan violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. North Carolina’s 2016 redistricting plan was drafted during a special legislative session after a federal three-judge panel ruled that previous maps were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.

“The Constitution guarantees everyone’s right to participate equally in an electoral system that does not discriminate against them because of their beliefs,” said Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “It’s clear that the intent and effect of creating North Carolina’s 2016 congressional maps were to manipulate the democratic process. The result disparages voters and ensures that one party can maintain political power even when a majority of the state’s voters do not support them.”

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present a legal controversy that courts could potentially resolve. However, to date, the court has not agreed on an acceptable standard to determine when a partisan gerrymander is unconstitutional. League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho offers an empirical analysis to demonstrate the extent to which an extreme gerrymander exists. That analysis is called the efficiency gap, which captures the packing and cracking among a plan’s districts in a single number.

Developed by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, the efficiency gap is the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast. Wasted votes are: (1) any vote cast for a losing candidate; and (2) votes cast for a winning candidate in excess of the number needed to win. More information about wasted votes and how efficiency gaps are calculated is below.

According to the complaint, North Carolina’s efficiency gaps in 2012 and 2014 “exhibited pro-Republican partisan biases larger than 25 percent—[] by far the worst in North Carolina’s modern history and at the far edge of the nationwide distribution.” (p. 16).

“When it comes to congressional districts, North Carolina’s are an extreme and egregious partisan gerrymander. Packing and cracking voters in districts based on their political ideology and voting history classifies voters in an invidious manner unrelated to any legitimate legislative objective,” said Gerry Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Radical partisan gerrymandering like that in this case turns democracy on its head. For the sake of North Carolina voters and voters across our nation, this practice must come to an end. The implementation of our efficiency gap standard would go a long way in ensuring that every voter is entitled to equal protection under the law and having their voice heard.”

Click here to read the full complaint:  http://www.southerncoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Complaint-Final.pdf

 

About the Efficiency Gap:

The efficiency gap determines how close a redistricting plan is to reaching partisan symmetry, which means whether or not similarly-situated political parties are treated equally in a redistricting plan. According to the Campaign Legal Center, “[a] lower number means both parties are treated more equally in the way they can convert votes into seats. A higher number means one party has an advantage in the way it translates its vote share into seat share.”1

In an article explaining how to efficiency gaps are calculated, Nicholas Stephanopoulos provides the following explanation and example:2

The efficiency gap is simply the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast. Wasted votes are ballots that don’t contribute to victory for candidates, and they come in two forms:lost votes cast for candidates who are defeated, and surplus votes cast for winning candidates but in excess of what they needed to prevail. When a party gerrymanders a state, it tries to maximize the wasted votes for the opposing party while minimizing its own, thus producing a large efficiency gap. In a state with perfect partisan symmetry, both parties would have the same number of wasted votes.

Suppose, for example, that a state has five districts with 100 voters each, and two parties, Party A and Party B. Suppose also that Party A wins four of the seats 53 to 47, and Party B wins one of them 85 to 15. Then in each of the four seats that Party A wins, it has 2 surplus votes (53 minus the 51 needed to win), and Party B has 47 lost votes. And in the lone district that Party A loses, it has 15 lost votes, and Party B has 34 surplus votes (85 minus the 51 needed to win). In sum, Party A wastes 23 votes and Party B wastes 222 votes. Subtracting one figure from the other and dividing by the 500 votes cast produces an efficiency gap of 40 percent in Party A’s favor.


How Gerrymandering works.

How districts are packed and cracked.

Calculating the efficiency gap.

1 – Hebert, J. G., & Greenwood, R. (n.d.). Make Democracy Count: Ending Partisan Gerrymandering (Rep.). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/CLC_PartisanGerrymandering_Report.pdf (p.5)

 

2 – Stephanopoulos, N. (2014). Here’s How We Can End Gerrymandering Once and for All. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://newrepublic.com/article/118534/gerrymandering-efficiency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering

 

###

va_state_house_gerrymander

SCSJ Files Amicus Brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia’s Racial Gerrymandering Case

September 15, 2016

 

 

Amicus Brief Filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia’s Racial Gerrymandering Case

Race was a factor when lawmaker drew legislative districts

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed an amicus brief yesterday afternoon in support of plaintiffs in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections. In the brief, the NAACP and the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP argue that the state’s unnecessary use of race in redistricting the House of Delegates in 2011 fractured African-American communities and packed black voters into as few districts as possible, and thus violates the U.S. Constitution.  

Allison Riggs, Staff Attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, issued the following statement after filing the brief:

“If the racially gerrymandered districts are allowed to stand, it would not only harm African-American voters in Virginia, but it could encourage other states to follow suit.  Racial segregation in redistricting disrupts the right to vote on equal terms, and this disruption has a ripple effect through communities whose members are assigned to districts based solely on the color of their skin.”
About the Brief:

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed the brief today at the U.S. Supreme Court in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections in support of the NAACP.  The brief argues that:

  • misapplication of racial quotas can harm African-American voters;
  • the lower court improperly analyzed evidence that demonstrated the use of race as a predominant factor in the redistricting process; and
  • certain districts where African-American voters had significant existing influence were treated the same as districts where they had not.

A full pdf of the brief can be found at: http://bit.ly/Bethune-Hill
About the case:

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections will be considered by the U.S.Supreme Court as part of its fall docket.  The case questions whether or not the one-size-fits-all method used to pack African-American voters into legislative districts is permissible.  The plaintiffs are represented by the NAACP and the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP.  

IMG_1519.JPG

NC Early Voting Restrictions Draw National Attention

Local boards throughout North Carolina are determining how to conduct this year’s election after a federal appeals court overturned much of the state’s voter restriction law last month.  The law was passed in 2013 and the court determined that it was drafted with discriminatory intent.  This was done by eliminating several of the voting methods and patterns commonly used by African-American voters in the state.  New voting plans and schedules need to be adopted by local elections boards to comply with the court ruling, but that is raising questions in some areas.

Every three member local elections board is composed of two Republicans and one Democrat.  While 66 of the 100 county boards have submitted bipartisan plans, the remaining 34 counties did not reach a compromise.  Allison Riggs, Senior Attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) who successfully argued the case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, recently told the New York Times that while many of the plans appear to be fair, “We’re in the neighborhood of 10, up to 20 that are really problematic.”

North Carolina is a battleground state this election.  Races for president, U.S. Senate, and governor are all hotly contested, and voting restrictions could cast a cloud over the outcomes.  SCSJ is reviewing local election plans and could challenge those it views as unfair to minority voters.

Click here to read the full the New York Times article from August 31 that covers many of the questions surrounding North Carolina’s voting process for this November’s election.

Voter_ID

SCSJ releases Supreme Court response to North Carolina’s Emergency Voting Case

SCSJ releases Supreme Court response to North Carolina’s Emergency Voting Case

Durham, NC — On Thursday, August 25, the League of Women Voters, represented by SCSJ, and other plaintiffs in State of North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP asked the Supreme Court deny the State’s request to stay the Fourth Circuit’s July 29 decision. The appeals court ruled that North Carolina’s 2013 monster voter law was enacted with racially discriminatory intent and could not be used in any future election. In its brief, SCSJ highlighted that the state had already implemented the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, and that fact, plus the discriminatory nature of the law, meant that the Supreme Court should let that ruling stand to ensure that voters in November are not subjected to unconstitutional laws.

Seventeen days after the Fourth Circuit wrote a damning decision against North Carolina, the State filed a request to stay the decision, citing a lack of proper timing to adjust for the changes by the November elections. However, during the seventeen days between the court decision and the request for a stay, board of elections statewide considered, approved, and began publicizing early voting plans, dates, and sites. Not only has sufficient action been taken in such a short amount of time, but the State earlier in the year suggested it would be able to “comply with any order…issued by late July,” as to not avoid changing plans so late in August.

Furthermore, the State’s request dismisses the Court’s findings that the General Assembly “target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision” when eliminating voting opportunities in 2013. The Fourth Circuit determined that the legislature enacted voting restrictions with a discriminatory purpose, which cannot be reconciled with the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.

“State and county election officials have now implemented the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, and any change now—particularly a change back to a discriminatory and unconstitutional election scheme—would be confusing and disenfranchising. We’re confident that the Supreme Court will see that based on our brief,” said Allison Riggs, voting rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

In sum, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice argued to the Supreme Court that a stay should be denied as such a decision would be a miscarriage of justice and inconsistent with this Court’s precedents to permit North Carolina’s discriminatory voting law to remain in force through the 2016 election.