Clean Slate Clinic Facebook Graphic

Clean Slate Clinic November 1 in Raleigh

Do you have a criminal record?  Has your criminal record held you back from getting a job?  There will be a free Clean Slate Clinic on Saturday, November 1 – stop by to see if you are eligible to clean up your record.  Attorneys will be on hand to speak with you directly. Clean Slate services are FREE and the event is open to the public.  There is no age limit, but we do not process juvenile records. The first 150 pre-registered people are guaranteed same-day consultation with an attorney; all others will be contacted after the event to schedule their free appointment to discuss their record with an attorney.

Please pre-register by October 24.

What: Clean Slate Clinic

When: Saturday, November 1 from 8am-1pm

Where: Capital Area NC Works Career Center
1830 Tillery Place
Raleigh, NC 27604

Who Should Attend: People with a criminal record who want to find out if they’re eligible for free legal services to improve their ability to secure employment, housing, education, and other services.

What is Clean Slate work and why is it important?

Involvement in the criminal justice system has negative side effects beyond a court case and possible conviction.  Arrests and convictions trigger an additional set of punishments known as collateral consequences. These consequences operate outside of the criminal justice context even after an individual has served his or her jail or prison sentence, paid fees and fines, and completed parole or probation. Unresolved legal matters impede an individual’s ability to get a driver’s and/or employment license, or access to public benefits.  Other barriers include exclusion from housing opportunities, extreme difficulty finding a job, and in some cases lack of access to higher education – all due to a criminal record. To combat this problem, SCSJ’s Clean Slate Program supplements the important services provided by our partner organizations with direct legal services and advocacy in the following areas: expungment and Certificates of Relief (COR), employment or occupational licensing hearings and driver’s license restoration.

csc nov 14

Learn more in our Clean Slate Clinic Handout. Download a copy of our Clean Slate Flyer to share with your community!

The November 1 event is our first Clean Slate Clinic in Raleigh. Please help us make it a success by registering now!

This event is presented by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice and our partners including Community Success Initiative and SpiritHouse Inc.



From Mayberry to Martial Law: The Transfer of Military Surplus to Domestic Police

“The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” – James Madison, the Federalist Papers

As Americans, we’ve always been leery of using the military to police our citizens. But some critics say that the “militarization of law enforcement” is happening right in front of our eyes. Media coverage of the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the controversial police killing of teenager Michael Brown, displayed the St. Louis County law enforcement agencies as a well-armed paramilitary force. But if the Founding Fathers were so worried about a threat of domestic tyranny, how did we get here? We took a look to figure it out.

So what does local law enforcement have to do with the United States military?

In 1997, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act. Tucked away in that law is the 1033 Program.

The 1033 Program allows the Law Enforcement Support Office to transfer excess Department of Defense property to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories.

The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) serves as a bridge between the U.S. military and local law enforcement agencies and is overseen by the Pentagon.

The 1033 Program started with the War on Drugs. Congress decided that if law enforcement personnel were waging a drug war, they needed to be outfitted like warriors.

In fact, the LESO slogan is: “Transferring Property from the Warfighter to the Crimefighter”

As well as: “Get with the Program”


How much surplus are we talking about here?

By the end of 2014, the 1033 Program will have transferred over $5 billion worth of military property to the police.

Through June of 2014, the 1033 Program had transferred almost $750 million (¾ of a billion dollars) worth of equipment.

  • That’s nearly double 2013’s entire yearly total of $450 million!
  • (But to really put it into perspective) It’s around the same dollar value as all of the equipment transferred in the program from the year 2000 until 2007!

At this rate, 1.5 billion dollars of military surplus will be transferred to domestic police forces in 2014 alone. That’s almost one third (30%) of the entire 17 years worth of transfers… in one year!

[According to the LESO, an original acquisition value “refers to the amount the military services paid for the property.”]


But the police departments only get what they need, right?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there’s around 18,000 total local law enforcement agencies in the United States.

  • The LESO claims that around 8,000 of those agencies (nearly half of US police departments) are involved in the program.
  • But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says that there’s actually around 17,000 agencies (about 94%) that have received property from the Department of Defense.

The ACLU might be on to something: The Department of Defense admits that the LESO records are far from accurate: An Inspector General logistics report took a random sample of equipment transfer records and found that 3 out of 4 (74%) were incorrect. Here’s the breakdown:

  • 43% – police received more property than they were approved for
  • 21% – no approval record at all
  • 8% – mismatched data entry errors
  • 2% – police received less property than they were approved for
  • Only 26% were correctly accounted for

This could explain the case of the phantom MRAP

  • During the Ferguson protests, a LENCO-brand Mine-Resistant-Ambush-Protected (or MRAP) “Bearcat” vehicle was photographed in the streets.
  • But Mike O’Connell, the communications director for the Missouri Department of Public Safety told Newsweek that he “does not know” where it came from since St. Louis County law enforcement agencies have not acquired any MRAPs through the 1033 Program.
  • This mystery MRAP wasn’t cheap, either: the vehicles come with a $733,000 sticker price.

St. Louis County police are not the only ones acquiring MRAPs.

  • There are over 600 MRAPs across the U.S.
  • Pine County Minnesota (Population: 29,218) acquired a MRAP in 2013 to use for search and rescue operations in Pine County’s swampy areas. It has since been used for a zombie apocalypse training event.
  • Ohio State University Police got one in order to provide “presence” on football game days.

But its not just MRAPs that local law enforcement agencies are picking up from LESO. They can acquire anything from small arms pistols to grenade launchers.

  • Bloomingdale, Georgia (population 2,713) received four grenade launchers through the 1033 Program. Bloomingdale Police Chief Roy Pike explains that it’s a way to send a message—that “officers are armed to meet any threat,” but admits that in the 20 years he’s served Bloomingdale, the police force has never “had to use deadly force against anybody.”
  • Police forces in Keene, New Hampshire (population 23,000) justified their acquisition of an armored tactical vehicle as integral to the town’s safety, saying they needed it to patrol the annual Pumpkin Festival “and other dangerous situations.”
  • The tiny farming community of Morven, Georgia (population 532) has grabbed over $4 million worth of surplus including three boats, scuba gear, rescue rafts, and dozens of life preservers. The town’s deepest body of water is an ankle-deep creek.

Don’t they need it to fight terrorism here at home though?

Oxford County in rural western Maine received an MRAP through the program along with six other law enforcement agencies across the state. Oxford County Sheriff George Cayer explained that “the western foothills of Maine … currently face a previously unimaginable threat from terrorist activities.”

It seems that $218 million wasn’t enough for Sheriff Cayer and the rest of Maine’s local law enforcement to fight against such “unimaginable” threats of domestic terrorism—that’s the amount of money shelled out by the Department of Homeland Security since the department’s inception in 2002.

In fact, the entire nation has received over $34 billion in federal grants to help local police forces combat terrorist activities.

How can these small towns afford three-quarter-million-dollar armored fighting vehicles?

The price tag is “FREE.”

All this equipment is considered surplus “there is no cost to local taxpayers since they’ve already paid for the equipment with their federal taxes.” The law enforcement agencies that receive it pay for the shipping and maintenance. That’s it!

The Pentagon says that more than 1/3 of everything transferred through the 1033 Program is brand new.

So instead of small towns across the nation paying sticker price, they’re receiving the equipment at a fraction of the cost.

Watertown, Connecticut (population 22,514) recently acquired its own MRAP for shipping and maintenance costs of $2,800. Talk about a fire sale—that’s an unbelievable 99.6% discount!


Isn’t it better to use this equipment instead of destroying it?

Not so, according to four-star Marine General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.:

  • MRAPs cost around $10,000 to destroy in the field (in places like Afghanistan and Iraq).
  • But it can cost up to $50,000 to bring each one back to the States.

In other words, the tax payers could save $40,000 per MRAP by destroying them in the field!

With 600 MRAPs in the U.S., that’s a 24 million dollars loss for just one type of surplus product transferred.
[ (cost to ship:$50,000 x 600 = $30 million) - (cost to destroy:$10,000 x 600 = $6 million) = ($24 million) ]


Martial Law


Martial Law

El Pueblo

Raleigh: Bilingual Candidate Forum to Address Concerns of Latino Voters

Bilingual Candidate Forum to Highlight Public Safety

Community Invited to Hear from Candidates for Sheriff, District Attorney, and Clerk of Court

Raleigh, NC – El Pueblo, Inc., The League of Women Voters, and the National Council of La Raza will host a bilingual candidate forum to highlight public safety, provide an opportunity for voters to hear directly from candidates, and increase participation in the upcoming elections.

WHO: Candidates for Wake County Sheriff, Clerk of Superior Court, and District Attorney District 10, Latino and non-Latino community members who want to learn more about the candidates’ platforms

WHAT: Candidate Forum

WHEN: Saturday, October 18th, 6-8 pm

WHERE: Church of the Good Shepherd

125 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC

Simultaneous interpretation (English-Spanish) and childcare will be provided. Please reserve child care in advance by emailing or calling El Pueblo at (919) 835-1525.

Hosted by:

El Pueblo, Inc.: El Pueblo is a non-profit organization dedicated to Latinos’ achieving positive social change by building consciousness, capacity, and community action.

The League of Women Voters of Wake County: The League of Women Voters of Wake County is a nonpartisan organization whose purposes are to encourage the active participation of all citizens in government, to work to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and to influence public policy through education and advocacy.

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR): NCLR—the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—works to improve opportunities for Latinos. For more information on NCLR, please visit, or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Left of Black

Left of Black: Mass Incarceration, Voting Rights & State Sanctioned Violence

Left of Black host and Duke University Professor Mark Anthony Neal is joined in-studio by Daryl Atkinson, Senior Staff Attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice in North Carolina.  In a conversation about mass incarceration, the erosion of voting rights and State sanctioned violence Aktinson asserts that “the State sanctioned violence that we saw in Ferguson…cannot happen outside of the larger context of putting 2.2 million people in cages.”

Left of Black is a weekly Webcast hosted by Mark Anthony Neal and produced in collaboration with the John Hope Franklin Center at Duke University.
Episodes of Left of Black are also available for free download in @ iTunes U
Follow Left of Black on Twitter: @LeftofBlack
Follow Mark Anthony Neal on Twitter: @NewBlackMan


Follow Southern Coalition for Social Justice on Twitter: @SCSJ
Ban the Box crop

Why #BanTheBox Matters: Durham’s Success Story

Want proof that “ban the box” policies help people with criminal records secure good jobs while helping employers hire good workers? You’ll find it in Durham, North Carolina, where government hiring of people with records has increased dramatically since the city and county removed questions about prior convictions from job applications.

In 2011, the last year before the city took that step, only 2 percent of hires had records. Under the new policy, that figure rose to 4.5 percent in 2012, 9.4 percent in 2013, and 15.5 percent in the first quarter of 2014. Since adopting a similar policy in late 2012, the county has more than doubled the number of new hires with records.

And it has happened without compromising public safety, the biggest argument against banning the box. There has been no increase in workplace crime in either the city or the county government, and no employee has been fired because of illegal activity.

The Durham results mark the latest success in a growing national movement to eliminate an employment barrier that has no benefits but enormous costs for formerly incarcerated people, their families and communities, local and state economies, and overall growth.

Durham graph

“Banning the box” builds stronger economies

About 70 million Americans, disproportionately African American and Latino, have conviction records. Of the roughly 700,000 people who are released from state prisons annually, as many as 75 percent will still have no job a year later — in large part because they are effectively disqualified the minute they check off an application box indicating a past arrest or conviction. Steady employment reduces the risk of recidivism, and so do “ban the box” policies.  A new study of Hawaii’s 1998 “ban the box” law found it lowered the odds of repeat offending by 57 percent.

The economy benefits, too. A 2011 study found that putting just 100 formerly incarcerated people back to work would increase their lifetime earnings by $55 million, increase their income tax contributions by $1.9 million, and boost sales tax revenues by $770,000, while saving $2 million a year by keeping them out of the criminal justice system.

Evidence like this has persuaded more than 10 states, 60 cities and counties, and some of the nation’s largest employers, including Wal-Mart and Target, to remove questions about arrests and convictions from initial job applications. In North Carolina, six additional jurisdictions, including the city governments of Raleigh and Fayetteville, have followed Durham’s lead.  Grassroots advocates are gearing up for a campaign in 2015 to remove the box on state government job applications.

“This work is going to benefit our entire state and our entire country, because our economic vitality is at stake,” said Daryl V. Atkinson, an attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “It is so important to have good policies that create an environment where everyone can be successful.”

Skills and talent trump past convictions

“Ban the box” policies do not prohibit employers from checking on a prospective employee’s background. They simply delay it, giving applicants with records a fair shot at proving they are qualified for the job. The strongest policies (like in Minnesota) cover private employers as well as government employees. Durham’s policies apply only to public employees, not government contractors or other businesses.

Under the policies, prospective employees are not asked about convictions on job applications or during interviews. A background check is conducted only after the applicant has received a conditional job offer. One reason the policies are so successful is that the vetting process includes important civil rights and privacy protections for applicants:

  • They have the right to check the accuracy of the record and to submit statements about rehabilitation.
  • The human resources department conducts the background check. The applicant’s prospective supervisor and co-workers never learn about conviction history.
  • Only a top government official may rescind an offer of employment because of a record, and only after establishing a direct relationship between the crime and the job. This almost never happens — in Durham County, 96 percent of people with records who were recommended for a job ultimately were hired, even after the background check.

“Skills and qualifications trump a record,” Atkinson said.

He should know. As a college student in 1996, he pled guilty to a first-time nonviolent drug offense and spent 40 months in prison under Alabama’s mandatory sentencing law. The consequences of incarceration followed him long after his release: his driver’s license was suspended, he was denied federal student aid and admission to numerous schools, and he was turned away from jobs.

But with strong family and community support he persisted and eventually graduated from college and law school. Atkinson is licensed to practice law in Minnesota and North Carolina. Recently, he was honored as a White House Champion for Change for his work to help people with records overcome barriers to success.

“I tell my story not to give kudos to myself but to illustrate the human capacity of people who are put in cages every day,” Atkinson said. “Not everyone will be blessed with the familial and community support that I had, which is why it’s important that society create secondary support systems and adopt effective reentry policies like ‘ban the box’ for people leaving the criminal justice system.”

This PolicyLink post appeared on October 9, 2014.


TalkPoverty LIVE focuses on Durham’s “Ban the Box” success

SCSJ Staff Attorney Daryl Atkinson discussed critical policy issues relating to poverty in America with fellow expert panelists on Thursday’s TalkPoverty LIVE! webcast. Joining him were:

  • Jared Bernstein: Senior Fellow at the  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Biden
  • Jodie Levin-Epstein: Deputy Director of  the Center for Law and Social Policy
  • Rebecca Vallas: Moderator; Associate Director of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress

Over the course of the program the discussants identified and expounded on three key policy solutions for increasing economic security including reforming the criminal justice system and re-entry policies so that criminal records do not commit people or their families to a life of poverty. Durham, North Carolina’s laudable “Ban the Box” policy was noted as being a successful model for expanding economic opportunity by eliminating such barriers to employment.


voter suppression

NC Voting Rights Setback at the U.S. Supreme Court

A personal message from SCSJ Executive Director Anita Earls

You’ve probably heard that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted the state’s stay, undoing our hard work to ensure fair voting access to all eligible North Carolinians. This means that there will be no same day registration or out-of-precinct provisional voting in the November 2014 election. But you are not alone – SCSJ vows to continue the fight for NC voting rights.  Two things to know:

First, if you are not registered to vote, please make sure that you register to vote by Friday, October 10 (tomorrow!).  You can download the form here.   The form must be postmarked by tomorrow.  You can fax or email your voter registration but you’ll have to go to the Board of Elections within 20 days of the deadline to provide an original signature.  If you are already registered to vote, check your registration here.

Second,  We need your help. Continuing to fight this battle is costly and time consuming. We need your financial support to ensure that every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot, next month and in every subsequent election. Please make a contribution today to help us continue the long fight for voting rights. The full opinion is available here. The fight continues right now – please make your gift today!

Yours sincerely,

Anita Earls,  Executive Director                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Southern Coalition for Social Justice

Anita Earls

SCSJ Executive Director Anita S. Earls


Illustration by Matt Mahurin

Supreme Court Allows North Carolina’s Tighter Voting Rules

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed North Carolina to implement tighter voting rules for the midterm elections, blocking a lower-court ruling that required the state to restore same-day voter registration and count ballots cast in the wrong precinct.

The high court’s action, announced in a brief written order, dealt a blow to the Justice Department and civil-rights advocates who had argued North Carolina’s new voting rules would harm minority voting rights.

The case is one of several that have come to the high court in the run-up to the midterm elections.

Last week the justices shortened the time period for early voting in Ohio, another loss for civil rights advocates. That action came on a 5-4 vote, with conservative justices in the majority.

In another pending case, voting-rights challengers are asking the high court to block enforcement of Wisconsin’s voter identification law.

In the North Carolina case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Va., last week held that eliminating same-day registration and out-of-precinct ballots would disproportionately harm African-Americans, and it prevented the state from enforcing the provisions.

The state in response filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, saying the voting changes imposed by the lower court were “extremely burdensome” and couldn’t be implemented in an orderly manner.

The high court granted the state’s request it be allowed to enforce its voting rules as planned. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Until last year, states that historically discriminated against minority voters were required to clear election procedures with the federal government before implementing them.

In June 2013, however, the Supreme Court struck down those provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, finding by a 5-4 vote that social progress over the intervening decades had rendered such federal oversight of state practices unconstitutional.

North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature then repealed a raft of measures intended to improve voter turnout. The state’s new ban on same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting were the only two issues in front of the Supreme Court.

Lower courts already had allowed the state to implement other changes, such as a reduction on early-voting days, while litigation over the state’s voting rules continues.

Challengers to the restrictions said they were disappointed with the decision.

“We asked the courts to keep same-day registration and out of precinct provisional balloting in place for the upcoming election because past experience shows that these measures often correct for errors made by elections officials, not because voters themselves have done anything wrong in their quest to participate in democracy by casting a ballot,” said Allison Riggs, a lawyer with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, said the high court “has ensured this popular and common sense bill will apply to the upcoming election.”

The courtroom battle over North Carolina’s rules has focused partly on how judges should evaluate changes in state voting requirements.

The state said its new rules should be evaluated on their own merits and not judged against the prior regulations. But the Fourth Circuit said it was “centrally relevant” to consider whether North Carolina’s new voting rules would worsen the position of minority voters compared with previous state practices.

This article by Brent Kendall at and Jess Bravin at appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 8, 2014 at 10:07 p.m. ET


North Carolina scrambles after federal appeals court blocks new voting law

North Carolina officials, scrambling to comply with a court ruling that blocked parts of a restrictive voter law just weeks before the November election, were in federal court on Tuesday to detail a proposed overhaul of their election plans.

North Carolina was ordered to restore provisional ballots and same-day voter registrations last week when a U.S. appeals court found some provisions of a wide-ranging voter law, with restrictions considered among the nation’s most stringent, could disproportionately harm black voters.

State attorneys said they did not anticipate problems bringing back provisional ballots, typically cast by voters who went to the wrong precinct. But they told the court it could be difficult to electronically process voter registrations occurring during early voting.

After the voter law changed, the state’s election software was updated and the same-day feature was not installed, said Alexander Peters, a state attorney. Instead, the plan is now to handle the registration intake manually.

“The feeling is it’s just too late at this stage to risk a problem,” Peters said.

The state has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ruling. More than 4 million voter-instruction guides have been mailed explaining the voter law changes.

The state’s Nov. 4 elections include a closely contested U.S. Senate race that could be key in deciding whether Republicans gain control of the chamber.

The North Carolina case is among a series of legal battles over the racial and political impact of states’ changes to election laws.

In its 2-1 decision casting aside parts of the new law, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld several challenged provisions, including a shortened early voting period and the elimination of pre-registration for teenagers.

A key part of the law, requiring voters to show a photo ID, takes effect in 2016.

Allison Riggs, an attorney with the plaintiffs, said the state needed to keep voters apprised of their rights.

“They need to be moving to comply, not waiting for the Supreme Court to rule,” Riggs said at the hearing.

Plaintiffs in the case include voters and the state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

By Ken Otterbourg

This Reuters piece appeared on RawStory on October 7, 2014

(Reporting by Ken Otterbourg; Editing by Letitia Stein and Peter Cooney)



Not sure where to early vote in NC? There’s a map for that.

Finding a place to vote during North Carolina’s One-Stop Early Voting period has never been easier, thanks to a new searchable web map of the state’s early voting sites. Created by North Carolina Conservation Network, this interactive map lets users search for their nearest early voting site by entering their address in the search box found on the top right corner of the screen.




The search result appears as a pinpoint on the updated map display and a dialog box lists the early voting site’s address, scheduled voting hours, and links to helpful voting-day resources.




North Carolina’s One-Stop Early Voting Period begins Thursday, October 23rd and runs through Saturday, November 1st.  You can use the map here to find an early voting location near you.


View NC Early Voting Locations/Times 2014 in a full screen map